PDA

View Full Version : How fluffy became a ruleset.



Sepharine
17-02-2009, 14:55
So I've noticed there seems to be allot of difference between "fluffy" lists and normal army lists. I personally dont understand some of this. Don't take me wrong, the thing I like most about warhammer is infact reading the novels, not so much the playing or the painting. However, some of this appears to be utter bull.

I can understand how one could say that playing plaguemarines in a "Emperor's children" army is unfluffy, however some of these "fluff rules" are getting creepy.
For example earlier today i saw an Emperor's Children list, which called itself fluffy because he had 6 units each of 6 men strong (6 ofcourse being the favoured number). Now dont take me wrong, but that following a small part of fluff which summed up a bonus rule in the previous edition does not dictate what is fluffy.

Allow me to elaborate: For some reason everyone thinks that a fluffy iron warriors army is a mainly undedicated army (which I can't argue with) that favours shooting as a whole with some crazy melee units to "storm the breach". There should be some artillery and allot of obliterators. This is because they are a siege force, its their tools of the trade. Now what strikes me as odd is that what I named above isn't automatically the best setup for a siege, yet everyone is convinced this is how an Iron Warriors army should be set up for it to be fluffy. This is ofcourse because previous edition, the Iron warrior's special rules stated you couldn't take marks, were allowed basilisks and the like, and had no limit on obliterators. To not take most of that was to basically handicap yourself with restrictions and not take any of the benefits.

Now ofcourse there is a nuance to all of this, I would say an Iron Warriors army would usually be led by an undivided lord or daemon prince, and not a slaaneshi sorcerer. However, I don't agree with this in some cases pretty much written in stone army list template with which you have to start to be fluffy, which in most cases is based solely on rules from the previous ruleset, or the fluff that supported those rules.

Conclusively I'd like to say that a fluffy army should be an army with a story to be told. It should have a decent amount of leaders for it troops and vice versa, if its a force joined by a splinter faction of something else, that splinter faction should be represented by a leader aswell. Ideally, one should have a written story on which he bases his army. Fluff should in no case be a ruleset that gives you a little list to tick off when you avoid another parameter however.

You shouldn't go

All cult troops or marked troops - check
All units have favoured number - check
No other marks or cults apart from the main one - check
Hq marked with main mark - check

Ok Im fluffy.

the1stpip
17-02-2009, 15:21
To be fluffy, the army must be appropriate to the background.

In this context, there are few non fluffy lists, as the codex limits what you can take.

But there are many degrees of grey between extreme beardy and extreme fluffy.

I, and most people, fall somwhere in the middle.

druchii lord narakh
17-02-2009, 15:34
to be a fluffy army you dont have to be like that. your army could be set up as fluff would have it at a certain cenario like a scouting mission or a breach attack. you dont have to follow all the fluff to be fluffy.

Master Stark
17-02-2009, 15:39
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks like this.

I think the OP summed it up best when he said any army with a story to tell is faithful to the background.

Just because something might not be likely, doesn't make it unfaithful to the background.

Pyriel
17-02-2009, 16:23
basically there are too kinds of ppl that complain about lack of fluff:
a) people that actually complain about existing lack of fluff.thats proper and right.
b) people that have a *certain* opinion on how ALL armies should look (usually "all soldiers must look the same like real life armies"). these people are wrong because 40k DOESN'T have real life armies, including IG.

thats what has lead us here, that we must(seemingly) satisfy 2 very different kinds of ppl.

Thanatos_elNyx
17-02-2009, 17:11
Well I consider my Thousand Sons army fluffy, even though there are Noise Marines and Khorne Berserkers in it.

That is, I have units of specially converted Thousand Sons miniatures using Noise Marines and Khorne Berserkers rules.

trigger
17-02-2009, 17:38
Hear is an example of a non fluffy army ,

An eldar swordwind army.
Lots of stuff in wave surpants , couple of grav tanks and a wraithlord.
Can you spot the non kluff part ??????

Back to sensible world (ish)
I would consider my SW army Fluff based
I have 7 HQ
3 ellites (no dreads ) (i have 3 but dont use them with this company/when i use he whole thing)
6 troops
2 fast attack
6 or 7 heavy support
The whole army is mobile bar my scouts.
The 6/7 HS represent that some of it is used for transpot perposes and other being the support for the company. (if people want a list of what it all is ask :D )

Democratus
17-02-2009, 17:54
You shouldn't go

All cult troops or marked troops - check
All units have favoured number - check
No other marks or cults apart from the main one - check
Hq marked with main mark - check

Ok Im fluffy.

