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.

As the title suggests, is there an objective method that can be used to evaluate if something is unfluffy? Is there some way to judge if one list goes over some fluff line?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Would the "yes" answerer please explain?

Yes.
Same same way you would evaluate the 'fluffiness' of a historical war game army.
Review the composition of the army and compare it to the cited material that it is based on.

In which case, which material do you use? Is it acceptable to use material that is out of print of has been changed since? Are newer players to be derided for lack of fluff because they didnt refernce something that hasnt been in print for years? The material for the 40k universe is very expansive and I havent meant anyone what knew it all. Does this mean nobody can create a truely fluffy army?

If you are only allowed to base objective values of fluffiness based on previous material then what happens to all those who create their own fluff? What about all those hundreds of personal SM chapters that people have lovingly created? What about all those guard regiments or Ork Waarghs! or DE pirate syndicates? If you chose to do this does it invalidate the fluffiness of your army because it doesnt follow the contours of what went before it? Isnt the point of fluff to be varied?

The grimdark universe is massive. In a place where billions upon billions of souls toil on millions upon millions of worlds anything can happen, and its likely it has. Fluff shouldnt be considered objectively beccause fluff by its very nature is varied and unique. It would make the game so dull and bland if every army was forced to conform to only the limited material that has been printed as opposed to being open to the imagination of every gamer. So no, there isnt a was to evaluate fluff objectively. What I do is consider if the fluff makes sense in the context (no GK turning to chaos please) and is cool. If something is cool, thats the most important thing.

to: Regwon

Just as you can objectively criticize the skill used to produce fiction you can objectively evaluate the background materials for a force.
If such objectivity and hard work was not necessary to create convincing fiction then the works of BoLS would be equal to Pan Fo.

I may be missing your point since it seems that your treading dangerously close to the vapid "What is art?" argument.
An argument that will only devolve until someone starts posting LaTeX created files describing quantum physics equations.
Which would not be a productive way to expanding the viewpoints of most readers and would stink of academic self-aggrandizing arrogance.
Plus I loath momentumless mental masturbation.
And so do all of my armies, it's in their fluff.

Belphegor wrote:Review the composition of the army and compare it to the cited material that it is based on.

So, can I base my army on what Codex: Chaos Space Marines says? Or do I have to research every single Black Library book ever written to make sure I don't make a list with any fluff impossibilities? What about armies that have less fluff? Are Space Marine armies automatically fluffier than any other army? What if someone has a backstory for their legion/band/cult/regiment/hive fleet/craft world/inquisitor/chapter/WAAAGH!/tomb? Does that make their list fluffier? Or is their work ignored?

RustyKnight: Does that make their list fluffier?

RustyKnight, are you trying to achieve a Fluff Point Total?
If you are, feel free to spend your time and resources to cross index all source material for the Warhamms universe and devise a fluff-point system.
If not, use the material that you have available and supplement from your imagination.

Are Space Marine armies automatically fluffier than any other army?

No, they just have a broader canon to work from.

Are you getting Canon confused with background fluff?
Because if you make it up, then it's just fluff.
If you copy it from a GW source then it's just canon.

Are you really look for a way to evaluate an armies fiction?
Or are you just trying to devalue background writing in respects to army design?

Except that GW 'canon' has changed many times over the past 5 editions of 40k. For an awesome alternative view of the 40k backround try:

http://www.philipsibbering.com/WH40KRP/40K_2_Dark_Age.shtml

To answer the OP- there is no objective method.

There's no objective method. One person's fluff is another person's 'lame theme to explain a cheesy army'. The fluff has changed several times since Rogue Trader.

Is a Master of the Forge and 6 Dreads a fluff or power gaming army? Does it matter if they're painted as Iron Hands or Ultramarines? If you take a pair of Captains on Bikes, and 2 max bike squads as troops, is it fluffy for White Scars, but no one else?

Maybe you should hire a team of "Fluff Nazi",and anytime you have a question about fluff ask you're group of hired experts and I am sure they will rush to you're aid and then get in a fight about how 40k and WHFB are linked.

@ DeffDread

Fantastic idea - I volunteer myself for the role. Basically, I decide what's fluffy and what's not, and I promise I'll be completely objective. As long as everyone agrees to agree with me it'll all be fine.

What do we think?



PS : WHFB is so obviously a planet in 40k. I mean, that's why we;ve got Space Elves, right?
PPS: The new WHFB army is SPACE MARINES!

ArbitorIan wrote:@ DeffDread

Fantastic idea - I volunteer myself for the role. Basically, I decide what's fluffy and what's not, and I promise I'll be completely objective. As long as everyone agrees to agree with me it'll all be fine.

What do we think?



PS : WHFB is so obviously a planet in 40k. I mean, that's why we;ve got Space Elves, right?
PPS: The new WHFB army is SPACE MARINES!

I'm in. I'll call you on from time to time, so you know.

I feel just posting in this thread is asking to be trolled, here goes:

Can fluff be objective? Sure. Anything can be objective.

Since I'm a man of the 8 fold path, I'll give my examples from there. Vraks Renegades. There is clear defined fluff for the army and what they had at their disposal. Cut and dry.

The Traitor Legions. Now unless you are 5 and just got into the hobby you had to have heard about them. Death Guard, lead by Mortarion trained his men to trust in their bolters and to win by attrition. Has this fluff changed?
World Eaters, lead by Angron trained his men in martial prowess and to kill for the blood god. Despises psychers. How has the fluff changed?


I gave three examples of solid fluff easy to follow. By saying "I have a death guard list" you inferring that you run lots of plague marines, a lord of nurgle, prince of nurgle or sorceror of nurgle and you would build up according to what a death guard force would entail. Running a Lash Prince and plague marines does not mean a death guard warband / legion.

Also, 40k as a competitive game is pretty goofy. Especially when compared to fantasy, why not dive into it's rich background and make a fun themed / fluffy list.

One more example of a non fluffy army? Boobie marines (that aren't slaanesh). Hard to argue objectively for that one being fluffy.