PDA

View Full Version : Fluff Army list, or Competative army list



Hawkwood
04-10-2012, 20:19
What do you actually prefear? To have a fluffy army list or a competative army list. Myself prefear a Fluffy one, just to se all Imperial regiments in different colours and to send them to battle for the empire without thinking about adding a warrior priest and a bsb instead of my General just looks great.

The Low King
04-10-2012, 21:35
There is not always a difference.

Ville
04-10-2012, 21:58
I play in a casual, semi-competitive environment, so my lists reflect that. I try to write moderately tough lists, to ensure a challenge for my opponents, but also respect my whims and odd ideas. If I decide I want to mount all my Necromancers on Corpse Carts, so be it and damn the consequences.

Wargamejunkie
04-10-2012, 22:08
Honestly I just prefer to play at the same level as my opponent. I know I don't enjoy blow out games no matter which way they go.

As far as my preference I would say a step or two down from Ard Boyz.

Morkoth
05-10-2012, 03:44
I think that both have their place. I usually find that the game is more relaxed with fluff lists, as the players are not so obsessed with winning. I include myself in this, as losing with my beastmen is much easier to take than with my dark elves....

Jind_Singh
05-10-2012, 08:35
Well I had this issue too - so in the end I went with my heart and went with fluff - I wanted to play a Goblins only army, and to field a special/rare choice I had to include a core unit of the same goblin type.

In the end I love my army, I love how it plays and works - and I love how it does well.

It's not a one list beats all by any means but it's good enough - early this year it did great in a major tournament - coming 4th.

So stick with whatever feels right and play your heart out

Oogie boogie boss
05-10-2012, 10:34
I go fluffy. I always go for a strong theme in my army rather than what would make it most effective. That's not to say it necessarily needs to be bad though- a dedicated burgle WoC army or a Bretonnians Crusader force can still be effective, tough opposition. I just think theme and style shouldn't be sacrificed for a competitive edge.

But that's just me, and I am a product of a relaxed gaming environment. Of you we're taking an army to a lot of tournaments, then the opposite mentality would be understandable.

TheDungen
05-10-2012, 12:17
I build the army around a theme but i vary the units within the theme to make it as playable as possible. Sometimes i take units that dont fit the theme but are very usefull and make something that fits with the theme and uses the unit entry for the unit i wanted.

Iksdee
19-10-2012, 22:03
For now i'm getting a fluffy list.
Maybe when i got enough models i'll make a competative list.

GenerationTerrorist
19-10-2012, 22:57
I always build an army around a theme.
Sometimes it is very competitive, purely because of theme, but sometimes not very much so.
My WoC army is pretty solid (until any new book removes our Tzeentchian tricks!) but I used it back in 7th Edition, when it was definately not so hard.

When contemplating a new project, however, I always look at the theme first and the win possibilities second. I just feel more comfortable that way for some reason.

eron12
20-10-2012, 10:21
I'm with the Low King. In fact I'll go further and say that most if not all lists can have a fluff basis regardless of their competitive level.

TheDungen
20-10-2012, 12:23
actually i'd say fluff army lists is abut what you take not about what you dont take. A thematic army list may take some unit thats crap because it fits the theme, and neglecting to take a unit that fits his theme because its not quite as good as other choices isnt very thematic, but taking unis thats npt thematic in their vanilla incarnation and making something thematic pout of theme isnt unthematic.

For an example i'm working on a shadow warrior army, it'll naturally include shadow warriors. if it didnt it wouldnt be much of a shadow warrior army. Shadow warriors arent very good currently but i take them anyway. I originally had the idea not to have any mounted units int he army but i've later decided to add a few silverhelms/dragon princes these will be my knights of Anlec. they dont really fit the lightly armoured and armed shadow warrior army but they added another tactical element besides standing and shooting.

Hashut-Up!
20-10-2012, 17:38
My play group likes to try and make strong but balanced lists while trying our best to keep it fluffy. We purposefully avoid anything that the group as a collective deems cheesy or overpowered. That being said, it takes a couple runs through games to determine what just isn't any fun to play with/against and only a couple things have made the list. So far hell-pit abominations, K'daai destroyers and kairos fateweaver have been benched, at least under 3000 points. It's not that we don't enjoy the challenge of fighting them either, just that games are a lot more fun without them, involving tougher decisions and more tactics as opposed to relying on one model to crush the opposing army.

J.P. Biff
20-10-2012, 23:11
Fluffy, in so much that I like to follow the overall idea of the army. Ogres with a tonne bulls, empire with a tonne of state troops, etc etc. I don't necessarily have a theme I just take a balanced list. Units that are good at what I need them for, nothing over the top example: hordestars.

DaemonReign
20-10-2012, 23:29
The distinction between 'fluffy' and 'competative' is neither opposed nor interesting when it comes down to brass tax.
Is your opponant a good sport, pleasure to hang around - are you?
Are your armies painted to a decent standard and is your table looking mint?
Once those requirements are met anything goes - prior to that Point you're really not playing Warhammer as far as I'm concerned.

sulla
20-10-2012, 23:35
I prefer a balanced list, designed to be competitive in all missions that tries not to use too many of the bent crutches found on the internet.

So, for example, my DE wouldn't have the sac dagger sorceress or stubborn pendant lord.

triple_double_U
22-10-2012, 01:58
When I first plan, build and buy my army its too a pretty strict theme. So when making army lists from that I find I often don't have the choices anyway, and have to make do with what I have.
I prefer it this way, than having a blank canvas to start with

Why
22-10-2012, 02:20
Uhm, can a strong wood elf list count as competative, if so I don't have much choice because I NEED to take strong units to have a fun game.

Morhgoz
22-10-2012, 03:42
Somethink middle, perhaps... My armies tend to have strong theme put have some competivines in them. I play rarely any turnaments, favored one, gives biggest prize sometimes player with most of "gentleman/sportsmanship" pts, not one with best score overal... It changes randomly, to keep players in they toes... :D I do wield "crappy" units, like hordes of arrer boyz or savage orc arrers or similar...