Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Do you prefer fluffy or Win at all Costs armies?

They aren't really mutually exclusive. I can have a scatbike list that is fluffy and WAAC.

I vote fluffy armies.

This poll is a bit silly, really. It caters to my needs as a fluff player, but I think there are players out there who are not WAAC but don't care much for the fluff either. Where is their option on the poll? Call it competitive, or something.

There are also players who are not WAAC or Fluffy or competitive, and instead build armies they think look cool or are fun to paint or whatnot, and don't put much thought into the background nor into winning. Call them casual?

pm713 wrote:
They aren't really mutually exclusive. I can have a scatbike list that is fluffy and WAAC.

Yes, tell CSM players that.

I kinda split it half and half. Most fluff armies get curb stomped, especially the low-tier codex ones, so I avoid that by just sprinkling in some competitiveness. Sometimes it even matches the fluff, sometimes it's off by a little bit but more often than not GW writers give some lee way to units you can use, for example the Firehowlers great company mainly uses jump-packs but despite this still uses long fangs, allowing me to use them in a fluffy list.

 krodarklorr wrote:

pm713 wrote:
They aren't really mutually exclusive. I can have a scatbike list that is fluffy and WAAC.

Yes, tell CSM players that.

The fact not all armies can do it doesn't change my point.

I prefer Fluff, regardless of how competitive the army is. I would rather play a game and get stomped by another player VS a WAAC player. Those games just aren't fun. Sadly Fluff tends to mostly be friendly games in my experience.

I'm fluff based. Always have been.

My Death Guard are footsloggers (though I've basically been forced to incorporate the Land Raider and a few Rhinos in because yay 6th ed). for the most part.

My Eldar are Aspect based - no scatbikes, no Wraithknights. Heck, I even sold my only Wraithknight a while back.

My Tyranids...well...are in an awkward spot. They need a major overhaul so right now they're at the stage of meh.

Lol do you prefer being burned or frozen to death, choose now.

To add to my earlier point: I am sure some people think my armies are WAAC - those people don't know the process I go through when picking a unit, etc. That said, fluff armies can be strong armies.

pm713 wrote:
They aren't really mutually exclusive. I can have a scatbike list that is fluffy and WAAC.

This. You can also have lists that are neither.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
. That said, fluff armies can be strong armies.

You could even say that a large part of the most powerfull armeis are fluff armies with all the decurion style or other huge fluffy detachments out there

I play armies that are fluffy, but I like to tailor my fluff to my own understanding of how the armies should work.

For instance, I use a lot of allies with my Harlequins, because I like the increased gameplay depth you get from small support elements augmenting the small roster of the Harlequin codex. I also favor the fluff argument that a scheming trickster god who draws his followers from the highly militarized Craftworld and Kabalite societies would not turn down the pre-existing equipment and specialities of new converts, and I have the models converted to match the Harlequin aesthetic - if a physically altered Dark Eldar scourge brought his valuable armor and weaponry with him when turning to follow Cegorach, I doubt that assistance would simply be turned away because "nope, I'm sorry, you can only use shuriken pistols and your choice of close combat weaponry".

I find that interesting gameplay tricks using things like the open-ended ally structure, detachments and unbound enhance rather than reduce fluff a lot of the time. There are instances where it does (those good ol' games where you end up playing unpainted half-built riptides allied to unbound flyrants with the wrong arms "but you know what theyre really equipped with, cmon, they're flyrants")

But I've had just as many crappy games with perfectly bound and fluffy powergamed-up space marine and Tau armies where I can tell there's not much correlation.

To those who are talking about the two not being mutually exclusive: You are right, of course; but nowhere in the poll or the original post did the OP say that they were. Al the OP asked was which you prefer, not which you would exclusively prefer.

On point: Definitely fluffy. It costs me a lot of wins (being BTs and all), but I don't mind. I have fun because the fluff bits and exciting dice rolls make it fun. The win is just a bonus.

I always prefer fluffy over WaaC, although my dislike for the latter is because GW's rules are in such a state that WaaC players don't really need much in the way of skill. The primary "strong" lists generally boil down to spamming units that are just good at everything.

The 5th Edition Dark Eldar is what I would consider a Strong, but skill-based army; you try using that one charging in guns a blazing and you will get pulped very, very quickly. But used properly it's an absolute nightmare to face. But that at the end leaves you with the feeling of a worthy opponent. By comparison the Scatbike and Wraithknight combo is quite indeed "charge forward and shoot, then grab the objectives if you have time". There is no interesting counterplay.

