PDA

View Full Version : Kill the fluffbunnies!!!



The Death of Reason
16-01-2012, 11:33
So I was just deliberating on a discussion on competitiveness of armies. Where one side - regarding herself as competitive - expressed an inability to understand why people gimped themselves by playing these 'fluffy' and inefficient armies, with a seemingly 'random' composition.

My thought was, noone does. I've never encountered anyone, I've never seen a list on the i-net - or anywhere beyond a WD magazine - that didn't have quite a lot of thought behind it tactically. My point is, we all play competitively, but there are more than one definition on competitiveness and their players.

Here is my say:

Competitive has more than one meaning. There is the be-all-end-all optimised lists of doom that are usually comprised of spamming certain units. The object of these lists are exclusively to win games with minimal effort.

Then there is the meta-competitive lists that are more concerned with achieving a balance in 'list power' to ensure 'a good fight', where the winner will be determined by 'player skill' rather than, what models you've bought and what paint scheme, you've given them.

I've never encountered the rumoured non-competitive, soft-core 'fluffy' list, where people have deliberately gimped their list, while trying to be 'fluffy'. Actually I think its more common for people to fluff their list in an excuse for their 'cheese' :cheese:

-

IMO - the first type of player, playing only to win (not WAAC), loses out on a lot. The game takes a couple of hours to play, while determining the winner only takes a few minutes. Also these are the people that often voice their opinion against comp restrictions in tournaments, while actually being the most restricted in their lists.

The second type of player are usually cool and laidback dudes, who play not for the win, but for the game itself. Not that they won't give you a good fight, as they play to win, and won't pull any strings, but these are the guys that can have just as much fun discussing their opponents tactics, as quietly deliberating on their own.

The third type of players are non-existant. Noone gets into wargaming without being a closet general with some form of romantic ideal of heroics on the battlefield ;)


- so the point of my thread is to kill the fluff vs. competitive argument, as I really doubt whether there really is one. And I for one grow tired of seeing arguments dismissed solely because people regards themselves as one or the other.

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 12:28
For all of 4th Edition, my main Guard army was an all-infantry Carapace armoured force where the base cost of an Infantry Squad was 105 points (60 + Carapace (20) + Hardened Fighters (15) + Sharpshooters (10)), and in 1,500 I could barely fit two platoons and a handful of vehicles.

They were a Shock Assault Infantry Regiment tasked with rapid foot assaults on enemy positions, and tooled appropriately. The fact they'd fallen to the Dark Gods was secondary to this, though. ;)

Or perhaps my Space Marine Demi-Company - 30 Tac Marines, 10 Assault Marines (5 jump pack, 5 on bikes), 10 Devastators, and a Command Squad. I always took a Techmarine because I had vehicles.

Or maybe my 'rearguard' Guard force - Conscripts galore (Munitorum adepts, truck drivers, cooks, clerks, and other such 'rear-with-the-gear' types), a handful of regulars, and even fewer Veterans plus a Hydra flak tank.

I dunno. I knew these were all sub-optimal lists, that some I hardly ever won with (Carapace guard I'm looking at you - less than 10 victories in over 100 games), and yet I had great fun.

Did I want to win? Of course. Did I know I often didn't stand a chance? Sure. But I kept playing with these lists because they were my armies, telling a story I wanted to be told, about characters of my own devising.

So - yes - I am a fluffbunny. I never WAAC, and I hardly ever win for that matter, but a story is being told and that's the main thing, for me, at least. :)

Minsc
16-01-2012, 12:40
This poll's questions aren't loaded at all. :rolleyes:

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 12:42
Pah, if qualified social scientists can't create polls and questionnaires free of bias and sampling errors (which, by and large, you can't - you just minimise it as much as possible through cross-checking, drafts, and a series of trials) then random internet people shouldn't be expected to. ;)

DeeKay
16-01-2012, 12:47
My local metagame at present seems to lean toward competitive play, and I think my Word Bearers army reflects that. Two Sorcerers with Lash, a Defiler, 2 pairs of Oblits and mechanised Chaos Space Marine units. No marks, but then I find the current Marks system to be genuinely rubbish.

I would like to think that this does not make me a WAAC player. With the age of the CSM book (among other things) I find myself in the unenviable position of having to powergame just to keep up with more recent books, which seem to do just fine against each other. Is it a sign of writers' improvement or power creep? I'll leave that for the rest of you to decide for yourselves.

In the end, some people want a game and some people want to be able to tell a story. I'd like to think that I am flexible enough to allow for both playstyles. It would be great if units were equally appealing for both groups, but until that impossible (for GW) event occurs players will have to settle for finding a common ground to make it an enjoyable experience.

With regards,
Dan.

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 13:08
In the end, some people want a game and some people want to be able to tell a story. I'd like to think that I am flexible enough to allow for both playstyles. It would be great if units were equally appealing for both groups, but until that impossible (for GW) event occurs players will have to settle for finding a common ground to make it an enjoyable experience.

With regards,
Dan.

I think DeeKay makes a very valid point; it's not so much about saying one's own way of playing is the Right And True Way, more about being flexible enough to accomodate both types of player.

Frankly WAAC types enjoy playing me because they flatten me totally within a few turns ;) I in turn suffer through it and take pleasure in moments of heroism from my little model people. Like the time my Guard plasma gunner beat a Slaanesh Lord to death with his plasma gun! He was killed next turn by a Dreadnought, but still - he beat a Slaaneshi Space Marine Lord to death in close combat with a plasma gun!

Noobie2k7
16-01-2012, 13:48
I'm sort of both. I mean i enjoy playing to win obviously but i also like to be able to have my army tell a story. Currently i only have my Tourney BA stuff though but i am going to put together a Tyrants Legion list based on my own chapter (but i might have to use Huron anyway just so i can get a SM elites choice). I like the idea of a Tyrants Legion army with a space marine chapter pretty much just taking control of an area and beating down any human that tries to say otherwise and using human troops as mere human shields for their space marine troops. Just is a great army that i'll enjoy building my own story for.

Yes i play competitively but nothing beats a good army covered in fluff. Whether it's likely to win or not.

The Marshel
16-01-2012, 16:02
- so the point of my thread is to kill the fluff vs. competitive argument, as I really doubt whether there really is one. And I for one grow tired of seeing arguments dismissed solely because people regards themselves as one or the other.

there are 3 reasons why the 3rd type doesn't appear to exist.

The first is something that a lot of people on warseer fail to understand. Being worse then another unit doesn't necessarily make the unit bad. A lot of units that people will cry underpowered over units that really aren't that bad. some in fact are quite good. the problem is that something else does it better. Devestators are a great example of this. Most configurations are beaten by dakka preds or landspeeders, who are more mobile and far cheaper. For this reason most people think devastators are terrible, but in reality they still work quite well, just not as well. A fluff player is more likely to not care about there being a more efficient option. To them that extra efficiency doesn't matter, and in all reality, it often doesn't on the battle field either. It only really matters when you're playing against the same WAAC armies. So the first reason: most "gimped" armies aren't actually that "gimped". they just aren't as powerful as they could be

Next up, experience. a lot of competitive waac gamers think the concept of "it works for me" is rubbish, but your skill with a particular army is very relevant. Even net list require you to actually know how to get the best out of them. If you play with an inferior army often enough you'll learn tricks and ways to play it that make up for the short failings and help even out your win loss ratio. this is true of any army, be it WAAC spam list or super fluff based list, experience will only improve it's performance.

Final reason, you're looking in the wrong places. the third type of player doesn't exist in pick up games, tournies or your LGS. They exist at their homes, playing campaigns with their long time gaming buddies, using campaign rules they wrote themselves, playing special scenarios from WD that are 10 years old and not really giving much of a damn what the competitive scene says about scouts or conscripts or fire warriors. They're painting their fire warriors purely because they like painting firewarriors, or their making dioramas with a box of guardsmen, and only occasionally have a game because they have the miniatures so why not?

there is more to the hobby then actual gaming, and within gaming, there is more to gaming then winning. the third type of player, as you describe them, is never seen by you because they don't post list on the i-net or really game outside of a private gaming group that much at all.

You don't bring gimped fluffy list to warseer, tournies or LGS. you use them with friends at home. that's why you don't know anyone from the 3rd category

loveless
16-01-2012, 16:07
Well...those are terrible poll options :p

I play the models I want to play - sometimes this means my army sucks. Other times this means my army is amazing - it depends on what catches my fancy.

I can't think of a 40K army where I leaned towards a "power" list (maybe Grey Knights, but I haven't looked at them in awhile and couldn't tell you what I usually have in there outside of 1.8 million psybolts), but in WHFB I consistently made accidental power lists. Vampires, Dark Elves, Skaven - everything I built had people groaning, even though I had background to support my choices and didn't even think about the power level during creation *shrugs*

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 16:16
there are 3 reasons why the 3rd type doesn't appear to exist ... You don't bring gimped fluffy list to warseer, tournies or LGS. you use them with friends at home. that's why you don't know anyone from the 3rd category

This. Exactly this. :)

totgeboren
16-01-2012, 16:18
Well, I can only speak from my own perspective, but my Orks are squarely in the middle of the poll. I don't use Nob bikers nor abuse wound allocation, because I think it's incredibly lame. I however very much like to use ork units from IA:8, some who clearly make the ork army better point for point. I have stopped using my cybork Nobs, because they themselves just made a mess of everything, to the point of make the game less fun. But the fluff for my army 'allows' me to use all units, so it's just a matter of me trying to make the game fun for both me and my opponent.

