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

Perturabo's Chosen wrote:The list is:
2 Deamon princes/sorcerer lords with MoS and Lash
3 squads of plague marines
3 squads of Obliteraters

This is the uber list/most powerful army list that can be made from Codex: Chaos Space Marines. We all know this already. Fact: this list is not fluffy. Some call it Win at all Costs (I don't know what the costs are, 9 obliteraters$$?). Not all chaos player use this list, so let us not make generalizations about all chaos players or all chaos lists.

Mixed warbands are ok, fluff wise, all the way back to 2nd edition. The real point of contention here is a HQ with no troops having the same mark. This is consideed un-fluffy by many, and I believe is the point of the OP.

Sugna: The cost in monitary value would be $225.00 before tax.

And 2; to John, the GW fluff does match up, not to that in particular but having read white dwarfs since the creation of the tau (a time before the start of my first army) there have been instances where two of the of the gods of chaos have allied to get an advantage over the others. so in an ad hoc situation (or caution) Slannesh might have only sent the prince to sid the death guard because ether 1.) he/she/it only thought that the prince was all that nurgle needed or 2.) that is all he wanted to give him.

Regardless, just because someone wants to focus more on the ACTUAL game and less on stories that will constantly shift and change, they aren't wrong for doing so. If "unfluffy" is the worst you can say about someone, it's really not bad. At all.

ph34r wrote:

willydstyle wrote:But should the paintjob really matter that much? I play Black Legion because I love their iconic place in the story of 40k... but if someone plays a homebrew warband or renegade chapter rather than a Legion should they have more restrictions than I do?

Why have different rules and restrictions for anything? Because it makes those armies more interesting when they are different.

Now, I could see being a bit bugged if someone were claiming that their army was "Death Guard" or one of the other Traitor Legions and running that mix of HQ/Troops, but for people who are doing their own thing I don't think they should be held to arbitrary restrictions.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Regardless, just because someone wants to focus more on the ACTUAL game and less on stories that will constantly shift and change, they aren't wrong for doing so. If "unfluffy" is the worst you can say about someone, it's really not bad. At all.

I agree with this statement. Having a "fluffy" theme and cool paintjob should be an "oooh cool" factor, but nothing else.

Deuce11 wrote:The loss of mark specific units in each FOC slot really does necessitate the use of multiple marks in a single army to be a ferocious competitor.

I don't knock anyone for using counts as to accomplish that goal because often it is the most creative way to getting at the desired end.

Exactly. Being able to pick and choose units and Marks is more powerful than applying some sort of restriction on one's choices. In a nutshell, that is the inherent tension between "ferocious" power and non-ferocious Fluff.

Neither do I. I just expect players who're building for power to not claim that they're actually building for Fluff.
____

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Regardless, just because someone wants to focus more on the ACTUAL game and less on stories that will constantly shift and change, they aren't wrong for doing so.

Nobody said that they were wrong for doing so.

Unless they were also claiming that their force was somehow "Fluffy".

Such as the original issue with a guy calling himself a "Death Guard" player, by dint of having 2 PM units as Troops.

All we ask is that players be honest and admit that they're powergaming when they field Lash/PM/Oblits, or similar kinds of optimized forces, and not pretend that their forces are "Fluffy" in any way.

So have you all figured out the answer to the original question?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Unless they were also claiming that their force was somehow "Fluffy".

Such as the original issue with a guy calling himself a "Death Guard" player, by dint of having 2 PM units as Troops.

All we ask is that players be honest and admit that they're powergaming when they field Lash/PM/Oblits, or similar kinds of optimized forces, and not pretend that their forces are "Fluffy" in any way.

The original issue was not with a guy who claimed be be playing Death Guard, but just said "cool, I play Nurgle too."

Playing "Nurgle" is honestly a pretty open statement.

JohnHwangDD wrote:All we ask is that players be honest and admit that they're powergaming when they field Lash/PM/Oblits, or similar kinds of optimized forces, and not pretend that their forces are "Fluffy" in any way.

So as long as the Jew wears their badge, you won't have any problems? That seems a little unfair.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

So as long as the Jew wears their badge, you won't have any problems? That seems a little unfair.

Did you really have go there? Really?

I guess that is slightly innapropriate. I should probably get flamed for it.

When I'm powergaming, I make no bones about it.

I expect similar honesty in my opponents.

Noisy_Marine wrote:So have you all figured out the answer to the original question?

