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.

Hai der

I started reading the books waaaaay before playing the tabletop, and I've only really started playing that seriously this year. I have to say... it really annoys me when I this, and most people I wargame with go "lol dood wut you talkin' 'bout?" I think easiest solution would be to integrate the fluff into the game, no I don't mean imposing some strict stuff, I mean... if you have some plague marines and Thousand Sons, there 'ought to be consequences.

Chaos players don't care about fluff anymore.

/thread

To Nofasse, thank you for that highly well thought out post. I'm sure it swayed many people's opinion on the matter at hand.

At Packeteer, why should there be some consequences? Are Thousand Sons and Plague Marines so stupid that they're incapable of short term cooperation? Are they going to be "bff's"? No, but both are intelligent and can work together.

To Xevious, yes!

To sugna, (in regards to making a story) people will go, "hur hur Chaos can't work together unless GW explicitly states that those exact CSM will work together. All the others are idiots and incapable of long term planning."

To gretar, what? Using two god's is equivalent to mixing two codeci? Until (if GW ever makes the Legion codexes) I see a Thousand Sons codex, it is perfectly fine to mix my Thousand Sons with any other unit in the CSM book.

To Augustus, the CSM are okay with working together under the banner of Abaddy. Who's to say the army you fight isn't a small task force sent by a Black Legion commander? Who's to say it isn't a small slice of a larger battlefield? Going only by written works severely restricts what some armies can field while staying fluffy. Armies like Tyranids and Dark Eldar have few (if any novels) that really follow them. As far as I know, Tyranids only show up as something for the Space Marines to butcher.

I don't think that a min/maxxed Fzorgle/Death Guard/Obliterator list is a shining example of a standard Chaos Space Marine party. I also wouldn't say that it is unfluffy. It isn't impossible, just uncommon. Such an alliance would only occur in rare instances/circumstances. I think "fluffy" is being used as an excuse to bash power gamers. I've no problem if you don't want to play power gamers, but I don't think going to tournaments and then complaining about power gamers is a very rational plan. Whether an army is fluffy or not is subjective. Two people will have differing ideas on what is fluffy and what isn't fluffy, such a subjective criterion should not be being decided by someone who can't be objective.

It says on page ten of the Chaos Space Marines codex...

page ten wrote:
However, it is not uncommon for renegades with very different histories to find a common cause in their service to the Ruinous Powers of Chaos.

page 57 wrote:
The Unholy Garbinger is used as a mobile base by a large contingent of Chaos Space Marines at various times including warriors from the Black Legion, Death Guard, Sons of Vengeance, Anointers of Blood and the Pyre.

and on page 74 it shows Black Legion themed Khorne Berzerkers, Thousand Sons, Plague Marines and Noise Marines.

<sarcasm> So clearly, it would be completely unreasonable for a demon prince or sorcerer of Slaanesh who was still loyal to the Black Legion to be leading Black Legion plague marines. </sarcasm> If that's not good enough fluff, then every last "Counts as Pedro" has no claim to fluff because all of those little made up Space Marine chapters aren't in any of the books, either.

While I don't really mind what a person brings to a tourney, the reality is some tourneys utelize army composition.

Fzorgle/Plague/Obliterator combos simply have a higher probability of getting a scoring low on army comp. Right or wrong, perception is reality and army comp is subjective.

Fluffy or not, I'm of the firm belief the only reason GW decided to change the Chaos Codex to its current incarnation was to sell more models. No restrictions opened the door to buy any and all models for a single army.

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.

-unknown quote:

Age and cunning wins out over youth and zeal

I disagree with you. I've been playing Chaos since 2nd before there even was a Chaos codex. In fact, I was building a very fire-themed "Flames of Tzeentch" Thousand Sons army, lots of flamers and hand flamers, and even chaos marines riding on Disks of Tzeentch. Of course that was destroyed as soon as the 2nd ed codex came out and turned all my pretty Thousand Sons into illegally-equipped empty suits.

