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.

Wouldn’t play the game if it wasn’t for the lore. Take away 40K’s lore and aesthetics and you’re left with a mediocre (at best) table-top game and miniatures that are stupidly overpriced.

That’s part of why it stings so much when certain authors run roughshod over the fluff.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn’t play the game if it wasn’t for the lore. Take away 40K’s lore and aesthetics and you’re left with a mediocre (at best) table-top game and miniatures that are stupidly overpriced.

That’s part of why it stings so much when certain authors run roughshod over the fluff.

Agree entirely.. The games not THAT good.... The fluff is beyond awesome though. I As I said, I think I'm pretty much 100% into the game for the background.

Seems like the majority are as well.. As you say, there are plenty of better board games.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn’t play the game if it wasn’t for the lore. Take away 40K’s lore and aesthetics and you’re left with a mediocre (at best) table-top game and miniatures that are stupidly overpriced.

That’s part of why it stings so much when certain authors run roughshod over the fluff.

Amen. I wouldn't play if it wasn't for the lore, as it was the lore that got me into Warhammer 40k. As a freelance writer who is trying to score works with Black Library and other companies, to be honest the only thing that really matters is the lore. I enjoy the official stories and tales that have been written in the hobby, they entertain me more than playing the actual game.

I shaped my army based on the chapters lore and what would compliment it; as such, it work out pleasing both aesthetically, and physiologically.

[EDIT] Just occurred to me, that without the lore all the game really is; is throwing large amounts of money at a wall to buy the miniatures and hoping to god they don't fall in Acetone when you're not looking.

I find creating within the universe is a lot of fun as well. I can understand playing the official GW armies but with as much SPACE as there is within GW's factions and universe there's room for almost infinite creativity and customization? So why not write your own fluff, set your own color scheme and maybe swap in some different models to create something uniquely you? For example, something I'm considering for my Imperial Guard is making a tactical squad and terminator squad's worth of deathwatch and having them lead by an Ordo Xenos inquisitor using Grey Knights rules. It's the "allied detachment" on the table top, but in the fluff it's the command element and personal retinue of Ordos Xenos Inquisitor Lord.... Steve for lack of a better name who commands the entire guard army the unit deployed on the tabletop is attached to.

That's what I've always thought GW meant when they went on about building your own narrative.

I suppose that could just be me though.

See this thread for my view of competitiveness vs fluff:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/488127.page

In other words, 100%.

Game play means nothing at all to me, as I don't actually get to play the games, so lore is the main thing that draws me to a new army or model range.

Game System :
Firstly - the models need to be attractive - thats what grabs my attention .
Secondly - The ruleset / playability
Thirdly - I need a general rationale and overvue of the conflict to engage me , doesnt need to be too in-depth .

Faction:
Firstly - the models need to be attractive
Secondly - Their fluff
Thirdly - the way they play .

Unit :
- the models need to be attractive
Secondly - their function
Thirdly - basic fluff

My choice of armies in either system (Fantasy and 40k) has primarily been based on 2 factors: looks and fluff.

In Fantasy, I play OnG. I love their fluff, plus their gameplay is awesome (meaning that, whatever happens, you will at least get a good laugh).

In 40k, I liked the idea of life-hating, near-immortal android warriors, bent on the total purification of the galaxy from the scourge that is life. Of course, later on all this fluff changed for the worse (in my opinion at least - it is not bad, just not what attracted me to Necrons in the first place) but I managed to balance that by creating my own dynasty with its own history.

While gaming, I like to be a little competitive, but I also try to be as "fluffy" as possible.

A lot, though the look of the models is also a massive factor for me. If my favourite faction lore-wise had awful models I'd probably skip over them for my next favourite. As for the strength of their rules, that's pretty far down my list (an exception would be if they're supposed to be in line for a new book soon, which is why I'm currently holding off starting Tau beyond a few models until I can get a more concrete idea of when their new Codex is coming).

In Warhammer 40k, I feel like playing a fluffy list makes it weaker in comparison to the standard list, so I don't do that.

In Infinity, however, I do tend to figure out a theme for my lists - I usually choose a couple of models from the same unit, to make it look like there are multiple Fire Teams working together. For example, I once took Saladin in my list and included a Hassassin Lasiq sniper with him, purely because the fluff said that the Hassassins were watching Saladin's every move.

It's easier to make fluffy lists in Infinity, because no models are truly bad there, so you just take what you like the look and feel of.

One thing I actually like about WM/H are the themed armies. They're quite fun.

Lore influences me a lot because I don't play miniatures and rules from the same manufacturer. I find the miniatures I want that best represent the idea I have in my head from the lore and then use the rules that make sense. It helps having a group of gamin friends who like trying new things, but it doesn't take long to settle on some favorites.