My Word Bearers and traitor guards on the other hand have some fluff which clearly limits what I can and can't take in my force, with the result that my WB army is quite weak in a competitive sense. I however really like it, because it tells a story, it's just not game pieces.

Actually, I can't understand why someone would play this game if they are only in if for the competition? Painting takes a lot of time, the game pieces cost a lot and there are clearly other superior options, like Warmachine/Hordes, or even stuff like MTG!

I think someone who plays 40k really competitively has too much time and/or money on their hands, and really should think about what they are doing, considering the options.

carldooley
16-01-2012, 16:20
My local metagame at present seems to lean toward competitive play

+1
for my last game at my FLGS, I brought a dozen Chimeras and played mech IG. Enough Chimeras that I had to keep a couple in reserve to get them all on the table.

The next game - the organizer limited us to 4 AV in our lists.

Biased? Of course not.:mad:

KarlPedder
16-01-2012, 16:32
I definatly fall into the second category but by the same token playing against a list that is too gimped for fluff reasons is just as bad as playing against an overly competative spam list. Hell it doesn't need to be fluff playing against an opponent where it's clear their army selection was severly limited by their model range can be just as frustrating.

Surely alot of you have played that poor fellow(s) who overload on pointless wargear and upgrades to essentially play beyond the points values they can realistically represent with their available models?

inq.serge
16-01-2012, 16:33
I play all cabal (+ scourges, harlies, incubi and RJF) dark eldar. They're powerful, fast and unsportish, full of dirty tricks, just like real fluffy dark eldar. I consider myself therefore a fluff-player.

KarlPedder
16-01-2012, 16:39
I play all cabal (+ scourges, harlies, incubi and RJF) dark eldar. They're powerful, fast and unsportish, full of dirty tricks, just like real fluffy dark eldar. I consider myself therefore a fluff-player.

Well technically I'd argue that you don't play any cult/coven rather than you play all kabal which isn't exactly the same thing;) and one of the victories of the DE Codex which hopefully the next Chaos Codex can mimic is the ability to build a number of viable themed lists.

carldooley
16-01-2012, 16:52
Actually, I can't understand why someone would play this game if they are only in if for the competition? Painting takes a lot of time, the game pieces cost a lot and there are clearly other superior options, like Warmachine/Hordes, or even stuff like MTG!

The problem with transitioning to another game is that if I want to play a competitive non electronic game locally, we're essentially limited to Yugioh, M:tG, or 40k. I have a small warmahordes army that has sat in storage for 4 years on account of the fact that I don't feel like traveling for an hour to play a game.


I definatly fall into the second category but by the same token playing against a list that is too gimped for fluff reasons is just as bad as playing against an overly competative spam list. Hell it doesn't need to be fluff playing against an opponent where it's clear their army selection was severly limited by their model range can be just as frustrating.

Surely alot of you have played that poor fellow(s) who overload on pointless wargear and upgrades to essentially play beyond the points values they can realistically represent with their available models?

I fall into the second category also, and I find that the thing to do in games against newer players is to give myself a one or two hundred point handicap, and not to bring anything that my opponent is going to have trouble with. That way I can play in my usual style (hard) and still give them an even chance of winning.

Denny
16-01-2012, 17:01
Terrible Poll.

I play stuff because I like it (either model, fluff, game mechanics, whatever)

My Vamprie Counts army always have zombies because I made an awesome unit of zombies and want to use them; who cares that they were a terrible unit in the previous version of the book?

The guy I play the most uses footslogging Spacewolves because, as he puts it, they are too manly to drive around in tanks. He also has Skyclaws . . .

My Dark Eldar use some really hard units because I like the fluff . . . and some less good units (like my Space-Squid), because I like the fluff/model.

I know mass Venom spam is better, but I don't like painting venoms as much as I like painting space squids.

Tokamak
16-01-2012, 17:29
I think it's a great poll. There's no bias in the choices and people are forced to prioritise.

I'm a fluffbunny. I love it when army themes go beyond just cosmetic gimmicks and have a theme that is build around a gripping background story. I have no regard for battle viability at all.

I own one Ork mech-walker army. One orc infantry army and my next army will be Tau with as little actual tau and as many mercenaries as possible.

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 17:48
I think it's a great poll. There's no bias in the choices and people are forced to prioritise.

*ahem* speaking as a qualified sociologist... it should really look something like this:

1) Play to 'win at all costs' - picking an army based purely on its effectiveness and efficiency at specific tasks
2) Play to 'win with style' - picking an army based not just on efficiency but with units or options that I like
3) Play to 'tell a story' - picking an army based purely on options that match the army's background
4) Undecided - I'm not sure what category I fit into
5) Other - I don't fit the above (please describe below)


I'm a fluffbunny. I love it when army themes go beyond just cosmetic gimmicks and have a theme that is build around a gripping background story. I have no regard for battle viability at all.

Preach it brother! :D

The Death of Reason
16-01-2012, 17:50
Of course the poll options are biased. In fact its so blatantly biased that even a retarded chipmunk should be able to see through it, and thus be able to make its choice without any form of manipulation :)

Edit - as Gen.Steiner ninja'ed me.

Your 3rd option is basically irrelevant. You can't make an 'unfluffy' army, the army lists simply prohibits you from fielding chaos marines alongside craftworld eldar, so even the worst of spam builds are basically 'fluffy'.

Your 4th option is just a waste of data. As I'm really only interested in the opinion of people, who have an idea of what they're doing.

Other.. Perhaps, but there haven't been anyone, who hasn't been able to fit themselves into the three categories.

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 17:51
Of course the poll options are biased. In fact its so blatantly biased that even a retarded chipmunk should be able to see through it, and thus be able to make its choice without any form of manipulation :)

Ha! That's one way around it, I suppose - certainly it's a good enough poll for the interwebnets hobby fora anyway! :D

Johnnya10
16-01-2012, 17:51
I have to like the fluff in order to choose the army. When I've chosen the army, I choose the models that I'll have the most fun painting and will fit into the force organisation chart. I make sure I cover all the bases in terms of weapons and abilities, speed and strength, cc and ap1... And when I play, I always play to win.

I've never understood how someone can be bothered to paint up 25 Dire avengers and five wave serpents and that's about it (insert other army WAAC ideas). If winning is all you're interested in, you'll lose far more than anyone else (at least when it comes to 40k anyway).

Interesting comes first for me.

bildo
16-01-2012, 17:54
i fit in section 2 (hense my all henchman gk army) but if i had the money i would totally have a tournament force built for the win at all costs, because if im paying to go to a tournament, the premise of which is to win, then why would i waste my money by not putting my all into it. i do however love themed lists, no matter if its effective or not, they sure do look amazing, something you cant get with a win at all costs list

Bonzai
16-01-2012, 18:00
I suppose I am a bit of a Fluff Bunny. I entered an escalation league last summer, and ran a fluffy Word Bearer list. No Cult troops, no marks but Chaos Glory. Lots of Daemon engines and Daemons. I even ran possessed (though I admit that they suck so bad that I have since revised my list to exclude them).

To me, fluff is important. However that being said, fluff rarely restricts an army build too severley, and indicates inclinations more than anything. What is a "fluffy" tyranid list? Hell if I know. Same with Necrons and several other lists. Tau forces you to play fluffy as they have manditory units in their dex. Playing fluffy guard is nearly impossible, as I don't think you can fit a regiment in standard game. LOL

Ventus
16-01-2012, 18:07
I'm currently playing a SM Salamander army (shelved my nids - to frustrating to play) and for an upcoming 2 day tourney I probably wont use Vulcan (even though the list is heavy melta/flamer and has TH/SS termies). Vulcan is certainly great and provides the army with fantastic buffs but I don't like that Vulcan has to be in every small battle (and 1500-2000 are small battles in overall fighting) for these marines to be Salamanders. When Vulcan is present they are more accurate with melta/flamer but if Vulcan leaves for a pee break they forget how they used to fire. I preferred the previous dex chapter traits idea (and wish it had been fixed rather than dropped).

So going into the tourney I know that not taking Vulcan gimps the army a bit. I also don't use landspeeders even though with MM/HF they would be good because from what I understand in the fluff Salamanders don't use them. I use devastators from time to time and might in the tourney. I will play to win however, but I don't have to win. I just want my army to perform decently with the units I want to use.

I agree with what Marshal said. In tourneys you will often see things that are still useful like devastators just not necessarily the optimal in that slot for the points rather than choices that seriously gimping. Example, you wont likely see a nid player take 3 pyrovores for their elite slots in a tourney because of its poor rules and the need for the other choices in Elites.

xxRavenxx
16-01-2012, 18:23
You can't make an 'unfluffy' army

Of cause you can.

Khorne bezerkers led by a Tzeentch sorcerer, for example.

