Army List Building Philosophy

[Veillotron]

I am curious - when building an army list, what is your approach / philosophy / methodology? Which are your most important criteria?

To mention a few...

- Do you select your units based on Rule of Cool? Models' aesthetic or the narrative of the faction?

- Based on model's stats and role?

- Based on your attacking philosophy / how you like to play the game (for example, shooting army vs. Hard-hitting)?

- Based on the type of armies you go up against? (I assume that the more competitive gamers must be thinking of ways to counter 18 skyfires or Kurnoth hunters, Sayl, etc.)

- Any other point?

[Gauche]

Good topic. I'm an unabashed power gamer so I pretty just research the game as a whole and take what's one of the top predators in the meta. There are some objections to that if the play-style REALLY goes against what I like but it's mostly what I do across games.

If I have a choice I will go with a more defensive build as I've always been reactionary in my play. Typically that means I favor guns and/or speed which is probably evident based on my choice of list. Counters do go into it as you mentioned, I'll alter things here and there to go against the other competitive boogeymen. Probably not necessary but I'd like to go to some conventions over the course of the year and it helps to get those reps in.

[yarrickson]

I'm a bit of a spammer if I'm honest. I tend to pick something that A:  I like and that B: is decent, then start seeing how many of those I can have in a list. 

AOS examples of this would include Stormcast Paladins, Bloodthirsters of Insensate Rage and Grimwrath Berserkers. 

Its a trap I fell into in 40k years back that I've never really gotten out of the habit of doing. 

[Thor]

Usually depends on what setting  i'm playing in. If it's friendly games i experiment a lot. Using batallions  as a starting point. If in a tournament i tend to research and netlist. 

[Thomas Lyons]

These are the top elements of any list I play:

• It has to be original.  I don't have to be the first to do any thing like it, but I am wholly uninterested in net lists.  It needs to be something that I've analyzed and cooked up on my own.  
• It has to have a majority of the competitive tools (mobiliyu, durability, mortal wounds, etc.). I want a full tool box to respond to whatever situation i find myself in.
• It must be able to stand toe to toe with, or at least have a distinct answer to, tier 1 lists. I want to play something that has the potential to be competitive at the highest tiers.

This means inevitably means that I work on refining a list in theory a multitude of times before it ever hits the table.  This has me exploring a wide range of lists through theory (which only further prepares me for competitive play since I am familiar with most units) and changing lists often based on the shifting meta.   

 

[swarmofseals]

I generally take a pretty holistic approach. Fortunately or unfortunately, I'm a pretty typical hobbyist in that I tend to buy more than I can possibly handle (part of that is that I'm a value fiend and love buying large used lots). Eventually if I ever get enough stuff painted, my perfect ideal is to be able to take a big case of stuff to the FLGS, find games and put a list on the table that roughly matches the level of competitiveness that an opponent desires. I like to have everything available to me so that I can field anything from a very soft narrative list to a very hard tournament type list. 

I generally choose factions based on aesthetics and playstyle. I really enjoy conversions of all sorts, so sometimes a cool conversion idea will draw me in. If a faction is totally non-competitive though that's a turn off for me.

[Galas]

1- Look the models I have.
2- Pick the General I want to use.
3-Make an army that goes along with that general, both from an aesthetical and thematical standpoint.
4-Smile in joy seeing how fluffy and beautiful it is.
5-Be stomped by everyone that don't suck at the game as I do.
6- Go back to my Hobby cave and cry at the same time I surf the internet looking for new shiny miniatures to ease my pain.

[Turragor]

5 hours ago, Galas said:

1- Look the models I have.
2- Pick the General I want to use.
3-Make an army that goes along with that general, both from an aesthetical and thematical standpoint.
4-Smile in joy seeing how fluffy and beautiful it is.
5-Be stomped by everyone that don't suck at the game as I do.
6- Go back to my Hobby cave and cry at the same time I surf the internet looking for new shiny miniatures to ease my pain.

Aha you studied at the same war academy as I, I see!

How is battle-coach Sir Sucksalot?

[roberto]

7 hours ago, swarmofseals said:

 put a list on the table that roughly matches the level of competitiveness that an opponent desires.

 

How do you determine this?

[Criti]

Having collected a little of everything over the years, I play what I have, first.   Doesn't much atter to me what I take in a me army initially, as I have found that you can do well with almost anything in AoS.  Maybe not top table at a tournament, but well enough for most small shops.

From there, I target what I thoight was cool.

For example,  when AoS kicked off,  I played a lot of Empire and Dwarfs (that first roind of scrolls).  From there, I thought it wild be cool to add some Stormcast for the round bases without having to rebase.  So I grabbed a starter box.  I liked how they played, so I grabbed a second starter.  Then a Prime because he looked awesome.  Then 10 Judicators so I could drop my Empire gunners.  Then some Prosecutors because the Vanguard Wing caught my eye.  And so on and so forth untill I was sitting on the 4000+ points of Stormcast I have now.

Then, when something feels complete enough, I move on.  I shifted to Chaos just a few days ago, as I have 2 starters worth of Bloodbound and a bunch of old 8th ed Chaos stuff.   So just last night I grabbed Shadows Over Hammerhal, and since it had some Tzeentch, I went ahead and grabbed some Skyfires at the same time.  My goal here is to have a couple thousand points of each color of Chaos - then to snag Archaon

[VBS]

When I make a list, most of the effort is to try and make the army legal for the rules (fill in the battle-line, hero limit, etc...). I tend to have only models I like and can't care less if it is meta, so it's all about making it look cool on the battlefield!

[Beau]

Rule of cool first.

Synergy with other units second.

Necessity of role third.

