How far would you compromise playability to honour the fluff?

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.

**Zweischneid**

Deadshot wrote:I would give an example. Coteaz despises daemons and refuse daemonic uses. So any Henchmen squads couldn't have Daemonhosts. Except if you had another inquisitor in which case you could have 1 squad with Daemonhosts.

Which you can do. Noone's forcing you to buy Daemonhosts along with Cotaez. No impediment to playing it "fluffy" there as far as I can see.

**DeathReaper**

svendrex wrote:
DeathReaper wrote:Take the henchmen in the GK codex, their fluff details them as a retinue for an inquisitor, which we know by the game rules is 100% untrue.

Would you care to explain this one to me?

As Kronk and others have pointed out the henchmen are said to be a retinue in the fluff, but they do not have any retinue rules.

svendrex wrote:DeathReaper you do not belong in this thread. There are plenty of other threads of tactics and tournaments elsewhere.

Would you care to explain this one to me?

Last I checked we were discussing compromising playability for fluff.

**jgehunter**

svendrex wrote:

DeathReaper you do not belong in this thread. There are plenty of other threads of tactics and tournaments elsewhere.

No need to explain how offensive this is...

You play a game called "Tourny-Hammer" which has an entirely different set of rules from the game people are talking about here called "Fluff-Hammer". Seriously, they are completely different games It would be like I came into a 40K tactics thread and started talking about how bad walkers were in Standard Magic the Gathering, because they are not cards and can't be fit into sleeves.
Never heard of those games, could you point me to the different rules?
===============================================================

ON TOPIC!!!

I play a radical Inquisition list. I decided instead of including several GK-Dreadnoughts in the list, I would instead field Dreadknights modeled as giant mechano-daemons.

Story wise, my Inquisitor [counts as Coteaz] teamed up with an Alpha Legion Sorcerer [Counts as a GK librarian] to capture a sample of the obliterator Virus to infect some humans [counts as Jokaero].
Then, the inquisitor took an infected human and used him in the rites to bind a daemonhost. Instead of binding a lesser daemon, the obliterator virus instead redirected the binding rites to the Chaos Forges, binding a Soul Grinder into the human host [counts as dreadknight]

Game wise, I have 1 Dreadnought [modeled as a Mechanicus construct], 1 GK Techmarine, 1 GK Librarian, 2 rhinos/razors and 2 Storm Raves, and the 2 Dreadknights. These are the only "Grey Knights" in my force, and I have done my best to include them in the fluff for my force, but game play wise I did feel the need to include them. The Librarian lets me field my Acro-star, and then the Techmarine is for the Death-Cult-Star. The dread knights are there so I could model something awesome, and the vehicles were the best choices for the squads I run them with.

The only unit I do feel a little bad about running is the Dreadnought. He does not fit into the main story of my force that well [it is modeled as a mechanicus construct made by the Techmarine]. it is run with the Twin auto-cannons and Psybolt Ammo.

The rest is either 10 man units of henchmen in a Wide Variety [2 Psyker units, 1 Jokaero shooting unit, 1 Daemonhost shooting unit, 1 DCA Deathstar, 1 Arco-flagellant Deathstar]

I have yet to have a game that was not a ton of fun.

And I play SW frequently and I play regularly against a guy that plays GK's and we just try to make the best list possible and outwit each other with no contempt for fluff and guess what... I have yet to have a game that was not a ton of fun. That said I also enjoy playing fluffy lists and I own a Ravenguard force using SM and Korvydae and it's great fun to play with that too, there isn't a "correct" way to play the game.

**Skriker**

svendrex wrote:In the FAQ, Jervis wrote an additional note basically saying "We know that the rules allow you to break the fluff. Please, just decide to not break the fluff, even though the rules let you"

I am not sure the GW designed their game with the "Gaming" aspect to be the most prominent. Personally, I think the game is designed such that the models are the most important aspect.

And this is exactly why GW's rules are such crap. Instead of writing clear rules they write what they write and then have the attitude like Jervis has. If the fluff is really what is important it is not difficult in the least to write the rules that way. Instead it is like they exist in different dimensions during the creation process and then are brought together after the fact and they don' t match up, but you "should" give precedence to the fluff. Even the ogre mage rule could have been clearly written to say "Ogre mages cannot wear any armor, magical or non-magical." The fluff is enforced, the rules are written clearly and you are good to go. Instead the ogre mage isn't specific, but the player is supposed to *know* that them being allowed to have "magical" armor was not the intention.

I've said it before and I'll say it again with being on the 8th incarnation of the rules in WFB and the 5th in WH40k, these rules should be completely rock solid, no areas of confusion, well written and TOTALLY CLEAR, but they aren't because they write things with the mentality that people will just know what they mean instead of specifically spelling it out clearly and in detail. I just imagine the cool *new* lists we could have if they weren't completely rewriting every army/codex book for every new edition because the edition rules changed so much.

