What's Your List Building Attitude?

[Bubble_Helmet]

I've been out of the hobby for a while, haven't played a game since 3rd edition. In that time I've been reading books, wikis, checking out new art.

 

Now that I'm back in it I'm always curious to see how other people approach army list building. For me I throw caution to the wind, tactically speaking, and just take models that I think look great or are fun to paint. Lore is another huge factor for me. If Salamanders don't use land speeders then by god I won't have a single one.

 

How about you?

[Wargamer]

Rule of Cool is the starting point, which is then shaped by tactical need.

[Dracos]

Much like Wargamer. Models have to appeal to me. Only reason I’m back is Primaris models. I won’t buy everything just because it looks cool but I’m not buying something if it’s not. I’ll stepoutside that range if I feel a need tactically but it still has to be models I like. (Scouts are likely going to be an exception to that rule if I can convert them to appropriate level of cool). After that lore is important enough it is a factor but not overly so. So much changes over the years in rules and fluff I’ve learned to stick with a range I find visually appealing and go with it.

[ERJAK]

Other than trying to stay as in faction as possible, I build and buy for power with my primary army. The only time I've taken sub-optimal options is when replacing them would have been more expensive than the benefit gained. I make sure to use superglue on any plastic model that has multiple weapon options so I can snap them off and put on a new one if something else gets good.

 

For my space marines I pick a goofy rules gimmick I like and build the best army I can around it.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

I try to balance between fluff, things I find awesome, and what works on the battlefield. Because of this I tend to take things most folks don't think highly of (the current black sheep being the Hunter air defense tank). But I still make them work for me and win more than I lose so it's all gravy.

[Montford]

I meld fluff and the toolbox concept: I like Units that aren't overly specialized.

[NovemberIX]

I tend to play narrative games so the initial process involves deciding what's "available" to the army at the time, and the "tilt" of the list (air wing, armour heavy, a bunch of assault marines, dreadnoughts). After that then comes the mechanics where I fill out the force org, and finally fitting to the points level. Admittedly I don't play pick up games so I tend to have weeks to mess about. I'm rarely worried about efficiency and really do prefer rule of cool. 

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

I have a partly-realized 10k Slaanesh 'soup' force, the composition of which is based entirely on published fluff and the increasingly plagiarized backstory for said force. 

 

I make lists out of the units in that force primarily to be able to hold my own in a surprisingly competitive non-competitive meta, but with the caveat that fluff still matters.

[Lazarine]

I always start with a fluffy concept, then modify it if I enjoy putting the models together and enjoy converting/kitbashing them.

 

Always have avoided trying to optimise my army too much, as I want to beat my opponent, not my list. Feel if I play with a stronger army than my opponent I am just playing on easy mode.

[Corswain]

Rule of cool first then fluff and the collector angle. I’ll start with a solid base then get something I like, something that fits the army and something new or different, in that priority order.

[Claws and Effect]

Heavily fluff based.

 

I field a lot of Vanguard with claws, because what comes to mind first when you think of Raven Guard?

 

After that it comes down to what do I need to be effective?

[MARK0SIAN]

Rule of cool and I like to make fluffy/lore accurate lists, however I will compromise slightly to make the list more competitive, not to a tournament level or anything, just so they don’t get tables in turn 1. For example I might include more elite or heavy options if the troops in a list are somewhat lacking.

 

But I have limits, I would never take a gunline Black Templars army for example.

[Bellarius]

Lore first, but still with the chance to win a few battles. For example, building an Exodite army around units of Shining Spears is hardly going to be a winning move, but it looks good and between how no one seems to expect it and that unit's improvements it can win the odd battle here and there.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Heavily fluff based.

I field a lot of Vanguard with claws, because what comes to mind first when you think of Raven Guard?

 

Cowardice at the Drop Site Massacre. If only you'd followed Ferrus in pressing the attack, we wouldn't be in this mess!

 

 

All jokes aside, I would honestly say I first think of Scouts actually; I always liked the slow-recruitment bit of the Raven Guard lore more than the jump pack shtick.

[Mileposter]

Imagery and Identity drives my initial army concepts. What are the Necrons known for? How would the Blood Angels typically fight? Why do the Astra Militarum predominately arrange this way?

 

Then I build onto what I would prefer playing on the tabletop. If Raven Guard usually fight X way, how would I enjoy playing things in Y manner? Am I skilled enough to bring victory with the Adeptus Mechanicus if I bring ABC idea in a list?

 

After, I give it a story. Is this X Daemon Prince's Daemon Host? Perhaps a contingent of the XYZ Crusade? Craftworld Warhost?

