PDA

View Full Version : How important is fluff to you when designing/playing an army?



Hrogoff the Destructor
13-08-2009, 06:10
The other day I played an against a WoC player who had an all cavalry force. The entire army had the mark of Khorne, all except for two Tzeentch wizard's on discs. Seeing this got me thinking about how an armies fluff plays a role in someones army (in this person's case, not at all).

Personally fluff plays a fairly small role in my armies. My armies are usually built around a central theme, and then I move on from there. Usually I end up deviating away from the fluff and just start taking whatever I want. I'd say my army designs usually follows it's fluff about 20% of the time (unless it's more than 2,000 points in which case I design around the fluff about 80% of the time).

So, how much does you're armies personal fluff dictate your army design/how you play it? Someone I played the other day even let his armies fluff dictate how he plays. One hero was so brash that him and his unit would always charge if possible, even though it didn't have frenzy. His other hero was proud and confident that he would never refuse a challenge (even if it was in his best interest not to). His unit would also never flee as a charge reaction.

Personally my armies "fluff" are as follows:
HE: I am a sucker for special characters. When I started the army I was attracted to both the wonder twins. My 3,000 point army will always have both Tyrion and Teclis in it. The rest of the army is usually a "well balanced" force consisting of mostly spearmen and infantry blocks (I usually never take more than one squad of cavalry or chariots). I also never take dragons in this army. When the army is below 2,000 points or below fluff does not dictate what I take.

Empire: I'm a sucker for Valten. However, I also like Middenhiem. So, I created an Ulric army that converted to Sigmar once seeing the power of Valten. Since Middenhiem also has Dwarves and Elves in it, they too play a role in my army. My engineers and sometimes my handgunner champions are dwarven models. My wizards are always High Elves. Valten usually doesn't appear in lists that are 2,000 points or under.

WoC: An Archaon army consisting mostly of Chaos Warriors. The army with Archaon will ALWAYS have a squad dedicated to each god. This army is only taken when 3,000 points or more.

Daemons: It's built around Be'lakor, and like my WoC will always have a squad dedicated to each god.

EDIT: *Sigh* So much for the poll I was going to make. I messed it up.

snurl
13-08-2009, 06:17
Without the fluff you might as well be playing chess.

bullshiz20
13-08-2009, 06:25
Without the fluff you might as well be playing chess.
haha soooo true! but when starting a new army i always go for looks first... thats just me though. also i think that they did a good job of balancing everything out coolness wise soo ur pretty set once you pick the coolest looking army.

good luck!

Ultimate Life Form
13-08-2009, 06:44
Of course looks are the most important. I won't play an army I find esthetically off-putting.

I like to build my armies around a theme, inspired by fluff. So for example with VC, I might go for a Strigoi army, Ghoul Kings accompanied by lots and lots of Ghouls. My Lizardmen army does not offer much in this regard as all units really always fit in an army regardless of fluff. I'm aiming to go for more Saurus though. My Skaven army is Clan Pestilens so expect just that: 120 Plague Monks. That's basically it. I know it's not the most competitive build but the one I like most, I think it's how Skaven should be: pest-ridden disciples of disease and no end in sight (340 models in total).

Gorbad Ironclaw
13-08-2009, 07:17
Without the fluff you might as well be playing chess.

I'd word it slightly differently. Without fluff you might as well be playing a good wargame :p


Although to be honest, I like the fluff, but it means fairly little for actual gameplay. I'd much rather just build the army I want to play with and have fun playing and then read the fluff for it's own sake than feel I need to recreate something. Besides, you can make fairly decent arguments for most things. The afore mentioned chaos army isn't really all that hard to justify for instance. It might not be the cookie cutter build that you get hit over the head with when reading the (simplified) chaos background but it doesn't take that much to come up with several plausible theories.

Now the fluff might inspire a certain army idea, but I'll then bend the list to suit that idea.

Necromancy Black
13-08-2009, 07:26
I make up the army I want then make up the fluff to suit it. You can't get an "unfluffy" army. Any army can have a backstory created to suit it., whether you do or not is up to you.

HK-47
13-08-2009, 07:33
Now the fluff might inspire a certain army idea, but I'll then bend the list to suit that idea.

That's my opinion on it, for example I want to make a Strigoi theme army but I'm going to deviate from the fluff a bit and take units like wraiths and characters with magic and CC instead of full on beasts.

Basically, I think you should use the fluff as a framework for your force, but the core theme for your force should have some of your own ideas in it.

ZeroTwentythree
13-08-2009, 08:17
Without the fluff you might as well be playing chess.



Nonsense. From what I have read here at Warseer, the rules are like a gift handed down from heaven. Tampering with the RAW to make something "fluffy" is not only at your own risk, it actually destroys the "perfect" game balance.


Just playing the devil's advocate according to what I've read here at Warseer... ;)

snurl
13-08-2009, 08:32
Nonsense. From what I have read here at Warseer, the rules are like a gift handed down from heaven. Tampering with the RAW to make something "fluffy" is not only at your own risk, it actually destroys the "perfect" game balance.


Just playing the devil's advocate according to what I've read here at Warseer... ;)

Not in my posts you havent.