So I've been playing Chaos for a long time, and I've seen the "fluff" change and the restrictions built into the army list change many times. Even though this is the first edition codex to completely leave out any mention of Ancient Enemies (although IIRC the 2nd ed codex had it in the fluff but no restrictions in the army list) I don't begrudge players who don't follow it.

If it's not in the current codex, either in the rules section or the background section, then it is not a part of the fluff.

So the answer is: Yes, many chaos players do care about the fluff (I'm not going to use generalizations and say "all") but they just don't care about the same fluff that you do any more.

Augustus wrote:

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...

I wasn't challenging you, heck I'm pushing 40 myself which means I'm in the "old fart" range myself at this point.

I played chaos multiple times in my past. I have had massive Black Legion armies on two separate occasions and was a staunch Death Guard Player for many years. I also had a heavily converted Nurgle themed LATD force.

My DG and LATD collections would have easily been 5000+ points and nice to play some Apocalypse games with if I still had them, but first GW dropped LATD and then I really didn't like the direction GW took Chaos. I sold all my chaos at this point and haven't looked back, it just wouldn't be the same today as it was, and I'd rather just have the memories of chaos in the greatness of past editions at this point.

For me the flavor and fluff was what chaos was all about. You took pride in building/converting and playing a themed force regardless of any limitations it might impose. Flavor used to be key for chaos players; it was converter's army, a painter's army, a fluff hound's army.

These days chaos just seems so watered down, one dimensional and uninteresting for me personally. The double lash "sporthammer" list that everyone fields makes no sense to me based upon what chaos was told to be for so many years. Gw has moved on however and the old farts need to get out of the way I guess...

There were no restrictions on mixing troops with different marks in 2nd edition. It has always been in the fluff to have a mixed force. Again, the main point under contention here is that an HQ with a particular mark is leading a force with no other unit in that force bearing the same mark.

I liken this to, in eldar, taking Maguan-ra and no dark reapers, in IG taking Lord Castellan Ursarkar Creed and no cadians, only catchacan, in Tyranids, taking a broodlord and no genestealers, in Witchhunters, taking a cannoness and no sisters. Are these legal builds? Yes, all of them are. Do they make sence? No, not one bit.

What really makes Fzorgle so painful to people who pay attention to fluff is how powerful it is. Fzorgle is utterly gamebreakingly powerful. This led me to a thought: if the list wasn't so powerful, would anyone play it? That is the true measure of fluff. People will play lists just because the story is so interesting. Can anyone honestly say they'd play Fzorgle if it was second or third tier?

Maybe Ive missed something... I always considered that single faction armies were somewhat counter-fluff (particularly the world eaters, who were supposed to be broken into small warbands). Ive always considered my various units to be bound together by a single strong chaos champion warlord (or abbadon).

I figured that was sufficiently fluffy to justify playing the army I wanted (and Im yet to use lash in a game, but expect to in the future - I am planning a couple of Slannesh Demon princes)!

But what you consider a small warband might not be a small warband to someone else. My small warband is over 200+ chaos marines. This represents just over 0.2% of the 90,000 traitor marines.

On a plus note, this thread has made me realise that I was a TFG with fzorgle in an Iron Warriors army. This has now ceased an I am currently trying to re-gain Perturabo's favor.

Fairy Nuff, Although im sitting with 200+ cms too ... mostly Zerkers, but good chunk of my 'black iron legion' (I paint them boltgun, then throw over 3-4 washes of badab black - I think it provides a bit more 'texture' than just black) and a couple of squads of the other legions for specialist roles.

Spose its just how you interpret the fluff (as long as youre having fun, Im not going to point the stick at anyone!)

@Darkhound: Given that nobody played Slannesh Psyker / PM / Oblits *before* 5E, I think you have your answer....

Which was my point exactly John. I want to believe that will shut people up about Fzorgle being fluffy, but it won't. Infact, another one will pop up within the next 7 posts.