Right now I'm rereading 80s and 90s WFB books and have decided to make a skirmish force of warriors, beastmen, daemons, skaven and goblins. A true chaos pact from a time when skaven were explicitly chaos beastmen and the horned rat was explicitly a chaos god.

As it turns out, I'm not all that creative - rather, I'm terrible at starting from scratch. I like having a general theme, at most, within a larger, established framework to guide my collecting/painting/modeling, and that means taking both fluff and rules/gameplay (I don't really play, but I account for the eventuality) into account, in a very general sense. On the rules and play side, it's more about "legal unit/army composition" than it is about making a dedicated list and focusing on highly effective units.

That leaves the majority of the influence to fluff - again, in a very general sense. When picking games, it's as broad as having a general sense of the setting (when, where, how, and why the fighting happens) and aesthetic. I don't need to have a deep personal investment in the conflict, I just want to be able to make sense of it. If the aesthetic doesn't grab me, though, the game is a no-go. Malifaux and Warmahordes pass the setting test, but the general aesthetic doesn't - I might grab the odd standout model as a one-off project, but I'll probably never go in for a legitimate crew/army/force. Infinity, however, grabbed me immediately by the eyes and wouldn't let go. The factions had distinct enough identities that "they're fighting - oh, and it's the near-ish future" was more than enough.

When picking armies within a system, I find that fluff and aesthetics generally align - both that the models "look their part" and that if I like one, I'll like the other. I enjoy the mix of silliness and brutality in Ork fluff and the models share the same qualities. On the other hand, I'd never touch Space Wolves - the fluff takes two things I like (SM and Norse mythology) and smashes them together in a repulsively ham-fisted manner (in my opinion, at least); I find the pelts and braids and "offspring of Chester A. Arthur and a Wookie being electrified in a cartoon" facial hair of the models equally distasteful.

As far as units within an army are concerned, again, since the in-game effectiveness of a model is of relatively little concern, my selections are determined by the attractiveness of the models and the variety (cool elite units) and/or completeness (solid core of troops) they bring to the army, in roughly equal measure.

Of course, my focus right now is assembling and painting armies pretty much exclusively, but, as I mentioned, I do intend to play at some point. I honestly don't see my method changing when that happens, though. I prefer games to be more about what you do than what you bring (or, God forbid, what you buy) and I don't mind fighting an uphill battle - I can smile through long strings of losses, if I'm allowed (by the system, as much as the opponent) to enjoy the struggle. If it ever reaches a point where my only choice is to get ROFLstomped on turn two or give up when the lists come out, I'll simply retreat to my P&M mainstay until I find more compatible opponents, or focus my gaming on other, more flexible/balanced systems.

the only fluff out of the 3 GW games I actually like is LoTR and, well because those books are masterpieces of literature and GW's awful people (eg Matt Ward) can't taint its fluff, it will be great forever
that and I like to actually play as good guys, something fantasy and 40k lack

I do take the background into consideration when making my army lists, but it affects my decisions about which armies to PLAY more. Salamanders have been described as using fewer Fast Attack options (specifically jump troops) than other chapters, and while I may feel a little squidgy about taking them, it isn't going to stop me necessarily.

That being said, I really enjoy the background of the game system, and I strive to choose, field, and model that background as best I can in my armies.

Lore is first and foremost the only reason I'm into 40k. It's a great setting and could be so much more if in more competent hands.

I absolutely cling to lore, but the beauty of 40k is the flexibility of that lore. I feel like if one is thoughtful enough, they can explain any army without explictly violating lore.

For example, I play Death Guard, and they never fielded much in the way of fast, mobile assets like assault marines, and are entirely Plague marines. However, I wanted to add in a Heldrake, cheaper MEQ bodies, and some raptors, so I painted them as Night Lords and explain it away with the Night Lord band having been offered the choice of service or death.

 Rainbow Dash wrote:
the only fluff out of the 3 GW games I actually like is LoTR and, well because those books are masterpieces of literature and GW's awful people (eg Matt Ward) can't taint its fluff, it will be great forever
that and I like to actually play as good guys, something fantasy and 40k lack

*cough cough* Abrakhan Guard *cough cough* Mongolian Khandish Warriors *cough cough* Dragon Knights

yes nothing is perfect but they can't, say change the fluff as it suits them,
there will never be a skull on Gondor's flag

Fluff is pretty important. For me, playing 40k is a fairly cinematic experience - mighty heroes challenging each other, big explosions etc, and I have to be able to identify with the army I'm playing, considering the time investment. For example, I cannot stand the Tau, simply because I find their fluff so insipid.

 Melissia wrote:
100%.