Necromancy Black
13-08-2009, 09:06
That's my opinion on it, for example I want to make a Strigoi theme army but I'm going to deviate from the fluff a bit and take units like wraiths and characters with magic and CC instead of full on beasts.

Basically, I think you should use the fluff as a framework for your force, but the core theme for your force should have some of your own ideas in it.

Why not model up some crypt ghouls covered in ruins and glowing fingers and say they are a special strain of Strigoi that occur when the Wind of Shyish blows particularly strong, leaving some of it's essence in the bones of these individuals. Moreover, the magic left prevents them form being true vampires, feeding on focused magic more then blood (thus if the general dies the magic can become unfocused they can die or even say, cannibalise themselves for magic)

Like I said, you never have to leave fluff unless you choose not to extend what GW has provided and maybe put a little bit of work into modeling.

Condottiere
13-08-2009, 09:10
You can't follow fluff 100%, but in regards to army creation, you can build it around a Core group that is faithful to fluff, but not slavish. Core in the sense, the units and characters that are important and/or play a vital part.

Kinkykinetics
13-08-2009, 09:16
I started from a blank in the fluff - what happens to all those war-widows of the Empire? Do they fall between the cracks? Avenge their husbands? I began with widows of Morr but a few mutations later I had an entire army of she-spiders. I adapted them from the beastmen ruleset to cast lore of slaanesh, complete with re-fluffed items and spells. So story is paramount to me - I field +hw's in mind of so many legs and all the characters I use are shamans ('shroudweavers'; to align spiders, weaving mythology and magic). They're absurdly rewarding to play as a contribution to the metanarrative; an untold race that slots right in with the warhammer universe. If it weren't for those story-telling opportunities I wouldn't have started collecting!

HK-47
13-08-2009, 09:20
Why not model up some crypt ghouls covered in ruins and glowing fingers and say they are a special strain of Strigoi that occur when the Wind of Shyish blows particularly strong, leaving some of it's essence in the bones of these individuals. Moreover, the magic left prevents them form being true vampires, feeding on focused magic more then blood (thus if the general dies the magic can become unfocused they can die or even say, cannibalise themselves for magic)

Like I said, you never have to leave fluff unless you choose not to extend what GW has provided and maybe put a little bit of work into modeling.

That is an awesome idea, I'm definitely going to incorporate that to what I have so far.

Also, Condottiere is right it's really difficulty, almost impossible, to stick to the fluff 100% because most army books can't have everything in the fluff if it wants to be balance.

The changes made to the WoC book is an example of that, Khorne hates sorcerers and would never use them, but you have to use them now since the mark no longer generates dispel dice; and the strength of other armies magic phase makes it so that you need a form of magic defense if you want to be successful.

Blaklabel
13-08-2009, 14:04
Fluff is the only reason my Goblins don't have a Jolly Green Giant.
I refuse to believe my little gobbos could tie down a giant and force him to work for them.
If I used any Orcs, sure! But, my little Gobbos arent capturing a giant alone!

The SkaerKrow
13-08-2009, 14:29
If I used any Orcs, sure! But, my little Gobbos arent capturing a giant alone!Never underestimate the diplomatic potential of a Fanatic to the groin.

More accurately, the Goblins didn't subdue anything. They marched off to war, and the Giant decided to join in because it looked fun.

Condottiere
13-08-2009, 14:35
It might be possible if it's the Lilliputian Tribe; you could call the giant Gullywart.

rtunian
13-08-2009, 15:09
Fluff is the only reason my Goblins don't have a Jolly Green Giant.
I refuse to believe my little gobbos could tie down a giant and force him to work for them.
If I used any Orcs, sure! But, my little Gobbos arent capturing a giant alone!

you're going about it all wrong.
giants follow the beer.

all you have to do is raid a dwarven brewery and you will have your giants.

you don't capture a giant... you don't enslave a giant (unless you are an army of ogres). basically for o&g, giants go along because they love beer and they love carnage. if the o&g tried to enslave the giant, the giant would stomp all over them, eat some, stuff some in his bag for later, and then be off.

as for me and fluff... we're acquaintances, but not close friends. then again, since i play o&g i don't really need to worry much about themes. on occasion i like the all night goblin list, but mostly i play mixed o&g and that fits just fine with o&g fluff.

triple_double_U
05-11-2009, 05:28
Where's the fun in playing a game without the fluff? My grey seer goes out of his way to make sure his rival warlord does rise up against him by "helping" him in combat with a few ratling guns shots. My Chaos Lord got turned into a spawn cos he charged some darkelf crossbowmen failed to hit then broke from combat. If you don't jump on funny occurances and write them into the army then why bother. Cos its definately not about the win. Play in character, not play to win.

kyuzo
05-11-2009, 05:41
Where's the fun in playing a game without the fluff? My grey seer goes out of his way to make sure his rival warlord does rise up against him by "helping" him in combat with a few ratling guns shots. My Chaos Lord got turned into a spawn cos he charged some darkelf crossbowmen failed to hit then broke from combat. If you don't jump on funny occurances and write them into the army then why bother. Cos its definately not about the win. Play in character, not play to win.

or you can just plant some flowers in a garden and go play with those

Avian
05-11-2009, 07:08
My WoC army is themed in that it includes no followers of Khorne or Nurgle, which is not overly themed by any means, but more than most armies you see out there. As for "fluff", my army has a lot of it, but it's all based on other things and adapted to fit the Warhammer world (e.g. my general is Barack the Bringer of Change, a Sorcerer Lord of Tzeentch).

