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.

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.