Ravenguard with no scouts or assault marines.

Ultramarines led by Pedro Kantor.



All of these things are legal and perfectly acceptable within a game, but certainly NOT fluffy.





Anyway. I play mono-nurgle daemons. I get to be all high and mighty that I play gimped fluff lists :P

f2k
16-01-2012, 18:24
the third type of player doesn't exist in pick up games, tournies or your LGS. They exist at their homes, playing campaigns with their long time gaming buddies, using campaign rules they wrote themselves, playing special scenarios from WD that are 10 years old and not really giving much of a damn what the competitive scene says about scouts or conscripts or fire warriors. They're painting their fire warriors purely because they like painting firewarriors, or their making dioramas with a box of guardsmen, and only occasionally have a game because they have the miniatures so why not?

there is more to the hobby then actual gaming, and within gaming, there is more to gaming then winning. the third type of player, as you describe them, is never seen by you because they don't post list on the i-net or really game outside of a private gaming group that much at all.

You don't bring gimped fluffy list to warseer, tournies or LGS. you use them with friends at home. that's why you don't know anyone from the 3rd category

I think there’s a lot of truth in this...

I’ve been to two tournaments and don’t plan on ever going to another. The atmosphere there is simply too hostile...

I play this game for fun and relaxation – not to win. In fact, I can easily live without playing a game at all – what gives me satisfaction is the fluff and the unending possibility for conversions. Gaming doesn’t really figure into it at all...

Coasty
16-01-2012, 18:32
I'll build armies according to a theme. If that theme precludes a certain unit, then it doesn't go in.

That may count as gimping the army, but who cares? Trying to win with one hand tied behind your back is more fun.

I don't go to tournaments and never will. I'm not interested in beating kids I've never met before at a game of toy soldiers.

Games and campaigns have to have a story behind them for me to care who wins, to be honest, so it's fluff all the way, really.

The Devourer
16-01-2012, 18:44
You certainly can make an unfluffy army. While codeci represent a wide range of forces rather than one particular army it will be possible to have unfluffy combinations. For example the SM codex doesn't represent a single marine army, it contains rules allowing you to play all of them. This allows you to combine units which wouldn't fight together if you desired.

Ozorik
16-01-2012, 18:57
I have never, ever played with a 'competitive' army. My armies are always built around a strong theme which is then adjusted to fit an army list and points value. Some of my unit choices are 'competitive' but that isn't why they are there. Some of my armies are even very successful but thats usually by accident.
I have run pure Night goblin armies (max LD 7), warrior weapon and carapace pure infantry IG armies and I even ran a 7th ed Dwarf army consisting almost entirely of infantry blocks.
I have even been known to occasionally venture into tournaments, I usually lose but at least I wasn't using some cookie cutter list I got of the 'net.

Personally I would far rather 'Kill the powergamers!!!'.

Lord Damocles
16-01-2012, 19:08
All of these things are legal and perfectly acceptable within a game, but certainly NOT fluffy.
I dunno, the background is open enougth that you can quite easily justify most things:


Khorne bezerkers led by a Tzeentch sorcerer, for example.
Black Legion Sorceror leading Black Legion Khornate cult units.


Ravenguard with no scouts or assault marines.
The Ravenguard are a codex Chapter. They could reasonably deploy an all Terminator force from the 1st Comapny, a rapid strike force from the 6th or 8th with all bikes and speeders, 60% of a battle Company is Tactical marines, so they could easily make a force from just Tacticals, they have a 9th Company which is all Devastators... etc.


Ultramarines led by Pedro Kantor.
On Crusade together.


The point being that, 1) An army being 'fluffy' needn't preclude it being effective, 2) one person's 'fluffy' needn't be another person's.

Chem-Dog
16-01-2012, 19:56
I do actually deliberately "gimp" my armies. One in particular is unable to maintain the sort of supply chain that would make things like Meltas and Plasma viable so they don't do it.

Amongst other abstract projects I have running I am building an Ogryn army, Ogryn are considered by most thinkers on the subject as a little under-par so by extention an army full of them would be fairly sub-optimal (especially as a majority of my points will be tied up in units that have a 5+ save). But I don't care :evilgrin:


Idon't claim to be the last of the fluffbunnies though, for we are legion.....:shifty:

thorgrim
16-01-2012, 20:48
Speaking as a fluff bunny using a strong theme doesn't automatically nerf your army.

Take my Iron Hands. I have deliberately left Terminators and Chaplins out of my army and use the much overlooked master of the forge for my HQ. Does that make it pants? Nope. As the players that have seen either my 6 dreadnought or 6 tactical squad armies used will testify.

Or my Space Wolves. Fielding a army of 4 HQs and 6 Troops choices as a purely infantry force backed up with a couple of cheap Long Fangs packs works wonders and fits nicely into the fluff.

Grimbad
16-01-2012, 20:53
I've never encountered the rumoured non-competitive, soft-core 'fluffy' list, where people have deliberately gimped their list, while trying to be 'fluffy'. Actually I think its more common for people to fluff their list in an excuse for their 'cheese' :cheese:

That's not how it works. That's not how a fluffy list is written. You don't write a power list and then "gimp" it to fit your fluff. You sit down with your favorite minis and you get an idea and think "wouldn't this be cool," and then you write an army list. And, shock surprise, sometimes that cool idea isn't about how much your list will kill the opponents', it's about a spectacle that you would like to see on the table. And no, fluffy lists aren't deliberately written to be weak. I try to make them as powerful as they can be... while retaining the idea behind it. It's an added constraint, and if that leads to an added challenge in the game, then it's a challenge.

Torga_DW
16-01-2012, 21:08
Wow, i never realized that playing in the style encouraged by GW made you a fluffbunny with a gimp army. Sad day for humanity. :(

baphomael
16-01-2012, 21:09
I dont get why some people feel the need to dictate how others *should* be enjoying the game. There's no *right* way to play with your toy soldiers.

As to the topic at hand, I never really build an army with competitiveness in mind. I tend to build an army around a theme and take units that I think are cool and fit within that theme.

Having said that, I will give cursory thought to a unit's perceived effectiveness *if* it fits the theme - I don't deliberately shoot myself in the foot, but by the same token I'm not really out to build an uber-competitive list if it doesnt fit my theme - its just something I'm not too bothered about.

For example, I understand the current meta seems to favour mechanised armies. Bar Dark Eldar (because, lets face it, loads of Raiders swooping around totally fits the Dark Eldar, its the Dark Eldar way) I've never experimented with a truly mechanised army. I like my footsloggers.

For Guard, I'm working on a Napoleonic themed army. As such, there will be an emphasis on infantry blobs, rough riders, Heavy Weapon teams (foot artillery ;)). The closest to chimeravet spam I'm going is maybe one or two veteran squads in a chimera. Not out of competativeness, but I think they'd represent Napoleonic-in-spaaaaace! style Dragoons quite well, since both are 'mounted' infantry of a sort (well, in this case the horse is made out of ceremite and plasteel, and has a heavy weapon for a face).

As a concession to competitiveness, I may give them meltas for armour popping, but this is more a secondary thought that coincidently might be quite good. The only thing is, though, the whole fire-point thing might discourage me from actually using them like dragoons - that is, ride up to the fight, dismount, and fight as infantry :p

Alternatively, certain units such as ratlings, ogryns, "Marbo", "Straken", Sentinels etc wont be getting a look. The competitiveness of these units doesnt really come into it - they just dont fit my vision for a Napoleonic style guard army.

Eldartank
16-01-2012, 21:56
I love these loaded poll questions. I have a question that is much more fair, and not the least bit loaded:

Did you stop beating your wife?

Answer YES or NO only..... ;)

TheDoctor
16-01-2012, 22:01
I like armies that have a theme, and give me a decent chance of winning.

My deathwing will usually include ravenwing in there, but I rarely (if ever, and only because I'm bringing them to a tournament) use any units that don't know about the fallen.

For my Eldar, I like picking a theme and going with it (there are other ways to play besides mechdar), and it can be effective and fluffly.
-Usually the "advantage" lost by going with internet lists is offset be the actual advantage of throwing your opponent for a loop.

bildo
16-01-2012, 22:04
for a tournament there is nothing wrong with going all out....you wouldnt go to compete in the olymics, but not aim for gold. its a competition, your in it to win it. in normal games then fluffy is win as its so much more fun with the stories and things, also i find certain models shine more in fluffy armies, like in my last normal game, i had 1 warrior acolyte with a plasma gun who was holding an objective, took fire from a lascannon dev squad, a scout sniper squad and then finally sucumbed to a plasma cannon dev squad. with nowt but a 4+cover he did amazingly well. it wouldnt have happened in a tourny, thered be no time for it

Kozbot
16-01-2012, 22:28
Final reason, you're looking in the wrong places. the third type of player doesn't exist in pick up games, tournies or your LGS. They exist at their homes, playing campaigns with their long time gaming buddies, using campaign rules they wrote themselves, playing special scenarios from WD that are 10 years old and not really giving much of a damn what the competitive scene says about scouts or conscripts or fire warriors. They're painting their fire warriors purely because they like painting firewarriors, or their making dioramas with a box of guardsmen, and only occasionally have a game because they have the miniatures so why not?