Leogun_91
05-11-2009, 07:43
Fluff is important to me, follow the link in my sig to see what I developed for my dwarfs. With my greenskins I find it less important but I still stay away from orc warbosses (as Grom wouldn't tolerate them). I plan on writing the history of my chaos warband. Their rise and fall and their raid to Lustria. My beasts of chaos hasn't gotten much yet as I have bought used models, haven't really played them and are waiting for their book.


Fluff is the only reason my Goblins don't have a Jolly Green Giant.
I refuse to believe my little gobbos could tie down a giant and force him to work for them.
If I used any Orcs, sure! But, my little Gobbos arent capturing a giant alone!Orcs and goblins doesn't capture giants. They basicly worships them as aspects of Gork (or was it Mork?) and the giants likes this and stay with the greenskins until they become more like big orcs than their giant race.

Sunyavadin
05-11-2009, 09:15
Without the fluff you might as well be playing chess.

This.

Fluff comes first, it gives you your army concept, which then interacts with what you like, to give a selection and proportion of units to choose from. THEN you find a way to make an army like that effective.

Doomseer
05-11-2009, 11:53
I haven't managed to paint my Wood Elves because I can't decide which season best suits my play style:(

I think the fluff should decide your army composition, but not to the point that you become hamstrung by it. I don't really have a theme for my Lizardmen beyond the colour scheme, I think thats why I like it so much, I have a bit of everything and it all works nicely.

Wakerofgods
05-11-2009, 12:31
Fluff is the only reason my Goblins don't have a Jolly Green Giant.
I refuse to believe my little gobbos could tie down a giant and force him to work for them.
If I used any Orcs, sure! But, my little Gobbos arent capturing a giant alone!

I'm pretty sure that the giant likes to join orc and goblin armies because of the shared attitude and the loot privilages he gets.

The Clairvoyant
05-11-2009, 12:33
My tomb kings maintain a fluffy force by choosing units from the tomb kings book. Any unit. Doesn't matter. As long as its in the book, it's fluffy :D

My VC army doesn't have a fluff as such. I just have a vampire lord whose name i've kept through 4 editions of warhammer. He's a combat lord and i use him in every game. Back in 4th edition he had a manticore and a frost blade. In 5th, he became a blood dragon with lots of combat abilities and magic items. In 6th, he lost all his magic items and was made entirely from bloodline powers - i made him an arrogant vampire and so, due to having no magic items, he had no ward save. Who needs a ward save when you can just kill everyone you're in combat with?
And then in 7th, he got a magic sword again, and maintained the blood dragon-esque powers. He's evolved, but he has always been and always will be designed for combat.

I know these days, people tend towards magic lords (or Necro lords in prior books) but i've always shyed away from that.

So is my army fluffy?

Well, i have one character and i choose units from the standard book and paint them in this characters colours.

Fluff is what you make of it.

StarFyre
05-11-2009, 12:43
I try to use fluff for armies, but find that if the rules don't support it well, it's just not worth the time anymore...

Sanjay

Alathir
05-11-2009, 12:51
Fluff is extremely important to me and is, I think, the most interesting and rewarding part of the hobby; painting comes second and gaming third. I usually end up basing my army around my Lord though, I dont usually have an overarching theme for the army itself but rather a theme for the general which dictates the army. For instance, with my High Elves, my Prince was born a commoner and inherited a weapon of Aenarion from his fallen, childless lord.

Thus, I dont take alot of cavalry in my High Elf force as the majority of them would be nobles, most of which would look down upon my common born Prince. Dragon Princes are something I also try to stay away from. Also, since he is Yvressian I always take at least two blocks of spears and he often leads these elves himself as he feels a special kinship with the common-born of Ulthuan.

The general's character also dictates alot of my tactical decisions, he rarely refuses challenges (even against Pendent toting Dark Elf lords). In one game for example, my Vampire Count opponent (a Blood Dragon-esque character) had been caught out in the open in front of a spear unit with my Prince leading them. Tactically it was smarter for me to declare a charge with the entire unit, challenge the Vampire and beat him on static. But my Prince instead opted to charge out alone to face his foe in single combat, not wanting to put his kin in unnecessary danger. Bit of a 'I must face him alone.' type moment.

So yeah, fluff is important to me! I always name every character I take and love it when my opponents do the same so some rivalries/friendships can begin to take shape.

kramplarv
05-11-2009, 14:37
This.

Fluff comes first, it gives you your army concept, which then interacts with what you like, to give a selection and proportion of units to choose from. THEN you find a way to make an army like that effective.

not this.

the game comes first. It gives you units to use. Fluff is just there for all of those hobby-ppl who likes to paint or model.. Personally i could play with sheets of paper or cola-cans...

the rules and the army are the most important thing. When having an army that suits you and play reasonable well, then fluff might come in action...

Agnar the Howler
05-11-2009, 14:44
I mix fluff and gameplay around 50:50. I have created fluff for all armies I play, and have even designed things that give me incentives to keep certain characters unharmed, but also give no benefit if all you do is hide them behind a wall for the entire game.

