Jump to content

Just curious: the cool factor vs. effectiveness


Kramer

Recommended Posts

Hi all,

I'm just curious. What convinces you to buy a model? Is it the 'coolness' of the model? Or maybe the fluff of the model/your army? Or do you pick solely on the effectiveness on the battlefield? Or any other reason. 

Personally it's the combination of fluff and model. Love the witch elf fluff, but i don't like the model so I keep postponing them. The old executioner models were reason enough to start a 2.000 pt Dark Elf army. And currently i'm looking to the Slaanesh lord on deamonic mount thinking: ah just one more army...

So let me know what's your story?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I definitely like to consider fluff first, it is a decent say, 30% of a models coolness for me. And then I consider effectiveness - I don't really want to build an army of something that won't do very well. But, for example, my current favourite model is the Weirdnob, which is generally slated as not worth the points in a competitive Ironjawz list. But it looks super cool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviously it depends greatly on the intention of the army.

I personally have one competivie army where its all based on as much synergy and effectiveness as possible.

However all my other armies follow the rule of cool and personal preference. I for instance like to have a theme and wont just buy random models for an arm but dont generally care to much about in depth list building.

Right now i have a "Spectral" undead army consisting of the following:

Nagash (Dont really use him in many games though)

Arkhan the Black

Mortis Engine

Wight King

2X Necromancers

4X Cairn Wraiths

1X Banshee

50 X Skeleton Warriors

20 X Grave Guard

10 X Hexwraiths

6X spirit Hosts

10X Black Knights.

5 X Blood Knights.

 

Obviously there are lots of different types there but i paint them all under a Ghostly theme. The skeletons are all ghosts and i have created "Dread Wraith knights" which i proxy as blood knights. The only things that arent ghosts are the leaders and summoners like the Arkhan and the Necromancers. however i also have a "No skin" rule in my army. So the Necromancers and Corpsemaster have been converted to Liches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a combination of fluff and look for me. There needs to something which sparks my interest in the fluff, both in the rule books and BL novels. 

I also need to like how the models looks and crucially how much I enjoy painting them. If I don't enjoy painting them I simply just won't finish them also I don't want to spend my hobby time painting something and not enjoying doing it. 

I'd say the rule of cool overrides effectiveness with me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

There needs to something which sparks my interest in the fluff, both in the rule books and BL novels. 

Yeah I think this is something im still searching for in AoS armies. But i'm trying to catch up with some novels to find inspiration. 

Besides that the future of Slaanesh is still uncertain, the inspiration I have for the army is only based on the old world fluff. But we'll see. It's easier to get creative on a black slate after all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get pretty much no time to actually play so most of my purchases are based on whether I like the models. However I do look around for lists online for inspiration about how to use certain units, what sizes are best etc so that I can build towards a functional army for when I do get a chance to game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think it changes as I progress with an army.  Initially it'll be 100% what looks nice and what I fancy painting.  I tend to play a few games and then look for units/models that add missing components to the army - so for AoS it might be a lack of rend or feet on the ground.  Then I'll probably just keep an eye out for quirky units that nobody else tends to field and models/conversions that appeal to me on the painting/modelling front.  No hard and fast rule really!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I am mostly a converter/modeler, so my purchases are mostly driven by the inspiration I get from the kit, followed by the amount of good bits I get out of the purchase. There's nothing worse than cracking open a new kit and finding it lacks a variance of bits. Following that, budget has a major impact, so recently most my mini purchases have been start collecting boxes, though I have been eyeing some more expensive kits for conversion I just have to try (Demigriffs for a Chaos Lord on Demonic Steed and the Witch Elf Shrine to turn into a Warshrine).

 

After those considerations, rule of cool tends to beat matched play effectiveness. My first priority is to have enough minis build and painted for a full game matched play, my chances of winning be damned. Once I have that, I'll propably look to develope that force into one that can win a game, but I'd say I'm about a year removed from that, even without the curveball I expect an eventual Arcanites release to throw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it's a combination. I tend to pick an army based on theme, which for me is both fluff and aesthetics, and then expand on that. Given that I play a fair bit though, I tend to reach out for other units based on their utility, but try to find analogues that fit my theme so it all feels coherent.

So, for example, my Death force is entirely made of truly dead things that are stumbling shadows of their former, mortal selves. As a result I run no Vampires and converted my Vamp Lord on Zombie Dragon to be more of a Wight King with a touch of ethereal fire. The Necromancers are all skeletal with ethereal fire and souls swirling around it, things like that. It's how I approach pretty much all my armies. E.g., my Gue'vesa force for 40K are all humans converted with Tau weaponry as analogues, etc, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it has to come down to how much I actually want to paint the model/unit. I've bought lots of models in the past to fill a need in the army I was building, and those were almost always the biggest slogs for me to paint. I spend 95% of my time with models building and painting them, so that has to come first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it depends on how much of an army I have. For my main dark elf army I'm still trying to build good lists so I base it on effectiveness. But for smaller AoS stuff I have or breaking into 40k its a mix of models and fluff that I like and having the stats and rules not be terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look for the story, the rules and the model. It's not a very specific thing though.

 

I bought Nagash because his model is amazing and his story is great, even if I will almost never play him.

I bought the Black Coach, even though the rules are so-so and the model isn't great. But I love the idea (or my version of it).

I bought Apophas, even though I think his background is silly and the rules are mediocre. But the model is fantastic.

 

So yeah, you have to have at least one of those. Most importantly a great model.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found that pretty much everything in the game is good enough to play it. Everything has a role. This is especially true for me, as a Death Alliance player, because many of the units in my book are summonable. I just started working on some bat swarms because, hell, if I'm playing my Flesh Eaters and run up against a gunline, it might be nice to summon some bats in my opponents' grill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kramer said:

So if it's completely unplayable? :) 

Or comes as a worse option. For example I love the karibdyss model but I cannot see a reason to build it instead of a war hydra. But yes I prefer all my models to be playable :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AAL said:

Or comes as a worse option. For example I love the karibdyss model but I cannot see a reason to build it instead of a war hydra. But yes I prefer all my models to be playable :D

See, that's the beauty of Original AoS. Build cool, make up for perceived deficiencies with more models.   No "if I take this, I can't afford to take that" issues. 

Matched play leaves karib on the sidelines, sadly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, AAL said:

Or comes as a worse option. For example I love the karibdyss model but I cannot see a reason to build it instead of a war hydra. But yes I prefer all my models to be playable :D

Oh thats tough. I luckily like the greek hydra fluff so for me its no hard choice. But I get what your saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...