This a thousand times, I don't play 40k with anyone but my closest friends anymore, mainly due to time constraints. We're in the midst of a planetary invasion campaign where we play out scenarios and are far more concerned with the narrative than who wins. The last game we played was scout company ambushing an IG convoy. Playing the all scout marines I got crushed, but the goal was to see how long that would take, rather than to achieve victory.

Spell_of_Destruction
16-01-2012, 22:29
I play every game with the intention of winning. However, I don't think that winning inherently brings any joy. If I feel the game is more or less won or lost before it even starts then I don't really see the point.

I enjoy the tactical challenge of winning the battle. If the odds were stacked in my favour before the battle even began then I don't get much satisfaction out of the result.

xxRavenxx
16-01-2012, 22:45
one person's 'fluffy' needn't be another person's.

I disagree entirely.

To be fluffy, you have to ad hear to the fluff written by GW. Not just make an excuse for why your army is like it is.

I have zero issue with an army which doesn't stick to fluff. Its entirely on a person if they want to stick to a theme or not.

I have every issue with a terminator ravenguard player trying to tell me his fleet-terminators was done for fluffy reasons.

If you want to do something to win, fine. But don't try and sell people a story about how you're being flavourful.

samiens
16-01-2012, 22:53
Are you implying Ravenguard don't use terminators?

Gen.Steiner
16-01-2012, 23:28
Edit - as Gen.Steiner ninja'ed me.

Your 3rd option is basically irrelevant. You can't make an 'unfluffy' army, the army lists simply prohibits you from fielding chaos marines alongside craftworld eldar, so even the worst of spam builds are basically 'fluffy'.

Your 4th option is just a waste of data. As I'm really only interested in the opinion of people, who have an idea of what they're doing.

Other.. Perhaps, but there haven't been anyone, who hasn't been able to fit themselves into the three categories.

To rebut and refute:

You can indeed create an army that fails to adhere to the background. For example, Ulthwe's greatest Farseer, Eldrad Ulthuan, is dead. To take him in an army fighting after the 13th Black Crusade is not 'fluffy'. Equally, you would be hard pressed to see World Eaters being led (or even fighting alongside) anyone remotely resembling a Tzeentchian or Slaaneshi. Space Marine Baneblades post the writing of the Codex Astartes. Renegade Inquisitors with Daemonhosts leading Grey Knights. I could go on; but the point is that the background is relevant and not just in terms of TO&Es.

There is no such thing as wasted data, rather this data allows you to see how many people don't know or don't care - indeed I have probably poorly worded my question: it should be split further into 'Undecided' and 'Indifferent'.

Finally, how do you know given you only have the word of people who fit themselves to the categories you have arbitrarily decided they have to choose from? ;) There will be people who have viewed the thread, not posted, and not voted. Perhaps they would have if you had had an 'other' option: you will now never know.

xxRavenxx
16-01-2012, 23:32
Are you implying Ravenguard don't use terminators?

I am implying that their fluffy army is an assaultmarine/scout list, which may or may not include terminators.

I am further implying that if their list actually is a heap of more optimal stuff, centred around using fleet with terminators, with little to no content of scouts and assault marines, that this list is not particularly fluffy.

I am also making the implication that neither approach is wrong, providing you do not try and sugarcoat the latter as the former. Doing so is but a step away from "Flamers of Khorne" in fantasy by the oh so fluffy mono-khorne players who just cant resist using the powerful options of other gods :rolleyes:

madd0ct0r
17-01-2012, 04:09
you want to find out the worst options in a codex?

let me write a list.

My skittari are centered around an Ordninatus Pusilius (3 strong Baslisk squadron)

My sisters would be centered around an all foot garrison force if i could afford them

My squats are a space marine army with almost no power armour.

my orks are... balanced i think. Not optimised, but the mad mek theme happens to be reasonably ok. My rebellious grot tank swarm, less so.

Rosstifer
17-01-2012, 04:24
Depends. In 40k my army would most definitely be considered fluffy, in Fantasy I use hard as nails lists (Although my main armies for both systems to some degree dictate this.)

Beppo1234
17-01-2012, 06:50
I find this discussion interesting, because the fluffy list for a given army should be the among the Waac builds off a given codex. Or at least that's how it should be imo

Noobie2k7
17-01-2012, 07:09
I find this discussion interesting, because the fluffy list for a given army should be the among the Waac builds off a given codex. Or at least that's how it should be imo What do you mean exactly?

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 07:22
I think he means that GW should reward players for taking units that fit the background - presumably a bit like the Chaos 'dex used to be, where taking a unit of 6 Slaaneshi Marines got you a free Aspiring Champion (or indeed any squad the same size as their patron gods' Sacred Number).

samiens
17-01-2012, 07:25
You see, its interesting that fluffy is being pigeon holed into 'most typical' not just, what could a chapter field. Im sure Ravenguard run terminators on occassion so it seems unreasonable that this can't be fluffy.

Of course, I don't really care about such things- I'd like a Raptors army but want a terminators as troops marine army for tournaments- so I may well use the dark angel codex for Raptors- probably not fluffy but nit, in my opinion, do outrageous it should never happen.

Noobie2k7
17-01-2012, 07:30
I think he means that GW should reward players for taking units that fit the background - presumably a bit like the Chaos 'dex used to be, where taking a unit of 6 Slaaneshi Marines got you a free Aspiring Champion (or indeed any squad the same size as their patron gods' Sacred Number). Sorry, the way it seemed to me is that he was saying 'fluffy' should = Most competitive. Just wanted to make sure before i commented.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 08:01
You see, its interesting that fluffy is being pigeon holed into 'most typical' not just, what could a chapter field. Im sure Ravenguard run terminators on occassion so it seems unreasonable that this can't be fluffy.

I don't think like that. The Codex should represent the most typical forces availiable, but...

...during the Scourging of Hyprastides Primary, the Fire Angels chapter were only able to deploy members of the 9th Devastator Reserve supported by elements of the Chapter Armoury, leading to the Battle of Saint Apollinides Square, where four Devastator squads and a Predator troop engaged and destroyed seven thousand cultists armed with axes.

In game terms, that'd be 40 Devastators and 3 Predators led by a Squad Sergeant. How's that for FOC breaking? ;)

Or how about the Guard unit comprised entirely of Conscripts and led by a Commissar? That, too, is in line with elements of the background.

And - sure - the Raven Guard have Terminators, just not as many as (say) the Dark Angels do. But yes, they'd use them where needed!

Noobie2k7
17-01-2012, 08:18
I just wish i had my sexy Tyrants legion now :( I want my squads of 20 space marines and lots of IG meat shields.

And technically 4 dev squads could be only 20 guys if you split 2 10 man squads into combat squads of 5 and i'm sure i saw somewhere a list that had preds as a 1-3 for 1 HS choice.

AndrewGPaul
17-01-2012, 08:43
Of cause you can.

Khorne bezerkers led by a Tzeentch sorcerer, for example.

Ravenguard with no scouts or assault marines.

Ultramarines led by Pedro Kantor.



All of these things are legal and perfectly acceptable within a game, but certainly NOT fluffy.

It depends. Ravenguard are a Codex chapter - which includes such things as Tactical and Devastator Marines. Claiming that they have never, in 10,000 years, gone to battle without Scouts or Assault Marines is pushing the bounds of believability, I think.

Similarly, Ultramarines with Pedro Kantor? Either you say that the Ultramarines have a character who behaves in the same way, or that in this situation, a force of Ultramarines is operating under the temporary command of Pedro Kantor, for whatever reason. In the second case, it's a bit of a stretch if there are no other Crimson Fists present, but it's still not impossible.

I think for a lot of people, "unfluffy" = unlikely. If that were the case, playing Marines or Dark Eldar at all would be unfluffy. For me, unless you're hiding behind the fluff excuse to be a tool, anything possible goes. By that yardstick, pretty much only things like Chaos Grey Knights or female Space Marines are out, if you go by the official fluff.

The first example there - Khorne berserkers led by a Sorceror of Tzeentch - is pretty much impossible, but again, with a bit of thought and effort, having some sort of berserker troops who follw Tzeentch doesn't seem particularly implausible. Like Voter Colonel Sebastian Doyle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Reality_(Red_Dwarf)), they change living people into dead ones. :) if someone's just fielding a grey plastic horde, I'm not buying that explanation, of course - some modicum of conversion and painting effort is really required here. It also doesn't help that if your idea of a fluffy Tzeentchian army is one that only uses Tzeentchian units you're stuck with Ahriman, Sorcerors and one unit.

Of course, that's pretty much the problem with saying people should foolow the fluff when designing an army - there's no consensus as to what that is. :)


I find this discussion interesting, because the fluffy list for a given army should be the among the Waac builds off a given codex. Or at least that's how it should be imo


What do you mean exactly?


I think he means that GW should reward players for taking units that fit the background - presumably a bit like the Chaos 'dex used to be, where taking a unit of 6 Slaaneshi Marines got you a free Aspiring Champion (or indeed any squad the same size as their patron gods' Sacred Number).

