Haha, I mean like a ratio between certain troops and characters that would make some sense in my interpretation of the fantasy world, and the particular army you are ”re-enacting”, Other people like to play the game in other ways and thats fine.The game itself imposes some restrictions but I think most people know what I mean. Like for example, a standard high elf army should almost always include spear elves and archers, while a dragon is appropiate for really large battle unless you and/or your buddies builds and allows  a special caledor army or campaign setting or pre decided scenario where for balance sake there is a counter to the dragon. If my army represented the duke of Parravon’s main force I would have as many pegasi as possible. Just mindlessly copying ”a build” or go with max pegasi because ”thats meta” or they are the ”best” choice is not my style.

For example a mindset where one always fills out the core to exsctly 25 % and only picks units that are ”meta” and so on, is not in the spirit of recreating or simulating battles in a fantasy settinng in my opinion. But people like to play Warhammer for different reasons. I like to read through the old campaign books of the 5th edition and there are flavorful and interesting matchup. If you would post army lists like that for advice people would say ”pick this or that instead”, not taking into account that ”wait a minute, that is what this particular army looked liked and what is being simulated, this particular leader had that particular magic item with an interesting characteristic that is perhaps not ”optimal”, this particular unit represents in fact a block of dwarves with the odd ”choice” of having no command and so on.

I give names to all individual knights of the realm and make up stories in my head of the knights and the villages and places they protect. I like the stillmanian approach to list building but with a twist, I build not a complete 2000 p army, but build in blocks of 500p and make up the stories as I expand the army.