Fluff generally. I find it fun, usually semi balanced against each other, and provides more list vareity.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

My Eldar are Aspect based - no scatbikes, no Wraithknights. Heck, I even sold my only Wraithknight a while back..

I like the sound of this so much.

pm713 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

My Eldar are Aspect based - no scatbikes, no Wraithknights. Heck, I even sold my only Wraithknight a while back..

I like the sound of this so much.

I love the Pale Courts Battlehost in Doom of Mymeara so much. It lets me field the Craftworld Warhost in a way that doesn't force me into Guardians and Vypers.

Pale Court Battlehost - Aspect Lord-shire (Dire Avengers), Halls of Martial Splendour - turns my Core choice into an Autarch (with rerolls in challenges) and 3 Dire Avenger squads

Then for Command...

Living Legends - Avatar
Living Legends - Karandras

Depending on game I consider a Seer Council.


Then for Auxiliary...

Aspect Host - 2 small Banshee units in Wave Serpents, Big Scorpion unit - give them +1 WS
Aspect Host - 2 Fire Dragon units, 1 Dark Reaper unit
Engines of Vaul - Falcon
Engines of Vaul - Falcon
Outcasts

FAAC

I think there is an issue with the poll. Is the question really Fluffy vs Win at all costs, or is it Fluffy versus Competitive?

You can be a competitive gamer without being a WAAC guy. You can also play a fluffy list, but still be a WAAC guy.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

pm713 wrote:

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

My Eldar are Aspect based - no scatbikes, no Wraithknights. Heck, I even sold my only Wraithknight a while back..

I like the sound of this so much.

I love the Pale Courts Battlehost in Doom of Mymeara so much. It lets me field the Craftworld Warhost in a way that doesn't force me into Guardians and Vypers.

Pale Court Battlehost - Aspect Lord-shire (Dire Avengers), Halls of Martial Splendour - turns my Core choice into an Autarch (with rerolls in challenges) and 3 Dire Avenger squads

Then for Command...

Living Legends - Avatar
Living Legends - Karandras

Depending on game I consider a Seer Council.


Then for Auxiliary...

Aspect Host - 2 small Banshee units in Wave Serpents, Big Scorpion unit - give them +1 WS
Aspect Host - 2 Fire Dragon units, 1 Dark Reaper unit
Engines of Vaul - Falcon
Engines of Vaul - Falcon
Outcasts

How does Karandras do? I find the fact you lose out on the shrouded before shooting a turn off. The only Phoenix Lord I've used so far is Asurmen.

 kronk wrote:
I think there is an issue with the poll. Is the question really Fluffy vs Win at all costs, or is it Fluffy versus Competitive?

You can be a competitive gamer without being a WAAC guy. You can also play a fluffy list, but still be a WAAC guy.

This. WAAC is an attitude, not an army list.

I don't like the kind of game or attitude that comes with WAAC armies, but I won't begrudge people who like to play that way. I think they'd have more fun playing in a more narrative-style and I try to promote that whenever I can, but I'm not upset that people play in ITC or NOVA-style events or what have you. I even play in tournaments a couple times a year to play against new people and get annihilated by the WAAC armies I encounter.

Fluffy, always Realistic is a more apt term. I look at an army and pick a particular theme or concept I like that matches the backstory and then I build for that, "effectiveness" be damned. The key is it has to match the background material. For instance, I would not take an all-Wraith army unless I was playing Iyanden or created a craftworld in a similar, dire situation (which would then use Iyanden rules to represent it).

For example, I want to play Chaos. I want to play a warband based around the CSMs themselves, but I want to be Undivided. Therefore I set myself a special limit that no model can have a mark, and since this warband's fluff is they are mostly original Traitor Legions, every model that can have VotLW needs VotLW. I like daemon engines though, so I can take those, but beyond that I want a very Space Marine-esque force, but Chaos. So lots of regular marines, Raptors, maybe Havocs, a couple of tanks, backed up by a daemon engine or two and let's say a Defiler because it looks cool.

Would I be better off just using the Marine codex or "re-fluffing" things like Mark of Nurgle (i.e. it's bionics)? Probably, but those feel like excuses to justify choices that don't fit the narrative of the army simply because they are better, which is where the fluff comes in. IMHO to be a truly fluffy player, you can't create excuses to take choices that don't fit the fluff, no matter how you spin them away. That's always been my issue because I find a lot of "fluffy" players really just manipulate the fluff to justify taking non-fluffy things. Creativity is one thing, but being creative to include things that don't otherwise fit does not sit well with me.

WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC). I don't care about your awful fanfiction for your space marines, just bring a good list and play the game.

 Peregrine wrote:
WAAC (which should really be called "competitive" not WAAC). I don't care about your awful fanfiction for your space marines, just bring a good list and play the game.

That's an unnecessarily limited view, don't you think? I know that storytelling and immersion in the game lore isn't for everyone, but it seems to be something that most players enjoy. Most players have special characters or units they think are cool, and many have a personal attachment to models in their collections. It's fun stuff, and it's even more fun if you get to use things you like by imposing some house rules and self-restrictions to limit the more poorly designed elements of the rules from showing up in your games.

In a sense, a competitive mindset is much more restrictive than a 'fluffy' mindset. After all, there are only so many armies that can stand up to Scatter Bikes and Wraithknights, min-maxed battle companies and biker death stars, Invisibility and Tzeentch demons. If you play competitive you limit yourself to those options, at least if you want to have an interesting game. If you don't build a cutthroat list there are many more options that open up; entire codices, really, as well as alternative builds from the effective codices, as you can take more units without worrying that they'll be blown off the board in turn one or not have any good targets.

Obviously, competitive play has its advantages. You don't have to agree with your opponent about house rules beforehand (other than playing by some tournament house rules like ITC), so both players enter the game with the same sort of expectations. You cut out all of the negotiation and horse-trading that happens before a fluffy game, and the risk that one player will do something the other player doesn't like or wasn't expecting.

However, I find there's a certain joylessness to competitive games. Whenever I play in a tournament my opponents are all perfectly nice, they (usually) know the rules, and I very seldom have a bad experience with my opponent's personality. But the games themselves are bland. The armies are bland. There's no love for the miniatures, no love for the game lore, no love for the visuals. It looks like a game, sounds like a game... but it isn't a game. It's a weird, Stepford Wives vibe. I always want to give my opponent's miniatures a hug, just so they know they're loved.

Competitive play is not a bad experience, insofar as it is an experience with some merit. You play games, meet new people, and occasionally see some sweet paint jobs. (The terrain always seems to be terrible, though, at least where I am in southern New England) I like competitive play on occasion. But I consider it, at most, an alternate way to play the game, not the default way to play.

pm713 wrote:

How does Karandras do? I find the fact you lose out on the shrouded before shooting a turn off. The only Phoenix Lord I've used so far is Asurmen.

He's...monstrous. S8, AP 2 at Initiative with the I10 2+ wound on top is brutal to most things. The trick I find is making sure multiple threats are present when Karandras arrives.

I sometimes run Dark Eldar allies (because I like the idea of not-Corsair corsairs) and find what they offer helps to make sure you're on the enemy lines simultaneously.

I don't want to play against a WAAC player, but I also don't want to face someone who has built a completely terrible list in the name of fluff.
If its fluffy and still a decent list, awesome. If its not fluffy at all, but still a decent list, just as good. I just want a nice fun game.

 Saber wrote:
However, I find there's a certain joylessness to competitive games. Whenever I play in a tournament my opponents are all perfectly nice, they (usually) know the rules, and I very seldom have a bad experience with my opponent's personality. But the games themselves are bland. The armies are bland. There's no love for the miniatures, no love for the game lore, no love for the visuals. It looks like a game, sounds like a game... but it isn't a game. It's a weird, Stepford Wives vibe. I always want to give my opponent's miniatures a hug, just so they know they're loved.

Competitive play is not a bad experience, insofar as it is an experience with some merit. You play games, meet new people, and occasionally see some sweet paint jobs. (The terrain always seems to be terrible, though, at least where I am in southern New England) I like competitive play on occasion. But I consider it, at most, an alternate way to play the game, not the default way to play.

You lose a lot of the fun when you remove all dialogue between players and boil it down to just gameplay. If anyone plays MTG you know the dynamic between Modern tournaments and say, Commander or Draft. Its practically 2 different games.

With the current state of codexes these days even the most fluffy eldar/tau army mops the floor with most lists. Heck, its hard enough making a decent ork list without it being Zhadsnark and 40 bikes. You kind of have to have an idea of what both people are bringing beforehand, with the prerequisite that you don't bring a hardcounter army list. Its a bit of compromise but it keeps games from ending in 2 turns.

And WAAC isn't really just an attitude. You being the nicest guy ever who loves lore doesn't stop the Wraithknight from being an undercosted death machine. or 3-5 riptides from being nigh unkillable.