Without the lore, it's just a bunch of mediocre, overpriced models with a game that really needs some improvement, with most of the factions allowed to go outdated while a few of the authors' favorite factions are updated regularly.

This.

A lot. I started playing Necrons because of their really cool fluff (the ACTUAL fluff not that pos stuff in the 6th codex that's just an obvious lie spread around by the Empire of Weaklings) and I still refuse to play any flyers as it doesn't really go with my idea of a robot army. Silver Tide it is!

 Sigvatr wrote:
A lot. I started playing Necrons because of their really cool fluff (the ACTUAL fluff not that pos stuff in the 6th codex that's just an obvious lie spread around by the Empire of Weaklings) and I still refuse to play any flyers as it doesn't really go with my idea of a robot army. Silver Tide it is!

I admit I like a lot of the new 'cron vehicles but yeah, silver tide! go!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn’t play the game if it wasn’t for the lore. Take away 40K’s lore and aesthetics and you’re left with a mediocre (at best) table-top game and miniatures that are stupidly overpriced.

That’s part of why it stings so much when certain authors run roughshod over the fluff.

Exactly, this is how I picture how a nid army should look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVbeoSPqRs4&feature=player_embedded In reality its wonky and dumb as hell looking.

 Ravenous D wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Wouldn’t play the game if it wasn’t for the lore. Take away 40K’s lore and aesthetics and you’re left with a mediocre (at best) table-top game and miniatures that are stupidly overpriced.

That’s part of why it stings so much when certain authors run roughshod over the fluff.

Exactly, this is how I picture how a nid army should look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVbeoSPqRs4&feature=player_embedded In reality its wonky and dumb as hell looking.

See I couldn't paint a nid army the way I want because it would look boring... I love the liquid black look of H.R. Geiger's "Alien"

It's all about the Lore for me. 40k's '1 minute to midnight' feel has kept me playing for nigh on 12 years.

The armies I play are rigidly dictated by the Universe background, to the exclusion of several, arguably better units.

It's also the reason I've graduated to Dark Heresy. It lets me focus on smaller engagements, and to really focus on the beating heart of the setting- its bleak and unforgiving background. Acolytes are fragile. You will not beat an MEQ in combat unless you are lucky, or specialized. Whilst your actions may seem vital, in reality, you will not be missed.

Power-gaming, and Mathhammer just don't do it for me. It's all about the story.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
A lot. I started playing Necrons because of their really cool fluff (the ACTUAL fluff not that pos stuff in the 6th codex that's just an obvious lie spread around by the Empire of Weaklings) and I still refuse to play any flyers as it doesn't really go with my idea of a robot army. Silver Tide it is!

I admit I like a lot of the new 'cron vehicles but yeah, silver tide! go!

Play the best of both worlds then

Silver Tide w/ GA and AB!

That's basically what I'm doing actually. Bunch of silver tide warriors, immortals to lead the charge some crypteks, a minor lord, GA kitted out with 9 troops and a Storm Cryptek, and the overlord running around in a Barge (gonna magnetize), 3 destroyers and a pair of heavy destroyers, two tomb spiders and as many scarabs as I can get bases for. (the last is because I like the song yakety sak... and putting that on when your scarabs start after a land raider's always funny)

Imagery and Fluff are 100% for me. I play Raven Guard simply because the image of drop pods crashing everywhere followed by guys cruising in with jump packs is just cool to me. This is also why I play all my assault squads as Vanguard vets. Don't care about the increased cost, I play them stripped down with the same weapons an Assault squad gets, they just get to assault when they deepstrike, fits the image, fits the fluff. I'm playing them. Tacs in drop pods and sniper scouts lurking on the outskirts and I'm hooked. I skipped 4th edition, so when I came back after having built them with a command squad with jump packs I was a little ticked. Want a flying standard bearer? Fits the image, fits the fluff, I play them as BA.

Lore does play a major part in my selections, then I make my own lore for that army as many do.

My Tau I did the DiY Sep of Kal, Dath way back in 2000.

My SM are the Dragons Errant, a Salamander based, fleet riding crusade force

My Khadrovian Iron Guard IG army and their smallish empire of the Khadrovian Konfederation(K instead of C is on purpose).

My Orks of Waaagh!!! Magnotz under the Magnotz Bruddas.(Spawned from a freakishly lobed fungus sack-system.)

My Necrons of the Melch' ek dynasty, akak :toxicrons as dubbed thanks to Dakka-ites Whose Pharon is both bored and disgusted at the present situation of the Necron holdings and the new races that have overrun them.

Just for examples of how I take the basics and run with the stuff.

Now with the release of Mantic Warpath,m I can alter my minis collections to fit that universe as I have also seen to do with other game systems.