I suggest the answer is there is a line in the sand between players who have seen multiple editions and people who only know the most recent.

-unknown quote:

Age and cunning wins out over youth and zeal

Augustus wrote:

Noisy_Marine wrote:So have you all figured out the answer to the original question?

I suggest the answer is there is a line in the sand between players who have seen multiple editions and people who only know the most recent.

Isn't that life in a nutshell? The old farts lament how things used to be better back in the good old days, and the young pups roll their eyes and say "whatever old man".

I think the real lesson learned is that you'll never make everyone happy and you shouldn't try to. Do want you want.

CT GAMER wrote:...the young pups roll their eyes and say "whatever old man".

Indeed! Touche'

In my darker moments, I worry I am to old for this hobby anyway...

The problem of course is-what fluff? I can directly take nearly any force mix I want in the demon codex and have that follow actual fluff storyline, wherein many types of demons were gathering to jump, and the hurley burley of getting to the prey. Would I be penalized by some player for bringing a mixed force? Indeed, following that story arc in the actual codex, shouldn’t I penalize players for bringing god specific lists, as being unfluffy?

Are there stories of mixed demons? Surely
Are there stories of single type demons? Yes

However:

Do you know of a GW published story where exclusively Slanesh heros lead nurgle marines?

Is there even one? I am not trying to be rhetorical here, I am trying to be literal, I do not read the Abnett books, or other 40k stories to often, and I am not up on all the codex stories.

Does anyone know of a story like that in any printed GW material, from... ever?

Wait, so now we have to have a printed example of anything for it to be valid? How many invisible standards are there? What about the armies that don't get as many books written about them? They must not have as many fluffy choices as the other armies.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wait, so now we have to have a printed example of anything for it to be valid?

Of course not. I was just wondering if there is even a single story of a Slanesh leader of Nurgle troops. I was wondering in the context of wether players/people following the thread could recall such a story?

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:How many invisible standards are there? What about the armies that don't get as many books written about them? They must not have as many fluffy choices as the other armies.

It would seem so however.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Wait, so now we have to have a printed example of anything for it to be valid? How many invisible standards are there? What about the armies that don't get as many books written about them? They must not have as many fluffy choices as the other armies.

If you are going to make an army that entirely goes against the fluff, and then argue that you don't go against the fluff because there is new fluff that supports you, you should be prepared to show said fluff where you have slaanesh daemon princes leading nurgle plague marines and non-god marked obliterators.
So yeah, I would say that you do have to have a printed example for your army to be "fluff-justified"... if it goes against everything that the fluff says and you claim that it is fluffy. Almost every army does not go against the fluff and claim to be fluffy, in this situation the army does.
EDIT: for example, if cadians and catachans were said to be mortal enemies and fight often when they meet, and completely hate each others guys, and this was said in every publishing of the IG codex, then I would not accept someone's army with Creed&Kell leading a force of catachan jungle fighter troopers as "fluff-justified". It would be ridiculous for them to argue otherwise without an example to back them up.

So if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless the little paragraphs at the front match which ones you're picking?

Cannerus_Thye_Unbearable wrote:if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless...

Cannerus, I don't think so. If options are book legal by the codex structures then so be it.

I wouldn't expect a printed story about Slanesh leading nurgle troops from a Chaos player anymore than I would expect to see a story about the Crimson fists and the Imperial Fists cooperating from the player of an army with Lysander and Kantor.

If the OP question was do chaos players care about the fluff though, then doesn't it seem a reasonable question to ask? Are there any stories about Nurgle and Slanesh fighting together under Slaneshi Generals?

I can't think of any. (But then, admittedly I don't read the books.)

I can think of stories however where Imperial Marine chapters fight together, like the Deathwatch for example.

Someone who has read the Eisenhorn series, what happens in there?

* (My apologies to the thread for turning a portion of the discussion into "fluff for nutters.)

I can partially understand what you're saying. I can also call a little bit of malarky in the regard that Space Marines and the Imperium get a lot more published than any other army. If there were an equal amount about Chaos, I'm sure there would be a combination of all the marks in various bits at some point. That's just not a point you can argue effectively with from my view (others may differ).

And Ph34r, it does not "go against the fluff." Read the new CSM codex. Black Legion can use anything. Boom, justified. That's it.

I say that if you want a fluffy army, make sure it matches the fluff, if you want to power game, and it fits the rules, more 'power' to you. (pun intended)

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:So if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless the little paragraphs at the front match which ones you're picking?