Well, that is one way to be very fluffy. So I'm not sure that it's correct to say "you shouldn't go" that way. My Death Guard army is exactly as described above and it is very fluffy.

One important hallmark of a well done fluffy army is that the army is built to fit the fluff.

A sign of a poorly done fluffy army is that the fluff is written to fit the army.

For example. I could make a chaos army with 2 Lash Daemon Princes, 9 Obliterators, and a pile of Plague Marines. Then I could write a story about two twin chaos guys who arose to daemonhood together, found out how to infect soldiers with the Obliterator virus, and then hired a bunch of Plague Marines who are all being slowly infected with this virus. All that fluff can justify the army - but it is obvious that I am writing a convoluted story to justify playing a very powerful army. This is a poorly done fluffy army.

It's a tough judgement call when deciding which armies are which.

volair
17-02-2009, 18:18
An army is unfluffy only if you take the background too seriously. It is completely absurd to give someone a bad sportsman ship score just because you have a limited vision of what their army should look like and their army does not agree with it. Just because someone who is passionate about background thinks it is "unfluffy" to play a multi-god chaos army, that is not going to stop me.

Democratus
17-02-2009, 18:35
An army is unfluffy only if you take the background too seriously. It is completely absurd to give someone a bad sportsman ship score just because you have a limited vision of what their army should look like and their army does not agree with it. Just because someone who is passionate about background thinks it is "unfluffy" to play a multi-god chaos army, that is not going to stop me.

When did anyone in this thread say anything about sportsmanship scores? If an army isn't fluffy, you ding the composition score. That's what it is for.

If the tournament is supposed to be "anything legal goes" then it won't have a composition score.

Sepharine
17-02-2009, 18:49
When did anyone in this thread say anything about sportsmanship scores? If an army isn't fluffy, you ding the composition score. That's what it is for.

If the tournament is supposed to be "anything legal goes" then it won't have a composition score.

So the people that play armies where their powerhouse list is also fluffy are lucky everytime a composition score shows up? :P That's somewhat odd.

Master Stark
17-02-2009, 19:24
Indeed, the purpose of a comp score is to rate the extent to which a person has abused thier list in order to win games. Not how fluffy it is.

The_Outsider
17-02-2009, 20:27
I have no idea what people are on about, 4 vindicator, 9 oblit IW shooty army o' doom was entirely fluffy - how can that be bad?

/what warseer honestly thinks of the 3.5 codex.

The ranger disruption table was cool and balanced - not being able to take half of the list balanced it out!

/hmm, ever been to egypt?


Generally speaking, 99% of the contents of a codex can be mix and matched and still be fluffy - it mostly gets fuzzy (lol wut?) when people start doing funny things with HQ's since they typically represent the comamnder of the force and thus from where any preferences of the force derive from.

Hun
17-02-2009, 21:45
I think Sepharine (the OP) has made a good point. Although it is all a matter of point of view.

Taking Night Lords as an example: because of the alternative lists in the last chaos codex the consenses is that a Night Lords army would include a lot of fast attack choices, however this is only one person's idea for a Night Lords army and the Night Lords apparent preference for bikes and raptors wasn't part of 2nd edition.

The point is the person using the army must put some effort into making their army by reading the background that has been written and letting that inspire them, rather than relying on a set of sanctioned restrictions.

I don't mean to cause offence Democratus but have you thought about why your army is organised around Nurgle's sacred number; is your army particularly zealous or perhaps seeking to atone for something? Asking these kinds of questions is what, for me, makes an army fluffy or not.

kramplarv
17-02-2009, 21:54
my personal question is, why should we bother with fluffy armies at all?
Why is it important to have "fluffy" armies? A backgroundstory for a set of playing toys?
And when someone comes up with their toybackground for toysoldiers, others are complaining that they did not think about "real" background issues like.. are they seeking atonement?

This is my question to the fluffists out there. or antifluffists. personally I think the fluffiest armies are those with a consistant look on them. Like the thousand sons berzerkers and noisemarines.

maelstrom66669
17-02-2009, 21:56
I prefer my chaos to be spiky, idk about fluffy.

But seriously, Id rather spend my money on models. Its bad enough to have to re-buy codexes and rulebooks, Im not going to buy every paperback that comes out about my army as well. If someone doesnt like my army because it doesnt make sense with the books, it sounds like more of a problem with them than with me, I was unaware that 40k was a roleplaying game(tho I know they have one).

