PDA

View Full Version : Fluff Armies



guillimansknight
05-04-2009, 21:19
do you use fluff armies or do you not


and would you play against one or not ?



fluff meaning edited to match background like tau pathfinders being allowed pulse rifles or SM with everyone with night vision and move throught cover or a radical inqusisitor with deamonic mutations + chaos psychic powers ect ect

silence
05-04-2009, 21:23
Quite simply, YES!

I use predominatly fluff based forces in all the games that I play. This varies from quite a simple themed force through to my Mordians and Empire in which I have named each character and have written short background pieces for.

Giganthrax
05-04-2009, 21:23
I personally don't use them, but I'd play against them, no problem.

Darnok
05-04-2009, 21:24
I'm puzzled by what exactly you mean with "fluff armies". One can just read too much into that term. Explaining what you mean would help a lot.

kairous
05-04-2009, 21:24
define a fluff army.

I play black legion, so the majority of my stuff is black, gold and silver trim, but things like my death guard unit will either be painted in post or pre heresy colours (in this case pre), i like to think that even though they fight together, the chaos legions would keep some pride for their own or new colours.

The_Outsider
05-04-2009, 21:31
From the way the OP is worded and the fact i'm not allergic to game balance, I will have to say no.

Tokamak
05-04-2009, 21:34
Heavily themed armies, not just in painting and modelling but also with a very good idea behind the units and coherent army list composition is what I call fluff armies.

What I don't call fluff armies are bending or break rules in order for them to have something different. The challenge of having a strong theme is to stay within the rules you've been given.

Eulenspiegel
05-04-2009, 21:36
As long as "fluffy" doesnīt translate as "min-maxed army with hastily made up background" then Iīm all for it.

Sadly, some players canīt resist the temptation to go for the maximum gaming advantage when looking for rules for their oh so characterful army.

guillimansknight
05-04-2009, 21:39
well i use a fluff army that i will admit is overpowered but i am fair i dont give my units points (fixed) and i try and match the opposing players force

and i also impose heavy restrictions on my army


but it is made to match my background which i had no intetion of making a overpowered army when i wrought it

Aegius
05-04-2009, 21:42
I'd restart the poll if I were you. Before you edited it I would have said 'yes' to both questions, but the discription you have given is completely different to fluff 'based'. Fluff based armies would use the rules available and have really cool models, whereas fluff BIASED armies are what you are actually talking about.

Fire Harte
05-04-2009, 21:44
Crap I meant option one! Gah! :cries:

But yes, I'm all for fluff and all of that! We're here for Fun-Hammer and all!

guillimansknight
05-04-2009, 21:46
I'd restart the poll if I were you. Before you edited it I would have said 'yes' to both questions, but the discription you have given is completely different to fluff 'based'. Fluff based armies would use the rules available and have really cool models, whereas fluff BIASED armies are what you are actually talking about.

not really biased


im talking about armies that are edited to match the fluff

not armies made to OTT strong and have a s*** quickly made background for an excuse

Darnok
05-04-2009, 21:49
The way the OP defines it - and I'm glad I asked - I'd say: hell, no! That just sounds like a poor excuse to take the most broken thing that crosses someones mind.

guillimansknight
05-04-2009, 21:54
The way the OP defines it - and I'm glad I asked - I'd say: hell, no! That just sounds like a poor excuse to take the most broken thing that crosses someones mind.

really ?

cause i doubt my SM are overpowered

no tanks termies bikes land speeders

but they do get to include PDF troops (IG)

The_Outsider
05-04-2009, 21:59
3rd ed IW were fluffy! Anyone who disagrees is allergic to fun (because as we all know, fluffy lists = fun lists).

Didn't really work out like that did it?

Aegius
05-04-2009, 22:04
All of the codexes are (supposedly) playtested and every unit is heavily scrutinised to see how they work alongside the rest of the army and the points applied accordingly. There is a reason that imperial guard are 4pts each in the new codex. If you had access to space marines in that list, then the marines would be worth a whole lot more than the 16 pts they cost in their own codex.