I've heard at least one designer make the suggestion that when designing a game, give the army lists to the cheesiest, most competetive bunch of players you can find - and then make the resulting units and formations part of the background.

Beppo1234
17-01-2012, 08:57
I think he means that GW should reward players for taking units that fit the background - presumably a bit like the Chaos 'dex used to be, where taking a unit of 6 Slaaneshi Marines got you a free Aspiring Champion (or indeed any squad the same size as their patron gods' Sacred Number).

that's essentially what I mean... the most efficient/powerful armies a list can generate, should be the fluffy version of that given army IMO.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 09:01
As far as I'm concerned, even a hard-as-nails WAAC army is improved with the addition of a backstory, a reason for the force's existence, named units, and characterful modelling and painting (even if it's not GS standard :p).

What gets my goat are people that ignore the background entirely and pick armies purely to win with no thought or effort at all.

But what I admire most of all are people who do things like scratch-built and converted AdMech armies, or Grot Revolooshunries, or Adeptus Administratum scratch troops, or Arbites and Defence Force units, and so on and so forth. These people are driven by story-telling, and that is something that I feel all wargames should be about: even the historicals that I play revolve around this - what if the Republic had beaten the Nationalists at Jarama Valley? What if Hannibal had beaten the Romans? What if the Spartans and Thebans hadn't sacrificed themselves at Thermopylae? What if Napoleon's cavalry had spiked the guns at Waterloo - or Blucher hadn't arrived? What if the Russians hadn't burnt Moscow? and so on and so forth.

d6juggernaut
17-01-2012, 09:08
that's essentially what I mean... the most efficient/powerful armies a list can generate, should be the fluffy version of that given army IMO.

This means there are still superior army builds, there are still superior units. If "fluffy" armies are more powerful, then competitive players will just all migrate to that specific build, and units that are not in such a build will still be left out, and people who want to use them will still complain. Imagine if a guy wanted to use a full Purifier army led by Crowe but now it sucks compared super fluffy and awesome Strike Squad+Storm Raven led by an Inquisitor army, now it's he's turn to complain that the GW is limiting the players' imagination and creativity

FabricatorGeneralMike
17-01-2012, 09:17
I am implying that their fluffy army is an assaultmarine/scout list, which may or may not include terminators.

I am further implying that if their list actually is a heap of more optimal stuff, centred around using fleet with terminators, with little to no content of scouts and assault marines, that this list is not particularly fluffy.

I am also making the implication that neither approach is wrong, providing you do not try and sugarcoat the latter as the former. Doing so is but a step away from "Flamers of Khorne" in fantasy by the oh so fluffy mono-khorne players who just cant resist using the powerful options of other gods :rolleyes:


Actually, no they are not. They are a codex chapter that uses hit and run tatics.

What if you where playing a game where the Termies had to break into a underground bunker as fast as possible to find documents/intercept someone before they escape/blow something up ASAP? Would fleet termies be unfluffy then? What if the Assault marine companys suffered horrendious losses earlier in the campaign and the termies did a daring teleport assault using teleport homers that the scouts planted earlier? What if the intel they got earlier was flawed and the Terminator's where the 'closest' unit avaliable to respond?

Is that still unfluffy? Sounds like a great set up to a story to me personally.


I totally agree with you about the khorne flamers though. There is a difference between using units to your advantage in a unfair way and using fluffy lists.

Great thing about 40k is you get to choose who you play against. Was the guy you played last week a 'sneeky git'? Don't play against him again.

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 09:21
The best way to 'solve' the problem is extensive playtesting and a comprehensive overhaul of a convoluted and lengthy ruleset.

In fact, what GW need to do is to spend a good length of time re-writing 40K's rules from scratch, then developing the codices for all races at the same time - they can be released at a different pace, obviously, but the rules need to all be written alongside one another - and making sure that, whilst some units are better than others, some are specialised, some are not, each army list is balanced not only internally but externally.

This ends 'Codex Creep', prevents the creation of god-awful Las/Plas-Razorback spam style lists, and should result in a satisfied player base because no option will be so dreadful that only idiots and storytellers take them (Techpriest Engineseer, I'm looking at you) but, on the other hand, no option will be so powerful that it is a no-brainer default.

Of course they'll never do this. So we are left to our own devices. I thoroughly recommend playing 40K with Tomorrow's War or some other ruleset. GRUNTZ is supposed to be quite good. ;)

Skits
17-01-2012, 09:21
I'm definitely not a WAAC player - if I was, I wouldn't be fielding a pure Thousand Sons army, heh. I chose my army for the fluff, and play mostly for the fluff. I base my units... on what I currently have available. XD While I try to make it as effective as possible, I've also set myself certain restrictions to keep my army true to my personal fluff. For example - no daemons. My boys hate daemons and absolutely refuse to have anything to do with them, therefore my army lists won't have daemons in them.

Of course, I also... manipulate my fluff to get around that. ;) I have a Defiler that I'll happily field because I've made up fluff for it that gets around the "no daemon" restriction, and likewise for a Daemon Prince.

So in short... I try to make my lists effective, but within the fluff-related limits I set myself. If that counts as "deliberately gimping" myself, then so be it. It just makes it that much more satisfying when I win. ;)

KronusDaSneaky
17-01-2012, 09:48
I am the most skilled player in my gaming group and as such opt never to take a WAAC list in an attempt to level the playing field. I find I struggle to bring a list completely devoid of synergy but I regularly find myself having second thoughts about my choices and replacing them with subs-standard offerings. For this reason alone I have sadly stopped using my most loved army, GK who I have been playing for over 7 years now and have amassed 6000pts+ worth most of which is metal, since in the words of Yoda 'Crap units not it has'. If I use Orks I invariably take Flash Gits instead of Nobz, regular warboss instead of Ghaza and Tankbustas in place of Lootas. In short I take competitive lists and gimp them from a competitive stand point to create synergistic but otherwise fairly mediocre lists with one or two waste of point units. There is an unwritten limit to this which is slowly creeping higher as my gaming group use increasingly nasty units (3 IG players I am looking at you and your manticore/vendetta fetishes) for example while I am happy to gimp my orks generally I will invariably take a Big Mek w/ KFF if I am going kan or BW heavy since both lists are decidely lacklustre without it.

FabricatorGeneralMike
17-01-2012, 10:17
Of course they'll never do this. So we are left to our own devices. I thoroughly recommend playing 40K with Tomorrow's War or some other ruleset. ;)


/thread, you win =o]

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 10:27
/thread, you win =o]

:D Oh thanks.

Ravariel
17-01-2012, 10:27
I actually straddle all three lines a bit. I have 3 1/2 40k armies. The 1/2 is my almost entirely Confrontation Slaaneshi-themed Daemon army that I built for Fantasy, but play at times in 40k... that's more of a vanity project anyway, more for the modelling than anything else. But all three of my armies serve a different purpose.

Blood Angels: I run a competetive DoA/Rodeo hybrid for actual competitions. Take it to local tourneys and actually do fairly well with it. Have a few different builds, but not a lot of variation in the list. Unlike...

Eldar: Love the models and the tactical choices the army has. This is my "I do something different every game" army. One week I'll bring Wraithwall, another Mech, another Swordwind. It can do so many different things, all while having some of the best style in modelling and gameplay. My main army, I expect to eventually have multiples of every possible unit (need more jetbikes atm).

Codex Marines: My only pure-fluff army. I actually play (ironically enough due to the random examples previously tossed about) Raven Guard. This army will also be probably my only one where I have only a single build, likely at 1850 points, with no extras. Full of scouts, scout bikers, LS Storms, Assault Squads, and Dread Pods. Everything infiltrates or deepstrikes, and it relies heavily on alpha-striking and crippling the opponent in the first turn. Very fluffy. Very fickle.

So basically I play every type. I'm far from WAAC, but I love tactical challenge, and will put my wits up against anybody else's. But I also enjoy the more casual games where doing cool stuff is more important than the end score.

Tokamak
17-01-2012, 10:33
*ahem* speaking as a qualified sociologist... it should really look something like this:

1) Play to 'win at all costs' - picking an army based purely on its effectiveness and efficiency at specific tasks
2) Play to 'win with style' - picking an army based not just on efficiency but with units or options that I like
3) Play to 'tell a story' - picking an army based purely on options that match the army's background
4) Undecided - I'm not sure what category I fit into
5) Other - I don't fit the above (please describe below)



I like that and the descriptions are better. I too care deeply about such things, but the poll does get the job done. Also, as a qualified sociologist I'm sure you're aware that your last two options are entirely optional depending on what your goal of the survey is, in this case you want a provoke a discussion and therefore it's best to leave them out lest people seek their refugee in them.

xxRavenxx
17-01-2012, 10:41
It depends. Ravenguard are a Codex chapter - which includes such things as Tactical and Devastator Marines. Claiming that they have never, in 10,000 years, gone to battle without Scouts or Assault Marines is pushing the bounds of believability, I think.

As you said a little later in your post, people equate unlikely with unfluffy.

I certainly go by those bounds. If in the fluff, an army is made up primarily of unit X, and in the game you are mostly using unit Y, I don't think you are being fluffy, because you are not matching their standard list.