 

If all three criteria can be met, and I'm still excited... Then I consider the work involved to bring that dream to reality. If I can do it... I do.

[Slave to Darkness]

Rule of cool and fluff. Thats all that really matters imho.

[Qkhitai]

Fluff, background and lore are typically the first things I look for and design when I go about collecting an army, and that underpins everything in a modelling project, but how I build my actual lists is a little different. Although I don't play much (as in, I never play), I tend to design my lists to be very low model count. I like managing a small amount of elite, high-cost units, instead of massive hordes. I then also try and get a reasonable split between anti-infantry and anti-tank units, and that's about it. Having a centrepiece Lord of War kind of unit in there too is also nice. 

[Brother Lunkhead]

When I first caught the 40K bug and put pen to paper, designing my first SM army I approached it as a real military force as it would look in the said universe. Given the restrictions of the Codex Astartes, what would a viable force structure look like?  From this I could create different table-top armies to fit different gaming scenarios without feeling the need to buy everything that was on the market, or toss my army because it was no longer viable with the newest rules incarnation.

 

This approach for me has worked pretty well over the years. I've added a few flyers and the occasional new squad or vehicle because it was..... well.... because it was COOL 

 

Eighth Edition has presented some new challenges for me as a SM player as new "enemy" codices are released. The biggest expense for me of coarse is the introduction of the Primaris. I'm still experimenting with these guys and probably won't commit to major purchases until GW establishes them more firmly. With changes in game play, new fluff, and new marines, like it or not we definitely live and play in interesting times 

[Celtic_cauldron]

Fluff above all. Each of my Chaos Legionaries army is consistent with its background. Then each unit is built upon rule of cool with some tactical effect being also researched.

 

At army level: fluff and tactics. I'm a compulsive planner so I have to draft plans and design fluffy units to execute it.

 

Sometimes having a hard time but definitely exciting and interesting.

 

Celtic_Cauldron

[Aothaine]

My first rule is Redundancy. If I take a unit I have 1-2 extras of that unit as I expect anything scary to be cleared off the board so I want to make sure I have multiples of it to ensure that the unit will be able to achieve it's purpose. I like to be more competitive lists though and plan on eventually playing in more competitive games.

[Kinstryfe]

I tend to build firstly off of background fluff, which can be good or bad. Then I tend to build off of what I enjoy painting. I enjoy painting Infantry, much less so vehicles, so I tend to be vehicle light. I also try to go for redundancy when I can. Everything has a theoretical list of purposes, and I try to never have only one unit that can fill any given purpose.

 

Sadly, this idea rarely comes to fruition as my local meta is a bit more focused on winning, so I'll likely end up getting a bit more competitive just to try to eek out the occasional win in the near future.

[Plaguecaster]

I just like building my lists usually around a specific theme or fluff idea for my force which ends up being just infantry supported by walkers to represent a more city fighting/ underground or space boarding force. The fact I love converting the chaos FW walkers has a massive influence on that as well so I tend to build my force around the idea of including these walkers all the time and have other units support or be supported by the walkers. I also like to limit myself to only using a single detachment and try fit everything I want into that be it a battalion or sometimes a vanguard of I'm playing much smaller games, I'm weird but if I try any other way of building forces be it competitive or trying to get as much CPs as possible I just lose interest in it

[Chaeron]

To add to the comments generally, I’ll always try and theme my list where possible, as I very much like that narrative element. I tend to try to start with a regular core (say, scoring options) and certain go-to builds for units I like to use, and then fill the rest with a flexible supporting cast of units depending on the occasion or what I may not have used recently. I think that variety helps when there are a number of options, and then poses new tactical challenges to overcome, especially with different missions and opponents.

[chapter master 454]

I aim for a mix of being competitive but trying things out. Not someone to go, find lists and copy them. I take what models I have, see what I could build from it and attempt to create something good. Sometimes I go with a bit of silliness, sometimes I attempt all out but never copying anyone else's work really. want to find my own cool tricks and broken tactics rather than using tried and true.

 

The big thing I am going to be working on is my recent discovery with the land raider excelsior. Basically, it's a character so it can take warlord traits so in a way I am attempting to see if I can make a "BlastMaster". So it's clear, I call Smash:cuss Smashmaster just so it's a little more family friendly so in this case, I am taking the land raider excelsior and attempting to create the ranged equal of it: BlastMaster

[SickSix]

It's really all about fluff for me. I try to take balanced lists with rule of cool. Competitiveness is my last thought becuase I suck at playing anyways.

 

I play what I like to paint and look at. Or something with cool background.