OK, so I've been listening to all the whining...I mean...discussion about lists that are not 'fluffy', and I wondered if there was a way to write rules that help ensure an army is played with an acceptable amount of 'fluffiness'. These are my initial thoughts. Add or discuss as you be inclined. Note: amendments in blue.

1) You may take one HQ choice in games of 1850 points or less.
2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.
3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.
4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.
5) Select equipment appropriately. If power swords are supposed to be "rare and precious artifacts of the Chapter" - and you have as many as you are allowed to field by the rules...something is wrong. Rule #3 is intended to help prevent this a bit. That and, well, most armies are centered around the regular soldier.

That should be an OK start. This is not a philisophical discussion of fluff players vs. Winning Is Everything players, or causal vs. tournament players. It's an attempt to put some semi-concrete rules around how to play 'fluffy'. For the record, I just like to play. If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair - or at least fun for both of us. If it's a tournament, I expect some beardy horror designed only to crush everything in its path. I love the fluff, but will construct lists for fun, or just to see if they'll work sometimes.

This is definitely a good start.

But you also need to change missions, etc.

Special Characters should probably remain for vanilla-style dexes like C:SM, C:CSM, Orks and Dark Eldar. Alot of them are the only way to access "fluffy" HQ choices (Kharn in particular embodies the rage and close combat nature of khorne and is actually immune to psychic powers, a very fluffy choice, while typhus has a template weapon and Nurgle's Rot, both of which he can use like normal weapons, kinda like him spewing noxious fumes, again fluffy). Beilal and Sammael too, as they're the only way to build actual Deathwing and Ravenwing armies. Other characters, like Mephiston, Swarmlord, Yriel, and others of the like dont really add much in terms of fluff, so it's acceptable that they're discarded.

Kanluwen wrote:But you also need to change missions, etc.

Why is that?

I don't think you really need rules 1-3 they seem rather arbitrary. The last 2 should cover things.

One of the strongest lists I have ever faced was a fluffy imperial fist list. Also limiting HQ choices does not a fluffy list make. There are so many fluffy situation where having 2 HQ is more fluffy than none. For example I have a fluff based witch hunter list an inquisitor and a canoness lead the army because it has both inquisitorial and ecclesiarchy units.

...Oh, and change daemon armies majorly, IMHO, if your HQ is a blood thirster, you should not be able to field daemonettes...that is all...

VoidAngel wrote:OK, so I've been listening to all the whining...I mean...discussion about lists that are not 'fluffy', and I wondered if there was a way to write rules that help ensure an army is played with an acceptable amount of 'fluffiness'. These are my initial thoughts. Add or discuss as you be inclined.

1) You may take one HQ choice.
2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.
3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.
4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.

Why is having two HQ choices un-fluffy?
What does letting your opponent know what special character you're taking have to do with fluffy-ness? Nothing.
You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable? And it hurts some armies much more than others? (mostly the weaker ones) And prevents some fluffy combinations.
Blood Angels have exactly as many tactical squads and devestator squads as any other chapter. They do not have more assault squads. I suggest you read the BA codex.

The problem with forcing so-called fluffy armies is that it only corresponds with that person's idea of the fluff. You clearly seem to think that BA should have lots of assault squads. Read their chapter composition and you'll see that is not the case. An all assault squad army is perfectly fluffy for BA or UM - they both have assault companies. Likewise, a perfectly fluffy BA (or UM) army is all Tac squads and transports (tactical company).

Trying to limit people to going along with your interpretation of the fluff is a very poor idea.

I prefer to come up with a decent list and then come up with a way to justify the army existing.

Sometime spam list are the fluffiest list =) Vulkan SM list, IG mech spam are both examples of a competive list that play and feel very much in character for the armies the represent.

Scott-S6 wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:OK, so I've been listening to all the whining...I mean...discussion about lists that are not 'fluffy', and I wondered if there was a way to write rules that help ensure an army is played with an acceptable amount of 'fluffiness'. These are my initial thoughts. Add or discuss as you be inclined.

1) You may take one HQ choice.
2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.
3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.
4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.

Why is having two HQ choices un-fluffy?
What does letting your opponent know what special character you're taking have to do with fluffy-ness? Nothing.
You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable? And it hurts some armies much more than others? (mostly the weaker ones) And prevents some fluffy combinations.
Blood Angels have exactly as many tactical squads and devestator squads as any other chapter. They do not have more assault squads. I suggest you read the BA codex.

The problem with forcing so-called fluffy armies is that it only corresponds with that person's idea of the fluff. You clearly seem to think that BA should have lots of assault squads. Read their chapter composition and you'll see that is not the case. An all assault squad army is perfectly fluffy for BA or UM - they both have assault companies. Likewise, a perfectly fluffy BA (or UM) army is all Tac squads and transports (tactical company).

Trying to limit people to going along with your interpretation of the fluff is a very poor idea.

I agree with the first three but arn't you trying to force your own view of a "fluffy" force on him too? BAs are famous for their assault squads and close combat. The OP specifically mentioned "Turtling" as a tactc, in combination with Dev and Tac spam. The only chapter that does that regularly is the Imperial Fists. True all Chapters have these companies in reserve, but tactics is also an important part of fluff. The BAs might do it if they were under siege. It's not very fluffy to think that your army is always besieged by the enemy now is it? (especially since Marines tend to take the initiative).

This is why whenever I make a themed list I tend to lay down hard restrictions and guidelines when asking for crits. There will always be that one person who goes "Oh, but this force has (insert non fluffy but effective unit) listed in their composition, so you should spam it because it is fluffy!" As someone pointed out before, normal Warhammer games represent a small skirmish. Just because they have these forces doesnt mean they will always appear. Whereas the "fluffy" choices tend to appear alot in the backstories, so it makes sense that they should be the majority, if not completely take over, a list that is designed for a small, random skirmish.

"Special Characters should probably remain for vanilla-style dexes like C:SM, C:CSM, Orks and Dark Eldar."

Yep, hence the proviso in rule one. It's one simple rule, instead of a rule followed by a list of exceptions.

I'm not sure why scenarios have to change too..but open to ideas.

"I don't think you really need rules 1-3 they seem rather arbitrary. The last 2 should cover things."

Could be, but I felt if there were no clear-cut rules at all, I'd accomplish nothing. Some players need structure because they just don't get the concept of not doing something that is technically legal.

On spam: yes, there will be exceptions - and that's why that one is not a hard-and-fast rule.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I agree with the first three but arn't you trying to force your own view of a "fluffy" force on him too? BAs are famous for their assault squads and close combat.

Check the current codex. They have no more assault squads than any codex chapter so to say that a BA army isn't fluffy because it consists of tacticals and devastators is simply incorrect.

They might be "famous for" their assault squads but BA have no difference in their chapter composition to a typical marine chapter except for their abundance of land raiders.

They can field an assault heavy army but so can any codex chapter. Likewise, they can also field a tactical or devastator heavy army.

Why is having two HQ choices un-fluffy?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Usually, 2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor. Not always, but often.

What does letting your opponent know what special character you're taking have to do with fluffy-ness? Nothing.

>>>>>>>>>>> Belligerent much? It lets your opponent know your intentions. The idea here is that the other guy understand that you are taking Mephiston not because he is a ridonkulous monstrosity that will eat half his army, but because...(insert fluffy reason here).

You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable? And it hurts some armies much more than others? (mostly the weaker ones) And prevents some fluffy combinations.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, yes I do. I even say that in the post. Again, these are guidelines for discussion, not proposed changes to the game. Or did you miss that?

Blood Angels have exactly as many tactical squads and devestator squads as any other chapter. They do not have more assault squads. I suggest you read the BA codex.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're an angry little man today, aren't you? I know the codex back to it's inception. It's not what they have available that I'm talking about, it's what they are characterized as fielding most often. You might want to read the fluff.

The problem with forcing so-called fluffy armies is that it only corresponds with that person's idea of the fluff. You clearly seem to think that BA should have lots of assault squads. Read their chapter composition and you'll see that is not the case. An all assault squad army is perfectly fluffy for BA or UM - they both have assault companies. Likewise, a perfectly fluffy BA (or UM) army is all Tac squads and transports (tactical company).

>>>>Again, this idea of 'forcing'...where? These are proposed guidelines for development for games between friends. I'm not trying to alter the core game.

Trying to limit people to going along with your interpretation of the fluff is a very poor idea.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Possibly. Do you think that might be why I posted it to a board for discussion, rather than just making it up by myself and handing it down from high on the mountain?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"There will always be that one person who goes "Oh, but this force has (insert non fluffy but effective unit) listed in their composition, so you should spam it because it is fluffy!" As someone pointed out before, normal Warhammer games represent a small skirmish. Just because they have these forces doesnt mean they will always appear. Whereas the "fluffy" choices tend to appear alot in the backstories, so it makes sense that they should be the majority, if not completely take over, a list that is designed for a small, random skirmish."

Yes, exactly. That's where I was going.

VoidAngel wrote:. It's not what they have available that I'm talking about, it's what they are characterized as fielding most often. You might want to read the fluff.

The fluff that says "the 2nd through 5th companies are the chapter's backbone, the battle companies who form the core of any strike force and bear the greatest burden in any campaign"? So, that would be 24 tactical squads, 8 assault squads and 8 devestator squads.
It also goes on to say regarding the 8th (assault) and 9th (devastator) "are only deployed when an overwhelming single-minded approach is required".

So, assault heavy armies are not "fielded most often". A half battle company (3x tac, 1x ass, 1x dev) would be extremely fluffy. A force of four tacticals and two devastators is perfectly fluffy.