Let me throw two examples down:


Fluffy ravenguard:

Shrike.
3x Assault squad
1x Terminator assault squad
2x Scout squad
1x Tactical squad
1x Devastator squad



Unfluffy Ravenguard:

Shrike
3x Terminator assault squad
2x Tactical squad
3x Landraider




Do you see the difference I'm hinting at?

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 11:03
Fluffy ravenguard:

Shrike.
3x Assault squad
1x Terminator assault squad
2x Scout squad
1x Tactical squad
1x Devastator squad

Unfluffy Ravenguard:

Shrike
3x Terminator assault squad
2x Tactical squad
3x Landraider

Do you see the difference I'm hinting at?

Why do you need to take Captain Shrike to field Ravenguard? he can't be everywhere.

Surely:

Terminator Librarian
Terminator Command Squad
3x Terminator Squad
2x Tactical Squad
Scout Squad
Scout Bike Squad
Dreadnought in Drop Pod
Landspeeder Squadron

Is just as 'fluffy'?

The Marshel
17-01-2012, 12:25
Why do you need to take Captain Shrike to field Ravenguard? he can't be everywhere.

Surely:

Terminator Librarian
Terminator Command Squad
3x Terminator Squad
2x Tactical Squad
Scout Squad
Scout Bike Squad
Dreadnought in Drop Pod
Landspeeder Squadron

Is just as 'fluffy'?

I believe it's plenty fluffy, just not as fluffy. it is however, far from being unfluffy.

Each of the GW chapters have their own little signature, and if you really wanna max out on the fluff factor you'd play to it, but this doesnt mean standard marine list aren't fluffy as well. This is why it always annoys me to see people think fluffy crimson fist must be a devastated chapter of vets and scouts, i mean, it's not like they have 8000 or so years worth of crusading and being a regular chapter to work with....

Like i said earlier with uni8t competitiveness, there is fluffy, then there is fluffier. Neither demeans the other, one is just "better"

AndrewGPaul
17-01-2012, 12:47
As you said a little later in your post, people equate unlikely with unfluffy.

I certainly go by those bounds. If in the fluff, an army is made up primarily of unit X, and in the game you are mostly using unit Y, I don't think you are being fluffy, because you are not matching their standard list.

Let me throw two examples down:


Fluffy ravenguard:

Shrike.
3x Assault squad
1x Terminator assault squad
2x Scout squad
1x Tactical squad
1x Devastator squad



Unfluffy Ravenguard:

Shrike
3x Terminator assault squad
2x Tactical squad
3x Landraider




Do you see the difference I'm hinting at?

I do, and I disagree with it. Like I say, if you think that playing something which doersn't occur in the fluff often is unfluffy, why are we even talking about playing Raven Guard? By that argument, 99% of games of 40K should be Imperial Guard vs other Imperial Guard or Orks. Since we've already tacitly agreed that infrequent choices are still "fluffy", then it's simply a matter of where you draw the line, and I'm not drawing it in the same place you are. The second army doesn't need to be representative of the Raven Guard as a whole - instead it's representative of the Raven Guard 1st Company when they assaulted the rebel capital of Auriga VII on 5658749.M40.

Grocklock
17-01-2012, 15:15
the problem with discusscusing fluff, is weather or not people follow the fluff of the 40k unicverse or there own fluff.
That is the one thing i love about games workshop obver othert game systems. I get the feeling i can start with this idea of the 40k universe but if i don't want to stick to it thats fine.

As for where i sit in this chart i have no idea, I started in 4th edition and had lots of trukks from my gorkamorka sets i picked up. My Gorkamorka boss was called Bulkrakbulk. When we switched to 5th i played a campain where my warboss (on foot) got hit by a vindicator round square on. There for placing him out of the campain. I bought the forge world warboss biker and eversice i have not field him with out it. This is due to the fact i a love the model and be love the fact that he has been crippled from a previous campagin.

What im getting at is my army has been built over the years moulded by loses (either figritivly or achually(falling off of the table not a good way to go)). As i have played games i have kept a small diary to keep up with what they are doing.

Now this army has won menay a game, even beating the leavee blower when it came out. It has traveld with me across brittian from, Eastanglia to cambride, to london and the midlands.
I dont care where i fit into this chart, what matters to me is weather me and my opponent enjoyed the game. I don't care if we are gaming over the kitchen table or on a highly detailed torni board.

At the end of the day it is a game we are playing. and it is htere for enjoyment. So go ahead people enjoy.

Friedrich von Offenbach
17-01-2012, 15:18
You need the poll option: "not 100% sure which each option means":confused:

IcedCrow
17-01-2012, 16:55
I field "B" lists. These are lists which are strong but not over the top broken. They have built in weaknesses and are not 100% optimal. I actively prefer to play against others who field "B" lists because the table is balanced and the games are fun.

There are "C" lists which are mainly gimp lists in the hands of people who are new, but by playing against them they learn what to use and everyone has to start somewhere, and they typically learn. At times, "C" lists are heavily fluff lists that are themed, in which case I don't mind playing against them so long as the person bringing it doesn't get super uptight if/when he starts losing.

Of course, there are also "D" lists, which are horrible, beyond the realm of "theme" and more in the realm of "I just threw random units together".

I usually won't play against an "A" list because it's not a mindset that I enjoy playing with or against and is personal preference on my part as to how I spend my free time =)

Scaryscarymushroom
17-01-2012, 17:21
I found out recently that an old buddy of mine that I haven't seen in years has a collection of Orks. We talked about them a little bit.

He says he doesn't play to win. Not in the slightest. He's drawn to Orks because of all the modelling opportunities they present. Nowhere else in the hobby world would someone be encouraged to pick up a model plane and some plasticard, punch holes in it with a sharp object, and glue it together wrong.

His orks are part of the bad moons clan. There's not a single choppa or power klaw in his army. His tactics in game revolve primarily around outmaneuvering his opponent with trukks and laying down lots of fire with flash gits and deffguns.

It sounds like a losing list to me, but I don't think he wrote it up with the intention to lose.

ashc
17-01-2012, 17:35
Wow. I'm a 'play to win with style', thanks Steiner!

Gen.Steiner
17-01-2012, 17:48
Wow. I'm a 'play to win with style', thanks Steiner!

any time :D

Lord Damocles
17-01-2012, 19:10
If in the fluff, an army is made up primarily of unit X...
Number of Assault Marines in Raven Guard Chapter: ~180
Number of Tactical Marines in Raven Guard Chapter: ~440

So, by your own logic, a Fluffy Raven Guard army should be mostly Tactical Marines...

Noobie2k7
17-01-2012, 19:13
My friend Amy has an entire Dark Eldar army she doesn't even play. It's a proper legal force too, about 1300 points worth and she doesn't use them :P She just enjoys the modelling and painting side of it and the background. The army would probably be kinda rubbish if used but they're beautifully painted and modeled so she doesn't care :D

Captain Collius
17-01-2012, 19:17
i'm builindg the entire 35d company dark angels (fluffy as all get out.) which mean i have exactly 6 squads of 10 tactical 2 assault squads of 10 2 devestator squads of ten 2 dread a master and command squad. 6rhinos 3 razorbacks and a chaplain. but i also have ravenwing support squads, a deathwing army, land raider crusaders, a librarian. fluff doesn't equal bad

Inquisitor Kallus
17-01-2012, 19:28
the problem with discusscusing fluff, is weather or not people follow the fluff of the 40k unicverse or there own fluff.
That is the one thing i love about games workshop obver othert game systems. I get the feeling i can start with this idea of the 40k universe but if i don't want to stick to it thats fine.

As for where i sit in this chart i have no idea, I started in 4th edition and had lots of trukks from my gorkamorka sets i picked up. My Gorkamorka boss was called Bulkrakbulk. When we switched to 5th i played a campain where my warboss (on foot) got hit by a vindicator round square on. There for placing him out of the campain. I bought the forge world warboss biker and eversice i have not field him with out it. This is due to the fact i a love the model and be love the fact that he has been crippled from a previous campagin.

What im getting at is my army has been built over the years moulded by loses (either figritivly or achually(falling off of the table not a good way to go)). As i have played games i have kept a small diary to keep up with what they are doing.

Now this army has won menay a game, even beating the leavee blower when it came out. It has traveld with me across brittian from, Eastanglia to cambride, to london and the midlands.
I dont care where i fit into this chart, what matters to me is weather me and my opponent enjoyed the game. I don't care if we are gaming over the kitchen table or on a highly detailed torni board.

At the end of the day it is a game we are playing. and it is htere for enjoyment. So go ahead people enjoy.

Agree with you on pretty much everything and like your approach to gaming. Only thing id disagree with you on is the 'highly detailed tourni board'(s).
I havent seen that many that are paticularly well detailed.