Hun
17-02-2009, 22:27
I don't think this thread is criticising armies that aren't fluffy, but that people are claiming that because their army follows a set of prescribed restrictions their army is now fluffy without when really all they did was follow an army list.

It isn't important at all to have a backstory, just some people find it an interesting part of collecting an army, as much as some people find painting or devising army lists.

ehlijen
17-02-2009, 22:34
The theme and fluff of an army should be the result of what the player chose to put in it and what he chose not to put in it, despite being able to.

I don't need an IW list if I decide to build an army around few marks, 3 heavy choices and lots of flamers (best weapon for storming breaches). The idea that players needed to be rewarded for not taking things, which prodcude all those lists that were balanced with the idea of 'you don't get A, but in exchange we'll make B silly awesome for you', was just wrong. They tried to bribe players into playing a theme rather than convince them how cool that theme was. The result was that many players still didn't play the theme (long range firesupport basilisks and short range assault vinidcators in the same siege detachment?) but were just playing the one dimension of the lists they were still allowed and use the 'bribe' to min max it out.

Theme is: My army is renegade, not full chaos, so no-one has marks. Or, my army thinks artillery is unsporting and offends Khorne, so I don't take any ordnance.
It should be a result of how a player sees the army and wants to play it. It should not need bribes to be made to happen. Good internal balance between all units helps a lot more than one dimensional variant lists.

And you don't need to follow official fluff either. You can make up your own and then think about what that'd mean for army composition. Even if they come to conclusions that contradict 'official' fluff, that should be accepted. Just like made up paint schemes should be.

But some people just don't want to spend hours planning their army's background. And that's fine too.

Rioghan Murchadha
18-02-2009, 05:14
Just as an aside to the OP, the sacred numbers associated with the Chaos Gods have been around in the background FAR longer than there were ever special rules for them. So yeah, it actually is 'fluffy' to have squads dedicated to slaanesh in multiples of 6.

Born Again
18-02-2009, 05:16
See similar conversation here (http://warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=182325).

As you all know by now, fluffy armies are important to me. Why? Because if you don't have the story, they're just pieces of plastic and you might as well play chess. That's it in a nutshell. If you're going to ignore the rich background, why bother playing a game with background? Go and pick up checkers or something.

Now, you don't have to read every scrap of background material ever written, but at least read your armies codex from cover to cover. If it's a SM chapter, read an IA article if they have one, or look up info on the chapter on Lexicanum, and that should give you the basis of everything you need to know. You don't have to do everything to a cookie cutter plan (then armies would just be boring), but if you're doing an Ork army, it wouldn't be fluffy to load up with lots of shooty stuff and then paint them as Goffs, nor is it fluffy to do a White Scars force without a single bike, land speeder, jump pack or transport to me seen. It really boggles me how people can be entirely ignorant or uninterested in the fluff. Even if you don't read every book published, don't you want to understand the character and basis behind the army you're investing so much time and money into?

iamfanboy
18-02-2009, 05:28
Just as an aside to the OP, the sacred numbers associated with the Chaos Gods have been around in the background FAR longer than there were ever special rules for them. So yeah, it actually is 'fluffy' to have squads dedicated to slaanesh in multiples of 6.
It just wasn't until last edition that GW woke up and realized, "Hey, we have this neat bit of fluff; why don't we reward players for following it?"

You know, the way the game should be?

Feh.

For some people, the game is nothing more than bits of plastic moving around the table, incoherent, self-contradictory, badly-written rules, and victory victory victory.

For everyone else, there's the deep and strangely compelling universe that Games Workshop has mashed together out of Herbert's Dune, Moorcock's Elric, Star Wars, Heinlein's Starship Troopers, and dozens of other scifi and fantasy references into a fully functional and amazing whole. That's what some so disparagingly call fluff, when actually it anchors the whole game.

Oddly enough, I was a Chaos player, until i read the new Codex. No, my army would have come out the better for using the new Codex; the only thing I lost would have been my Daemonettes and in exchange my Terminators, Oblits, and multiple CSM squads took a major rules hike.

