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.

 mrhappyface wrote:
I can understand why people choose tovplay a lot of factions:
Space marine if you like the super soldier army,
Imperial guard if you prefer the traditional army,
Chaos if you despise the imperium (or your edgy enough),
Eldar if you like a more advanced race,
Necrons if your a bit dead inside,
Tau if your too lazy to move your models once you've deployed,
Orks if your a bit... Well you get the picture.

What makes a person go "Gosh I'd really love to play nids"? Despite the silly start this is a serious question that I am interested in finding an answer for.

Necrons: Advanced robot army of doom / Terminator theme
Eldar: Tolkien's elves in sphess. Sword and sorcery in sphess.
Orks: Hooligans of the fell god Fu'tbal.
Nids: Pet insect hive. I have a 6mm scale Dominatrix called "Cuddles".

Because people like Tyranids. End.

Wanting to play the 40k game without getting into any of the background for the universe or their army.

I was traumatized by starship troopers at a very early age. Now I get to traumatize others.

As others have said: fluffwise they are a force of nature. They are not evil or good - they even aren't a viable subject of human ethics. They just eat, breed and evolve. They are as alien as it gets within 40K, and an excelent in-game representation of an ant-like intelligence species. And playstyle wise: honestly, I can find less reasons to play multiple imperial factions than to include at least one viable build of Nids in one's collection...

 General Annoyance wrote:
If you're referring to how well they play, that should never be a factor in the army you choose; you're essentially throwing away the fun of pledging yourself to a faction or multiple factions by just picking what's best.

I disagree. Fun can be severely hampered by losing all the time

Winning isn't everything, but just because you don't play for the sake of winning doesn't mean it's fun getting pummelled all the time.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 General Annoyance wrote:
If you're referring to how well they play, that should never be a factor in the army you choose; you're essentially throwing away the fun of pledging yourself to a faction or multiple factions by just picking what's best.

I disagree. Fun can be severely hampered by losing all the time

Winning isn't everything, but just because you don't play for the sake of winning doesn't mean it's fun getting pummelled all the time.

Some people collect armies for the sake of collecting - to me this hobby is about collecting models that have rules attached to them if you so desire to see them on the battlefield. I've realised this ever since I stopped playing 40K - I arrived in the hobby based off collecting models, and gaming came second, and really that should be the case for everyone, or else you end up with a bunch of miniatures you don't give a damn about outside of winning games, or at least not getting smashed in games. By that point you'd be better off playing something with a better system in place.

If you are getting pummelled in your games because you play Orks, Tyranids etc. then you should try and find a group of people who play in a less competitive spirit, or create your own ruleset for 40K, as I am doing now.

 General Annoyance wrote:
and really that should be the case for everyone, or else you end up with a bunch of miniatures you don't give a damn about outside of winning games, or at least not getting smashed in games. By that point you'd be better off playing something with a better system in place.

Best not to impose your view of what you are like on what you think others "should" be like.

In reality people aren't at the extremes you describe, they don't "end up with a bunch of miniatures {they} don't give a damn about" just because they select an army that is competitive. Someone might find more initial appeal in an Ork army, but upon learning they'll lose all the time with an Ork army they start a Tau army instead, doesn't mean they must hate Tau and don't care about the models, just that their focus has shifted.

Likewise, I agree that maybe people should look for a better system, but maybe things aren't so black and white and they are collecting 40k for reasons other than thinking it's a great game, maybe it's what all their friends play or the game that has the most events at their FLGS.

Best not to talk in extremes, saying what you said earlier, whether an army sucks should NEVER be a factor in the army you choose, that's way too black and white and for some people will drive them away from wargaming after they discover the army they spent heaps of time and money on sucks and getting pummelled all the time isn't as entertaining as they thought it would be.

Whether an army is competitive or not shouldn't be the ONLY thing that makes you choose an army, but definitely something a player should be aware of before jumping in.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Best not to impose your view of what you are like on what you think others "should" be like.

I'm not imposing my view on anyone - you have to ask at that point when you've bought into an army solely for the purpose of gaming, what is the point in it? You've spilled god knows how much into a game that is nowhere near as fair or balanced as other, cheaper games on the market.

In reality people aren't at the extremes you describe, they don't "end up with a bunch of miniatures {they} don't give a damn about" just because they select an army that is competitive. Someone might find more initial appeal in an Ork army, but upon learning they'll lose all the time with an Ork army they start a Tau army instead, doesn't mean they must hate Tau and don't care about the models, just that their focus has shifted.