Just because the popular image of BA deployments is about assault squads does not mean that is typical. Also, there is always going to be a direct correlation between what they have available and what they field unless you're suggesting that the bulk of the chapter sits around doing nothing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:;You're an angry little man today, aren't you?

No, I just find the idea of what you're proposing rather repugnant. To say that someone's army isn't fluffy simply because it does not fit the stereotypical image of that army (even if the stereotypical image does not fit with what the fluff actually says!) is, frankly, ridiculous.

The only time a list becomes un-fluffy is if it directly contradicts a clearly stated point of the background. For example, White Scars expressly do not use Dreadnoughts, ever. If you want to include a dread in your fluffy white scars army you better have a pretty good explanation for it.

scott-s6 wrote:You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable?

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I do. I even say that in the post

No you didn't.


Why don't you just come right out and say that you have a problem with hard armies? That seems to be what this is really about.

"If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair"
"Usually, 2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor." - So, fluff isn't a concern - you're just concerned with people making hard armies.

This thread is actually about composition rules disguised under fluff.

two silly non fluffy things for IG:

stop using CCS's and PCS's as special weapons teams. those units should only be able to take one special. and give special weapons teams BS 4 (because they are special).

and infantry troops getting power weapons? craziness.

mrsmith wrote:stop using CCS's and PCS's as special weapons teams. those units should only be able to take one special.

FW did exactly that with the Elysian and Kreig lists. CCS's should not be suicide melta teams (suicide because, since they're non-scoring they're less tactically valuable than a vet squad)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrsmith wrote:and infantry troops getting power weapons? craziness.

Maybe for especially awesome sergeants. Since they did just take their power fists, lasguns and bolters away.

To expend on this topic, how about posting an army list, for your army of preferences, that you would consider fluffy.

Im interested in finding out what people would play, based on fluff, and how competitive it might be compared to other armies.

Scott-S6 wrote:
The fluff that says "the 2nd through 5th companies are the chapter's backbone, the battle companies who form the core of any strike force and bear the greatest burden in any campaign"? So, that would be 24 tactical squads, 8 assault squads and 8 devestator squads.
It also goes on to say regarding the 8th (assault) and 9th (devastator) "are only deployed when an overwhelming single-minded approach is required".

So, assault heavy armies are not "fielded most often". A half battle company (3x tac, 1x ass, 1x dev) would be extremely fluffy. A force of four tacticals and two devastators is perfectly fluffy.

Just because the popular image of BA deployments is about assault squads does not mean that is typical. Also, there is always going to be a direct correlation between what they have available and what they field unless you're suggesting that the bulk of the chapter sits around doing nothing?

I disagree. Completely. But, perhaps we need to define terms (since you seem to have a vast disconnect between your assumed intent of this post and the motive of its author - and reality).

When someone talks about "fluff" - they are typically, and explicitly talking about "the popular image" as you put it. For example, "Blood Angles wouldn't stand back and shoot." It's not that they can't. It's not that they never, ever have - it is quite simply that this is not how 99.8% of players imagine them. There is a reason for this - and it is the FLUFF!

Scott-S6 wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:;You're an angry little man today, aren't you?

No, I just find the idea of what you're proposing rather repugnant. To say that someone's army isn't fluffy simply because it does not fit the stereotypical image of that army (even if the stereotypical image does not fit with what the fluff actually says!) is, frankly, ridiculous.

I find it amusing that someone can be 'repulsed' by a proposed suggestion that is welcoming input to improve it. Honestly, you act like I am trying to alter the core rules of the game. I'm not, this is (again) for games between friends, who WANT to put some intelligent structure around making lists that fit the characterization of their armies. I wanted to know if this attempt made sense to others, or failed - and if so, where and how. You are WELCOME to say, "Hey, I think you're missing the mark" - but you react as if I'm asking to come to your house and remove any models I don't think fit your army's fluff or something...

scott-s6 wrote:You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable?

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I do. I even say that in the post
No you didn't.

Yes, yes I did. Re-READ the OP.

scott-s6 wrote:
Why don't you just come right out and say that you have a problem with hard armies? That seems to be what this is really about.

Because I don't, and you're wrong. I field 'hard armies'. I've won tournaments. I like it when people field a bastard of a list for me to deal with. Really. - But they are rarely FLUFFY. That's what this is about. It's about a Saturday afternoon game where you and a mate say, "Hey, why don't we try playing real true-to-the-fluff lists today?" Sure...but what does that LOOK like composition-wise. I'm just trying to lend some structure to the attempt. That's all. I'm not trying to break your toys or take your candy.

scott-s6 wrote:
"If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair"
"Usually, 2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor." - So, fluff isn't a concern - you're just concerned with people making hard armies.

This thread is actually about composition rules disguised under fluff.

*sigh* Hey, guess what? You don't have to use ANY of these suggestions! How about that?! This is a totally theoretical, experimental, non-compulsory idea from a person you will never meet or play against! *gasp!*

Ok, so now that that's out of the way...do you maybe kind of understand what I'm getting at - and how it's absolutely nothing for you to lose sleep over?

VoidAngel wrote:When someone talks about "fluff" - they are typically, and explicitly talking about "the popular image" as you put it. For example, "Blood Angles wouldn't stand back and shoot." It's not that they can't. It's not that they never, ever have - it is quite simply that this is not how 99.8% of players imagine them. There is a reason for this - and it is the FLUFF!

So you're suggesting that the "popular image" of a chapter is the only way that it should be played? Even when the background does not, in fact, support it? Not to mention that those stereotypical armies you are suggesting are by far the least interesting and most over-done. Is it not better to encourage people to be more creative with their fluff and find the unusual compositions than to hamstring them at every turn?

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I did. Re-READ the OP.

Really? You want to quote what, exactly, you said in the OP regarding the impact of four mandatory troop choices?

VoidAngel wrote:

scott-s6 wrote:Why don't you just come right out and say that you have a problem with hard armies? That seems to be what this is really about.

Because I don't, and you're wrong.

So, why the single-HQ restriction which you've already said is because of the "abuse factor", not for fluff reasons.

Scott-S6 wrote:

mrsmith wrote:stop using CCS's and PCS's as special weapons teams. those units should only be able to take one special.

FW did exactly that with the Elysian and Kreig lists. CCS's should not be suicide melta teams (suicide because, since they're non-scoring they're less tactically valuable than a vet squad)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrsmith wrote:and infantry troops getting power weapons? craziness.

Maybe for especially awesome sergeants. Since they did just take their power fists, lasguns and bolters away.

i didnt know that. i'll have to check them out.

VoidAngel wrote:Ok, so now that that's out of the way...do you maybe kind of understand what I'm getting at - and how it's absolutely nothing for you to lose sleep over?

I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm fortunate enough not to have to play with people that feel the need to try and impose their opinion on other people's army list.

You asked for input. Your extremely emotional language suggests that you need to work on dealing with criticism.

VoidAngel wrote:I like it when people field a bastard of a list for me to deal with. Really. - But they are rarely FLUFFY.

This is in direct contradiction to a number of things you've said in this thread. Such as " If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair" or "2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor".

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I did. Re-READ the OP.

Really? You want to quote what, exactly, you said in the OP regarding the impact of four mandatory troop choices?

I can understand the 1 HQ. 40k is, again, a small skirmish that really shouldnt be led by two commanding officers unless it reaches the 2000 point threshold. It's the same mechanic back in pre-5th ed codexes, where a really powerful leader like Abaddon or Dante could only be fielded in a force that would be considered a "Major Engagement" type army. It's not really fluffy for them to lead a small kill-team of tactical marines, other commanders are more suited to this. Likewise, it made no sense for both Dante and Mephiston, two head honchos of the Blood Angels, to show up in a meager 1000 point battle, unless there was a campaign reason for it (maybe they snuck aboard Abaddon's ship and the battle depicted their fight in the command room, reminicent of the battle of Sanguinius and Horus. But honestly how many times will a situation like that repeat?).

The 2nd-5th company is the basis of your argument. However do note that these companies are not made up solely of Dev and Tacts. In fact there's only 2 devs in each of these companies. As well, the Descent of Angels rule specifically states that the Blood Angels themselves refined the art of deepstriking with their jump packs. One wonders how this could have turned up if they did not use jump packs moreso than any other chapter (in essence, if they indeed did spam tacts and devs like every other chapter, how come they're more proficient with Jump Packs?). Also note the fluff regarding Jump Packs: Almost all Blood Angels, regardless of final call, served in the Assault Squads after their training as Neophytes. They only adhere to the "official" 2 companies to adhere to codex astartes, but every marine is Jump-pack capable, and it's specifically stated that Assault Marines are incredibly common.

EDIT: Got ninja'd by Void. My second bullet still stands however.

Scott-S6 wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:Ok, so now that that's out of the way...do you maybe kind of understand what I'm getting at - and how it's absolutely nothing for you to lose sleep over?

I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm fortunate enough not to have to play with people that feel the need to try and impose their opinion on other people's army list.

You asked for input. Your extremely emotional language suggests that you need to work on dealing with criticism.

You are being obtuse. Seriously. I AM NOT trying to IMPOSE anything. I've done everything but draw it in crayon to get across to you that this is a SUGGESTION - for a FRIENDLY game where the players WANT to try to respect the fluff. You're exasperating. I'm not being emotional, you're being frustrating. And you have not offered criticism (not constructively, in any case) - you simply leapt to the attack - which invites a like response. You need work on argumentation.

VoidAngel wrote:I like it when people field a bastard of a list for me to deal with. Really. - But they are rarely FLUFFY.

This is in direct contradiction to a number of things you've said in this thread. Such as " If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair" or "2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor".

I think we should just ignore his comments altogether. In his case, so long as the chapter has a single one of anything, spamming it would be fluffy. It's only unfluffy if the chapter has zero access to said piece of equipment.

