"Fun" army lists?

I've been wondering what players here in general would think of as "fun" army lists.

If we only consider gaming "fun" and ignore fluff and modelling concerns, and ignore competitiveness- would the following be traits that determine then "fun"-ness of an army?


1)Tactical flexibility (allows you to try out all phases of the game)
2)Unit variation (the opposite of spam)
3)Random effects (forces both players to be fluid / prevents similar things from happening game after game)
4)Stackable effects (unit synergy and buffs that encourage constant experimenting)
5)Unit mobility (makes all of the above possible)
6)Others that increase enjoyment during play?



Based on the above, would these then be considered "fun" to play non-competitively?


a) Ork all-comers
b) Eldar Biel-tan
c) Generic Space Marine all-comers
d) Dark Angels tri-wing
e) Chaos Space Marine all-comers
f) Chaos Daemons monster mash
g) Tyranids monster mash
h) Dark Eldar Haemonculus-themed
i) Space Wolves Hero-hammer
j) ???

What do you guys think?

nope, never considered any of those things during conception. But I will tell you what makes an army 'fun' for me.

I built my Sanguinary Guards list cuz I wanted a Golden Army.

I made a Haemonculus Dark Eldar army cuz I wanted an army themed to Silent Hill.

After building them did I consider competitiveness, so I added Stormravens to my Sanguinary Guards, and started to modify my Dark Eldar to be more killy.

But even then I gave myself limitations. Whatever I add to my Golden Army must fly. So no termies, tactical squads, scouts, tanks.

Even my Haemonculus themed army had no Archons or Ravagers, which are normally DE staples. I must use wracks (no warriors or wyches) which is extremely painful on the pocket, but nevertheless, that's the army I wanted.

Fun? I think all lists should be fun mine are usually build on some kindof theme. That can range from "all-infantry", "all-bike", "armored column", "beleaguered defense" ! Hive gangers, sorcerers, etc etc to "historical" lists to really simple things like "this army is built using models I haven't played in a long long time" Sometimes combinations of the above

Fun?
It's not the list..it's the players, both sides..

I agree with Dann and Vuel but "fun" is enjoyed by people differently.

You would see that most people will try to at least take advantage of what their army is good, it's not just competitive players doing it.

It comes to what was your objective to build the army, to just have a nice looking army, or to be seriously strategical. But I think we can all agree, we like to see really funny happening when we play, like the impossible lucky or unlucky dice rolls.

But like Vuel simply put it, it depends who you're playing with. If two people have conflicting objectives when facing each other, one of them probably's not gonna have much fun. Like a normal army is downright crushed by a competitively built one.

Anyways, such an extreme conflict doesn't happen often since we're not totally just thematic or totally competitive, couple with the fact that playing a social game requires some understanding and leeway between each player.

Helping each other in the end of games would achieve that purpose, like getting advice on mistakes. Maybe even painting tips, though I don't hear that much when I play.

I build my list themed to something

like my DG is themed to a pure nurgle army however I did have to mechanized my plagusmarines cause 7 walking isnt really effective which is un DG ish and my 6 nurgle bikers. So I guess there got to be a balance between theme and fun and actually practical and competitive.

My DE is pretty much base on using max venoms and extremely maneuverable and shooty as hell... its fun for me but not for my opponent lol.

My tau is based on the army mechanized divisions you see less mech suits than normal tau armies. But a lot of devil fishes and tanks

So it looks like the Malaysian rules for "fun" army lists:

1. Themed

2. Not being a dick / be excellent to one another

...?

Pretty much, I haven't played against anyone who had a bad sportsmanship.

Though if I lose (and often do), it's really just my fault for playing what I want and not what's best for me.

It could be just happens to me that I play lists no one in the right mind would try, like mass firewarriors, battlesuits not configured to their optimum; not using any tyranid warriors or tervigons; playing with three assassins in a GK army and no vehicles at all.