I think that fluff should play a reasonable part in the game, it's what makes it fun. If all you're concerned about is winning, then fine, go ahead and power-game your way forwards, but I can safely say that you will never have as much fun as someone who is playing an army based around the army's fluff. If you win with a power list, big deal, you get a small sense of achievement, but winning with a fluffy list gives a better sense of achievement.

If all you care about is winning, then you'll become bored a lot faster than someone who is concerned with the fluff aspects of their armies. 20 straight wins will soon become boring and monotonous, whereas a mix of wins and losses, with each result having an effect on the fluff you've formed, will keep you interested.

Desert Rain
05-11-2009, 16:43
I pick the units that I think would be fun to use, and that would, make a reasonable force. Sure my High Elf army has some fluff, but that was made up after I had put the list together.

So the list contains dragon princes for example but the actual models, and the fluff behind them, is that they are elite silver helms form the Order of the Unicorn which counts as DPs in the game.

There are some other examples, such as my white lions are cothiqueian sea warriors (they are to be converted from DE corsairs).

So fluff is important, but I wouldn't let it stop me from using something that I want to use.

20yr_veteran
05-11-2009, 17:39
not this.

the game comes first. It gives you units to use. Fluff is just there for all of those hobby-ppl who likes to paint or model.. Personally i could play with sheets of paper or cola-cans...

the rules and the army are the most important thing. When having an army that suits you and play reasonable well, then fluff might come in action...

In my opinion this couldnt be further from the truth i play nigh on every week still after all these years - the models are important and so is the fluff - even tho gw are goin further away from this at the moment (look at new chaos books, thought old set up was much better)

But all in all i do an army for the fluff and the stories i can write for them, and above all because they interest me, otherwise its just an exercise in paperwork and seeing who can write the list with the most loopholes - or even who can roll better on their D6s - so in other words boring

kramplarv
05-11-2009, 17:50
of course fluff is handy or comes straight out. But i never think of a background etc for my army before it is tested through and through. And only then a unit or a character sometimes find themselves named. But on a "serious" basis.

my lvl2 of nurgle are runing around with sword of battle, always singing a heavy metal tune etc. He is called nostradamus because he one day jumped over two hedges and an obstacle straight into combat with 10 shades. and kicked their ass.

my lvl4 is called iron man since he has very high armor save, father of blades etc. he has killed a lot of enemy characters with that sword...

a unit of chaos warriors with additional heandweapon are called "immortals" since they never have been destroyed, and on many occasions have bested units swarming them...
one battle the walked straight forward. No wheels, no alignments whatsoever. just straight ahead. and they destroyed everything in their path. so then they got the name "immortals" since that is a cool name, and there are millions of heavy metal songs with "immortal warriors of doom and gloom and axes of terneity" etc yaddayadda.

but no. an fluffy army most of the times are either a very boring army, or a stupid army. I do not want to play against stupid armies. that's really boring. I'm there to compete in a game. Not look at each other models and admire painting etc...


edit: Just for pure gaming reasons; I play 1-3 games everyday. 3-5 every day of the weekend . And still fluffy armies are quite boring to play against. :)

BigbyWolf
05-11-2009, 18:09
TBH, fluff usually comes second to me. I tend to use a variety of army lists, sometimes even changing from game to game, and some that I'll only use once, so creating a back story for every single army/ character would be far too time consuming, and pointless.

I tend to make an army based on what I think will work well, and if the list becomes used on a regular basis, then my units/ characters will pick up fluff based on what they do.

Agnar the Howler
05-11-2009, 18:14
but no. an fluffy army most of the times are either a very boring army, or a stupid army. I do not want to play against stupid armies. that's really boring. I'm there to compete in a game. Not look at each other models and admire painting etc...


edit: Just for pure gaming reasons; I play 1-3 games everyday. 3-5 every day of the weekend . And still fluffy armies are quite boring to play against. :)

So you're saying that lists should never be fluffy because you find them boring? Isn't that countered by the people that play fluffy lists saying they find your lists boring and you shouldn't play them?

Also, what happens when you come across a player who has custom fluff? You don't know if their army is boring since you haven't faced it yet, and unlike GW written fluff (like in 40k with Ulthwé armies, guardians, guardians and more guardians), custom fluff can be written to house lists that the player prefers, and so aren't necessarily 'stupid'.

Just one more question, how would you define a 'stupid' army? I find this term thrown at armies that tend to have kicked the **** of the person saying it.

kramplarv
05-11-2009, 18:24
I don't ask for other persons fluff. if they tell me. fine. I don't care. get on with the game already. :)

stupid armylists? hrm... Pure goblin armies with no special/rare choices or magic items or wizards at all. pure gobbos. looks amazing. That's all. but it's a rather stupid army. And no amount of fluff can change that.

we have the ultrafluffy slayer army. pure 100% fluff awesomeness, cool models most of the time. But totally totally stupid...

we have fluffy monster hordes of WoC, with no throgg, så a lot of trolls running round and being stupid and in the way and taking time etc. All in all, a rather boring army to play against. (and not to mention stupid hehe :D:D)

we have fluffy nuln-armies, with loads and loads of fluff and fluffy units. and cannons. and steamtanks. and everything... cool idea, cool fluff, totally stupid to play against.