VoidAngel wrote:And I quote: "5) Select equipment appropriately. If power swords are supposed to be "rare and precious artifacts of the Chapter" - and you have as many as you are allowed to field by the rules...something is wrong. Rule #3 is intended to help prevent this a bit. That and, well, most armies are centered around the regular soldier. "

So, no mention of the fact that your proposed rule 3 will impact the viable points-level of games and will hurt the power level of some armies much more than others?

VoidAngel wrote:It's very simple: Most battles are not engagements of epic proportions that would see two members of the upper echelons of command attending.

Again, you are not fully considering the fluff. Librarians provide long range communications for space marines, a Captain is always going to have a librarian handy. There are plenty of other combinations that are perfectly fluffy.

Re the list you suggested - You have a company commander accompanied by all of the assault squads from his company but only one of the six tactical squads. You also have a rather high number of death company for such a small force. 30 DC members for the whole chapter is considered a worryingly high number. You also have two Baals and one Stormraven despite stormravens being 2.5x as common as baal's. So it could be called un-fluffy. However, as I've said earlier, I'll only call a list un-fluffy if it blatantly breaks the background.

Would you describe the list below as fluffy (for BA)

Captain (JP)
Librarian (JP)
Command Squad (JP)

Tactical Squad, Razorback
Tactical Squad, Razorback

Typhoon
Typhoon

Devestator Squad, Razorback
Devestator Squad, Razorback


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I think we should just ignore his comments altogether. In his case, so long as the chapter has a single one of anything, spamming it would be fluffy. It's only unfluffy if the chapter has zero access to said piece of equipment.

I've never said anything of the sort, quite the opposite.

VA has said that BA armies which are not assault heavy are un-fluffy when, in fact, BA have no more assault squads than anyone else. A genuinely fluffy BA list should not be all jump-packs.

Isn't the point of any battle supposed to be playing a small snapshot of a much larger conflict?
If you use an all assault squad army then maybe this is the section of the battlefield that the assault squads were deployed to.
Having Dante would simply suggest he is leading a large strikeforce and the section of the battlefield involving him and his honourguard is simply where they have ended up.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Also note the fluff regarding Jump Packs: Almost all Blood Angels, regardless of final call, served in the Assault Squads after their training as Neophytes. They only adhere to the "official" 2 companies to adhere to codex astartes, but every marine is Jump-pack capable

The same is true of all codex chapters where marines go from scout->dev->assault->tactical. So, at any given point in time roughly 72% of the chapter is either currently an assault marine or has been one in the past.

As an argument against the 1HQ restriction, why can't you imagine that this particular game of say 1000 points you are playing is one part of a giant engament raging across the planet. Your battle is only 1000 points of say the 10,000 points worth of battles being fought.

I think the rulebook even mentions how a game of 40k represents two parts of a greater army meeting each other on the battlefield. So if you look at it that way you can have 2 big leaders in a small game because perhaps this is the command detachment of the army.

Edit: Oh looks like people already made this point. I type way too slow, or maybe I should hit F5 more often : p

Scott-S6 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I think we should just ignore his comments altogether. In his case, so long as the chapter has a single one of anything, spamming it would be fluffy. It's only unfluffy if the chapter has zero access to said piece of equipment.

I've never said anything of the sort, quite the opposite.

VA has said that BA armies which are not assault heavy are un-fluffy when, in fact, BA have no more assault squads than anyone else. A genuinely fluffy BA list should not be all jump-packs.

You do know that he said that it's only a BA army with only Tact and Dev squads designed to sit in the back lines pelting the enemy, not charge forward with at least one assault squad right? Plus, it's stated in the Assault Marines Fluff that they are incredibly common in Blood Angel armies. That's why they're *gasp* troop choices instead of fast attack. What about mounted Assault Squads in Rhinos? These could simply be Tactical Marines who thought it'd be more prudent to take the fight to the enemy rather than sit back. Given that Assault squads are "incredibly common" (Pg 24 paragraph 3), there should be at least one squad in an army to be fluffy, and at least half of the army should be given jump packs.

Scott-S6 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Also note the fluff regarding Jump Packs: Almost all Blood Angels, regardless of final call, served in the Assault Squads after their training as Neophytes. They only adhere to the "official" 2 companies to adhere to codex astartes, but every marine is Jump-pack capable

The same is true of all codex chapters where marines go from scout->dev->assault->tactical. So, at any given point in time roughly 72% of the chapter is either currently an assault marine or has been one in the past.

Nice one. However you should note that it for BAs it goes Scout > Assault > Dev > Tact. Note the key difference here, and specifically how they mention that the chapter has no shortage of those willing to take up the jump pack again.

purplefood wrote:Isn't the point of any battle supposed to be playing a small snapshot of a much larger conflict?
If you use an all assault squad army then maybe this is the section of the battlefield that the assault squads were deployed to.
Having Dante would simply suggest he is leading a large strikeforce and the section of the battlefield involving him and his honourguard is simply where they have ended up.

Exactly. Almost any army composition can be fluffy providing it doesn't actually break the established background - you just have to put the effort in to justify it. 44/100 squads in the BA are tacticals, 18/100 are assault and 18/100 are devastator. An army heavy in any of those three is perfectly fluffy. Using more than twenty or so Death Company is not. We know that the BA generally have significantly less than 30 for the whole chapter. Even using 10-15 you're probably representing the entire death company for the whole chapter (who would, in virtually all circumstances be scattered across a number of different deployments).

Using destructor in a white scars army is not fluffy as they do not use them. They could form a devastator squad if they had to but you'd have to find an extremely compelling reason to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:You do know that he said that it's only a BA army with only Tact and Dev squads designed to sit in the back lines pelting the enemy, not charge forward with at least one assault squad right?

His rules don't address play style at all (how could they). Not to mention, BA aren't stupid. If they have a force that's packing a lot of heavy weapons they aren't going to just decide to charge the enemy.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Plus, it's stated in the Assault Marines Fluff that they are incredibly common in Blood Angel armies.

You are mis-representing the fluff. It actually says "Whilst Assault Marines are incredibly common in a Blood Angels strike force, this should not be taken to indicate that Assault Squads are more prevalent here than in other Chapters"

So, is your army representing a strike force? Or a blocking force? Or a fire-support detachment? All are entirely fluffy.

Scott - regarding your list:

If you said to me, "You know, a Captain would probably have a librarian on hand for communication, and this is a 2000 point battle - not 1000 points." I'd happily agree with you. Perhaps the HQ rule needs to be amended to include a mention of points costs. I will edit accordingly, thank you.

The rest of the list seems "OK". I wouldn't say, 'No, I'm not playing that in a fluff game' - but it's not what I'd call a great attempt at being fluff-centric.

2HQ *and* a Command squad? Even in 2k pts.? Seems a bit top-heavy.

TWO devastator squads? Maybe...if you knew what mission you were playing ahead of time, and what your opponent was bringing (that's a whole other topic - IMO, no commander would go into battle NOT having a rough idea of the lay of the land, composition and disposition of enemy forces, and so forth. But hey, it's a game).

Not sure how common Typhoons are supposed to be. Two seems somewhat unlikely, but subject to the above thoughts.

Taking 4 troops choices is going to be rather difficult for some armies... especially Iyanden armies where its almost 400 points for a wraithguard troops choice.

Also the 1 HQ thing doesn't always work.
Space wolves have 4 hq choices, so limiting them to 1 would be "un"fluffy IMO.
And then there are certain Ulthwe lists who rely on 2 Farseers to work, would you really argue that an Ulthwe force has "too many" psykers?

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Nice one. However you should note that it for BAs it goes Scout > Assault > Dev > Tact. Note the key difference here, and specifically how they mention that the chapter has no shortage of those willing to take up the jump pack again.

Yep so in the BA, 90% of the chapter is or has been an assault marine rather than 72%. Not a massive difference, is it?

You will start to see a shift in composition in a depleted force with the assault squads being kept at full strength while other squad types become depleted. As such, an all assault force can be fluffy. But a force with no or few assault squads is fluffy also.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:You do know that he said that it's only a BA army with only Tact and Dev squads designed to sit in the back lines pelting the enemy, not charge forward with at least one assault squad right?

His rules don't address play style at all (how could they). Not to mention, BA aren't stupid. If they have a force that's packing a lot of heavy weapons they aren't going to just decide to charge the enemy.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Plus, it's stated in the Assault Marines Fluff that they are incredibly common in Blood Angel armies.

You are mis-representing the fluff. It actually says "Whilst Assault Marines are incredibly common in a Blood Angels strike force, this should not be taken to indicate that Assault Squads are more prevalent here than in other Chapters"

Read the rest of that paragraph. They will gladly leave other squads woefully undermanned just to keep their assault squads going. That is to say nothing else of their Vanguard Squads, Sang Guard squads, and those fallen brothers who have become Death Company, as well as their higher command, who would all prefer Jump Packs. It is you who is mis-representing fluff just to make your point.

VoidAngel wrote:2HQ *and* a Command squad? Even in 2k pts.? Seems a bit top-heavy.

TWO devastator squads? Maybe...if you knew what mission you were playing ahead of time, and what your opponent was bringing (that's a whole other topic - IMO, no commander would go into battle NOT having a rough idea of the lay of the land, composition and disposition of enemy forces, and so forth. But hey, it's a game).

Not sure how common Typhoons are supposed to be. Two seems somewhat unlikely, but subject to the above thoughts.

A captain brings his battle company. Two devestator squads and a command squad is always going to be on-hand. Land speeders are perfectly common in the BA, they have a full reserve company worth of them (i.e. fifty) so even bringing the full nine would not be un-reasonable.

