How important is fluff to you when designing/playing an army?

[w3rm]

Originally Posted by The SkaerKrow

Never underestimate the diplomatic potential of a Fanatic to the groin.

QFT! SkaerKrow wind the thread! Again!

[GenerationTerrorist]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by snurl

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]

Originally Posted by Arjuna

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]

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.

Originally Posted by kyuzo

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.

Quote

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]

Originally Posted by Lord Solar Plexus

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]

Originally Posted by Arjuna

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.

Originally Posted by Arjuna

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]

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]

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]

If there wasn't any story I'd just play Rise of Nations or something.

[Archaon]

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.

[Stuart Tombs]

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.]

Originally Posted by Stuart Tombs

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]

Originally Posted by Arjuna

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?

Quote

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?