Laurela
05-11-2009, 19:26
Fluff is everything when I build an army. I enjoy trying to create armies from the army backgrounds and not just throwing random units together that'd never happen.

Tokamak
05-11-2009, 19:49
+1

If I wanted to play a game without fluff I just pick chess. Creating an army that tells it's own story is where it's at.


I don't ask for other persons fluff. if they tell me. fine. I don't care. get on with the game already. :)

stupid armylists? hrm... Pure goblin armies with no special/rare choices or magic items or wizards at all. pure gobbos. looks amazing. That's all. but it's a rather stupid army. And no amount of fluff can change that.

we have the ultrafluffy slayer army. pure 100% fluff awesomeness, cool models most of the time. But totally totally stupid...

we have fluffy monster hordes of WoC, with no throgg, så a lot of trolls running round and being stupid and in the way and taking time etc. All in all, a rather boring army to play against. (and not to mention stupid hehe :D:D)

we have fluffy nuln-armies, with loads and loads of fluff and fluffy units. and cannons. and steamtanks. and everything... cool idea, cool fluff, totally stupid to play against.

It's only stupid to play against these armies if your own army isn't fluffy by itself.

kramplarv
05-11-2009, 20:08
my army ain't fluffy. It is created from a pure gaming perspective. Then a unit or two might have some fluff going on depending. But i could not care less about an evolving story etc of my army. A game is a game. If i want fluffy stories i read a book or even write one.

and regarding my opponents. I have not developed my probably very awesome psychic powers, so I can't see into the future to learn which army I will play against. before we deploy our forces. :)

bradshaw88
05-11-2009, 20:13
Excuse my general idiocy but what do you mean when you say "fluff"

Brimweave
05-11-2009, 20:30
Fluff is one of the most important things for me in an army when choosing one. I normally base my actual army list itself on a setup I like the look of but which still conforms to the fluff of the army I'm building. This also shows in my actual models when I make them and there actual paint schemes. I never get an army for how competitive it is, just how much I like there fluff. :)

CommissarKlink
05-11-2009, 23:28
Excuse my general idiocy but what do you mean when you say "fluff"

Fluff means background/backstory, and can be used in a general or a specific sense.

For example, I could say "according to my army's fluff, they are from Troll Country, so they have a lot of Trolls, but no Savage Orcs, because it's too cold up there to run around half-naked or worse."

Or I could say "according to the fluff, there are only 8 functioning steam tanks in the entire Empire, so it seems unlikely that they would use two for this insignificant little battle."

Personally, I think fluff is important, all the more so since GW is so, shall we say, cavalier regarding rules updates and playtesting and such.

ChaosVC
06-11-2009, 03:21
GW staffs had pissed all over fluffs while drinking cheese flavoured beer. Fluffs is like the points in "Who's line is it?" they don't matter...

Alathir
06-11-2009, 03:29
I don't ask for other persons fluff. if they tell me. fine. I don't care. get on with the game already. :)

stupid armylists? hrm... Pure goblin armies with no special/rare choices or magic items or wizards at all. pure gobbos. looks amazing. That's all. but it's a rather stupid army. And no amount of fluff can change that.

we have the ultrafluffy slayer army. pure 100% fluff awesomeness, cool models most of the time. But totally totally stupid...

we have fluffy monster hordes of WoC, with no throgg, så a lot of trolls running round and being stupid and in the way and taking time etc. All in all, a rather boring army to play against. (and not to mention stupid hehe :D:D)

we have fluffy nuln-armies, with loads and loads of fluff and fluffy units. and cannons. and steamtanks. and everything... cool idea, cool fluff, totally stupid to play against.

Wow, you and I are exact opposites of each other when it comes to this game then, you could say you are Bizarro-Alathir. For me, a fluffy army is never stupid and the only armies I would call 'stupid' are those that have absolutely zero fluff behind them and are just created with gaming in mind. For me, that represents a complete misunderstanding of the hobby.

kyuzo
06-11-2009, 06:32
Wow, you and I are exact opposites of each other when it comes to this game then, you could say you are Bizarro-Alathir. For me, a fluffy army is never stupid and the only armies I would call 'stupid' are those that have absolutely zero fluff behind them and are just created with gaming in mind. For me, that represents a complete misunderstanding of the hobby

If I wanted to hear about this stuff I would read a book or watch a movie. If I wanted to stare at something pretty I would plant flowers. To take a wonderful quote from south park "Nobody likes having to rise to a challenge, but competing against other people and getting in their faces and saying "Ha ha, I'm better than you" is a part of life and if you can't handle that you might as well move to France with all the other pussies"

AtmaTheWanderer
06-11-2009, 07:14
I will look at fluff as a indication of how the game designer's "intend" a solid, well rounded army to be built, but I will not for one second allow fluff sections to force me to take a unit that is bad.

I don't care if the fluff says every Whatsamajigger Army invariably includes a unit of Whoozawhatsits, if Whoozawhatsits suck and are not a 1+ mandatory choice, my army will not include them.

kramplarv
06-11-2009, 12:41
For me, that represents a complete misunderstanding of the hobby.