I don't like the vyper entry in the Eldar codex, so should I be allowed to use landspeeders to represent them in my eldar army. No I shouldn't. Landspeeders are that cost because they are one of the very few truely mobile units in the marine army and as a result are quite likely to overextend and get destroyed easier.

I have no problem with someone using the marine codex to represent their dark angels or someone using the ork codex to make an adeptus mechanicus army, but to just take what you like from whatever codex, or to add abilities for no increase in points is just not sporting in my opinion.

As a footnote, this is coming from someone that is primarily a modeller/painter

Latro_
05-04-2009, 23:23
i'd play a mates fun themed rules for a game or two, i wouldent expect to consistently play armies that were not written using the official books.

plus its fairly easy to do fluffy armies using the normal rules without having to resort to home grown stuffe

tacoo
05-04-2009, 23:26
i play necrons so atm all i use is fluffy since competative+necrons=boring and who doesnt feel some pride when pharias actually do somthing

40kdhs
06-04-2009, 01:25
I want to play against every army list for the fun.

zeep
06-04-2009, 01:40
The point of the game is to enjoy your time spent playing it. Frankly, as long as the above goal is met, I dont care if your / gw 's fluff has your army being genetically bred from sexually deviant hamsters.

RampagingRavener
06-04-2009, 01:47
I'm gonna have to say 'no' to the OP. Stick to what's in your codex. If it was playtesting an entirely home-made codex, that I and an opponent I knew well had been working on together for several weeks, then it'd be okay. But if I go to a random pick-up game then I expect people to use their normal codex units.

Because to be honest, playing against some crazy mess of an army with all sorts of special rules and wargear slapped all over the place because it fits one interpretation of the fluff (which, I might add, varies so much in some regards it's hard to make a completely 'fluffy' army) isn't my idea of fun.

eek107
06-04-2009, 02:01
You mean armies with homebrewn or house rules? Sure, I play with and against them within my own group. If I were ever playing anyone outside it, I'd ask them first about it, and I always make sure to have a "legal" alternative to any unofficial units I might use if they weren't comfortable with the idea.

40kdhs
06-04-2009, 03:09
I don't like to play against somebody who uses 'house rules'.

maelstrom66669
06-04-2009, 04:11
I dont have any codexes for the others armies, so AFAIK thyey could all have been fluff armies, but really, I'm in it for fun, so its all good.

Also, choice 4 doesnt really make and sense, why would you play one but wont play AGAINST one, what a douche thing to do LOL.

Ubermensch Commander
06-04-2009, 06:39
I cannot answer this poll as it would be entirely dependent on the army in question and the rules set that is being made up.
First of all, I am not of the mindset that each bit of fluff needs some special rules to represent it, at least not at the 40K scale. I do want armies to be fluffy and fit the background to an extent. If I did not care about the background I would go play Chess or Risk 2210. I do NOT want the situation Eullenspiegel described on the first page of this thread. I do not want "well in this bit of fluff it says army/unit X "teh roxxors all the time" so I use ability "Autowin"!

I also agree with Darnok on this; the OP question and scenarios sound like "its fluffy I take this mix and match rules to bend the rules to the breaking point,right? Lots o fun!"

Ddraiglais
06-04-2009, 07:00
I'm the kind of guy that will allow anything as long as fluff supports it. On the other hand, I would refuse a game if an army goes against fluff.

weissengel86
06-04-2009, 08:52
I personally plan on having extensive fluff for each of my armies except maybe non imperial ones if i ever play them. I just dont actually have all the armies i want because of money. Although i am working on the fluff and background whihc will guide the way my army works and the models i get.

Gen.Steiner
06-04-2009, 08:58
I'll happily use variant rules and play other armies that have new units or variant rules. No problems there!

Sister_Sin
06-04-2009, 11:11
Yes and Yes.