I think the list is possible to achieve via fluff. If nothing else it could be the remains of a larger warband whose Slanneshi troops and Nurgle leader have been wasted.

However, it's clearly not the reason people play it. People play a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch leading large numbers of Thousand Suns because it's fluffy. People play an Undivided Lord with a Slaneshi Sorcerer and troops from each Cult as a fluffy Undivided force.

People play this because it's very, very powerful. If Lash of Submission suddenly required the unit to take a Leadership test before you could move it, then I very much doubt we'd see this list played again. In fact I suspect we won't see it after the next Chaos Marines Codex.

I personally prefer to avoid lists like this, because I dislike the 'must win' mentality behind it. Just as I'd avoid taking two Nob Biker squads. That is not to say, if I chose to make a Chaos list, I wouldn't take Lash of Submission. I wouldn't, however, take three squads of Obliterators. One, sure. They're a cool and potent unit. But three is overkill.

It's really the principle of why you play the game. Some play to play a war game, some play to play in the 40k universe, etc. There's no wrong approach. Any opponent you play that has a different one will "grind your gears" a little bit, so expect that. I think if a player can hit all the marks (extremely themed, extremely competitive and well-painted/modeled) then they'll earn extra points in the opponent's books regardless and be more fun to play, but that doesn't mean everybody has to be at that level or want to be.

I personally play to play a war game, and usually have a theme and decent enough "hobbying" that my army doesn't look out of place, even if it's not the best. I've also never played more than 4 Oblitz and don't plan on it because I can't come up with a decent conversion, and the GW models are getting ridiculous. I've only ever run 1 squad of Plaguers, and now I don't even do that because I'd rather have more regular CSM. I usually only run 1 cult marine squad in an army ever (I love Chaos Glory and Slaanesh-marked units though). I play to hit all of the marks slightly, but mainly to play a war game (I do enjoy thrashing a Space Marine or IG player more though).

ph34r wrote:

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.

Of course with similar logic you could not have loyalist marines or IG playing each other. Loyalists don't battle in the fluff so its right out.

Frazzled wrote:

Of course with similar logic you could not have loyalist marines or IG playing each other. Loyalists don't battle in the fluff so its right out.

Really?

I seem to remember some pretty serious Loyalist on Loyalist action during the Horus heresy and other historical times in the Imperium's history...

Not to mention that People like Apostate Cardinals often convince PDF forces and other "loyal" citizens to follow their cause which leads them to open conflict with other Imperial forces

Not to mention that whole populations of people don't always willingly submit to being "purged" by an overzealous Inquisitor...

CT GAMER wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Of course with similar logic you could not have loyalist marines or IG playing each other. Loyalists don't battle in the fluff so its right out.

Really?

I seem to remember some pretty serious Loyalist on Loyalist action during the Horus heresy and other historical times in the Imperium's history...

Not to mention that People like Apostate Cardinals often convince PDF forces and other "loyal" citizens to follow their cause which leads them to open conflict with other Imperial forces

Not to mention that whole populations of people don't always willingly submit to being "purged" by an overzealous Inquisitor...

Please define the fluff where Space Wolves fought with Blood Angels?
Please elucidate on the epic battle where Dark Angels smashed the Iron Hands?
Wars between Catachan and the Smurfs?

DarkHound wrote:What really makes Fzorgle so painful to people who pay attention to fluff is how powerful it is. Fzorgle is utterly gamebreakingly powerful. This led me to a thought: if the list wasn't so powerful, would anyone play it? That is the true measure of fluff. People will play lists just because the story is so interesting. Can anyone honestly say they'd play Fzorgle if it was second or third tier?

I think that's the best summary of the fluff vs rules debate.