Skriker

**Zweischneid**

Skriker wrote:

And this is exactly why GW's rules are such crap. Instead of writing clear rules they write what they write and then have the attitude like Jervis has. If the fluff is really what is important it is not difficult in the least to write the rules that way. Instead it is like they exist in different dimensions during the creation process and then are brought together after the fact and they don' t match up, but you "should" give precedence to the fluff. Even the ogre mage rule could have been clearly written to say "Ogre mages cannot wear any armor, magical or non-magical." The fluff is enforced, the rules are written clearly and you are good to go. Instead the ogre mage isn't specific, but the player is supposed to *know* that them being allowed to have "magical" armor was not the intention.

That is just stupid. If Ogre mages don't wear armour in the fluff, and you want to play it fluffy. DO NOT GIVE THEM ARMOUR. Simples. No reason to nazi over other peoples armies with arbitrary enforcements of things, when the option of also giving them armour might enable fun, creative and alternative armies.

40K is a hobby. It's not about "official" fluff. Not about "the game". Not even about "the miniatures". First and foremost, it's about being creative as a hobbyists. The moment you become overtly rigid in "enforcing" stuff like this, you kill the very soul of this hobby.

**juraigamer**

I play iron hands codex marines. I use 3 thunderfire cannons, one 5 man terminator squad, land speeders, bikes ( played as 6th company ) One unit of sternguard, two ironclad dreads, various marines and scouts, two razorbacks, and have a few non-named HQ's. You won't see me run more than 5 terminators, you won't see named HQ's, you won't see quite a few things from the list.

To further the point, I have a captain with dual powerfists. No storm shield. Most everything in the army has a power fist, except the sternguard sarge who has nothing.

**Redbeard**

I think it depends on the nature of the game. At a no-holds-barred tournament, fluff goes out the window. For a thematic battle, all choices are made to fit the theme, regardless of how good the unit is.

I don't have an overall rule. If I'm playing "chaos daemons" at a tournament, then I'll mix and match gods to be effective. If I'm running Nurgle daemons in a recreation of the Siege of Vraks, then Fateweaver, bloodcrushers, fiends of slaanesh can all sit on the sidelines

**GreatGunz**

i adjust my play to the competitiveness of the opponent. If someone is just proxying a bunch of crap and being a power gamer, I dont mind giving it right back to him. But if someone is really a dedicated hobbyist or they're newer to the game I'd much rather play my stuff as what it is. Either way I try to spice up the game a little bit by muttering prayers to the fell powers of the warp, etc.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:I think it depends on the nature of the game. At a no-holds-barred tournament, fluff goes out the window. For a thematic battle, all choices are made to fit the theme, regardless of how good the unit is.

Yep. I'd much rather play the second type than the first.

**Djdom**

I collect my armies based on models i think look good, and what I think fit into my vision of my army.
I only ever play casual fun games, so being ultra-competitive is less important than having an army I enjoy. Plus no matter how amazing my army is it wouldn't make me any better of a general!!

A lot of the fun I get from the game is making up army backstories etc, so for me the theme is everything

**Small, Far Away**

My Wolf Lord is me. My army is his Great Company. Their mission is to clear the galaxy of the taint of the Thousands Sons. Most of my Wolf Guard have names, as do my Dreadnought, and my other HQs. I don't take Long Fangs as I prefer combat. I call out enemy characters to single combat whilst all other models watch.

I'd say I've long since given up on winning games conventionally, but going with the fluff doesn't mean sacrificing things, although, it does sometimes involve replasing (I apologise if that is spelt wrong) things with other things, so you can't get away with a net list.

**hotsauceman1**

None. White scars say they dont use devastators or Dreads. Thats just dumb. I keep my fluff to modeling only(and if the situaltion calls for it playability)

**Skriker**

Zweischneid wrote:That is just stupid. If Ogre mages don't wear armour in the fluff, and you want to play it fluffy. DO NOT GIVE THEM ARMOUR. Simples. No reason to nazi over other peoples armies with arbitrary enforcements of things, when the option of also giving them armour might enable fun, creative and alternative armies.

40K is a hobby. It's not about "official" fluff. Not about "the game". Not even about "the miniatures". First and foremost, it's about being creative as a hobbyists. The moment you become overtly rigid in "enforcing" stuff like this, you kill the very soul of this hobby.

For me it isn't about whether you want to play them fluffy or not, but about GW not bothering to be clear in their rules and when called on it refering to the esoteric fluff and "spirit of the game" to answer the questions and problems. I don't know anyone who would stop playing WFB over being told clearly in the rules that Ogre Mages cannot wear armor of any type, magical or non-magical. Such clarity in the rules in no way will "kill the soul of this hobby". What *is* killing the soul of this hobby is the fact that GW cannot write clear and effective rules to save their lives and keep raising prices up and up. There are two separate aspects of each army book and codex: The Fluff and The Rules and never the two shall meet. It is only in the best interest of the game and the sanity of the players for these things to be put into sync and stop contradicting each other.

