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.

Dakka has always been a community with a heavy tournament-based presence. It used to be moreso when I was a lurker before the makeover, if I recall correctly.

I play fairly fluffy, and I had a nice progression with my Guard army. It started as a recon company of Catachans and sentinels, then expanded to Cadians and more heavy weapons, then to Steel Legion and lots of armor. It's made for a cool escalation that I have tucked away in the fluff I keep in my head.

RedGuardian73 wrote:After reading many posts and such on Dakka I've come to the conclussion that too many people min/max their armies and attempt to win too hard. There are some people who give thier armies a backround story or stick with a GW one but everyone else seems to just play to win and thats not everything in 40K. 40Ks' about having fun with friends and the experience of actually playing and imagining the epic struggles of humanity against aliens and itself. I know that 40K isnt an RPG but it does have a vast history and vaster (if thats a word) fluff. So why all the Min/Maxing?

Because your hobby is different to another persons.

Many people have tough armies but enjoy fluff and enjoy the social side of the hobby. You have just aS narrow view of the hobby as 'in it to win it' players.

Bookwrack wrote:

RedGuardian73 wrote: So why all the Min/Maxing?

Confirmation bias.

This gets my "post of the thread" award. If I took Dakka alone as a representative indicator of the hobby at large, I would never set foot in a FLGS, for fear that the gaming tables would be surrounded by people too busy arguing over semantics to play. I couldn't paint, either, as the sound of scoffing from the painting table would be nearly deafening, as the "true hobbyists" fluff themselves (*nudge nudge, wink wink*).

Refusing to put crappy units on the table does not make you a WAAC-off. Being fluffy doesn't require you to gimp your army and scoff at the math-hammerers. Play nicely with others and have fun, whether that means writing a small library of background or talking smack with your buddy as you table him on turn 3.

Some codex are just begging to be exploited (notice the recent rush of Deathwing lists posted all of a sudden? hmmm... wonder why that happened... oh a new FAQ! who woulda thunk?) While others really can't make an un-fluffy list. Horray for my new Countsas color scheme.

Add "Grey" or "Knight" in there too, yeenoghu. "The Grey Ultrawolf Dark Blood Templars" perhaps.

CYA and all that. Or future-proofing!

In my defense I wasn't even aware of a FAQ for Dark Angels til after I bought my Plastic Blow

As lot of people have said, fluff and competitiveness aren't exclusive, plenty of competitive lists are full of fluff.

There are only two lists I dislike.
1) MechIG. The list is fluffy yes, IG do have veteran mechanized forces. However, when 80% of the lists are Mechanized veterans, I begin to doubt that's really fluffy, rather than an attempt to excuse it. There's a giantitic fluff mishap when the Imperial army, a force well-known for throwing human bodies with barely any equipment into the fray in hopes of simply burying the opposition in bodies, is only fielding veteran in armor.

2) Tyranid MC lists. Another swarmy army that, in the interest of competitiveness, usually runs the barest minimum of small creatures. At this point they might as well attach chaos banners to all of their big units and rename them as a daemon army.

RedGuardian73 wrote:After reading many posts and such on Dakka I've come to the conclussion that too many people min/max their armies and attempt to win too hard. There are some people who give thier armies a backround story or stick with a GW one but everyone else seems to just play to win and thats not everything in 40K. 40Ks' about having fun with friends and the experience of actually playing and imagining the epic struggles of humanity against aliens and itself. I know that 40K isnt an RPG but it does have a vast history and vaster (if thats a word) fluff. So why all the Min/Maxing?

Just fyi, Dakka is part of the center of the Tourney Scene for Warhammer in the U.S.. Of course you are going to see more min/max lists on a site/place dedicated to tournaments.

If you want to see more fluff armies, go to websites dedicated to that army, like Ogre Stronghold for Ogre Kingdom armies, etc...

Also, this is the internet. 40k is serious business online. Save the fluff for real life friends and games.

kirsanth wrote:Add "Grey" or "Knight" in there too, yeenoghu. "The Grey Ultrawolf Dark Blood Templars" perhaps.

CYA and all that. Or future-proofing!

there's a sig there somewhere..

