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.

 Stormatious wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
There really should have been an option for both. I have a competitive army that I model to look as cool as I can think of, and a creative army I model to be as competitive as possible within the constraints of what will look cool as hell. I voted for "other" but it doesn't really seem like the right option

It's too late now i think. So just vote for what you mainly build it for i guess.

Well it's too late for me to do that too

Theme and looks (as an army, not individually) are the first and final reason for my choices. Within "theme" I might optimize a bit. But not if it breaks theme.

Competitive armies always look better anyway due to a more cohesive theme in unit choices rather than "one of everything it's fluffy!!!1!".

A little of each.

If I really hate the way a model looks, I’ll not pick it up.

When putting a list together, I generally have a few ideas that guide it. Some days it’s a theme (Planetfall, armored column, gunline, no mud, etc) other times it’s unit based, either trying to get new paint on the table, or knock the dust off an old one that’s spending too much time on the shelf.

But within those constraints I make the list as balanced and effective as I can. If I know I’m taking some sub-par units, I compensate by tightening up the rest of the list. If the stuff I want to take is skewed towards something like AV work, I flesh out the rest of the list with chaff clearing units.

I’m not playing in tournaments, so I don’t need to squeeze every ounce of power out of my list. In friendly play there is plenty of room to do what you want.

I am a massive converter. I pick an army background that interests me and convert the existing models to fit it (this can be as simple as swapping Ogre kingdom arms onto bikers for my white scar theme to making my guardsmen amazons from an amazon planet, to sculpting my own bullgrynns to fit the theme). My lists tend to be Take on ALL comers, and semi competitive with only mono builds.
You needed to define BUILD better in your question. I felt you meant purchase and build your models, but I suspect some think you meant build your list. Maybe you meant both.

As to the skewed results, it is very typical of Dakka for polls to pull from certain groups more than others. This one seems more aimed at those who do model and paint as part of the hobby, rather than those who only play. I suspect most of the highly competitive posters on dakka have simply ignored this poll as not their interest, worth their time, or whatever.

(edit) I realize I voted other but my choice could have been looks. I was caught between all three as others have been.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Competitive armies always look better anyway due to a more cohesive theme in unit choices

As long as you ignore the tiny batch of random cadians shoehorned in just to have the command points, I guess?

The thing is, I pick a theme first and foremost. "One of everything" can also apply to some competitive lists, as well, like how they shoehorn in weird things for the sake of a specific benefit-- the BA smashcaptain being a popular example.

I mean, if I didn't consider looks and theme a priority, I'd be playing Eldar or something instead of Sisters and Guard.

That said, when I field my armies, I try to make them as capable-of-winning as possible.

I choose Other. I'm mostly looking for an enjoyable game.

For the fluff, I don't follow the novels but do avoid the more extreme combinations. I'm fine with "soup" to an extent, but there is a limit. The idea that Patton, MacArthur and Bradley would team up with a Soviet platoon and a UK battleship to fight a mixed force of Stukas and Zero fighters is as ludicrous to me as the 40K equivalent. Fielding a pile of Culexus assassins to exploit a loophole in the targeting rules is also something I would not do.

Looks are a factor for sure. I can't bring myself to use "babby" marines alongside Primaris. I've got a weak Chaos army full of sub optimal units that I wanted to build and paint. I'll be happy to improve this army with the new Chaos models but that Bloodthirster will 100% be in it!

On the competition level, I'd like to have a chance to win but have little interest in going to the Las Vegas tournament, trying to become an internet sensation or anything like that. I look at the tournament lists more to get an idea of what I may expect to face than as something to copy. I've got quite a few armies, from casual strength to a Tau army I am finishing up that should have a decent chance against the tryhards.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Competitive armies always look better anyway due to a more cohesive theme in unit choices

As long as you ignore the tiny batch of random cadians shoehorned in just to have the command points, I guess?

The thing is, I pick a theme first and foremost. "One of everything" can also apply to some competitive lists, as well, like how they shoehorn in weird things for the sake of a specific benefit-- the BA smashcaptain being a popular example.

And they don't look cohesive because why? You didn't paint them cohesively? They aren't "displayed" cohensively?

That's on you.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Competitive armies always look better anyway due to a more cohesive theme in unit choices

As long as you ignore the tiny batch of random cadians shoehorned in just to have the command points, I guess?

The thing is, I pick a theme first and foremost. "One of everything" can also apply to some competitive lists, as well, like how they shoehorn in weird things for the sake of a specific benefit-- the BA smashcaptain being a popular example.

Oh Mel, you beat me to the punch...