If you find well written and clear rules make it impossible to be a creative hobbyist perhaps a new hobby is in order for you. I can be plenty creative in other games I play that are much better written with rules that make sense and don't contradict each other all over the place. No one is talking about "nazi-ing" over other people's armies, just that it would be helpful if GW wrote what they claim they mean with the rules and fluff instead of expecting players to just figure it out and "choose" not to go against the fluff.

Skriker

**Zweischneid**

@ Striker

I am not sure what is "unclear" about the ability of Ogre Mages to take armour. If that confuses you, 40K (or Fantasy in that case) might simple be over your head.

Sure there is fluff. And nothing, to stick with the Ogre Mage example, is preventing anyone from playing fluffy. But to simply remove a viable, if perhaps unfluffy option, just makes no sense. Those, who would have played it "fluffy" without armour gain absolutely nothing. And the only ones that "loose" are those who would have used the option despite the fluff for whatever reason.. be it to individualize their army, be it to use the list to work with alternative, home-made fluff, be it simple powergaming if that's what makes you enjoy the game.

I just see no value in arbitrary restrictions that "enforce" some random background piece that not everyone would take as holy scripture for the sake of it. Sure, all options to play fluffy should be there. But so should as many other options you can squeeze into to make the appeal as broad as possible and to open as much "space" as you can for different/alternative/variant interpretations and armies as you possibly can.

The "drive" to make each army "your own", individualize and "be that one special snowflake" is a core element of this game. If it weren't, you wouldn't need "army lists" in the first place. GW could just publish a hard-coded, unchangeble list for each army, perhaps 3 or 4 for different point levels. They don't. They give you options to tinker with. Simple background should never be a reason to "exclude/disallow" an option if it doesn't otherwise upset the game in any fundamental way.

**Azreal13**

Zweischneid wrote: Simple background should never be a reason to "exclude/disallow" an option if it doesn't otherwise upset the game in any fundamental way.

That is exactly what background should be, outside of a competitive environment. I'll refer you back to my opening post. I am collecting an army based out of another Codex because I feel its a good fit. However, I have imposed certain restrictions on myself in order to remain true to my vision of the army, and not stray into cheesy territory.

I consider myself quite lucky that I had real clarity of vision in regards to what I wanted to do, and there was effectively a codex within a codex that allowed me to do it and still field an entirely legal force with no requirement for permission from my opponent (although, with their permission, I often skip rolling for Red Thirst)

By excluding/disallowing certain options, I've crafted something slightly different from the norm, that fits the fluff, and while not top table competitive, has the tools and options to give anyone a game and I've used certain units that I wouldn ever normally consider (never been a fan of Scouts, first game I fielded them, one sniper took out a DE Razorwing on my first turn, that pleased me!)

One chap at my local club even said to me "I normally hate counts as armies, but I really like what you've done with yours, I might steal your idea."

That was after I'd shot his Razorwing!

TLDR By limiting your options, it can make you more creative

Oh, and my tuppence worth with regard to the Ogre Mage/Magic Armour debate, couldn't you model a mystical tatoo, or some sort of animal skin that conferred the bonuses of the magic armour while still keeping with the fluff? Don't know my WHFB too well these days, but its a thought that occurs.

**d-usa**

I play Raven Guard out of the C:SM.

Lots of scouts, scout bikers, land speeder storms.

Stuff in Drop Pods, and usually not much in the way of heavy support. No Land Raiders for me because fluff-wise it just seems kinda hard to sneak up on somebody with a giant tank.

Tanks based on Rhinos are as far as I am willing to go, since I can imagine them running more on the quiet site and speeding up to support the scouts. So plain Rhinos, Razorbacks, Whirlwinds, Predators. Although Predators are usually the least likely.

I play Vanguard Assault Marines because I think they fit the Raven Guard fluff.

If I play Shrike he is NEVER fielded with Assault Terminators. Because I think it is stupid that a guy with a JP is sneaking around with a bunch of guys in TDA. He goes with Assault Marines or Vanguard Marines.

I didn't pick the Raven Guard because I like black PA marines. I picked them because of their fluff and their fighting style. And that is why I build lists that try to emulate that fighting style. Fluff makes it fun for me.

**Bear LaMorte**

my fluff is honored best by my IG ... I dont run much mech ... i dont run vets ... i have a minimal number of meltas. What i do have is over 150 foot sloggers that show what an IG regiment is all about

**fluffstalker**

Bear LaMorte, my Mordian list is the same. Rank upon rank of infantry......backed up by nine lascannons of course

. I do run some veterans though, some with plasma some with melta.