For me, the hobby is "whatever".. thousands of other hobbies are better and more fun in the story mode imho. :) But the game warhammer is the best miniature game that exists.

painting? nah. If I want to paint or see other paintings, i go to an art gallery or something. :) of course the game is funnier when there are two painted armies. But I'd rather play against an unpainted "non-stupid" army than a painted stupid army :)

snurl
06-11-2009, 13:50
Without Fluff, Its not an orc, its a game piece.
Without Fluff, Its not a holding action, ambush or invasion, its a game.
Without Fluff, Its not a regiment of militia, its a game piece with low stats.
Get the picture?

BigbyWolf
06-11-2009, 14:27
Personally, I love this kind of thread:

Warseerite 1: "The way I play the game is correct!"
Warseerite 2: "Wrong! The way I play it is correct, it must be because it's the way I play it!"

And it's usually at this point Warseerite 3 reminds everyone that it's just a game, and we are all free to play it anyway we want, and we are all correct, or incorrect, if you're a negative kind of person.

O&G'sRule
06-11-2009, 20:23
Not really at all, the models, amusing rules and wanting to see how certain things compliment each other is more what gets me started, though I like reading all of it

EviIPaladin
06-11-2009, 21:47
Personally, I love this kind of thread:

Warseerite 1: "The way I play the game is correct!"
Warseerite 2: "Wrong! The way I play it is correct, it must be because it's the way I play it!"

And it's usually at this point Warseerite 3 reminds everyone that it's just a game, and we are all free to play it anyway we want, and we are all correct, or incorrect, if you're a negative kind of person.

Warseerite 3 to the rescue! :D

It is just a game/hobby so go ahead and do whatever the hell you want. I'll still play my Clan Wraneklaw whether you play fluffily or not. I enjoy seeing other fluffy armies, but I won't accuse you of "misunderstanding the hobby" if you don't want to play a fluffy list. But I will be pissed if you start being a douche and power game, rules lawyer, etc., etc.

-Evii

kramplarv
06-11-2009, 22:52
Without Fluff, Its not an orc, its a game piece.
Without Fluff, Its not a holding action, ambush or invasion, its a game.
Without Fluff, Its not a regiment of militia, its a game piece with low stats.
Get the picture?

I am playing the game warhammer fantasy battles. I do not read the fluffy books since I'm in for the game.

otherwise your anlysis is almost correct. I will correct it;

With or Without Fluff, Its not an orc, its a game piece.
With or Without Fluff, Its not a holding action, ambush or invasion, its a game.
With or Without Fluff, Its not a regiment of militia, its a game piece with low stats.


edit: forgot to include happiness; D:D:D I'm not trying to insult anyone. :) I'm just here for the game. If people want to play fluffy, Do it. :) I don't care if they d or not. And I do not say to people that they must de-fluff their armies ;) As long as people don't tell me to fluff mine.

mweaver
06-11-2009, 22:57
Background is very important... just not GW's background, usually. Mostly when we have played of late the games are tied to our D&D campaign. (A sneaky way of luring our hard-core D&D players into some Warhammer).

BigbyWolf
07-11-2009, 09:31
I'm just here for the game. If people want to play fluffy, Do it. :) I don't care if they d or not. And I do not say to people that they must de-fluff their armies ;) As long as people don't tell me to fluff mine.

QFT, the beauty of our little hobby is that we have the freedom to play however we want, if you want to play it fluffy, you can...if you want to throw an army together and have a game, you can...if you want to paint your Night Goblins blue with white hats and have them led by a black-clad Orc and call them "Gargamel's Smurf Warriors"...you can!

Edit: And don't mock the Smarf Warriors, I'm currently doing it to all my 3rd edition Night Goblins!

Ward.
07-11-2009, 10:20
Without Fluff, Its not an orc, its a game piece.
Without Fluff, Its not a holding action, ambush or invasion, its a game.
Without Fluff, Its not a regiment of militia, its a game piece with low stats.
Get the picture?

I admire this line of thought, but a lot of GW's fluff sucks pretty hard as of late and I'm more of a gamer then a narrative companion.

kramplarv
07-11-2009, 11:39
well, as far as fantasy stories go in general, WHFB story and style and setting is imho one of the best among fantasy settings ever. It sure owns lord of the rings, wheel of time, Faerun, Eberron, Trudvang etc. Why? because it is based on reality most of the times. :)

Johnnyfrej
07-11-2009, 12:39
For me, Fluff is more important than the gameplay. I really cannot see Fantasy as a gaming platform with it's current incarnation (Who needs an army? Everyone knows it's crazy Heros and Magic that wins Fantasy). Without theme I would get bored of Fantasy much faster and probably go on to much more enjoyable and balanced games (such as BFG or 40k).

However, because fluff does exist, I can make my Khorne Warriors of Chaos army and not get tired. There are so many fun units of the WoC book that building and converting them all into faithful followers of Khorne will ensure I don't bore of this army any time soon.

TrojanWolf
07-11-2009, 12:51
I don't think fluff itself is massively important, although my armies seem to have a theme to them.