Yup. Apparently the 40k pick n mix army is "cohesive". I've seen this claim before from him, either that is serious or that's a dedicated commitment to Poe's law.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And they don't look cohesive because why?

Look, you can keep telling yourself and say that a random bunch of crap you threw together in order to put the strongest possible list, disregarding all other aspects, is "cohesive", but that doesn't mean everyone else has to define "cohesive" the same way.

Soup is not all of competitive play, and is best thought of as an anomaly in need of correction. Ban soup and a competitive force will typically look more cohesive than a battleforce-style "casual" list with a bunch of random units. The competitive player identifies the best units and takes multiple copies for redundancy, just like a real army would have, while the "fluff" player often complains about how spamming is bad and minimizes duplicate units.

 Peregrine wrote:
Soup is not all of competitive play

But it does exist and is a major part of competitive play. Arguing that competitive players have more coherent armies by literally stuffing fingers in your ears and going "nanananananana I can't hear you!" every time someone lists a major example to the contrary doesn't make for a very convincing argument, and you know it.

Soup in its current state is not an inherent part of a competitive approach to the game, it's a current balance mistake by GW. It didn't exist in previous editions, and if GW ever fixes the rules it won't exist in the future. Even something as simple as "only detachments from your warlord's faction can generate CP or use stratagems" would make soup virtually disappear.

 Peregrine wrote:
Soup in its current state is not an inherent part of a competitive approach to the game

That's moving the goalposts. Even if, in some future game state, soup disappears, the fact that soup became such a massive fad amongst competitive players rather proves that ultimately the argument that competitive players somehow produce more "cohesive" lists is inherently flawed. The only valid and useful definition of "competitive" in this situation is "values winning at the game more than other aspects of the hobby". In that regard, there's nothing within being competitive that actually makes one value an army that is visually, mechanically, or in-lore "cohesive". All that matters to the purely competitive side of the hobby-- contrary to the argument that "competitive players build cohesive lists!"-- is "does including this unit enhance my chance to win, all other things equal."

What I'm not saying is "all competitive players are the same", because as noted, I am actually rather competitive-- I go in to every game trying to win, even "fun" games with my nephew (much to his dismay). But my competitiveness doesn't extend to my choice of armies. I do not pick my army exclusively in order to win; I pick my army and then make it win, making minor changes to keep it within the theme, and then using strategy and sound decision making during the game to achieve victory. Rather, I'm saying the competitive aspect of the game does not, unlike what Slayer-Fan asserted, somehow influence people to create more coherent armies. Other aspects of the hobby, as well as simply personal taste of the individual hobbyists (both competitive and non-competitive) do.

I'm a victim of making armies that are nearly 1 unit of everything but that has nothing to do with me making fluffly list and everything with me always buying one box of each option because I have miniature related Diogenes syndrome.

It depends on what i want to do with it.

tournament >> competitive list
casual game >> fluff and cool looks

Fluff and looks. I try and make my paint jobs and conversions suit more than one purpose, where possible. (Hummies in a (proper) freebooter army, Xenos with a radical inquisitor... etc). Competitive (organised competitions) doesn't interest me. Mainly the fluff I follow is old codex using most up to date points/PL available, the BL stuff contradicts its self too much.

I'm getting into kill teams, though there do not seem many around here who play, so anything up to a couple of hundred points is not a large army, meaning a degree of individuality is possible, if not desired. I do try to expand the teams to form a full force, but get distracted with more ideas.

100% what I think looks cool and fancy painting, and fluff. Don't care if it's wack, rules-wise. I'm in this to chuck some dice about and create a story around my cool toy spacemen.

 Melissia wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And they don't look cohesive because why?

Look, you can keep telling yourself and say that a random bunch of crap you threw together in order to put the strongest possible list, disregarding all other aspects, is "cohesive", but that doesn't mean everyone else has to define "cohesive" the same way.

Well go ahead and start naming all the competitive lists and pictures with them that prove they don't look cohesive at all.

The armies look better. It's as simple as that. Crap fluffy "one of everything" looks far worse as though someone just bought random boxes and put them together.

100% Looks, i played Nids and DE from 5th to 6th, into 7th, and just at the end of 7th picked up Corsairs (main where they fun and fluffy, i miss them so freaking much). Tho i did have fun with DE in 7th when CTC formation came out, 5 Talos that gains +1VP in melee, 18 Reavers and the rest as Venoms/Lhamens lol. (I also miss old Reavers, new Reavers are boring and nerfed to hell).