**Hazardous Harry**

Ignatius wrote:I go pretty far... I play Imperial Guard so there really isn't much that isn't fluffy with the codex. I stick to the "no more than one special character" rule. And I don't use any abhumans. Other than that, what is there I shouldn't be doing as a guard player? Not much.

Same goes for me, especially the distaste for abhumans.

Also, I justify mechanised lists by having regiments from Forge or Hive Worlds (in my case Vostroyans, which is a curious mix of the two).

**fluffstalker**

Abhumancs can be fluffy depending on the regiment. I don't know of any of the main regiments that has alot of abhumans serving though. I would guess they are pretty rare, relatively speaking. It's more of a thematic issue, one which I agree with, I don't really like the look and feel of Ogryns.

Rough Riders though...damn, they're such an awesome concept. I would kill for these guys to become viable...or just have a model update that doesn't involve buying Dkok death riders, the existing ones, or doing alot of converting, because I'm horrible at converting :(.

**Hazardous Harry**

fluffstalker wrote:Abhumancs can be fluffy depending on the regiment. I don't know of any of the main regiments that has alot of abhumans serving though. I would guess they are pretty rare, relatively speaking. It's more of a thematic issue, one which I agree with, I don't really like the look and feel of Ogryns.

Rough Riders though...damn, they're such an awesome concept. I would kill for these guys to become viable...or just have a model update that doesn't involve buying Dkok death riders, the existing ones, or doing alot of converting, because I'm horrible at converting :(.

With a few swaps the Haradrim Riders from LotR can be viable candidates in a Tallarn army.

**Skriker**

Zweischneid wrote:I am not sure what is "unclear" about the ability of Ogre Mages to take armour. If that confuses you, 40K (or Fantasy in that case) might simple be over your head.

Look mate no reason to be an insulting git. The point was made by *someone else* that the army book said no armor for an ogre mage, but the rules implied that magic armor could still be used. Jervis was specifically asked about it as it seemed to go against the fluff and his response was that you *shouldn't* go against the fluff. I continued to use that example because it is a pretty clear example of where what is written and what is implied do not sync up. My whole point is that if the folks at GW WANT the fluff to be important than they should write their books that way. It is that simple. I am not trying to impose a *YOU MUST FOLLOW THE FLUFF* rule, merely pointing out that what GW writes and says it means are often 2 different things and it could make a *positive* difference for all if they sorted that out and made it clearer. Writing rules that do not support the fluff and then saying after the fact that players "shouldn't" go against the fluff is just stupid and speaks of them being too lazy to sync them up better. You then got a bee in your bonnet that somehow suggesting that GW actually make the rules and fluff sync up, which often seems to be their desired intent if not their actual result will somehow completely ruin the games. I disagreed with that point as plenty of existing games have clearly written and definted rules that do just fine and aren't *ruined* because of it.

Understand now?

Skriker

**Azreal13**

d-usa wrote:INo Land Raiders for me because fluff-wise it just seems kinda hard to sneak up on somebody with a giant tank.

I'm struggling with that at the moment, you're quite right that in the fluff RG don't favour heavy armour (including Preds actually, but I see where you're coming from with the rhino chassis thing)

Things is, I really LIKE Land Raiders! I know thery're not terribly competitive, but my regular opponent had an original any way up model when I first started back in 2nd, and when he moved away to join the army, he passed it on to me, and it became the centre piece of my BA army. They have real nostalgia for me, I like the current model, and I would really like to paint one up, would probably get FW doors for it and everything.

On the other hand, one of my rules to make my army RG, and not simply black BAs, was "no Preds, no Raiders"

One couldn't hurt. Could it?

**Galdos**

I hold myself very closely to fluff but thats it.

I run a combined force of Cadians (an armor and an infantry from 2 seperate regiments with different camo schemes)

My infantry are foot slogging but not infantry blobs and I only have one Vet squad for higher tier games used as a reserve force following a US style combat doctrine.

My Armor has armor units (duh) but im not super armor heavy.

I try to keep align to Cadian fluff as much as I can.

I would like to see other people do the same but I dont really care too much if they do or dont

**Ascalam**

I generally build my ork lists to a theme (even if there are other options that are 'better' but don't fit that theme.)

I play this game to be entertained, and to stretch my creative muscles a little. Making an effective list around a specific theme (and the theme not being 'spam all the cool stuff' ) can make for more enjoyable games than runnignt he same tired old list over and over, even if it is mathematically superior

For example i'm running an all-bike and buggy list for the next tournament, after a challenge from a White Scars player.

It's not my normal build, so it'll be a learning experience, and the Bikerboss in charge is very supersititious, so all the units number 7 (except the buggies).

Will it curbstomp every army at the tournament? I doubt it

Will it be a blast to try out? Yup