Not at all. Just don't try to disguise it as 'fluffy'.

I've participated in some variations of tourney scoring. While the Lash/Plague/Obliterator is a good tourney army, folks shouldn't be surprised when their score for 'composition' is lower than expected when composition is explained as 'is this a fluffy army'. This is where I've seen some folks get but hurt over it.

How do you get pict for tourny scoring

Sarigar wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:So if an army book has really good rules at the back and units with synergy, it's bad to use them unless the little paragraphs at the front match which ones you're picking?

Not at all. Just don't try to disguise it as 'fluffy'.

I've participated in some variations of tourney scoring. While the Lash/Plague/Obliterator is a good tourney army, folks shouldn't be surprised when their score for 'composition' is lower than expected when composition is explained as 'is this a fluffy army'. This is where I've seen some folks get but hurt over it.

That would be fine if it stopped at that. In addition, many, many people whine about it being "unfluffy" and act like you're satan if you play dual lash, 9 obliterators or lots of plague marines, outside of placing really akward restrictions on yourself that give you no benefit anymore (I'm playing "Death Guard" or "Emperor's Children" or "Iron Warriors." Ok, I'm playing Warhammer 40k.). At this stage in the campaign, the whole "mixed Chaos is unfluffy" isn't a pinata, it's a dead horse. In the same way that you're no better for playing with all one type of thing, I'm no worse for mixing.

well , i dont really know ... i guess if you make a chaos army of enemies in the same team why not make two different teams be an team ?

Like , for an example , what if you had an Tyranid Carnifex leading a space marine army ?

Or , having Tau team up with the Imprerial Guards ?

Think about this before some of you post that it doenst matter anymore Couse it does =)

I say make up a really good storry and make it really convincing.

gretar wrote:well , i dont really know ... i guess if you make a chaos army of enemies in the same team why not make two different teams be an team ?

Like , for an example , what if you had an Tyranid Carnifex leading a space marine army ?

Or , having Tau team up with the Imprerial Guards ?

Think about this before some of you post that it doenst matter anymore Couse it does =)

I'm gonna be nice and just point out that your example refers to mixing Codices, and mine doesn't. In apocalypse you could do any of those and noone could give you flak, as an aside. And it doesn't matter anymore.

Thing is there's so much fluff, all of which overlaps and differs slightly, and all of which is open to interpretation. The chaos gods dislike each other and will quite happily fight each other, and the main rivals (khorne/slaanesh tzeentch/nurgle) are more likely to break into a fight than anyone else.

Now some people view this as that they'll work together but really don't trust each other, and as soon as it's over they'll go back to fighting each other, and other people view this as they utterly hate each other.

For this reason it's equally fluffy for someone to have khorne models alongside slaaneshi models as a grudging and temporary alliance as it is for someone to never put khorne and slaanesh in the same army.

Then of course it depends on how you prefer your fluff - khorne is currently portayed as spilling blood in CC - I remember when khorne was god of martial prowess: his warriors still claimed skulls in his name, but they did it in the most effecient way possible; a heavy bolter was for shooting lots of things, and running sceaming at a citadel waving an axe merely made you a cretin.

For this reason my own khornate army uses the older fluff - the best way to take out that artillery tank crew is to shoot them with a missile launcher rather than run 2km to try punching a hole in their tank.

Then of course you have when the army is set; a world eaters army could be pre heresy (everyone armed with bolters, tank support etc), set at the hight of their power, or as they are currently (spit into tiny warbands).

A unit of beserkers in a larger chaos army is as equally fluffy as a pure khornate horde. Similarly ranged firepower with a counter attack is as equally fluffy for a khornate army as running screaming at them to stove their head in.

Lastly, things in the background don't have to be represented on the tabletop;
The chaos gods dislike each other but this doesn't need to be an ingame penalty.
Each individual chaos marine doesn't trust the one next to him and will quite happily sacrifice his "buddy" but that isn't represented on the tabletop.
An ork warboss that takes a wound would probably be attacked by the next biggest ork now that he's weakened, but that isn't present on the tabletop.
No serious death skull would ever NOT steal all the important bits off of a shock attak gun, but there are no penalties for deplying lootas next to a big mek
etc etc

There are plenty of background reasons why people wouldn't overly like each other, but these don't need to be strict rules enforced onto the players.

If you want to only field plague marines with bolters then that's cool, just don't try to force it onto someone else just because they like the idea of an uneasy alliance and you don't.