Fluff. My Plague Marines still come in 7s, I won't buy a predator or more tanks than needed, if I do soup then only with other nurgle factions.
Looks not really, as every GW paintjob of Nurgle looks crappy and far too clean and not as gruesome as I like it to be.

Competitive? Well, in 7th you basically couldn't play CSM without some Nurgle Bikers and other fast units, so I bought them. Balance in 8th is better though and I can pretty much play what I want, so my Bikers don't join DG anymore. I wouldn't say I collect something for competitive reasons alone, but the rules sometimes make you want to have some things sooner rather than later.

Army for fluff.

Units for Looks.

Equipment for competitiveness.

It's an odd mix-up, but it is mine.

Looks come definitely first. That is how I choose what models to buy and build. Now theme and fluff are important, but even those are informed by the looks for me. For example my Craftworld is one which has been badly devastated, thus they have to resort to wraith constructs and Dark Eldar mercenaries for their armies. But that fluff has been created to justify using an army composed mostly of wraiths and DE infantry, because I like the look of those models.

Now withing these parameters I try to optimise when ti comes to gear and relic choices, army traits etc.

1: I like to collect a variety of models. I get board of building and painting the same thing over and over.

2: I enjoy playing toolbox armies. Likely because I like taking a little of everything, and it wouldn’t work otherwise! When I notice that I’m missing a given tool, I will buy models to fill that role. I will balance my in-game need with a cool looking model/s I can afford.

3: The whole of my army must be viable in a TAC environment. I am willing to use models I’m not fond of in limited amounts to allow me to play a viable army from my collection of models I *do* like.

I build lists with roles in mind, and take a variety of units that can achieve those roles in different ways. For anti-tank, I can take Lascannon infantry, suicide Melta Scions (used to... anyway) Sentinels with Lascannons, Veterans with the Demolitions Doctrine (used to...) Vendetta. I have redundancy in role, yet a variety of delivery methods. To me, that’s like having a variety of screwdrivers in my toolbox, instead of multiple Robertson Head screwdrivers. Even though the Robertson driver is the “Best” screwdriver, it doesn’t do much if you need a Philips, or Flat head, or Torx.

I am at my best when piloting a toolbox army, so for me, that’s also me playing to my competitive strength. Combined arms is the Guard’s fluff from when I started. They used to encourage mixing Cadians with Valhallans with Preatorians with Atillans with Stormtroopers. While I don’t go that far (plastic Cadians, for me!) I feel I represent the best Guard-fluff with my mixed bag of units.

For three reasons, looks, theme and competitiveness.
With competitiveness coming first, theme second and looks third.

For me right now it's a bit of all 3. I'm very, VERY prone to "ooh shiney!" and buying new models I have no use for but I've been pretty well behaved since 8th dropped.

Currently I play Death Guard. I have some models I like that have performed poorly (Bell guy and Lord of Contagion), a fair few that perform OK but I still fit into my lists (Plague Marines, Blight Haulers and Hellbrutes), and some that have been pure gold on the battlefield (Poxwalkers and Bloat Drones).

I never leave home without Poxwalkers or Bloat Drones because frankly they hold my army together. Likewise I'd never drop Plague Marines for thematic reasons. The rest is pretty malleable but I'm happy with what I have.

I'll probably never use Plagueburst Crawlers though. They fit my theme fine (armoured spearhead of nurgle-infested Iron Warriors), they're really good competitively and they could easily replace less-performing units such as Hellbrutes. But I just don't like them. I've play-tested them and I find them boring to use and too much of a crutch, and for a unit that's supposedly a Daemon Engine it's just a bit boring looking.

My army performs OK. My win rate is terrible but that's more to do with me as a player than the units I field (I lose on objectives a lot because I get too bloodthirsty!)

I choose my models based on fluff, looks, and than try to make it as tabletop capable as possible without breaking the theme I had for it in my head.

A combination of looks and fluff for me. Rules come and go

This is an odd question, and hard to quantify.

At what point are you building it on theme or looks or fluff or competitive.


As I said, if I didn't care how my models looks and the faction themes, I'd be playing Eldar or something instead of Imperial Guard and Sisters of Battle. So obviously, I care about how my army looks and the involved themes. But I definitely don't just pick collections of my favorite models and put them on the field, or having a story behind each list justifying each unit's presence: each unit I put on the table was generally selected to perform a defined role that will help me win games.

I do know some people who have their favorite pet unit that will always be in the list with the list built around complementing and supporting it/them, but I don't know anybody in real life who "plays for fluff," or at least what I imagine playing a fluffy list to be based on reading the comments of people who do on the internet.