This is the point that I've been trying to make the whole way through this thread. Armies which are not the stereotypical image are still fluffy. They can be much more interesting than the common version by virtue of the fact that they represent an under-represented or unusual aspect to the force. Everyone does the BA strike force, no-one does the blocking force or the rapid-reserve or the fire support but all of these exist in the fluff.

The "fluff" within any individual army list will have to be a stereotypical image. The Book itself is suppose to fill the "broad" image of the army in question, hence why these options are even present. A fluffy list is to play the stereotype, hence why there are restrictions imposed upon the basic list.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Read the rest of that paragraph. They will gladly leave other squads woefully undermanned just to keep their assault squads going. That is to say nothing else of their Vanguard Squads, Sang Guard squads, and those fallen brothers who have become Death Company, as well as their higher command, who would all prefer Jump Packs. It is you who is mis-representing fluff just to make your point.

I've already responded to that: "You will start to see a shift in composition in a depleted force with the assault squads being kept at full strength while other squad types become depleted."
But in a fresh force, there will be no such bias and we'll expect to see the same ratio of assault squads as in an Ultramarine force. So is your army representing a freshly deployed force or a depleted force at the end of fierce fighting? The two will have radically different compositions but both are equally fluffy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:The "fluff" within any individual army list will have to be a stereotypical image. The Book itself is suppose to fill the "broad" image of the army in question, hence why these options are even present. A fluffy list is to play the stereotype, hence why there are restrictions imposed upon the basic list.

And what is the point of restricting people to only the stereotype of their army, rather than letting them explore the less well-represented formations?

Blood Angels forces are formed ad hoc. Given that part of the fluff and the Assault Marines, it seems more than common that BAs would have a proportionally higher amount of assault squads in any engagement, given that half the time they dont even fight at company organisation.

Scott-S6 wrote:
And what is the point of restricting people to only the stereotype of their army, rather than letting them explore the less well-represented formations?

That's what it means to play fluffy. The Stereotypical image of the army in it's fullest. I can field a Khorne force comprised only of heavy weapons with the mark of khorne, but Khorne is a martial god. It feels like Khorne to play with only Berserkers and Kharn. Blood Angels, likewise, have the red thirst and black rage. Nothing feels more like a Blood Angels force than fielding a mass of jump-pack equipped assault units (or even in transports) and rushing up to tear the enemy a new one. If you're going to use the BA codex and only use Tact and Dev Squads, you're better off playing Space wolves, who are actually famous for their Long fangs, or Imperial Fists, who are quite accustomed to siege warfare.

I don't quiet understand the 4 troop choices/1hq thing.

Any army can be fluffy as long as people take there time to justify and maybe right out a good story.

For example. Major Danner is in charge of the 608th cadian company. Having aquired a vast forturne from his parents luctraive mining company. He uses the money to equipt his regiment with the best equipment and training avaliable.

With that fluff in place I can justify why I have 3 storm trooper units, or why my army is composed of all vets.

xlightscreen wrote:I don't quiet understand the 4 troop choices/1hq thing.

Any army can be fluffy as long as people take there time to justify and maybe right out a good story.

For example. Major Danner is in charge of the 608th cadian company. Having aquired a vast forturne from his parents luctraive mining company. He uses the money to equipt his regiment with the best equipment and training avaliable.

With that fluff in place I can justify why I have 3 storm trooper units, or why my army is composed of all vets.

I actually wanted to field a Vostroyian force the same way. Reasoning that, because their equipment is better, they all use the vet stats despite being new recruits, as their equipment have superior targeting and higher quality, as well as receiving better training by their fathers.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:And what is the point of restricting people to only the stereotype of their army, rather than letting them explore the less well-represented formations?

That's what it means to play fluffy. The Stereotypical image of the army in it's fullest. I can field a Khorne force comprised only of heavy weapons with the mark of khorne, but Khorne is a martial god. It feels like Khorne to play with only Berserkers and Kharn. Blood Angels, likewise, have the red thirst and black rage. Nothing feels more like a Blood Angels force than fielding a mass of jump-pack equipped assault units (or even in transports) and rushing up to tear the enemy a new one. If you're going to use the BA codex and only use Tact and Dev Squads, you're better off playing Space wolves, who are actually famous for their Long fangs, or Imperial Fists, who are quite accustomed to siege warfare.

So, the point is that certain armies "feel" right to you and other's don't? Isn't that up to individual players to decide what aspect of their chosen force's combat doctrine appeals to them? If someone likes the idea of blood angel devastators reigning in their instincts to charge the enemy in order to hold fast, lying down heavy weapons fire isn't that every bit as valid as the person that likes assault squads tearing the enemy a new one?

Hence my position that as long as it isn't blatantly violating the background material then it's not un-fluffy. Being atypical is not the same as violating the fluff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

xlightscreen wrote:For example. Major Danner is in charge of the 608th cadian company. Having aquired a vast forturne from his parents luctraive mining company. He uses the money to equipt his regiment with the best equipment and training avaliable.

With that fluff in place I can justify why I have 3 storm trooper units, or why my army is composed of all vets.

Exactly. All vets isn't fluffy is what a lot of people will tell you. Well, it can be.

well yes, Unless the chapter specifically didn't like such choice then it wouldn't be "fluffy"


GK dreadnought wall for example, they are not supposed to have that many dreadnought

or SW razor spam, because really, how many long fangs and razorback can a wolf company have?

Or Tau with as many kroot as you can deploy to have an area denial against drop pods

Or Eldar with two leading farseer with most of it's armies being rangers or as many fire dragon as the guy can fit

to note Tycho is a Tactical marine equipped HQ unit , so a blood angels could take tactical squad , they are afterall space marine

Scott-S6 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:And what is the point of restricting people to only the stereotype of their army, rather than letting them explore the less well-represented formations?

That's what it means to play fluffy. The Stereotypical image of the army in it's fullest. I can field a Khorne force comprised only of heavy weapons with the mark of khorne, but Khorne is a martial god. It feels like Khorne to play with only Berserkers and Kharn. Blood Angels, likewise, have the red thirst and black rage. Nothing feels more like a Blood Angels force than fielding a mass of jump-pack equipped assault units (or even in transports) and rushing up to tear the enemy a new one. If you're going to use the BA codex and only use Tact and Dev Squads, you're better off playing Space wolves, who are actually famous for their Long fangs, or Imperial Fists, who are quite accustomed to siege warfare.

So, the point is that certain armies "feel" right to you and other's don't? Isn't that up to individual players to decide what aspect of their chosen force's combat doctrine appeals to them? If someone likes the idea of blood angel devastators reigning in their instincts to charge the enemy in order to hold fast, lying down heavy weapons fire isn't that every bit as valid as the person that likes assault squads tearing the enemy a new one?

Hence my position that as long as it isn't blatantly violating the background material then it's not un-fluffy. Being atypical is not the same as violating the fluff.

I never said it "feels" right to me. It feels right to the fluff. The fluff states that Blood Angels have a preference for Jump Packs, have a higher proportion of Land Raiders and tend to go on rages due to The Black Rage and Red Thirst. How does this fit anywhere with a force of heavy weapon squads that have to pick their targets carefully while sitting back and turtling?

As for Imperial Guard armies, do note that it's one of those "vanilla" dexes that is meant to represent a whole breath of Imperial Guard units, ranging from Catachans to Mordians to Praetorians to Chem Dogs to Vostroyans. Cadians are vastly different from Catachans. However, within BA, there is only the assault aspect, nowhere near as diverse as say White Scars compared to Salamanders, and definately not as Biel Tan are to Uthwe.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I actually wanted to field a Vostroyian force the same way. Reasoning that, because their equipment is better, they all use the vet stats despite being new recruits, as their equipment have superior targeting and higher quality, as well as receiving better training by their fathers.

But surely I could use your argument to say that guard only feels right when there's hordes of crappy troops on foot? Yet, an elite guard force can be fluffy.

Scott-S6 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I actually wanted to field a Vostroyian force the same way. Reasoning that, because their equipment is better, they all use the vet stats despite being new recruits, as their equipment have superior targeting and higher quality, as well as receiving better training by their fathers.

But surely I could use your argument to say that guard only feels right when there's hordes of crappy troops on foot? Yet, an elite guard force can be fluffy.

You do know that you're taking it out of context, AGAIN.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I never said it "feels" right to me. It feels right to the fluff. The fluff states that Blood Angels have a preference for Jump Packs, have a higher proportion of Land Raiders and tend to go on rages due to The Black Rage and Red Thirst. How does this fit anywhere with a force of heavy weapon squads that have to pick their targets carefully while sitting back and turtling?

But since your feelings are your own, it is about you rather than the fluff.

Presumably, the reason why BA put newbies into assault before devastator is so that they can get a handle on that blood lust before they learn to hold fast. We know that they have devastator squads there's nothing unfluffy about dev squads.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I actually wanted to field a Vostroyian force the same way. Reasoning that, because their equipment is better, they all use the vet stats despite being new recruits, as their equipment have superior targeting and higher quality, as well as receiving better training by their fathers.

But surely I could use your argument to say that guard only feels right when there's hordes of crappy troops on foot? Yet, an elite guard force can be fluffy.

You do know that you're taking it out of context, AGAIN.

No I'm not. I don't feel that Voystroyan's should be an elite army, I don't see anything in their fluff to suggest that. You see it differently but since you've justified it within the background, I'd be okay with that.

xlightscreen wrote:I don't quiet understand the 4 troop choices/1hq thing.

Any army can be fluffy as long as people take there time to justify and maybe right out a good story.

For example. Major Danner is in charge of the 608th cadian company. Having aquired a vast forturne from his parents luctraive mining company. He uses the money to equipt his regiment with the best equipment and training avaliable.