Captain Collius
17-01-2012, 19:51
i'm builindg the entire 35d company dark angels (fluffy as all get out.) which mean i have exactly 6 squads of 10 tactical 2 assault squads of 10 2 devestator squads of ten 2 dread a master and command squad. 6rhinos 3 razorbacks and a chaplain. but i also have ravenwing support squads, a deathwing army, land raider crusaders, a librarian predators etc.. fluff doesn't equal bad.

that said my deathwing is my most effective army choice. ( although it was made more fun when i played a csm player who suggested his sorcerrer had info about the fallen well it just made the game that much better

Egaeus
17-01-2012, 20:21
I chose the second option. Alhtough I haven't played in a long while mostly because it got to the point where playing pick-up games at the LGS didn't give me what I really wanted.

A major issue as I understand it with "power builds" is that they tend to rely on spamming the same "good" units and this makes them "unfluffy" in the sense that they aren't fielding a variety of units, something that it seems like a "proper" force would. When there's dozens of units in a codex but an army uses only 3-4 of those options then it doesn't seem like a "realistic" army.

Along those lines it got me thinking too about the idea of army lists as static or dynamic things. That is, some players make a single list and play it all the time. Others make a different list for every game they play. It seems to me that those who play with or against a static list are more likely to be concerned about the "fluffiness" of said list simply because it doesn't change. Those who play with different lists can imagine them as different situations/scenarios where a specific build is either based on what is available and/or required for a particular mission.

Noobie2k7
17-01-2012, 20:31
I prefer campaign play to tournament play. For fluff reasons. Just more fun and enjoyable. I have a campaign coming up at the end of the year and need to get my head screwed on and my army sorted out for then. Going to need to pick up a few more bits like scouts and things. Can't be going into recon missions without scouts :O

another un-'fluffy' thing would be a blood angels army with 3 vindicators. Apparently the chapter only has 5, so i can assume seeing 3 about at the same time would be a bit unlikely.

TheMav80
18-01-2012, 01:17
Gah, I hate these ideas that pigeonhole armies into using specific units. See the Raven Guard debate going on. It simplifies the universe to a level I am uncomfortable with. Every codex (or nearly codex) chapter can field anything in the Space Marine codex in any amount (any amount that can be represented on the game table). Considering most of the time the Space Marine armies on the table are going to have about 60 bodies on the table, I think it is safe to say this is a pretty small part of the entire chapter. So if I prefer the Raven Guard fluff and the Raven Guard paint theme, but want to play an army of all Terminators, big deal.

As to Pedro leading Ultramarines, even GW said that those Special Characters can represent any character archetype. So Pedro leading Ultramarines is perfectly fluffy as far as GW is concerned.

Which leads me into how I tend to build my armies. I think of the army I want to play and choose that army on how much I like their fluff. Then once I have a theme/idea, I build the best possible list I can with the limitations I gave myself.

Ozorik
18-01-2012, 09:47
For me the least fluffy armies are those who break with the standard theme with the express purpose of making the army as 'competitive' as possible. There are few absolutes and if a specif theme is logical and consistent I wouldn't have an issue with it (with some exceptions).

Noobie2k7
18-01-2012, 09:59
Tyranids are the only army that could technically get away with WAAC army lists and still be considered 'fluffy' Due to the Hive mind just using whatever it will take to get the job done regardless of anything else.

Although on the other hand you could say any Tyranid army is un-'fluffy' due to you not really being able to fit on the board the amount of models that a hive fleet would bring to bear on any particular planet.

Spider-pope
18-01-2012, 20:35
I wouldnt say i necessarily "gimp" my armies, at least not since WFB 7th Ed where i had to gimp my Daemons just to make the game enjoyable for both parties, but i certainly don't choose my lists or models based on their rules.

My purchases are dictated by two things: Do i like the model and do i like the fluff.
Ultimately the models are going to spend far more time being painted and sitting on my shelf than they are ever going to spend on the tabletop, so really my main priority rests with their appearance.

And like many, i get my inspiration from the games background. I like the Landspeeder Storm and Space Marine Scouts as models for example, but it was only after reading 'Sons of Dorn' that i decided to work on a Scout based army and start painting them.


that's essentially what I mean... the most efficient/powerful armies a list can generate, should be the fluffy version of that given army IMO.

I disagree, fluffy armies should be equal to any others sure, but boosting them to be better than non-fluffy lists is too fraught with problems. Lets take the 3.5 Codex Chaos Space Marines as an example, since it was brought up as doing what you suggest. It gave bonuses for fluffy actions sure, but it was also stupendously biased in favour of its authors favourite army, Iron Warriors, to the extent that to have the most competitive Chaos army you had to paint your models silver.

It's far too restrictive for my tastes. And thats not even dealing with that there are multiple, fluffy ways an army can be fielded. To delve into the Raven Guard issue, its fluffy to have Shrike leading an Assault Marine heavy army. But its equally fluffy to have a Raven Guard army that consists of primarily tactical marines led by a Captain.

Or in the case of my Daemons, its well within the background for me to run a mono-Khorne list led by a Bloodthirster or a multi-God list led by a particularly cunning Herald. Which then do you give the stronger rules to?

Ace Rimmer
18-01-2012, 21:57
I'm all 3 options, but more of number 2 with only moderate tendencies towards 3 and rare tendencies towards 1. I always play to win, but I tend to choose a different army every time I play where possible because I like to see how different unit's work together.
Once I run out of options and have found what I want to run with, I usually start a new army lol.

I love my Noise Marine Army, because they usually fluff shooting only to end up smashing CC units in the face in assault. I rarely win, but I rarely lose either, it's almost always a draw. They are usually the most entertaining games.

Freman Bloodglaive
19-01-2012, 00:15
My Space Marines are a Dark Angels successor whose founding Chapter Master was a former 2nd Company Master of the Ravenwing. Their homeworld is an agricultural one where they still hunt from horseback and revere their ancestors.

In game terms it's a Space Marine bike army with access to a lot of dreadnoughts, although I also have terminators, sternguard, tactical and scout squads, assault squads, vanguard and devastators if they're needed in support.

Whilst they play according to my fluff, I'm pretty sure I decided what I wanted in my army before I fluffed it out.

bobafett_h
19-01-2012, 01:37
I always try to make a list competitive based on what I know, but I always do it within the confines of certain fluff.

I play Iyanden, so I usually try to use at least one unit of Wraithguard and one Wraithlord, even though they are not considered the most competitive units in the Eldar army...

I also try World Eaters, which is a bit easier since you really just need lots of Berzerkers, DP and Kharn and perhaps a Defiler and so on. Most of those options are normally found in competitive lists so it does feel less restrictive when keeping my lists fluffy...

Carlosophy
19-01-2012, 12:46
I think its more about who you play with than army selection. I make no secret my disdain for the 5E mission set ripped from Dawn of War and instead use the BM book or preferrably design my own. This means that via premeditation with my opponent both of us will forces tailored to the objective (like in real-life) rather than the most killy or spammed. This allows each battle, from a small Combat Patrol to a rearguard, breakthrough or sabotage to tell its own story.

I might have a fully mechanised army attempting a breakthrough one day to a scout patrol trying to blow up a bridge the other.

arakis10191
19-01-2012, 14:22
there are 3 reasons why the 3rd type doesn't appear to exist.

The first is something that a lot of people on warseer fail to understand. Being worse then another unit doesn't necessarily make the unit bad. A lot of units that people will cry underpowered over units that really aren't that bad. Some in fact are quite good. The problem is that something else does it better. Devestators are a great example of this. Most configurations are beaten by dakka preds or landspeeders, who are more mobile and far cheaper. For this reason most people think devastators are terrible, but in reality they still work quite well, just not as well. A fluff player is more likely to not care about there being a more efficient option. To them that extra efficiency doesn't matter, and in all reality, it often doesn't on the battle field either. It only really matters when you're playing against the same waac armies. So the first reason: Most "gimped" armies aren't actually that "gimped". They just aren't as powerful as they could be

next up, experience. A lot of competitive waac gamers think the concept of "it works for me" is rubbish, but your skill with a particular army is very relevant. Even net list require you to actually know how to get the best out of them. If you play with an inferior army often enough you'll learn tricks and ways to play it that make up for the short failings and help even out your win loss ratio. This is true of any army, be it waac spam list or super fluff based list, experience will only improve it's performance.

Final reason, you're looking in the wrong places. The third type of player doesn't exist in pick up games, tournies or your lgs. They exist at their homes, playing campaigns with their long time gaming buddies, using campaign rules they wrote themselves, playing special scenarios from wd that are 10 years old and not really giving much of a damn what the competitive scene says about scouts or conscripts or fire warriors. They're painting their fire warriors purely because they like painting firewarriors, or their making dioramas with a box of guardsmen, and only occasionally have a game because they have the miniatures so why not?

There is more to the hobby then actual gaming, and within gaming, there is more to gaming then winning. The third type of player, as you describe them, is never seen by you because they don't post list on the i-net or really game outside of a private gaming group that much at all.

You don't bring gimped fluffy list to warseer, tournies or lgs. You use them with friends at home. That's why you don't know anyone from the 3rd category

well said that man!

Noobie2k7
19-01-2012, 14:30
I mean i've got a game on the weekend where i'm going to be playing Nids and my friend is going to be using Catachans :P I'm going to be mostly using genestealers and lictors and venomthropes and no big gribblys as they wouldn't be suited to fighting in a forest.