I have no trouble with people fielding dual-Lash princes, oblits, and Plague Marines. it's a legal list. The only thing that I can expect my opponent to do is field a legal list. But, it's also an obvious net-power-build. And I don't think people can hide behind it be fluffy, it isn't. If the tourney had a player judged comp scoring that was as simple as, "This list is built to win and ignores the fluff", I would check it. If I played a dual-lash, oblit, PM list, I would expect my opponents to check that box.

People play power-builds (dual-lash CSM, Nob bikers, etc.) for one reason - to try to win games. I'm fine with that, just be honest about it. If you have to explain the 'fluff' of your list to people, then it doesn't work. If you field 3x 10 tac marines, 1x10 assault squad, and 1x 10 dev squad - do you have to explain it? No, because everyone recognizes it.

Now, there's exceptions. If you want to field the Tanith First and Only and are basing your army list on some Table of Organization and Equipment that appeared in an odd book, that's fine. People might not get it, and you might have to explain it. But, I'm pretty sure the list wouldn't include 2 choirs in chimeras.

Earlier I asked if anyone knew of examples in fluff where cult troops followed another marked leader. The only example that came up was black legion and the discussion moved on to fzorgle and justification for 2LashOblitfest.

I think it's reasonable to say:

Chaos players (new and Old) don't care about the fluff
New players think rule structure=fluff
Old Fluff is gone

There will always be min/max gamers in pretty much any gaming system.

With every edition and codex change in 40k there has been the same type of people that crunch the numbers and come up with the WAAC army and trump it around the game shop and tournaments for their own reasons. They will try and justify it via "the rules allow it" or "well the fluff is open to the players".

Now, the drawback that these individuals will have to live with is that eventually people are just not going to want to play them. I mean what is fun in knowing that you are tossing your regular army into a meat grinder for no reason other then to inflate a power gamers e-epeen.

Furthermore, when they win tournaments with all massacre wins, they will also end up with lowest comp/theme/sportsmenship scores from me and probably other gamers that look at their army list the same way I would.

Power Gamer: I WON!! I WON!! I AM THE BEST 40K GAMER IN BUMF**K, EGYPT!!

Gamer: Yea, but you're a d**k.

To quote RustyKnight: "To sugna, (in regards to making a story) people will go, "hur hur Chaos can't work together unless GW explicitly states that those exact CSM will work together. All the others are idiots and incapable of long term planning."

Sugna: I meant that you create a backgound story for YOUR army using Ye Old Fluff (books, stories, And ALL codexs), though I only have the last two CSM codexs)
Then you can ADD to your story through you battles and campiagns.

What is a mod? And to my supierior, Perturabo's Chosen, The comander has to have fun Right? Slannish has got it. FROM ALL THOSE WHO YELLED AT ME ABOUT THAT THERE!

Brother Ramses wrote:There will always be min/max gamers in pretty much any gaming system.

With every edition and codex change in 40k there has been the same type of people that crunch the numbers and come up with the WAAC army and trump it around the game shop and tournaments for their own reasons. They will try and justify it via "the rules allow it" or "well the fluff is open to the players".

Now, the drawback that these individuals will have to live with is that eventually people are just not going to want to play them. I mean what is fun in knowing that you are tossing your regular army into a meat grinder for no reason other then to inflate a power gamers e-epeen.

Furthermore, when they win tournaments with all massacre wins, they will also end up with lowest comp/theme/sportsmenship scores from me and probably other gamers that look at their army list the same way I would.

Power Gamer: I WON!! I WON!! I AM THE BEST 40K GAMER IN BUMF**K, EGYPT!!

Gamer: Yea, but you're a d**k.

That's the problem with the current Ork codex. People can power game -and- be fluffy. Lucky bastards. Ah well, I guess that just means I need to get off my butt and paint me some orks.

The answer is GW dosent care about fluff. Players will play what they can and what is good. This is natural in any remotely competitive environment.

Fzorgle is dirty and gaks me no end, But when you think about it chaos is meant to be dirty, rebellious and well ..chaotic.

So when do you kill a thread? Because I think that this one is a bout dead.