My WoC is predominately Tzeentch, with a few followers of Khorne for some variety. Wherever I'm using a unit that can have a mark, I give it one not so much for the benefit as to have a unified army (although a 6+ ward save on every model is certainly helpful). I tend to think of the few Khorne models I have as being manipulated by the Tzeentch worshippers (if you come with us, you'll be able to kill tons of stuff!).

I'm just starting Skaven too, and I've gone for Clan Moulder. Which meant that even before I got my paws on the book I'd already converted an Abomination and painted up some Rat Ogres. I may not take the Abomination all the time, but at least my clanrats and stormvermin will be painted in Moulder's colours.

Admittedly, with the couple of games I've had with them I swear by a Lv2 Warlock Engineer with a doomrocket.

Tokamak
07-11-2009, 14:25
I don't think fluff itself is massively important, although my armies seem to have a theme to them.


Well yes, I'm not really interested in a detailed history, the models in the army are supposed to tell the story themselves.

ShOnA
07-11-2009, 16:20
i actually think that you need the fluff in order to create a good base for your army...without it you will just have a mish-mash of characters who do not work well together!

BigbyWolf
07-11-2009, 19:22
i actually think that you need the fluff in order to create a good base for your army...without it you will just have a mish-mash of characters who do not work well together!

Not necessarily...Not everyone who throws together Kairos, the Blue Scribes and 2 Tzeentch Heralds is doing it for fluff reasons, yet they seems to work well together.

I think the important thing here is not to confuse fluffy with themed.

w3rm
07-11-2009, 19:26
Never underestimate the diplomatic potential of a Fanatic to the groin.
QFT! :cool: SkaerKrow wind the thread! Again!

GenerationTerrorist
08-11-2009, 01:26
Hmmm, the whole fluff thing is almost as important to me as nostalgia.
For example, back when I first started gaming, the 4 Chaos powers despised each other (Daemonic units had an animosity-style rule, IIRC), yet now they are all buddies? I find it really difficult to take units with different marks in my armies.

(EDIT)
My old High Elf army was Chracian themed, with White Lions, Lion Chariots, etc. I portrayed them as a "Chracian Defence Force" intercepting invading armies by using the woods as their ambush screen.

It may cost me some competitiveness, in both cases above, but I think it makes for a nicely unified army on the table in terms of theme/colours, etc.

Other armies like all-Skink or all-Goblin forces are not only great fun to play against, but they look wonderful on the table too.

Gekiganger
08-11-2009, 02:06
Very.

I'll happily lose a game if it means my army stayed in character, I'm more interested in a story playing out than adding 1 to the 'Wins' box.

Arjuna
08-11-2009, 04:47
Without the fluff you might as well be playing chess.

This is more than a bit daft. The "fluff" is often ambiguous and has been retconned about as much as the Marvel and DC comic book universes.

If you think that the background material has been consistent then you are either not paying close attention or have only recently started to game with GW products.

Many noobs complained about the fact that the new demon book enabled the different powers to work together even though this is easily accommodated by the pre-existing fluff. A chaos army that really followed the background would have demonic, human and beastman components. However, now that is not possible within the current rule set. Has the fluff changed? Does this mean that no chaos armies are fluffy? Should I exchange my chaos knights for rooks or knights?

The ambiguity in the back story means that there is a very wide lattitude as to what could be reasonably interpreted as adhering to the fluff. I do not count this as a bad situation but it means that there will always be people bitching and moaning that some particular list or rule set doesnt follow the background.

One thing can be relied on, no matter what list you make up, if you totally kick someones butt in a tournament, they will claim that your list is not very fluffy.

BigbyWolf
08-11-2009, 14:50
This is more than a bit daft.

I have to agree with you there, it's a line that gets used all too often. Speaking as someone who plays both chess and WFB, I can't see how playing with a non-fluffy army (or any form of army at all) can be compared to chess.

Chess itself is far more tactical than Warhammer, for the simple reason that both sides (unit/ piece-wise) are equal. Even if you played Warhammer on an empty board, with the troops positioned in the exact same places as the opposite side it comes nowhere near, as you are forgetting the most important part of winning/ losing a game of Warhammer. Dice!

Lord Solar Plexus
08-11-2009, 15:44
Background and fluff is important to me. I will refuse choices because of this, and I will take others because of this. I'd personally hate to play against someone who does not at least respect this aspect. I do not tell them that they are wrong - it takes all kinds - but I'd rather they play likeminded people.

The same however goes for models and efficiency. It's not that much fun getting massacred 10 times in a row, and I would plainly refuse to play against coke cans. Even extensive proxying is very much frowned upon, whereas everyone is commended for a well-painted mini.


If I wanted to hear about this stuff I would read a book or watch a movie.


I find your pretense of ignorance extremely hard to believe, simply because you partake in this thread. It appears very much that you care.



competing against other people and getting in their faces and saying "Ha ha, I'm better than you" is a part of life


I'm sure you hear that speak from experience.

Arjuna
08-11-2009, 16:21
Background and fluff is important to me. I will refuse choices because of this, and I will take others because of this.

How do you decide which fluff to follow and which fluff to ignore when making your list? The fluff is ambiguous and contradictory. Christians have not solved this problem for about 20 centuries by the way. Protestants, Catholics, and 100+ long extinct but once significant heretical sects all had similar fluff in the second century but no reliable or agreeable way to choose which exact fluff to follow.