With that fluff in place I can justify why I have 3 storm trooper units, or why my army is composed of all vets.

Not YOUR fluff, THE fluff. How could anyone possibly anticipate what an individual player might come up with for his own army?

My Void Angles are like a hybrid of the Blood Angles and the Legion of the Damned. They are actually not entirely all physical due to their origin fluff. I represent this with Sanguinary Priest spam in my usual games. Prior to the new codex, they use the SM rules, and actually always brought LotD. 6 Sanguinary Priests is fluffy for my own personal chapter. It's 'hard list' power gaming to most other people. So, no - I don't always field them that way.

This isn't about saying "You're not allowed to make up your own stories!". Far be it for me to say (or even want to say) such a thing.

Stereotype is the fluff. Trawling through dusty tomes to find loopholes in the common perception is not the fluff, Scott.

VoidAngel wrote:Not YOUR fluff, THE fluff. How could anyone possibly anticipate what an individual player might come up with for his own army?

My Void Angles are like a hybrid of the Blood Angles and the Legion of the Damned. They are actually not entirely all physical due to their origin fluff. I represent this with Sanguinary Priest spam in my usual games. Prior to the new codex, they use the SM rules, and actually always brought LotD. 6 Sanguinary Priests is fluffy for my own personal chapter. It's 'hard list' power gaming to most other people. So, no - I don't always field them that way.

This isn't about saying "You're not allowed to make up your own stories!". Far be it for me to say (or even want to say) such a thing.

Stereotype is the fluff. Trawling through dusty tomes to find loopholes in the common perception is not the fluff, Scott.

And yet you've come up with a way to field a BA army that is not "fluffy". Is there really a difference between fielding an under-represented aspect of the BA fluff and making up your own chapter in order to do something that would otherwise be considered unfluffy?

This is why I feel your rules are fundamentally a bad idea. Any army can become fluffy with enough justification. What is the purpose of trying to restrict people? When you tell one of your friends that you think his BA army isn't fluffy enough he can just paint the blood drop on their shoulder blue and say "homebrew chapter, now perfectly fluffy."

If the point of the exercise was to change people's army compositions then I think it's doomed, you should simply impose a comp restriction and be done with it. If it was to encourage players to think more about the fluff and be more creative then I think there are more constructive ways to go about it (such as running a narrative campaign and having them all write a couple of pages explaining the background of their force)

Scott-S6 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I never said it "feels" right to me. It feels right to the fluff. The fluff states that Blood Angels have a preference for Jump Packs, have a higher proportion of Land Raiders and tend to go on rages due to The Black Rage and Red Thirst. How does this fit anywhere with a force of heavy weapon squads that have to pick their targets carefully while sitting back and turtling?

But since your feelings are your own, it is about you rather than the fluff.

Presumably, the reason why BA put newbies into assault before devastator is so that they can get a handle on that blood lust before they learn to hold fast. We know that they have devastator squads there's nothing unfluffy about dev squads.

Red Herring. You're using a different interpretation of my words to turn it on me and trying to poison the well. If you honestly believe that a BA army is uniquely BA while playing with the units, strategy, and style of an Imperial Fist army, then you really don't care for fluff. Doing the bare minimum, especially for marine armies, is what gets you frowned upon by fluff enthuisasts (not experts mind you, anyone can be an expert in fluff if they read. Those that are enthusiast would take care to adhere to the "image" of the army in question, not using justifications to field units to "balance" out their armies). And as for my own definition of fluff, it's the common themes the army has held onto throughout the ages. Whenever I make a fluffy list, I not only look to the current book, but to ones in ages past. Those traits that remained consistent throughout at least two generations are considered, while those that have remained for three or more are set in stone, and what the army must be based upon. If a contradiction arises, then it will only be considered if it was the absolute recent change, and only if it has good reason to be (giving the MoK to Havoc Squads was largely an asspull, as the book quickly retconned it to say Khorne cares not where the blood flow, whereas it's pretty evident he prefers close combat over anything else, as he wants his men to bring him skulls, as well as his symbol being an axe and almost all of his dedicated troops being CC-oriented).

Scott-S6 wrote:
No I'm not. I don't feel that Voystroyan's should be an elite army, I don't see anything in their fluff to suggest that. You see it differently but since you've justified it within the background, I'd be okay with that.

Hence why I said "I wanted". Didnt feel like a Vostroyan army because it didnt have that mass to it and none of the background fluff supported the theme. I dropped it in favour of a lost and the damned rabble (representing Conscripts and Penal Legion).

Scott,

You're confusing 'fiction' with fluff.

Were I to play my army AS Blood Angles, I'd need to adhere to the above guidelines in a 'fluff-centric' game.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Red Herring. You're using a different interpretation of my words to turn it on me and trying to poison the well. If you honestly believe that a BA army is uniquely BA while playing with the units, strategy, and style of an Imperial Fist army, then you really don't care for fluff.

Yet, those forces exist. Not every BA force is a jump-packed strike force. Is it a classic BA force? No. But I'm not going to criticise someone for thinking outside the box and representing an unusual aspect of the background (or, in this case, a common but rarely represented aspect). The fact that they bothered to think about the background at all sets them apart from the majority of players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:You're confusing 'fiction' with fluff.
Were I to play my army AS Blood Angles, I'd need to adhere to the above guidelines in a 'fluff-centric' game.

And what stops your other players from making a very small change to the markings on their models and declaring them homebrew and, thus, perfectly fluffy?

To repeat what I said: "If the point of the exercise was to change people's army compositions then I think it's doomed, you should simply impose a comp restriction and be done with it. If it was to encourage players to think more about the fluff and be more creative then I think there are more constructive ways to go about it (such as running a narrative campaign and having them all write a couple of pages explaining the background of their force)"

Retrias wrote:well yes, Unless the chapter specifically didn't like such choice then it wouldn't be "fluffy"


GK dreadnought wall for example, they are not supposed to have that many dreadnought

or SW razor spam, because really, how many long fangs and razorback can a wolf company have?

Or Tau with as many kroot as you can deploy to have an area denial against drop pods

Or Eldar with two leading farseer with most of it's armies being rangers or as many fire dragon as the guy can fit

to note Tycho is a Tactical marine equipped HQ unit , so a blood angels could take tactical squad , they are afterall space marine

Actually SW don't have any set definition of what makes up a Great Company
Some companies are heavy on Blood Claws and their companions whilst others are heavy on vehicles or veterans (or both)

I think the HQ thing should depend on what HQ units you're taking.

There's a difference between a pair of Tyranid Primes (who by fluff are one of the most common 'field commanders' the Nids have, and a pair of Hive Tyrants. Other armies have similar.

"And what stops your other players from making a very small change to the markings on their models and declaring them homebrew and, thus, perfectly fluffy? "

You would never apply these rules in the first place to someone who plays The Emperor's Basket Weavers - who sit behind masses of storm shields and fire lascannons at everything in a 48" radius because they are busy playing with their X-box 36000s and won't fight in assault unless you jump over the couch and spill their cheetos.

I don't like these ideas, because they only allow for using an army straight from the Codex. For example, the fluff for my Eldar Craftworld says that my Farseer must accompany my Autarch to keep him sane. Should the rules you suggested be used in a game my Eldar were playing in, I could argue that instead of making the game fluffier, you have made it less fluffy.

Statu - then play at +1850. Or explain that you intend to take an Autarch and a Farseer - not two Farseers with Mind War on Jetbikes.

Simple!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and, did you read the post DIRECTLY above yours?

This isn't about saying "You're not allowed to make up your own stories!". Far be it for me to say (or even want to say) such a thing.

Stereotype is the fluff. Trawling through dusty tomes to find loopholes in the common perception is not the fluff, Scott.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Kroshin_Grenadiers

that easily qualifies for the exact same army style, and is a official lore regiment.

Now from what I'm getting is you want to play vanilla style, meaning every race summed up in what you can read from the back of each codex. Which if that was the case would go against the Roleplay aspect of what makes Warhammer 40k so appealing for people.

I am about to give the eff up here. Holy Mother of Ordinance... I can't explain it to you. You can't understand.

Thanks for the input. Anyone in hate with this idea is officially excused from the thread. You are under no obligation to participate further.

I still don't really understand what it was you were trying to achieve.

You talked about fluff and then about power levels.

If you want your players to think more about fluff when building their armies there are more constructive ways then imposing FOC restrictions.

If you were trying to control power levels then the stuff you were suggesting would make more sense.

purplefood wrote:

Retrias wrote:or SW razor spam, because really, how many long fangs and razorback can a wolf company have?

Actually SW don't have any set definition of what makes up a Great Company
Some companies are heavy on Blood Claws and their companions whilst others are heavy on vehicles or veterans (or both)

The whole point of the Wolf Lords is that they do their own thing, so any type of SW army can be fluffy. As examples of current wolf lords:
Krakendoom's company loves transports.
Gunnar Red Moon loves Long Fangs
Morkai loves Scouts
Grimnar favors wolf guard
Harald Deathwolf uses wolves of all kinds (TWC, FW, etc)
Bjorn Stormwolf uses Heavy weapons, bikes and Vindicators (noisy stuff)
Egil Iron Wolf - Armored assaults
Krom Dragongaze - Wolf Guard
Ragnar Blackmane - Drop Pod assaults
Sven Bloodhowl - Close combat specialists
Kjarl Grimblood - redeemers and flames

And that doesn't even take into account you making your own Wolf Lord to replace one who uses his own tactics. Pretty much any SW army is fluffy.

It's OK not to get it. You helped me develop the idea probably as far as it can go. I'm pleased that I seem to have been mostly on the right track out of the gate.
Thanks for the input.