My problem was that they gutted the army; made it so the fluff didn't match the lists possible, made it so that competitive players could only pick one unit out of each selection to remain competitive and that players like me who enjoy fluff and wargaming in equal amounts were left in the dust. Even if I personally benefited, it brought my **** to a boil seeing what they did to all my friends who played fluffy and competitive armies.

adreal
18-02-2009, 05:47
I used to keep to my sacred number, but that wasn't a huge part of my emperors children army. My guys see what happened to fulgrim (horus heresey book) dont realise it was against his will and try to emulate him (ie letting daemons host them) s I use alot of the possessed parts with my icon bearers (non noise marine units) and aspiring champions. I do have a fully possessed unit, but I don't use them that much, mainly because they are in my daemon bomb list, and I don't like that lists playstyle. (I have three units on the board to start with......)

so I see my army as fluffy, even if I break the sacred number code, and if I could, I would use alot of daemonic gifts, hell everyone would get visage basic, then maybe one other depending on what I want the unit to do.

holmcross
18-02-2009, 06:06
I extend the definition of 'fluff' to not only include what is possible by the army's background, but also whats probable.

Is it possible that emperor's children would fight alongside of world eaters? Sure.

Probable? Not likely, and I don't care how much they're trying to strip away the Ancient Enemies rule from the chaos gods... as long as i can remember, thats been the case and I'm sticking with it.

Is it possible that your HQ Lord has the blessings of all chaos gods? Sure.

Probable? Not at all. This really only relates to writing a background story, and has little effect on in-game rules. Or, if you want to model a 'counts-as' army thats based upon the background.

Of course, the owner is free to do whatever he wants with his units, as long as it's allowed by the rulebook.

But if my friend comes up and says "check out my awesome chaos force - they're all corrupted grey knights using the rules for CSM!" I'm going to think its lame. Which is my right, just as it's his right to write a background story that pleases him.

Is it possible that GKs could all be corrupted by chaos? Sure.

Probable? :rolleyes:

Master Stark
18-02-2009, 06:41
I extend the definition of 'fluff' to not only include what is possible by the army's background, but also whats probable.

So to your mind, an army is only 'fluffy' when it is probable?

NightrawenII
18-02-2009, 06:50
For my, fluffy army is army with leader, that represent the army in question. So if teh majority of army have the same mark as hq it is okay.

I agree with holmcross, Ancient Enemies is good example of raped fluff.

@Master Stark:
If you have interesting story, explaining World Eaters cooperation with Emperors Children, why not.

holmcross
18-02-2009, 07:19
So to your mind, an army is only 'fluffy' when it is probable?

I like to throw that requirement in because otherwise, the only condition to an army being 'fluffy' is that its "physically possible from what we understand of the story." That, to me, seems to be not only ambigious (what really is impossible in the 40k universe?) but insufficent.

An example I used in another thread was how I don't really consider a pure GK force to be a very fluffy army because of how unlikely it would be that you'd ever see that in the world of 40k. Outside of a final black crusade/apocalypse battle/armageddon/serious attack on terra (or anything with serious daemon incursion for that matter), its very clear that the GK operate as surgical strike teams with backup from other forces of the imperium (as the Inquisitor deems necessary).

I also said above that another example of an army that is theoretically possible, but unfluffy (for reasons that I think are obvious) is the corrupted Grey Knight army being used as a "counts-as" CSM force. Its possible for a GK to become corrupted, but very, VERY unlikely (so unlikely that not a single one, as far as we know, has turned traitor) to occur, let alone a whole army's worth. This is an extreme example, I know, but it illustrates my defintion of what I consider to be 'fluffy'.

I also don't think its very fluffy to run a C'tan in a Necron army short of 2k+ points/apocalypse... but this has been said ad nausium since 5th edition came out.

Once again, these are my personal tastes, and the guidelines that I write the background (if there is one) for any armies I may make.

Master Stark
18-02-2009, 10:09
I like to throw that requirement in because otherwise, the only condition to an army being 'fluffy' is that its "physically possible from what we understand of the story." That, to me, seems to be not only ambigious (what really is impossible in the 40k universe?) but insufficent.

But doesn't that strike you as incredibly bland and limiting? Part of building a 'themed' force is coming up with cool story to tell with your models, and the most interesting stories are the unlikely or seemingly improbable ones.

holmcross
18-02-2009, 10:44
Depends on what you consider to be bland. Personally I'm sick of everything trying to be so damn epic and elite all the god damn time. Every player would have his army be the exception to the rule, the elite of the elite, and so on.

I like it when people come up with original ideas, but more often then not, they're just doing the same old "look at my guys they're the best of the best of the BEST" routine. Its become such a cliche.

When everyone is elite, nobody is. My god, the number of background stories I've heard about "a lost primarch..." and "....a mysterious legion" .... ugh. If thats what gets the player's rocks off then good for him, but its not my thing.

I've even seen an army of angel space marines, complete with stupid little angel wings on all the models.