I think I could squeeze in some kind of =I= on the armor, and some horns flanking the wolf head (gotta make them able to CSM too). Poor guy. I love Paintbrush lately.

kirsanth wrote:Add "Grey" or "Knight" in there too, yeenoghu. "The Grey Ultrawolf Dark Blood Templars" perhaps.

Perhaps the "Dark-Grey Ultra-Wolfblood Templars"?

My friend and I try to keep it fluffy, and since we play CSM and Tau we always take each others spare bits as trophies and we've been trying to get a campaign going.

While my group doesn't necessarily play fluffy, neither do we play particularly competitively. Most folks tend to build armies around what they think would be interesting or entertaining to field, like the all-dreadnought BA/C:SM armies that one of our players recently put together or the rampaging horde of 50-some-odd khorne berzerkers that took to the field tonight.

Experimental and/or theme armies can be highly entertaining.

Phototoxin wrote:Because of tournaments and the mtg-esque 'build' mentality. It's for noobs who play on featureless tables and crunch numbers. The game is about social interaction and toy soldiers. I take it seriously in that I hate seeing it's bastardisation by 'the internets'. Look at the amount of SW or BA 'counts as' and you'll see the issue...

Personally, I don't see why counts as would ever be an issue. Many people, myself included, like creating our own forces. Every army I've ever played (and there has been a lot of them) has been built around characters and backgrounds of my creation. There is no reason to belittle creativity because want to see all of your Blood Angels red and your Space Wolves gray. You may like everything pre-made for you but that is not fun for me and I could never really get attached to characters created by others. You may not like the bandwagon movement towards a new codex or the apparent attempts to build the latest mega-list but don't lump everyone into this category because they use "count as".

I don't roleplay nor do I roleplay my toys. To me they are plastic models. Their history is that they were molded in the UK, shipping to the online dealer then ordered my me. Thats their backstory.

I'm sure there are alot of people who are not interested in the fluff of 40k. Just like there are people who are only interested in the hobby and not the game aspect.

Different people look for different things in the game. I don't create a background for my army when I play chess either. That aspect of the hobby does not appeal to me.

Gridge wrote:

Phototoxin wrote:Because of tournaments and the mtg-esque 'build' mentality. It's for noobs who play on featureless tables and crunch numbers. The game is about social interaction and toy soldiers. I take it seriously in that I hate seeing it's bastardisation by 'the internets'. Look at the amount of SW or BA 'counts as' and you'll see the issue...

Personally, I don't see why counts as would ever be an issue. Many people, myself included, like creating our own forces. Every army I've ever played (and there has been a lot of them) has been built around characters and backgrounds of my creation. There is no reason to belittle creativity because want to see all of your Blood Angels red and your Space Wolves gray. You may like everything pre-made for you but that is not fun for me and I could never really get attached to characters created by others. You may not like the bandwagon movement towards a new codex or the apparent attempts to build the latest mega-list but don't lump everyone into this category because they use "count as".

That's not what he said. He doesn't like the fact that everyone is using the best armies out their simply because they are the best.

As for fluffily, I play fluffily in the fact that I play only CSM. I have kept my guns since I started playiing this game, with one exception, damnit.

Which to me, is a true General of the game. Someone who likes the army well enough they will take the good and the bad, rather than just jumping ship to the newest and cheesiest codex out there. But honestly, who likes those people anyway?

what's the fun in that? isn't the point of this game to win at all costs, both in the game and in the "minds of the troops"? Fun is not part of this game. Do you not read the forums?

Having said that, I play the army I play simply because of the fluff. And I have played out scenarios with fluff-approved armies. I even played out an old mechanic from the fluff in a two-on-two game. My ally was playing Space Wolves, so we played out the champion's duel to determine deployment. It was fun, and I ended up screwing him over a little after I lost the duel. We are Dark Angels! WE don't need no stinking Space Wolves!

I just don't know what's fluffy about bringing an Army to a Wargame, that is weak... Is that how these guys roll? They go around trying to dominate a galaxy with fairy-floss, cotton wool and a kitten? Yeah intentionally not bringing the beats to a battle to the death that's fluffy, and fun to play against too - I just totally love tabling people turn three or having them concede without taking their turn two, it totally makes for a more enjoyable game...