VoidAngel wrote:It's OK not to get it. You helped me develop the idea probably as far as it can go. I'm pleased that I seem to have been mostly on the right track out of the gate.
Thanks for the input.

So you reinvented composition restrictions?

The problem is that they are arbitrary, subjective and tough to maintain. GL with that.

Yes. That's what I did. Mission accomplished! Next up - renaming stats!

I think I'll go with:

Hackity Choppiness
Dakka
Schwarzenggarianity
Fortitude
Hit Points
Hit-You-Firstyness
Swing BattaBatta
and
Bossiness!!!

Whatcha think. No, nevermind - it's perfect and I don't want to explain it 17 times.

VoidAngel wrote:Yes. That's what I did. Mission accomplished! Next up - renaming stats!

snip

Whatcha think. No, nevermind - it's perfect and I don't want to explain it 17 times.

Hmm. Sarcasm? Don't think I've run into that before. I am hereby defeated and my points invalidated.

Good game.

Legislating 'fluffy' is like legislating morality. Unlikely to be successful and ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

Guideline, not legislation.

Framework, not morality.

Voluntary game between friends, not re-write of the core rules in my image.

Don't know if this was brought up or not (only read half of page one), but these rules are extremely unpleasant.

Necrons and Tau have the worst troop choices in the game. And you're going to require four of them? o.O

I guess in that case, I hope all of your friends share your 'vision' and that none of mine do.

And I agree with DoP, I hope they don't play Necrons or Tau.

Yes, it was brought up.

They work well for most current codices. Necrons are very out of date, and need a lot of troops anyway to keep from phasing out on turn 4.

Right. I'm trolling in my own topic, which was about trying to help people play a completely voluntary fluff-themed game. Right-0.

Thanks for your valuable input.

If it's a voluntary restriction between friends, why have the restriction at all?

Besides, the majority of your rules go against my army's fluff (which you can read by clicking the link in my sig).

1- My army's chapter master is always accompanied by his most trusted sanctifier (kind of like a cross between a chaplain and an apothecary) close at hand. To not include both in the same army, regardless of points value, would be unfluffy.
2- Sometimes, the only way to represent a DIY chapter's characters is through the use of a special character. Likewise, there are some (very fluffy) builds that require a special character to be used.
3-The fluff of my chapter (especially considering the state in which they are modelled) is that they are heavily depleted and reduced to the last few men in a final battle. In such a case, only a few elite warriors would remain. 4 troops choices does not really fit 'a few elite warriors.'

Fafnir wrote:If it's a voluntary restriction between friends, why have the restriction at all?

This.
"Hey friend, who I play all the time, don't be a jerk and make a lame, non-fluffy list."
"Hey Pretre, not a problem."
"Hey friend, do we need arbitrary guidelines to play in this manner?"
"Hey Pretre, nah, we're cool."

VoidAngel wrote:





Right. I'm trolling in my own topic, which was about trying to help people play a completely voluntary fluff-themed game. Right-0.

Thanks for your valuable input.

I think he was calling you a troll for creating the topic in the first pace.

VoidAngel wrote:
1) You may take one HQ choice in games of 1850 points or less.

Hmm. My 70 point Lord Commissar Anzio who is an adviser to my Company Commander Ivan Lebedeff is saddened by this remark. Also, does this include HQs that don't take up slots? Can SW take two for one? Can I still have Ministorum Priests? Could a BT player have an HQ other than the Emprah's Champ?

2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.

HEY! HEY! HEY! HEY! I'M PLAYING RAVENWING!!!! I'LL TRUST YOUR GOOD GRACES AND YOUR MIND-ALTERING FLUFF ORGAN TO KEEP YOU FROM TAILORING. S'COOL THOUGH, I'M PRETTY OP AS IS.

3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.

I think that makes the slighly out of date (and mostly Xenos) codices all cry a little bit. Eldar/Tau/Necrons/Daemonhunters all get hurt pretty bad by that, and Orks get a HUGE boost.

4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.

??? Okay, who's to judge this? Would a person need to have a written passage offhandedly mentioning a previous battle where such a formation is allowed for it to be legit? Because there's nothing like legendary strategic acumen to have to fight your battles the same way as you're historically renown for doing so.

5) Select equipment appropriately. If power swords are supposed to be "rare and precious artifacts of the Chapter" - and you have as many as you are allowed to field by the rules...something is wrong. Rule #3 is intended to help prevent this a bit. That and, well, most armies are centered around the regular soldier.

Bolters are rare and precious in pieces of fluff. Does that mean that I have to make my 4 mandatory troop choices be Scouts with shotguns to be legit? See, here's the thing, most people have never even seen a Space Marine. That makes Space Marines rare, though unfortunately not nearly as rare on the table as in the fluff. So assuming there is one Space Marine for every ten million people out there (random guess) and let's say you do something stupid like include a full Vanguard squad each with power weapons for some asinine reason. You now have 15 power weapons, maybe, out of 60 or so guys. That means that you have one power weapon per ten million inhabitants. How rare is rare? By these rules, can you even have enough sets of Terminator Armor in one place at one time to field a min size squad?

Or put another way. Howitzers are rare in real life because I've never actually seen one. Most of the people I've met have never seen one, though I know a guy who has. Yet if I were on the battlefield, (perhaps during WW2) I would expect to see more than two in an army.

If it's a tournament, I expect some beardy horror designed only to crush everything in its path. I love the fluff, but will construct lists for fun, or just to see if they'll work sometimes.

How many tournaments have you been to? For all the tournament fear and horror stories, I've never actually had an upsetting situation.

Guideline, not legislation.

Framework, not morality.

Voluntary game between friends, not re-write of the core rules in my image.

You called them rules on the first page.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Space Marines are totally nine feet tall.

I think the moral of the story is that 'fluffy' is highly subjective, and using restrictions on army list selections to try and enforce 'fluffy' armies is nigh impossible.

Great Gak of Gork - are you all illiterate?

Burn it all. Here's the intent, let's start with that - and YOU all can suggest approaches. I see now that my mistake was to offer any suggestions at all.

Audience: Friends and like-minded FLGS patrons you might get a pick up game with.
Type: Friendly game, with some voluntarily agreed to structure aimed a characterful armies that are not jarringly at odds with the common perception of said armies.
Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing - because it's a FRIENDLY game, for FUN.
Reasoning: Many, but not all, players will have trouble achieving this in the total absence of any sort of guidelines. "Don't be cheesy" is enough for *some*, but not all, players.

If such an endeavor interests you - have at it!
If such an endeavor insults you to the core of your being and offends your every earthly sensibility, causing feelings of existential rage and/or yawning abysses of emotional desolation - THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR THEE. The proverbial door lieth thataway.

daedalus wrote:
Oh, and Space Marines are totally nine feet tall.

bs. I modelled mine to be 8 feet tall.

VoidAngel wrote:
Burn it all. Here's the intent, let's start with that - and YOU all can suggest approaches. I see now that my mistake was to offer any suggestions at all.

How about forget about arbitrary guidelines altogether and just determine between your group what you want to field?

VoidAngel wrote:Great Gak of Gork - are you all illiterate?

Actually, I know who my parents are. Now I'm just insulted.

Burn it all. Here's the intent, let's start with that - and YOU all can suggest approaches. I see now that my mistake was to offer any suggestions at all.

Audience: Friends and like-minded FLGS patrons you might get a pick up game with.
Type: Friendly game, with some voluntarily agreed to structure aimed a characterful armies that are not jarringly at odds with the common perception of said armies.
Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing - because it's a FRIENDLY game, for FUN.
Reasoning: Many, but not all, players will have trouble achieving this in the total absence of any sort of guidelines. "Don't be cheesy" is enough for *some*, but not all, players.

If such an endeavor interests you - have at it!
If such an endeavor insults you to the core of your being and offends your every earthly sensibility, causing feelings of existential rage and/or yawning abysses of emotional desolation - THIS IS NOT THE THREAD FOR THEE. The proverbial door lieth thataway.

I think part of the problem is that most people don't HAVE issues like these for friendly games. At least not serious ones. I'll forever give my friends a hard time about packing every last heavy bolter and flamer against my 'Nids, or for bringing three wraithlords and an Avatar, but at the end of the day, it's just a game, and we still have fun. They do the same if I bring two Demolishers. Part of the magic is that sometimes the game just takes a strange bend and you end up wiping out every MC, or Chimera-spam, or whatever, and then you have a good laugh about it afterwards. Or you guys just need to do as petre said earlier and clear if it's a game, or a playtest/fluff session before hand.

daedalus wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:Great Gak of Gork - are you all illiterate?

Actually, I know who my parents are. Now I'm just insulted.

lmao. Win.

Some of the rest of it is just knowing your opponent. Your approach wouldn't work well on pickup games, because most people (me) don't bring their entire collection, just an army for a particular levels of points. I'd be pissed if I got ready to set up against you and you made a stink about the fact that I brought a Special Character or had two HQs. On the other hand, if you know the person and know what kind of player he is, you should be able to match his sense of what he considers reasonable. For example, the guy our group has that plays Xenos? I know I can bring my hardest, cheesiest, stupidest list against him because he's going to do the same. The guy who does SM? I bring as many Ogryn and ministorum priests as I have and then we butt heads having a laugh about all the little army men who are dying. Guy who does IG/CSM? He's cool enough we can discuss what kind of game we WANT to play prior to, and expect the other person to actually follow through with the expectations set.

You don't need rules. You just need to properly understand and meet each other's expectations.

Thank you for your time. Mephiston, Astorath, and my 30 Death Company jump Marines all with power weapons wish you luck against my scouting Baals with Flamestorm cannons.

If points were bolter rounds, I've got a ballistic skill of negative 3 in this thread.