It is the same in warhammer, one man's fluff based dogma is another man's damnable heresy. Because you do not have a reliable method of determining what fluff to follow or how much lattitude can be manifest in the rules, you certainly have no basis for criticizing someone else's army list based on the fluff.

BigbyWolf
08-11-2009, 16:42
How do you decide which fluff to follow and which fluff to ignore when making your list? The fluff is ambiguous and contradictory.

I think the most important aspect of "fluff", to those who use it, is how it applies to there army, not necessarily how it fits with the various versions that GW turn out (Lets not forget that the Norse used to fight alongside the Empire). For example creating a back story/ history for an army and then letting their games develop it.


It is the same in warhammer, one man's fluff based dogma is another man's damnable heresy. Because you do not have a reliable method of determining what fluff to follow or how much lattitude can be manifest in the rules, you certainly have no basis for criticizing someone else's army list based on the fluff.

Which is pretty much as it should be. No-one should be looked down on simply because they threw a list together and want to play a couple of games with it, and likewise someone who creates a list based entirely on a back story and doggedly sticks to it through thick and thin should not be ridiculed for doing so.

I'm on both sides of the camp with this. I have an Orc and Goblin army that has changed very little in composition since the 3rd edition, all the units are named, as are the characters, although they may not be as tough as they used to be (step forward Urgath Draggun-Slayer, the Black Orc Warboss, who back then, in the course of one campaign took out 3 dragons, numerous other flying beaties and most other lords, without dying a single time...and now just has a 5+ ward, killing blow, martogs basha and the enchanted shield...although TBH I wouldn't swap todays game for "Hero-hammer").

But as I also have 3 other races, totaling nearly 15,000 points, I do often just cobble something together and play a few games with it, and no-one should criticize me for doing so. I'm definitely not a power gamer...I even have one VC army that can't cast a single spell!

Brother Alexos
08-11-2009, 17:43
I usually write one or two pages just to get the general feel of my army, then as I play games I like to write down what happens and make that into more fluff, usually based around the unit of the match if I win, though if I do not win, I usually make a story around the worst beaten unit. Like say I win a game with my Black Orcs scaring a unit of goldswords off of the table, then its based on their champion. If I lose a game where a unit of Orc boys was surrounded by other units, I would probably take the perspective of a regular Boy, and how he wants to escape.

Horus38
08-11-2009, 17:58
Fluff is a very important part of the overall game structure to me. It pisses me off to no end when GW ignores developments (ex. storm of chaos) in some books, but brings it up in others.

Being a LM player I was rather miffed that the new book makes no mention of Albion or the new temple city the LM are building there. Just a prime example of fluff tinkering or omission which is bad for game continuity IMHO.

Riddum
08-11-2009, 21:15
If there wasn't any story I'd just play Rise of Nations or something.

Archaon
08-11-2009, 21:28
Totally unimportant.

It is a strategy and tactics game and i treat it as such.. i choose my army on rules, i.e. how they play (and not on the power of rules or i'd be only playing Demons or Vampires) and what i can get out of them.

I like the background of the Dwarves much but their army is way too static and shooty for me so i won't buy them.

Last but not unimportant is also the visual feel of the miniatures.

So background is a nice addition and i go through it the first time i buy the armybook but from then on only the rules pages are of interest to me.

Xynok
20-11-2009, 01:31
Everyone to their own I think really. I like the fluff (I couldn't take a stupidly strong army just for the sake of winning). I tend to play pretty balanced in my skaven army with a mix of everything since they just buy from other clans which to me, is fluffy (rather than 492 slaves in a 1k game... not a good idea but an unfluffy posibility)

Ward.
20-11-2009, 10:16
Everyone to their own I think really. I like the fluff (I couldn't take a stupidly strong army just for the sake of winning). I tend to play pretty balanced in my skaven army with a mix of everything since they just buy from other clans which to me, is fluffy (rather than 492 slaves in a 1k game... not a good idea but an unfluffy posibility)

If painted to theme it could more then easilly represent the slave army that rebelled against the council of 13, the bare bones engineer seems like the best thing to represent the general (forgot his name).

Lord Solar Plexus
20-11-2009, 10:48
How do you decide which fluff to follow and which fluff to ignore when making your list?


I'm afraid I do not understand. I have never stumbled across such a problem. There are certain provinces in the Empire. I chose one for the colours and story, and paint my minis in its colours (Stirland). It is described as rather rural, with impoverished townships but with a well-known border guard (River Patrol), so I use very little black powder, no IC knights, more infantry than usual and so on. I look up a map to see what townships are called in that region and name my regiments after them. Says so in my army book.

What's ambiguous about that? The use of cannon?



It is the same in warhammer, one man's fluff based dogma is another man's damnable heresy. Because you do not have a reliable method of determining what fluff to follow


Again I'm afraid I have no idea what you are talking about. Stirland is a province of the Empire and my Hornau Ninepins wear green and white. I also have a unit of swordsmen in black with red trimmings and gold-silver shields - they're a special unit, with special colours. At which point did "damnable" or "heresy" come into this?

What "fluff" did I dogmatize? How come you describe my approach in such unflattering terms?