I just recently got into this game. The guy who introduced me to it was a fan of fluff. He tells me an edition or two ago, depending on what sub-group of whatever army you play, you'd get specific rules. He plays Eldar Ulthwe, and builds his army pretty close how an Ulthwe army is supposed to be. Myself, I play Orks: Blood Axes. Every single model I paint has a camo pattern on it (with the exception of my first Trukk) because that's what Blood Axes do. I wish GW would bring back the sub-group specific rules... Oh, wait, they never left... Only the SMs have them...

I guess you can say I play fluff. I recently read in my codex that Blood Axes like their looted wagons. So I guess I'm going to have to go out and buy a Leman Russ and ork it out.... Or maybe a Fireprism. That'd be interesting.

Fluff and as effecive armies are not necessary the same as some has pointed out. However, I always like when my IG look as a "real" army on the battle field. Why would my senior officer hide in a chimera with his advisors and members of the command squad. Of course he should be on the battlefield and show is presence to inspire the troops! And why would he give better equipment to lesser ranked trops than to his own guards.

Well, that just illustrates an example but I find it more pleasing when I manage to win with such a list. If I know my opponent goes for an as hard list as possible and I know I would be lost if I dont do my best in list building then sure I will build my list to the best of my abilities. But if I play with my normal gaming friends we find it more fun to not optimize everything in the list building. There is still a big part of the challenge to use the troops available to the best of your abilities on the battlefield.

I only play fluffy

I will probably start up an Imperial Guard army soon as well. I will have some Mech in there, but it will be a foot slogging army because to me that seems pretty fluffy and that is how I picture the guard.

A mass of human bodies, with whatever weapons they have, piled up on the edge of their city, trying to hold out against all odds thinking "where the @#%!$ are those Space Marines" while facing down their death.......

That is what a fluffy IG army looks like in my book, but that might just mean that I watched to much Starship Troopers...

RedGuardian73 wrote:After reading many posts and such on Dakka I've come to the conclussion that too many people min/max their armies and attempt to win too hard. There are some people who give thier armies a backround story or stick with a GW one but everyone else seems to just play to win and thats not everything in 40K. 40Ks' about having fun with friends and the experience of actually playing and imagining the epic struggles of humanity against aliens and itself. I know that 40K isnt an RPG but it does have a vast history and vaster (if thats a word) fluff. So why all the Min/Maxing?

Keep in mind that the broadness of the "hobby" offers something for and means different things to different people.

Some people focus on the painting, converting, modeling making and artistic side.

Some people focus on the gameplay itself and enjoy tournaments, playing with numbers/probabilities, etc.

Some people like to give equal time to each of the above.

All are valid ways to enjoy the hobby, as in the end one should do what one enjoys. However the problem comes when one type of gamer must interact with another type and each refuses to see any way but there own as the "right" way to play.

The solution is to find opponents that approach the game from the same perspective you do, and don't sweat those that do not...

Playing to win isnt my first goal. If I win, yea thats awesome but its not my point of play. I do play a bit fluffy, but also Ill think of a theme and go with that theme as strong as possible. My first build was based on a warband that was always on the move. So everything was in a BW and trukk and was very much gogogo. I basically thought if 40k were like Gorkamorka, how would that look.

It was a strong build for sure, and I kicked alot of ass with it, but it still had major weaknesses. Now Ive moved more into BigMeks rule my WAAAGH! So I go with very shooty with gizmo's and such. Once in awhile Ill go with dreds and such, but this one is mostly about bodies and rokkits. 1 build has all cannons, another with all boomguns and to change those up Ill take FlashGits. Most the time, I dont even have nobs (as my thinking, nobs would try and muscle in on the BigMeks) This is still a blast to play, and can still just kick heads in. 20 some rokkits a turn will crush things, but it still has its weaknesses so it would never be a top tier build, unless I was the only one in a tourny

Mizeran wrote:Fluff and as effecive armies are not necessary the same as some has pointed out. However, I always like when my IG look as a "real" army on the battle field. Why would my senior officer hide in a chimera with his advisors and members of the command squad. Of course he should be on the battlefield and show is presence to inspire the troops! And why would he give better equipment to lesser ranked trops than to his own guards.