Sister Sin

The_Outsider
06-04-2009, 11:32
The problem is, very few people can create extra rule for their force (or pinch USR's) and cost them within a resonable threshold.

Not to mention some players have....colourfull interpretations of fluff that can be used to warrant rending on their marines for 2 points a model (a good example being the black dragons).

Sir_Turalyon
06-04-2009, 12:52
fluff meaning edited to match background like tau pathfinders being allowed pulse rifles or SM with everyone with night vision and move throught cover or a radical inqusisitor with deamonic mutations + chaos psychic powers ect ect

I'm all for using fluff armies and normaly would ansewer yes to both questions but what you're talking about is not fluffy, it's poor excuse for introducing house rules. Marine example is a particular offender, as it gives free a workaround for two serious disadvantages intended in game mechanics for no fluff reasons whatsoever - every army can claim special training /equipment / physiology giving them superior eyesight or mobility compared to unaugumented human, and rules already take that into account. That's why marines can shoot in pitch black at all. Fact that "fluffy" reasons for them having such advantage all too often end up as "because they don't use a vehicle type I don't intend to use anyway" is particulary annoying. I suggest you restart the poll, the question is stated in misleading way.

Oh, and there is a legal 13th company list for those who want their marines to have night vision and move through cover. It even gives them scouts as bonus, is balanced and I would love to play against it.

I use house rules only when both players agree on them beforehead, most often to create unique scenario (it still means i use house rules most of the time). Examples include "we are playing 3rd edition meat grinder scenario for flavour and defending Iron Warriors can have basylisks for even more flavour", or "we play evacuation scenario but my chaos marines evacuate Cypher using full WD rules rather then rules for servitor carying gene-seed".

IJW
06-04-2009, 13:08
Fluff-based armies, definitely.

Your own version of a codex, probably, if just to give you feedback on how well/badly it's been tweaked.

mughi3
07-04-2009, 11:37
There is fluff and then there is theme.

Fluff as in the universe background, if you really want i can break out my movie marines but i usualy only do that for apocalypse games-
over powered-you betcha
fun-with the right people and right attitude- yes!


Themed armies-

The ones that actually fit thier background. -

.chaos cult legions fielding the correct numbered squads and using the correct weapons and alliances.


.people who do massive conversion work to theme thier army like the guy on B&C with the heavy metal emperors children army (all hail the greater demon eddie! )


.armies that focus on a specific formation or unit in paint scheme and wepaon type-specific tau sept worlds for example


All of these things would be acceptable using normal rules as "fluff" or themed armies. In that sense they would be acceptable while not being house ruled "movie marine" type armies.

If you want that much more detailed rules play infinity or classic battletech.

Saim-Hann Lord
07-04-2009, 13:28
I don't really use fluff. I just use models I think are cool, throw them into a list (a legal one of course) and then play.

As for other people, if they want to take the time to make up some background fluff, names and paint schemes then sure. Why not?

At the end of the day it's still a game :)

fluffstalker
07-04-2009, 15:16
If the fluff isnt over the top, and isnt an obvious attempt to justify making their units better, I dont mind. House rules are ok as long as they are within the boundaries of common sense. Marines getting S5 T5 because thats how tough they are in the fluff wouldnt fly unless they got a massive price hike as well.

Mojaco
07-04-2009, 16:38
I'd restart the poll if I were you. Before you edited it I would have said 'yes' to both questions, but the discription you have given is completely different to fluff 'based'. Fluff based armies would use the rules available and have really cool models, whereas fluff BIASED armies are what you are actually talking about.

Same here. This version of fluff is something I don't care for at all. Someone can make his own special characters, but adding army-wide special rules? No.

If someone can't keep his fluff army within the rules, there's a very good chance that it's not fluffy to begin with.

Xandros
07-04-2009, 16:47
I always thought option 2 was pretty common, but it seems it's just a vocal minority.

6/14 of no/no voters have posted while its only 22/86 of the yes-men.