A funny observation is how I obviously am defending and trying to maintain "the integrity of the fluff"... even though I take so much of 40k's fluff with a grain of salt. If the writers weren't forced to write stories that are obviously designed to incite fandom (and then, what do ya know, the purchase of new models) I think something more interesting could be done with the universe. But the fluff is just a marketing tool, and I'll admit, a very effective one. I mean, its largely worked on me. But from what I'd call a literary standpoint? ehh...

I sometimes wonder what direction the story would go in, if the writers could do as they pleased. No more permament stalemate; no more conflicts in which all armies involved save face. Look for a common thread here:

well, Eldrad died... but he took out a blackstone fortress. He didn't REALLY lose. Well, Abbadon didn't take Terra, but he diden't REALLY lose because that was never his intent. Well, the Emperor diden't REALLY lose because he utterly destroyed horus. Well, Sanguinius didn't REALLY lose because he made it possible for Horus to be killed. Well, Horus didn't REALLY lose because he turned the emperor into meat-pudding. Well, Slaanesh shattered Khaine, but Khaine didn't REALLY lose because he sacrificed himself to save and protect the Eldar race .... <and so on with practically every frickin' peice of fluff put out>.

All fluff translated: See how cool this army is? Go buy it.

Talk about heading off into tangent city.

Mojaco
18-02-2009, 11:02
Conclusively I'd like to say that a fluffy army should be an army with a story to be told. It should have a decent amount of leaders for it troops and vice versa, if its a force joined by a splinter faction of something else, that splinter faction should be represented by a leader aswell. Ideally, one should have a written story on which he bases his army. Fluff should in no case be a ruleset that gives you a little list to tick off when you avoid another parameter however.

You shouldn't go

All cult troops or marked troops - check
All units have favoured number - check
No other marks or cults apart from the main one - check
Hq marked with main mark - check

Ok Im fluffy.
Nonsense. That checklist works fine if you want a quick armylist that matches the established fluff. GW may have dropped those rules that made different factions what they are, but they are as true to the fluff today as they were back then. Kudos if you can hold yourself to that list.

Having a written story for your army does very little. Honestly, who reads those? I stopped doing them years ago as it works a lot better to have a strong visual theme in the army. Sticking to the same god, favoured numbers and such are great tools for that.

SteelTitan
18-02-2009, 11:06
Hmmm interesting posts.

I would like to make a distinction between fluffy and themed. I personally love building themed armies (Lizardmen Dino, Nids Swarm, Deathguard) because of the sole reason that it motivates me so much more to build. It looks super coherent (when painted right), and has a much stronger "feel" to it than a "vanilla" standard army list army.

Off course you can also add fluff to the theme, like sacred numbers and marks, which i also do...purely because i like it :) Ok i cripple myself fielding everything in sqauds of 7, ok my units are overprices because i pay 40-50 points for +1T...does it make sense? No! Does it make me feel good? Yeah! Does it help me paint more often? Yes! Do i like playing with it more? Yeah!

As for previous codixes/codici not saying anything about fluff...why not? I like to believe that every codex adds to the previous one, instead of replacing it entirely. Sometimes, certain (fluff) rules are dropped because it doesnt make in-game sense or because it's overpowered/underpowered but that does not necessarily mean that it's removed from background history all together. So what if sacred numbers don confer bonuses? I like the idea of each god having a sacred number.

Im not a tournament player as you can probably tell from my arguments but even if i would be, i dont only play for the win...even if i would be i wouldnt change my list to increase its competitiveness (lash sorcerer, double daemon prince, etc).

I like themed armies, and have respect for ppl who try something different than the 'normal' army lists. If that includes a lot of fluff, kudos for that person ;)

And writing a background story for your army? :rolleyes: Sorry but i already think this hobby is pressed into the 'nerdy-corner' enough without making up stories for your plastic soldiers. Sorry if i offend anyone but this is just my opinion.

WildWeasel
18-02-2009, 13:02
If you go by the "probable" standard, then no Space Marine army is fluffy. After all, they are the legendary Angels of Death to the vast majority of the Imperium, storied but never seen. For every action where there are Astartes taking part, there are thousands without.

Democratus
18-02-2009, 18:44
So the people that play armies where their powerhouse list is also fluffy are lucky everytime a composition score shows up? :P That's somewhat odd.