Honestly, I think you are confusing "fluffy lists" with "hard lists"

If you are playing a friendly game with your friends, you probably shouldn't be taking min-max top tier competitive lists, and going for the curb stomp. Instead you'll probably take units because they are fun.

Lets say somebody brings an Iyanden Wraithwall list to the table, a squad of guard, 2 squads of guardians, Avatar, Farseer, a squad of harlies and 3 Lords. You're telling me you are going to look him in the eye and say, because he only has 3 troop choices and 2 HQs, that his list is un fluffy and he should go play some min max tourney player because he is clearly WAC player?

I mean you can't draw hard and fast lines- especially when talking about "fluff" which gets changed around in every codex.

Lets look at Chaos for example. GW specifically says that chaos space marines gravitate to powerful Chaos Lords. This to an extent implies that Chaos lords have a lot more say in what goes on the field than the Codex Astartes.

Like Scott said, something blatently against the spirit of the codex would be unfluffy- for instance if you had a Slaanesh Prince with Zerker Troops, or Noise Marines serving under a Khorne Lord- you better have a good explanation... because Khorne hates Slaanesh most of all.... unless you are playing Black Legion... because I think ANYTHING goes with them haha.

Lets say, for instance that Obliterators are rare. But is it really that hard to imagine a Chaos Lord or Demon Prince who actively seeks them out, and spends the majority of their campaign obtaining the relics and equipment that the Obliterators want- thus making them more likely to follow him? Maybe your army is like that.

Trying to re create a force org chart does nothing to help encourage fluffy armies. All it does is give somebody a template to create an unfluffy army that will still be whined about because its not fluffy. Thats part of the reason GW created the force org chart in the first place, and made troops scoring. They are already trying to encourage you to take more troops, and limiting the amount of heavy support and fast attack you can take.

Basically the difference between "fun" armies and "hard" armies is what you are after. Fluffy is very subjective... and can't really be put into a strict template.

Granted somethings seem very unfluffy, such as a dead Farseer guiding every Eldar army, but what can you do? Just put a blanket ban on Eldrad? That seems overly harsh, especially since there are 2 pages dedicated to him in the codex, and hes meant to be available to play, because special characters (in small doses) can be a lot of fun.

GW's recent focus on special characters being cost effective monsters compared to the customizable vanilla characters, is a problem with the direction GW has decided to take the company, not with the Fluffyness of armies.

VoidAngel wrote:Thank you for your time. Mephiston, Astorath, and my 30 Death Company jump Marines all with power weapons wish you luck against my scouting Baals with Flamestorm cannons.

If points were bolter rounds, I've got a ballistic skill of negative 3 in this thread.

Dude, if you don't want to discuss things, you might be in the wrong place.

Discussion is fine. Concussion is not. And that's what I'm getting from banging my head on my desk every time I read a new post here.

Then maybe stop reading it?

You said you got what you wanted out of the thread; maybe it is time to walk away.

To give you an idea, you posted what is a pretty inflammatory / unpopular subject (composition rules) on an internet forum. You're going to get a lot of responses to that kind of post and they probably aren't going to be what you are looking for.

If you are looking for 'safe' responses, try safe topics.

I think the confusion, as confusing as it is that you are confused by it, is the innocent use of the word "rules".

It should have been abundantly obvious from EVERYTHING else I wrote that these were never intended as RULES. I used the word "guidelines" at least a bazillion times, but slip and say "rules" and it's doooooooooooom!

Noted.

VoidAngel wrote:1) You may take one HQ choice in games of 1850 points or less.
2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.
3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.
4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.
5) Select equipment appropriately. If power swords are supposed to be "rare and precious artifacts of the Chapter" - and you have as many as you are allowed to field by the rules...something is wrong. Rule #3 is intended to help prevent this a bit. That and, well, most armies are centered around the regular soldier.

1. Belial
2. HAY IM TAKIN BELIAL
3. 4? How bout FIVE...TH/SS squads. With a coupla chainfists and CMLs thrown in for funsies.
4. Belial...troops...Dreadnought. Fluff? Check.
5. Let's see...Terminator armor. Check. And two asscannons to make sure the special weapon loadout looks 'fluffy' enough.


There, enjoy not beating that 1500 pt list with anything that SMs constricted to 4 Tac or Scout squads can dish out at 1500. And plasma guns have always been rare pieces of wargear, so if I see more than 2 on your side of the table you're a beardy gak-nut.

Seriously, comp scores don't work. At all. People have put far more time and thought into them than you and have still failed miserably. Comp scores simply add yet another element of complexity to the game, meaning that 'hard' players have more stats to game with to develop the most powerful list this new framework can bear and 'less hard' players get hosed over when they want to show up with Sicarius and a Chaplain (yeah, that's totally overpowered...).

The troops requirement is an especially craptastic sticking point because it hoses over armies with less useful troops options.

Who does fine with 4 troops?
DE
SW
BA
IG
Nids
DA
Orks
Chaos

Who gets hosed?
Tau
Crons
GK--especially "pure" GK
Sisters
SM

Oh, good, BA and SW are now competitive. Again. It's totally fun trying to gun down 4 SW rhinos and razorbacks with my single Dreadnought shooting t/l las and a missile.

No one is confused. We 'get' what you're trying to do. The problem is that it is unpopular.

People don't like guidelines either. Composition Guidelines is just as inflammatory.

It's like that old saying about politics and religion. Except around here it is comp scores and guidelines.

pretre wrote:No one is confused. We 'get' what you're trying to do. The problem is that it is unpopular.

People don't like guidelines either. Composition Guidelines is just as inflammatory.

It's like that old saying about politics and religion. Except around here it is comp scores and guidelines.

THAT is the first useful thing I've read in the last two hours.

OK, fine. The newbie's been educated that these are verboten topics. Well and good.

Oh, and DA example guy - I can beat that with any army you care to name, and any cooperation from the dice (my greatest enemy) - and yes, using my own guidelines.

VoidAngel wrote:Great Gak of Gork - are you all illiterate?

Hmm, we don't like your idea so we must be illiterate.

VoidAngel wrote:
Audience: Friends and like-minded FLGS patrons you might get a pick up game with.
Type: Friendly game, with some voluntarily agreed to structure aimed a characterful armies that are not jarringly at odds with the common perception of said armies.
Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing - because it's a FRIENDLY game, for FUN.
Reasoning: Many, but not all, players will have trouble achieving this in the total absence of any sort of guidelines. "Don't be cheesy" is enough for *some*, but not all, players.

So, it was about composition more than it was about fluff, despite your protests to the contrary.

But you're going to continue with your homebrew priest spam because that's fluffy - right? And you're going to come up with rules that, handily, don't impact your army one bit.

If you are dead set on imposing composition then I suggest you browse some of the australian forums. They have all kinds of sophisticated comp rules. None of them suceed in stopping people from taking hard armies though.

No, illiterate was the wrong word. I need a word that means,
"I will read your words and apply whatever meaning I like to them in order to argue with you about your own intent - which obviously I know better than you do."

Locking servitor, please come put this thing out of its misery.

Something I should point out: Fluffy means you're adhering to OTHER people's stories. You read about Blood Angels being Assault-oriented and prefer jetpacks, so you make a "fluffy" list based off that. You start calling them The Emperor's Hand Maidens then it's a completely different story (no pun intended). You want to play a Iyanden force? Spam Wraithguards, Wraithlord and warlocks, and keep the fleshies to a minimum. Dont like it? Go make a homebrew if you want to keep it fluffy (or choose another craftworld) or just admit you're not being fluffy about it. What you SHOULDN'T do is start spamming aspect warriors (in particular fire dragons), paint it in Iyanden colors, AND (this is the important part) then call it fluffy, because while Iyanden certainly does have all of that, they're rarely, if ever, going to be that concentrated in one coherent force. This is also why Fluffy = Stereotype, because it's the embodiment of the actual style of the force in question, tailored to what it likes to field, not what it has, and what makes it unique. Fielding Dev and Tact squads for BA is technically allowed, that's why it's in the codex (otherwise, like the BT and Librarians, you wouldnt get the option period) but to field one to play like the BAs described in fluff (hence the turn fluffy) you would need alot of jump pack equipped troops, since that's what they prefer.

VoidAngel wrote:No, illiterate was the wrong word. I need a word that means,
"I will read your words and apply whatever meaning I like to them in order to argue with you about your own intent - which obviously I know better than you do."

I think you did that yourself with your constant self-contradiction.

You told us that it was all about the fluff, not about comp at all because you love hard armies. Then you turn around and tell us that it's all about getting rid of cheesy WAAC armies.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Something I should point out: Fluffy means you're adhering to OTHER people's stories. You read about Blood Angels being Assault-oriented and prefer jetpacks, so you make a "fluffy" list based off that. You start calling them The Emperor's Hand Maidens then it's a completely different story (no pun intended). You want to play a Iyanden force? Spam Wraithguards, Wraithlord and warlocks, and keep the fleshies to a minimum. Dont like it? Go make a homebrew if you want to keep it fluffy (or choose another craftworld) or just admit you're not being fluffy about it. What you SHOULDN'T do is start spamming aspect warriors (in particular fire dragons), paint it in Iyanden colors, AND (this is the important part) then call it fluffy, because while Iyanden certainly does have all of that, they're rarely, if ever, going to be that concentrated in one coherent force. This is also why Fluffy = Stereotype, because it's the embodiment of the actual style of the force in question, tailored to what it likes to field, not what it has, and what makes it unique. Fielding Dev and Tact squads for BA is technically allowed, that's why it's in the codex (otherwise, like the BT and Librarians, you wouldnt get the option period) but to field one to play like the BAs described in fluff (hence the turn fluffy) you would need alot of jump pack equipped troops, since that's what they prefer.