Well, that just illustrates an example but I find it more pleasing when I manage to win with such a list. If I know my opponent goes for an as hard list as possible and I know I would be lost if I dont do my best in list building then sure I will build my list to the best of my abilities. But if I play with my normal gaming friends we find it more fun to not optimize everything in the list building. There is still a big part of the challenge to use the troops available to the best of your abilities on the battlefield.

This is a fine example of why the definition of 'fluff' is left up to the individual player and therefore there is no 'universal fluff' definition.

There is no 'hardcore' list and there is no 'fluff' list.

There's just 'list'.

I can honestly say that i have built my lists purely based on fluff but at the same time have/am taking the means to make them more competitive. Since i play at a gamestore where the competitiion is significantly higher then anywhere else in the State (not bragging just a fact i had to learn how to survive fast or continue to be the stores punching bag. I now have two armies: Air Cav themed Steel Legion Imperial Guard and now am working the starting of a Thousand Sons army and i have to say i am quite happy where I am at.

I can say that many at my store think/now know my Guard list lis powerful (i run x5 Vendettas) especially for MEQ and Heavy vehicle lists which are pertty common these days, but at the same time my list is far from invincible and OP. When the new Guard Codex came i out literally leapt for joy at the idea of running an Airborne/Air Cav army and started to do that right from the getgo. I didnt do it because Vendettas are "OP" (they are very good but i dont think they are OP) i did it because the idea of the sky being filled by these things and unloading bad ass veterans into combat would be awesome, especially the Fallschirmhjager look alike Steel Legion.

The same goes for my Thousand Sons because...well its Chaos and their book is sorely in need of an upgrade. I chose the Thousand Sons because they look awesome, love the idea of AP 3 Bolters and Sorcerers dishing out punishment and the fact they are not Space Marines! If i lose a game? Oh well, as long as i was decently competitive and the game was fun to play then i have no issues with it at all. It is no fun to get smacked in the face over and over with a themed list but if you can find a balance that makes your list both themed/fluffy and pretty dang competitive then i see nothing wrong with it. I can agree people who buiild lists sorely to win are outside of tournaments no real fun to play, but it comes witht he terriotry and sometimes you still win. Hell i just beat down a Blood Angel player with my T-Sons a few days ago...can easily say that a good portion of that book is ridiculous.

I build listed based on what would be cool not on competitiveness or fluff although for SM i will try and choose a chapter that matches what im trying to do fluff wise, for example if i want to make a techmarine bike army with a lr redeemer then i see no problem using Salamanders as the chapter. Do Salamanders prefer bikes? no but they still have them and since the bikes have melta weapons and the techmarines have thunder hammers and fluff wise Salamanders do have some bike squads then the army is at least possible fluff wise. (small squad with redeemer and mm bike support)

I play Fluffy. It feels wrong to field any Sorcerors or Havocs in a Khorne Army, as well as allow anything but mech marines in a Plague Marine Army (Mortarion taught his sons to fight in mechanized formations).

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I play Fluffy. It feels wrong to field any Sorcerors or Havocs in a Khorne Army, as well as allow anything but mech marines in a Plague Marine Army (Mortarion taught his sons to fight in mechanized formations).

Not to call you out, but you have got that totally backwards. Sorcerors have never had any place in Khornate lists, but World Eaters often used Havocs and heavy support weapons were a common part of their combat doctrine.

Mortarion taught his sons to be relentlessly utilitarian in battle. Death Guard almost never utilized armored vehicles, resulting in heavy reliance on squad-based special weapons. The Death Guard were the quintessential footslogging plasma Marines.

This nicely sums up one of my biggest problems with 'fluff' adherents; over time, fluff changes, and many times fluff is wrongly interpreted, often by those who most rigidly adhere to it.

sourclams wrote:This nicely sums up one of my biggest problems with 'fluff' adherents; over time, fluff changes, and many times fluff is wrongly interpreted, often by those who most rigidly adhere to it.

QFT