What's the most important thing when choosing an army?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**vipoid**

BoomWolf wrote:
Playstyle comes first.

If the playstyle is fun, but the codex is subpar it will make up to it on how you feel about the games, even if its a bit one-sided.

If the looks are a bit off, but the playstyle is fun-you convert your own unique look that DOES appeal to you.

If the fluff isn't your cup of tea, but you enjoy playing with that army, you can just ignore the fluff and focus on the game aspect of the faction.

This is how I feel as well.

**xFinality**

For me, in order of priority:

Aesthetics
Playstyle
Local armies
Fluff

**EVIL INC**

I would say the first and most important thing to do is seriously think about WHY your playing the game.

1. Are you playing to enjoy and immerse yourself in the hobby and play games?- search for the army that you think looks good and might match your play style.

2. Are you out to win game?- pick the army that has the most exploits and has the best math to help it win with the knowledge that this will change every so often.

3. A combination of the two- Find the top 2 or 3 from #2 and apply the criteria from #1.

**Nightlord1987**

I think most people start their first army out of looks and fluff, and then choose a second army for optimized play. I've started Chaos Marines based on fluff, Orks based on models, and Loyalist marines for an actual balanced army.

**vipoid**

I chose nids based on their wealth of options... then 5th happened.

**zilka86**

Power its all about the power why would i use a army that will never win a game

**RaptorHunter**

My first response would be to pick an army based on fluff. You need to love your models that you paint and put so much effort into. You need to love what they do and why they do it. You need to be excited to field them and watch them shed blood across the battlefield.

My first army was IG because I am in love with their fluff. Nothing makes me happier than having a mass of guardsmen being issued orders as artillery shells pound the enemy to dust. Commissars run around making sure nobody runs away and my inquisitor points them at the heretics and xenos.

Yet, thinking about this I think another important thing to the armies is how they play. I recently started a Tau force and it just astounds me how much more fun I find their gameplay. It saddens me I don't have pskyers or commissars executing cowards, but to be able to put out mass fire and zoom around the table is just so much fun. I genuinely enjoy playing Tau much more than my Guardsman.

That made me sad to write.

**Poly Ranger**

Completely and utterly depends on what you already have.
My BA and CSM were for fluff and looks. I invested in Necrons because I wanted a competitive army that wasn't Eldar.

**kodi**

[other]
What style of play you personally enjoy, be it ultra fast bikers, hordes of expendable infantry, a small number of elite troops or what have you.

This goes hand-in-hand with what fluff one likes more often than not of course.

**H.B.M.C.**

Looks'n'fluff.

Hell, the entire reason I chose Ultramarines when there was nothing to distinguish then from Blood Angels, or Wolves or Sallies, was because they were blue and I like blue.

**Icculus**

Looks primarily.

But I would also have to say playstyle would be a big part of it. Not just the competitive stuff but what tactics they employ and the general feel of the army.

Orks = crazy, headlong charge, smashing in melee and generally not caring about taking losses. Ork stuff is meant to blow up.

**Anfauglir**

What you think is cool/fun.

Therefore I went with looks + fluff.

**koooaei**

morgoth wrote:

When it's too good, the whole internet and even people you play against will insist that your codex (yes, a book) won all of your games for you, and that you play a no-brain army.

When it's too bad, most of your games will be one-sided, requiring you to completely and utterly outplay or outlist your opponent to get a minimal victory and than insist that your opponent's codex (yes, a book) won all of his games for him, and that he plays a no-brain army

**Matthew**

zilka86 wrote:
Power its all about the power why would i use a army that will never win a game

Oh yeah, right.

Chaos Marines are currently waaaaaaaay underpowered. I've won 70 precent of all my games with them.

**Furyou Miko**

Rules come and go, aesthetics can be changed, but the fluff? The fluff makes the soul of an army. Changing the fluff means it's not the same army any more.

**morgoth**

Matthew wrote:
zilka86 wrote:
Power its all about the power why would i use a army that will never win a game

Oh yeah, right.

Chaos Marines are currently waaaaaaaay underpowered. I've won 70 precent of all my games with them.

That just means you've been playing players below your level.

Note: that level may also include list building and faction choices.

Here's a hint: if your K/D is above .5 and your dex is weak, your opponents are weaker.

**vipoid**

Furyou Miko wrote:
Rules come and go, aesthetics can be changed, but the fluff? The fluff makes the soul of an army. Changing the fluff means it's not the same army any more.

Necrons say 'hi'.

Before, they didn't say anything...