Dunno about your local area. But where I play we have 'Ard tournaments (no composition score) and Hobby tournaments (composition, sports, painting scores). The standards for composition are:

0- This list made the game un-fun, it is in the wrong tournament
1- This list was a bad example of construction for the particular arm
2- List placed winning over theme
3- Balanced list
4- A good example of chosen army
5- Fair, balanced, well constructed with the spirit of the army and the game in mind.

So both "fluffyness" and "non-powergamer" are required to score a perfect 5.

Thus, non-fluffy armies suffer in the composition scoring. This system works great for us here in Austin, but may not be the right thing for your local area.


I don't mean to cause offence Democratus but have you thought about why your army is organised around Nurgle's sacred number; is your army particularly zealous or perhaps seeking to atone for something? Asking these kinds of questions is what, for me, makes an army fluffy or not.

No offense taken. The number seven was an obsession of the Death Guard even before the Heresy. There were 7 great companies, seven great captains, and units often deployed as 7 or 14 soldiers. The fluff for this number (as well as those for other chaos legions) goes back a long way. My army in particular has been 'stuck in time' in the Eye since just after the Heresy collapsed and so have maintained their structure. No big essay needed or short-story written. They are just typical DG units from a typical DG company.

It's also a consequence of the Horus Heresy campaign run at my FLGS by Bell of Lost Souls. There was a ton of great stuff there for anyone who wants to see a fun vision of the 30K universe. The HH campaign rules are probably still on their site for download. A great read!

SquishySquig
18-02-2009, 19:10
It's a tough judgement call when deciding which armies are which.

:skull:It's a judgement call I don't see the point in making. If the player is fun to play against then anything goes as far as the army he chooses to field.:skull:

Democratus
18-02-2009, 19:15
:skull:It's a judgement call I don't see the point in making. If the player is fun to play against then anything goes as far as the army he chooses to field.:skull:

The point isn't worth making in a tournament without composition scores. It is a point very much worth making an a comp tournament. One person's fun isn't necessarily everyone's idea of fun.

Go to the events you like. Avoid the one's you don't.

the1stpip
18-02-2009, 19:23
I think there is a lot of confusion between fluffy and cookie cutter lists.

The latter can be fluffy, but they are boring to play and no real thought has been put into designing the list.

WildWeasel
19-02-2009, 03:26
The point isn't worth making in a tournament without composition scores. It is a point very much worth making an a comp tournament. One person's fun isn't necessarily everyone's idea of fun.

Go to the events you like. Avoid the one's you don't.

And that is why comp scores are utter BS. It's a wholly subjective thing, that are usually used by a local group to try and enforce a tyranny of the majority.

maelstrom66669
19-02-2009, 03:44
I generally give people 5s regardless, unless they tried to cheat somehow(ei moving farther than allowed, lying on rolls etc.), then I would give a lower sportsmanship score. I wouldnt consider any legal army list cheating. While WAAC players might get on peoples nerves, people who are sore losers and have to make up excuses why they lost are pretty annoying in my book.

massey
19-02-2009, 04:46
They are just pieces of plastic, and I do also play chess. :)

Personally, I try to have some sort of theme to my armies, even if it is just "mechanized strike force". These are marines in rhinos and on bikes, and they're making a rapid attack on the city. Or... these genestealers have infiltrated into the enemy city and are attempting to neutralize the defenses so that the oncoming monstrous creatures can finish the job.

I view armies as the particular force assembled for one particular battle, not necessarily the entire arrangement of forces available to the commander. It's therefore fine to have 2 units of scouts and 30 terminators. Perhaps the scouts were moving forward to shut down some jammer so that the termies can come in (and they are assumed to have done so immediately prior to turn one). So it doesn't bother me to have Noise Marines and Berzerkers in the same force. They're there because Abaddon is in charge, and he told them to get the hell down there and stop arguing, dammit. :) They'll settle the score with each other... after the battle.

But really, it is more important to me to be able to use whatever cool looking models you like. That is, after all, why we pay so much money. If I like the way a Warp Spider Exarch looks, why can't I use him even if my army is painted in Saim Hann colors?

Master Stark
19-02-2009, 05:37
I view armies as the particular force assembled for one particular battle, not necessarily the entire arrangement of forces available to the commander. It's therefore fine to have 2 units of scouts and 30 terminators. Perhaps the scouts were moving forward to shut down some jammer so that the termies can come in (and they are assumed to have done so immediately prior to turn one). So it doesn't bother me to have Noise Marines and Berzerkers in the same force. They're there because Abaddon is in charge, and he told them to get the hell down there and stop arguing, dammit. :) They'll settle the score with each other... after the battle.

Thats the best way to look at it, IMO.