You're missing the point here - people should collect the stuff they like when they first get into the hobby and consider rules later; if they buy Orks and they happen to also be good in the current iteration of the game, then that's great, but choosing not to buy an army despite liking them just because they aren't up to scratch bothers me in a way I can't explain.

People shift their focus all the time - it's why many of us have multiple armies in the first place. But again, they should be collecting based on the appeal of that army, although I can agree that if you're collecting something new, rules will be a factor if your other army is failing.

Likewise, I agree that maybe people should look for a better system, but maybe things aren't so black and white and they are collecting 40k for reasons other than thinking it's a great game, maybe it's what all their friends play or the game that has the most events at their FLGS.

This I can agree on to an extent, but sometimes you don't have to follow everything your friends are doing for the sake of taking part. If you do have a genuine interest in the game, then you can probably count on your friends to be able to negotiate with their armies to make playing more fun if you end up choosing a lower tier army than them.

Best not to talk in extremes, saying what you said earlier, whether an army sucks should NEVER be a factor in the army you choose, that's way too black and white and for some people will drive them away from wargaming after they discover the army they spent heaps of time and money on sucks and getting pummelled all the time isn't as entertaining as they thought it would be.

By your own argument you're talking in extreme circumstances - just because you play a lower tier army doesn't mean you're going to be "pummelled all the time". In fact, if you stay out of the competitive scene, your games are likely to be far more positive regardless of your pick.

Whether an army is competitive or not shouldn't be the ONLY thing that makes you choose an army, but definitely something a player should be aware of before jumping in.

Aware yes, considering no. This hobby begins and ends in collecting for all of us, either if you stop there, play a few games every month or are in the competitive scene, and I find it hard to see why people would go through all the trouble and money to own something that they may not be happy with taking up shelf space in their home for the sake of playing a TT game that is far inferior to designs that offer a lot more for a lot less. Hell, I'd go out on a limb and say the only people who are still holding onto their collections are people who still enjoy their collections for what they are and don't want to see them go over the rules for the game being broken.

I can appreciate people having concerns about how their army fairs on the tabletop, and you're right that it's never entirely black and white with this kind of thing, but I'd be riddled with guilt if I ever convinced someone to buy into one army over another based on how good they are, because a hobby like 40K has always been about the character and charm of the factions, not about who beats who in the game attached to the universe.

G.A

I picked up Nids because they look cool and the fluff is interesting (they are the most alien of all the main races in 40K, the rest being distinctly human), but dropped them because the codex is abysmal. I don't want to play Flyrant spam, but that seems to be the only way to get anything out of them.

 General Annoyance wrote:
but I'd be riddled with guilt if I ever convinced someone to buy into one army over another based on how good they are, because a hobby like 40K has always been about the character and charm of the factions, not about who beats who in the game attached to the universe

I think I'd be riddled with guilt if I convinced someone to buy an army that sucks and they lose every game they play It might not be about who beats who, but it's still important enough that it's an incorrect statement to say it should never factor in to someone's choice of army. To some people it's the most important thing in choosing an army.

Wargames can be about a lot of things, winning is one of those things.

I collect models that I never intend to game with, pure display pieces, but if someone is collecting a full army it's not a bad bet to think they care about playing the game as well.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have friends who just bought pre-painted armies off ebay so they could play the game, don't give a hoot about the collecting and modelling and painting and only a mild interest in the fluff.

Crap been so long nearly forgot how to post.

On page 1 "TheWarpSaysHello" gives one of the best thematic answers. One of the main reasons I play nids.

Here is the other one.

Marines shooting marines, to me personally, gets boring fast. No other army, not even orks, can truly build up such a large
dead pile and still have a reasonable chance of winning. Losing my warriors is like losing a toenail, of no real consequence. Hell
I can bioengineer my first couple of waves without digestive tracts to save on biomass for later

Many people play Nids because they already have the army and the time and money they invested.

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I got Nids as my secondary army because the idea of Jurassic Park in Space made me laugh...then I found out they were bugs not lizards...kind of wish I got Orks.
Oh and they make a great intro army because they're big and intimidating and easily beaten.

I think around 2nd they were more lizards and thus, lizardmen in space until they tried to get away from that idea. They even still had sentient and consciously independent slave races.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I think I'd be riddled with guilt if I convinced someone to buy an army that sucks and they lose every game they play

You're going off an extreme that you scolded me for - you aren't going to lose every game you play unless you're thick as a brick and play with people with competitive lists. Again, at a casual level you can have a lot of fun with a lot of the armies.

It might not be about who beats who, but it's still important enough that it's an incorrect statement to say it should never factor in to someone's choice of army. To some people it's the most important thing in choosing an army.

Wargames can be about a lot of things, winning is one of those things.