That was beautiful. These are tears of joy. Someone got it. I didn't wake up in Bizzaro-verse today, where up means down, and guidelines offered in a spirit of good gamesmanship means fascist attempt to dictate game conduct to total strangers.

VoidAngel wrote: That was beautiful. These are tears of joy. Someone got it. I didn't wake up in Bizzaro-verse today, where up means down, and guidelines offered in a spirit of good gamesmanship means fascist attempt to dictate game conduct to total strangers.

None of which had anything to do with "cheese" or "waac" or your fluff restrictions.

What he just said was "you can do anything like if you homebrew". How does that pertain to your stated objective?

Because his objectives are to make a set of guidelines for you to play a "fluffy" force from the official fluff, not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

That's not what he just said -

VoidAngel wrote:Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

Not like his homebrew priest spam then?

Scott-S6 wrote:That's not what he just said -

VoidAngel wrote:Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Because his objectives are to make a set of guidelines for you to play a "fluffy" force from the official fluff, not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

You sure about that?

Also, note that my blurp specifically states that fluffy lists exclude homebrew stuff, as those dont need to justify anything because there's no official fluff on it. You are trying to defend and discredit the same thing at the same time, which does not work.

Scott-S6 wrote:That's not what he just said -

VoidAngel wrote:Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

Not like his homebrew priest spam then?

MechaEmperor7000 has the right of it. This DOES NOT APPLY to homebrew. I would not USE my homebrew under these guidelines - it makes no sense!

How many times have you fielded a perfectly legal force and heard, "That's not fluffy. Dark Angels would never (insert objection)" ? My goal was to curtail all that, by offering a structured way to build forces that almost *had* to be fluffy.

The problem is, one size won't fit all. The way I first went, it will work for many armies, but gimp a few. You'd need at least two sets of guidelines. One for the first category of army, and another for the second.

Again - you'd AGREE to play by them, with FRIENDS.

I don't hear that at all, but then I play with people who are able to take a measured understanding of the fluff so that they can realise that combinations beyond the most typical are not automatically un-fluffy.

How do you plan to address the power disparity that such a thing would create? Since some codexes have extremely powerful spam lists that fit the stereotype but others do not.

You do know that players who play fluffy choose to abid by the handicaps and restrictions imposed by such limitations right? And for those lists that have "extremely powerful spam", they tend to be lists like the BA and SW codex, who are written specifically for that chapter, not as a vanilla-style dex like CSM, SM and IG. Try playing an all Slaanesh Force. Sure you have lash, but you dont have any of the other stuff that make Lash usefull (bar the Doom siren, but that's only on champions). Playing Plague Marines? you suddenly find yourself lacking heavy fire power or much survivability in the face of Battle Cannons, which normal CSM fodder perform much better in. Playing Fluff means you will likely loose most of the time, but you play something that's straight out of the stories, kinda like when you put on a bath towel and imagined yourself superman. Sure falling on your face after jumping off a chair hurts like hell, but for a moment you flew, and you were just like your hero.

So, like I said, if you're going to force people to play the stereotype list, how do you balance that some codexes are extremely powerful with that list but others are not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:kinda like when you put on a bath towel and imagined yourself superman. Sure falling on your face after jumping off a chair hurts like hell, but for a moment you flew, and you were just like your hero.

Most children do that once and then realise that it's a bad idea.

And yet you're arguing so feverently for a boardgame. If you must play, at least have some pride.

As for balance, There's really not a single fluffy list that is actually grossly overpowered, at least not in an all-comers list. Things like BA and SW, those will be overpowered no matter how you build them, so themed (like an all-sang-guard army to represet Dante's personal guards) and fluffy (like an army that makes no use of normal tanks, but only assault squads with other JP-equipped elements) may actually lower the power of these armies, as you suddenly lost access to alot of the synergistic units that made the army unstoppable, and have narrowed it down to just a handful of units that plays by a specific style. An Iyanden army is grossly overpowered against a Nidzilla army, mainly because nearly anythign that even gets remotely within range of the WGs are gonna be shot to hell and back by their wraithcannons. However if you start lobbing battlecannon shells at them from an armoured company list, suddenly they dont seem so strong anymore.

VoidAngel wrote:The problem is, one size won't fit all. The way I first went, it will work for many armies, but gimp a few. You'd need at least two sets of guidelines. One for the first category of army, and another for the second.

No, the problem is that only the subjective parts of your guidelines had anything to do with fluff. The other restriction did nothing to encourage fluff.

As I've said several times in this thread, there are much more constructive ways to encourage players to take more interest in the fluff than FOC restrictions which do not - they simply move the goal posts for the people that build hard lists.

For example, missions with uneven forces and objectives or narrative campaigns can pull players focus away from winning as the top priority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:MechaEmperor7000 has the right of it. This DOES NOT APPLY to homebrew. I would not USE my homebrew under these guidelines - it makes no sense!

So, under your guidelines, homebrew armies are forbidden? Or they get to ignore the restrictions?

Do you know how many of these "fluffy" armies originated? Several "expansion" codexes (Like Codex Armageddon and EoT, as well as Codex: Craftworld Eldar) and Unique organisation rules (like the Legion Rules, Doctrine System, and Chapter Traits) does exactly what VoidAngel tried to do, restrict some choices so that you'd try to use other ones more effectively. These were done with little more than some FoC restrictions that Void attempted. Sure it's not perfect, and that's why he's been asking for advice. All you've done, though, is question his perception of fluff. Instead of making another 4 page long argument of how "little" we know of fluff, as well as how "fluffy lists dont work because no two people define fluff the same way" maybe you can contribute one of these "more constructive ways to encourage players to take more interest in fluff".

And I must point out again: Void meant for these guidelines to be the basis for Offcial Fluff armies, since Homebrew Fluff armies tend to work backwards (choices justifies fluff, rather than fluff justifies choice) in that regard. You field an army full of bikers and dreadnoughts, then go back and write in the fluff that your army prefers these things. In Official Armies, you read about BAs prefering Assault troops, so you field alot of assault troops.

And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists (like a mech IG themed Steel Legion list) are vastly more competitive, viable, and 'hard' than certain other fluff lists (like Wraith-spam Iyanden eldar).

And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists can still suck completely and be disallowed under the given restrictions (A Hunt for Voldorius themed force with Shrike+Khan).

Additional rule for playing fluffy: No more imperium on imperium fights.

sourclams wrote:And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists (like a mech IG themed Steel Legion list) are vastly more competitive, viable, and 'hard' than certain other fluff lists (like Wraith-spam Iyanden eldar).

And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists can still suck completely and be disallowed under the given restrictions (A Hunt for Voldorius themed force with Shrike+Khan).

Hence why people should stop bashing the OP for being ignorant of fluff and making a broken sent of guidelines, and actually offering suggestions on how to improve the guidelines, no?

No. You're never going to come up with a set of comp guidelines that is both reasonable and balanced. There's simply too much internal and external disparity in balance between codices.

Not all fluff is created equal. Steel Legion is going to be more powerful than Iyanden Eldar simply because it has a mountain of S7+ at low AP values in effective transports while Iyanden Eldar has a bunch of T6-8 models trying to footslog in the face of withering fire. Fluff does not equate to balanced. You can have a fully competitive theme list (Warboss and Green Tide) that simply crushes a weak, non-competitive theme list (Ahriman and Thousand Sons Rubric Marines).

Declaring x special characters, x hqs, and x troops simply re-shuffles the deck to favor whatever codex has the most powerful troops that are least reliant on special chars. Ironically, the newest books are most capable of still building a powerful list given this restriction, and the older books are the most penalized.

Then what if just for Fluff?

Requia wrote:Additional rule for playing fluffy: No more imperium on imperium fights.

Umm no. Imperials have a history of fighting amongst themselves. Some little thing called the heresy and all those rogue elements, not to mention times where loyal forces opened fire on each other due to conflicting goals.

Plus your little rule would significantly reduce the pool of opponents you could play. I'm sure that's a good way to promote a hobby.

VoidAngel wrote:Oh, and DA example guy - I can beat that with any army you care to name, and any cooperation from the dice (my greatest enemy) - and yes, using my own guidelines.

Well, if your army list is going to be as well thought out as your 'fluff' army comp suggestion, I would say you are biting off far more than you can chew.

Well, it couldn't possibly be more well thought out than your brilliant contribution to the thread...

VoidAngel wrote:Well, it couldn't possibly be more well thought out than your brilliant contribution to the thread...

That's an interesting statement coming from the OP that pretty much contributed exactly what to the gaming community or the dakka forums with this thread or his own responses.

I didn't set out to "change the face of gaming." I had an idea on lunch and put it up - openly looking for input and suggestions. I got a metric assload of uncalled for nastiness and douchebaggery from people that can't effing READ. And now you've joined their ranks. Congratulations.

One, maybe two people got what I was about. The rest of you...seem to have toted some kind of baggage into the thread that I knew nothing of. Perhaps the 'welcome' thread should contain some big scary warning about what will happen to foolish novices who cross into the Forbidden Zone of Compositional Suggestions (queue scary music).

Sod off.

pretre wrote:

Requia wrote:Additional rule for playing fluffy: No more imperium on imperium fights.

Umm no. Imperials have a history of fighting amongst themselves. Some little thing called the heresy and all those rogue elements, not to mention times where loyal forces opened fire on each other due to conflicting goals.

Plus your little rule would significantly reduce the pool of opponents you could play. I'm sure that's a good way to promote a hobby.

A) There's a difference between the occasional infighting and imperium vs imperium representing 2/3rds of the fights. And the bulk of the heretics are represented by Chaos forces, not imperial codices.

B) These are not meant to be rules for everyone.

Locked by OP request