The mission is his catachans have been sent to this forest world to hunt down and exterminate the remnants of a tyranid infestation. The lists will be far from competitive with lots of hormagaunts and stealthy Nids against Catachan vets with lots of flamers and sentinels. Going to be a lot of fun to see how it plays out.

Long story short i love and only really play games with some sort of theme and story behind it. It just makes everything a little bit more fun and enjoyable as you feel that your battle actually means something.

The Death of Reason
21-01-2012, 10:16
Okay.

I understand the 'fluffbunnies' in creating specific armies for specific scenarios in order to make it less gamey and more simulationist/storytelling - a playstyle I really like, since it has so much more in it than just defining a winner and loser.

Noobie2k7
21-01-2012, 10:24
Got my game later today. Might do a battle report for it but i don't know as there won't be any pictures. (only camera i own is the one attached to my computer :P)

BrainFireBob
21-01-2012, 21:12
CSM test: Will the author deny the results of the poll? Claim that people who don't play 40K voted? News at 11!

If you're not playing it as it was designed, why did you pick it up instead of a product designed to be used that way? If you have a "play like you've got a pair" attitude, then Warmachine is your game. If you lurv character development, a tabletop RPG should be your poison of choice. 40K isn't rigorous enough for winning to really matter. It's gimmicky and full of holes. For casual tactical play, though, it works just fine.

The Death of Reason
21-01-2012, 21:42
Sorry Brainfire? Whats to deny? I'm not sure I understand you?

Are you're asking for my personal preferred 'mode of play'? Are you trying to call me game fascist with no acceptance of other peoples playstyle or what?

-

I can only say that my personal attitude matches yours - this ought to shine through in the OP - but I was rather interested in other peoples experience concerning fluff vs. competitive, as I was tired of seeing people dismiss arguments based solely on what they perceive other players as.

I do however prefer to not play the game 'as designed'. 5th is a bit too simplistic after my tastes. I chose to the game for its models, its fluff, and out of curiosity from a 15 year hiatus (since RT). And will work out some decent house rules for a more simulationist game experience back home, while I definitely will attend a few tournaments once in a while, just to get out and see other armies and hobbyists - which forces me to keep up with current rules :)

Commissar Davis
22-01-2012, 02:09
I like to have something I can create a story with, even if its just a short one. I don't tend to really gimp myself, but I don't use cookie cutter lists either.

As far as I see it, win or lose a good game is a good game.

luchog
22-01-2012, 19:35
I don't tend to really gimp myself, but I don't use cookie cutter lists either.
I could be accused of deliberately gimping myself, because I often take units, or even build my army around units, that are considered to be not worth their points, too difficult to play effectively, or generally not useful. I've based Eldar armies around Warp Spiders, because they're one of my favorite units, despite being crap against MEQ armies. I've built all-flyer Eldar armies, with Guarding Jetbikes as the only troops, despite the expense and lack of effectiveness, just because I really like the style. I'll be playing at least one Mandrake unit in my Dark Eldar army regardless of how "useless" they're considered to be, because IMO they're one of the most interesting units the DE have.


As far as I see it, win or lose a good game is a good game.
Two of my three favorite games were ones where I lost, in one case lost badly. But they were both interesting games with some serious "holy crap" moments on both sides (like completely stopping a Rhino Rush with a unit of Warp Spiders that survived nearly the entire game due to good use of terrain and decent dice rolls). One of my least favorite games was one where I thoroughly trounced my opponent. Not because I played well, but because I was playing a seriously broken cheesefest army (Gav Thorpe's 3rd Ed Experimental Harlequin 'dex). I don't think we even bothered to finish the game, it was so bad.

xxRavenxx
22-01-2012, 20:00
So if I prefer the Raven Guard fluff and the Raven Guard paint theme, but want to play an army of all Terminators, big deal.

Since I started that argument off, and I just noticed the thread is still going, I'll reply. :)

I would have no issue with that, so long as that was your reasoning. (My eldar wraith army is Iyanden in construction but in Saim Hann colours.)

My issue arises when I suspect you're doing it to get fleet of foot on your terminators, and you THEN claim its fluffy. I suppose its subjective, but I really dislike seeing people play to win then claiming they play for fluff. I don't mind which someone does. I do mind when they claim they're not doing what they clearly are doing.

ForgottenLore
22-01-2012, 20:11
"gimp", I think, has the wrong connotations. When I read someone talking about "gimping" an army, I think "looking at the army list, deciding which units are the most powerful/most effective/have the best synergies, and then deliberately taking different units". That sounds like how a WAAC player would imagine a fluff player constructs a list, but that isn't at all accurate. The truth is that for a lot of people "most powerful/most effective/have the best synergies" simply isn't even a factor. That information isn't a part of the decision making process because it isn't relevant. I make the best list I can, but best is defined as what models do I have that will be the most fun to play/look best on the table. I don't read tactics or army list threads or articles because they are boring. There is no information in them that I have any interest in, so I can't "gimp" my army because I don't know which units are most effective and which aren't.

Deadnight
22-01-2012, 22:35
Since I started that argument off, and I just noticed the thread is still going, I'll reply. :)

I would have no issue with that, so long as that was your reasoning. (My eldar wraith army is Iyanden in construction but in Saim Hann colours.)

My issue arises when I suspect you're doing it to get fleet of foot on your terminators, and you THEN claim its fluffy. I suppose its subjective, but I really dislike seeing people play to win then claiming they play for fluff. I don't mind which someone does. I do mind when they claim they're not doing what they clearly are doing.

my only issue here is the implication that you either (A)play to win, or (B) play for fluff. there have been numerous examples in this thread of perfectly fine, fluffy armies that are hard as nails, and perfect for tournaments. too many times over the years, ive seen the fluffbunnies claim "you cant play that! its unfluffy!!1!" when just as this thread has shown, yes it is, or yes, it can be.


tl'dr its not as simple as that!

xxRavenxx
22-01-2012, 22:42
An obvious issue is that what I see as fluffy is probably not what you see as fluffy.

For example: My idea of a fluffy army is what was in 3rd ed. Any major rewrites since then probably didn't catch my eye, and I've kind of... ignored them really. The exception being Necrons, who's new fluff I embraced entirely, as their old fluff was... sparce, almost like a rumor of the fluff to come :P

I also don't pay heed to any black library fluff, as I've never liked 40k books, and thusly never read any. (I obviously read part of one, before someone comments. They're just not my thing.)

I expect that what I see as fluffy is entirely different to what some/most/all other people think.

Chaotic Pumpkin
23-01-2012, 00:13
I play what *I* consider fun. I don't care overly much about fluff because hey, it's GW, and it's the grim future where most if not all things are possible.
I play Dark Angels. So what? If I deploy Ravenwing, I should do so in ten man squads, ergo buy full squadron, an attack bike and a speeder every time? Well fine, my fluffy friend, assume the speeder was sniped and destroyed before my force got here for crying out loud...

But some things are a matter of personal taste: I find razorback spam for example to be... unfaithful to how I picture space marines in my head. Sure, I want a squad of overpriced Elite-slot scouts somewhere on the table, scouting ahead or guarding my rear. I like the concept of it, I like the models for it, and I'll find a way to make it work - whether that makes my list harder to play or not. I'll still make sure there's a mechanics-wise useful synergy in the list to cover them, so I wouldn't call it "gimping" my army.

carldooley
23-01-2012, 00:55
I don't care overly much about fluff because hey, it's GW, and it's the grim future where most if not all things are possible.

I recall the rule of Dungeons & Dragons - for every meme, there is an exception. that means that somewhere there is a tyranid hive ship that is going to negotiate before they initiate hostilities. Somewhere there is a considerate demon prince that goes out of its way to act in the most chivalrous way possible. There is even an orc that will work with humans rather than slaughter them.

Heck when I played Space Marines, I justified my force by saying that they were the 'scrap collectors' of the 40k universe - going from lost world to lost world and reclaiming Drop Pods and wrecked STCs for recycle or repair.

althathir
23-01-2012, 02:43
I went with the middle option because honestly I think its a lot more complex than being WAAC player or Fluffbunny. I like playing competitive games, and don't mind playing againist netlists at all. But the most important part of the game for me is that me and my opponent have fun so in a pickup game I like to talk about what sort of game the opposing player wants, and if what I brought is too hardcore we figure out some way too balance it whether its a point handicap or some alternate win condition (like I have to have 5 more kp or I lose). The fact of the matter is that warhammer is a miserable game if one side isn't having fun and alot of the time a 5min talk before the game can solve a lot of problems.

Tournaments are trickier, but honestly I've found that most fluffbunnies that come to tourney are there so you can tell them how cool their stuff is, and want to talk about the fluff and background of both forces. So even if the game is one-sided there are ways to make it a more positive experience and its disappointing that some people don't put the effort out to try and make playing the game pleasant (granted sometimes those guys are fluffbunnies). For example I was in a tourney where my opponent really liked the ideal of his hq dueling with his opponents leader but the mission rewarded you if your hq killed thiers and my farseer would have been smoked. So I told him that if he didn't get into combat with my hq we would have them duel after the game. It made his day (seer got stomped) and made it so we both got what wanted out of it.