Winning isn't everything

You make it sound a lot more important than what you caught on

Winning has next to zero contribution to how much fun you have in a game - my most memorable games of 40k are typically my defeats, because they've involved a lot more in them than the outcome at the end, which is pretty much throwaway unless you're playing in a tournament.

I collect models that I never intend to game with, pure display pieces, but if someone is collecting a full army it's not a bad bet to think they care about playing the game as well.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have friends who just bought pre-painted armies off ebay so they could play the game, don't give a hoot about the collecting and modelling and painting and only a mild interest in the fluff.

I'd have to ask them why they chose 40k then when there are games like X Wing that are cheaper, more fun and balanced to play and consist of pre painted and assembled models. Sounds like they're ripping all the fun that you're supposed to get out of 40k just to play with a shoddy set of rules when they could be playing something that suits their preferences far better.

Still a simple solution to this that I said about a post or so ago - if you love an army, but find out that it's a mess to play, buy it, get some friends together and play by some house rules or a completely different ruleset. Happy days for everyone.

I know that playing an army as a single entity rather than individuals is cool to some. I know that's why I chose Cyriss in WMH: the whole army clicks forward like clockwork, with each model acting in consort with the other and individual units act as walls and rams and spears to be thrown at the enemy.

Most of the Xenos armies, short of spam lists, are best suited to really ruminating on how to play up their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. They tend to take more skill and practice than Space Marines for example as you usually don't have the same Death Star potential or the insane resiliency or mobility of some of the top-tier armies. If you have a play group of regulars in a more casual setting it's great to have an army of ready-made alien antagonists for whoever to pick up and play, and it's nice because you tend to play the game more tactically because you're not really attached to individuals within the swarm. It is also really very satisfying when you play dozens of gribblies and a few giant beasts and your opponent blanches visibly at the sea of models they have to wade through to achieve victory.

When I picked up my bugs I wanted some this that played as differently and looked as different from the mostly power armored armies I've been playing for years (BA, SW, IW, CF, Slaneesh CSM, Crons and Demonhunters).

On top of that I've loved the look of nids since 5th and I like the "carnivorous space AIDS from another galaxy" fluff.

If we continue op's style,
Nids, because we love to eat things.

Because my friend, no matter what army you play.

There is nothing like watching your opponent let out a sigh and their eyes widen when they agree to a 1850 point game, and they see close to 200 models on the field, that the majority of can keep coming back if killed.

You overwhelm with sheer numbers.

Cool models, cool fluff, lots of different units, can run small Horde spam or Godzilla spam

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Because my friend, no matter what army you play.

There is nothing like watching your opponent let out a sigh and their eyes widen when they agree to a 1850 point game, and they see close to 200 models on the field, that the majority of can keep coming back if killed.

You overwhelm with sheer numbers.

I think they're probably sighing because they realise how long your movement phase is going to take....

I have a friend who is a huge StarCraft fan and always played Zerg. I inroduced him to 40k with Dow 2 and tabletop through playing Nids, and he loved them.

- Jurassic Park
- Starship Troopers (book and film for different reasons)
- Aliens
- Starcraft
- Lovecraft
- Godzilla
- Real-world insects are extremely clever and cool

Forgot the fact that the way they innovate isn't to hop inside a battle suit or to forge a bigger gun. They biologically evolve to fight more effectively and I think that's incredibly cool

All of the above. Plus they are easy to paint and look awesome en masse.

Also, you are never bored playing Nidz... you are either moving your models or removing your models.

I haven't the slightest clue...

 Kr00gZ wrote:
Also, you are never bored playing Nidz... you are either moving your models or removing your models.

That's exactly why I got bored playing my Nids I spent years building the army gradually but never really played any games because it was a bit of dead period for 40k, then when I finally got them done and played a game my first thought was "well, this is painful, why in the feth did I choose nids".

And thus I vowed never to collect another horde army unless it's for a game that uses movement trays.

 Baldeagle91 wrote:

 Dakka Wolf wrote:
I got Nids as my secondary army because the idea of Jurassic Park in Space made me laugh...then I found out they were bugs not lizards...kind of wish I got Orks.
Oh and they make a great intro army because they're big and intimidating and easily beaten.

I think around 2nd they were more lizards and thus, lizardmen in space until they tried to get away from that idea. They even still had sentient and consciously independent slave races.

About the same time the Squats got...I'm not finishing that pun.

I started playing Nids because everyone i played with had marine/guard armies. We needed a "bad guy". Out of the choices at the time Nids looked the coolest. So i started them.

Now i enjoy the way they try to work, i would love to see a few tweeks to their codex. But all in all i like the feel of playing them.