[Praecautus]

as my main adversaries are my son and his friends then I go purely rule of rule, narrative and fun to paint. I like to get models that will be fun for them to play against.

[Bradifer]

1. Pick an army that I like the aesthetic of.
2. Must have options for monsters or powerful elite troops over hordes of troops.
3. Pick a few centerpiece I can rotate between.
4. Look at available powerful synergies.
5. Create a list that is powerful, but 100% not spam. 
6. Must offer diversity or flexibility. I detest spam lists. In a game with thousands of interesting models to choose from, if my opponent chose to play with 6 sets of Kurnoth Hunters...I'm already bored both aesthetically and from the gameplay aspect. (Played a lot of Guild Wars PVP back in my day, and balanced teams were highly competitive with the gimmick teams.)
7. I like utilizing my flexibility to try and pick the right answers to my opponents threats. I just need more ranged or mortal wounds! (Death!)
8. Create less powerful lists to have on standby if I see my opponent's list is pretty un-optimized. Nobody enjoys a stomp.

[Stevewren]

I like to pick the armies I play based on the models I have painted that I like the look of. 

The problem I have is that this doesn't really fit with the group I play with. For example my last club game I played a guy I'd not played before, so I took a fully painted army led by Archaon that included a bunch of Kairic Acolytes, some marauders and chaos warriors. My opponent put down seven empty bases, one was painted blue so I knew it was his shaman and the other 6 were his sky fires. Game lasted about 3 turns. @Wayne kemp talked about the fact that there are no fluff players anymore on the last Heelanhammer ep, and to an extent I agree with the point he made, but I still try to play the models I want to use and am more interested in my army looking acceptable than being highly tuned. My South Coast Army sounds impressive (kairos and three Lords of Change), but I picked it before I read any of the scenarios and I still haven't really considered how they will work with the army. I dont know whether this is the 'fluffy' choice or if its just stupid. I suppose the thing is I'm not really that bothered. 

[KillagoreFaceslasha]

1. Can I shove in a megaboss and an ironfist?
If not then proceed to 2

2. What I want to cut out to shove in a megaboss and an ironfist?

My listbuilding usually takes two minutes.

[Soulsmith]

Priority is I like the models since I will paint them, dislike using the grey hordes. And then I look at what is the best synergies. 

[Jharen]

I usually pick a theme for my list - then challenge myself into making that army as effective as possible while sticking within the confines of that theme. 

ie: Newly updated Slaughterbrutes are soooo tempting me to buy a few of them to see Skaarac the Bloodborne take them out for a sprint across the battlefield in a matched play game.

[Veterannoob]

almost always rule of cool or a narrative type thing.  

[swarmofseals]

10 hours ago, roberto said:

How do you determine this?

Ideally just asking my opponent: "hey, do you want a casual game or are you looking for a hardcore tournament list or somewhere in between?" I'd have a list prepared for whatever situation. If they start deploying and I get the sense that their interpretation of competitiveness is very different from mine, then I'd just say something. If my opponent argues with me or brushes it off then I'd just defer to them. If they said they wanted a fun game and were putting down a tournament list I'd just go with it and take it as a challenge. If they say they want a tournament list and pull out a casual list themselves but then insist that I not tone it down, I'm fine with that. Maybe they just want a really tough challenge.

Of course, this is all for pickup games. If I'm playing in a structured event then I'd tailor my list to the event. If the event is billed as a tournament I'm going to take a tournament list. 

[Kaleb Daark]

always look at the cinematics of it, and the rule of cool.

Most times it gets trounced by the netlisters and win at all cost power gamers but mine looks way better and I don't get upset like they do when I lose - because internet said they should have won.

If I see sayl I generally get the chaos dwarfs out with the heavy artillery and just bomb him to pieces.

If I see a nice army rather than the sayl/stormfiend/bloodletter bomb etc bs then I generally play narrative as its way more fun and we have a great time putting awesome stuff on the table which actually looks like it would work together rather than cherrypicked for filth.

Personally, for me it's always been about the visual pleasure of a nice themed and cool looking force.  On the downside I end up finishing an army to the standard I like it  (I don't play with unpainted models), just as the system is about to die!

[Kaleb Daark]

and while i'm on it, I've got no problem with power gamers.  I have a couple of great friends who are nothing but.

What I don't like is the closet power gamer who tries to tell me he's not, and apologises for tearing me a fresh one with his net list uber filth.  "dude, don't apologise, this was the way you wanted it from the go."

[roberto]

58 minutes ago, Kaleb Daark said:

and while i'm on it, I've got no problem with power gamers.  I have a couple of great friends who are nothing but.

What I don't like is the closet power gamer who tries to tell me he's not, and apologises for tearing me a fresh one with his net list uber filth.  "dude, don't apologise, this was the way you wanted it from the go."

LOL

Or the power gamer who proceeds to tell you how fluffy his army is.

[Nin Win]

I'm contemplating getting into AoS and if I do it will be all about painting a variety of cool miniatures.  I never (ever) play in miniature tournaments (not for any game, not XWing, not flames of war, nothing) and I don't play with unpainted models on either side of the table and only with finished terrain.

I know this approach works well for historical games like flames of war, but will it work for AoS?  Is AoS as full of the great primer hordes as 40k?  I guess I'll have to do local scouting and see.

[kozokus]

I value aggressivity above all.

I spit on "the way of the water warrior" and instead go for the throat, be if from afar or with an axe.

This implies i like alternative deployments, long range threat and fast moving models.

I have to dictate the pace of combats and if i can't i feel powerless. I can't play reactively as i need a plan to follow..

...

And i like Giant guys in golden armours with dragons, capes and lightnings.