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.

 Galas wrote:
To be honest the armies I see at the top tables are actually , for the most part... I don't know. Normal. Most of them have a bunch of troops, unlike many 7th armies with crazy formations , and barring some cases like those Tyranid lists with 9 ripper swarms and spamming zoantrhopes, Tyrants and tyranid guards, most of the othe list(A castellan supporting a infantry heavy IG army is absolutely fluffy) are actually fine.

I agree that mostly the dissasociation with the fluff comes from how they play the game. In the top tables the game is based around using those loop holes (Like the SocalOpen with the untargeteable infantry inside buildings) and in general "ugly" ways to play the game that feel wrong.

I feel the same as well for the most part. I can't really think of many egregious examples of lore breaking.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest the armies I see at the top tables are actually , for the most part... I don't know. Normal. Most of them have a bunch of troops, unlike many 7th armies with crazy formations , and barring some cases like those Tyranid lists with 9 ripper swarms and spamming zoantrhopes, Tyrants and tyranid guards, most of the othe list(A castellan supporting a infantry heavy IG army is absolutely fluffy) are actually fine.

I agree that mostly the dissasociation with the fluff comes from how they play the game. In the top tables the game is based around using those loop holes (Like the SocalOpen with the untargeteable infantry inside buildings) and in general "ugly" ways to play the game that feel wrong.

I feel the same as well for the most part. I can't really think of many egregious examples of lore breaking.

All the TS + Nurgle Chaos lists are pretty hilarious from a lore perspective. And just the general idea of six or so Daemon Princes all fighting alongside each other.

meleti wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest the armies I see at the top tables are actually , for the most part... I don't know. Normal. Most of them have a bunch of troops, unlike many 7th armies with crazy formations , and barring some cases like those Tyranid lists with 9 ripper swarms and spamming zoantrhopes, Tyrants and tyranid guards, most of the othe list(A castellan supporting a infantry heavy IG army is absolutely fluffy) are actually fine.

I agree that mostly the dissasociation with the fluff comes from how they play the game. In the top tables the game is based around using those loop holes (Like the SocalOpen with the untargeteable infantry inside buildings) and in general "ugly" ways to play the game that feel wrong.

I feel the same as well for the most part. I can't really think of many egregious examples of lore breaking.

All the TS + Nurgle Chaos lists are pretty hilarious from a lore perspective. And just the general idea of six or so Daemon Princes all fighting alongside each other.

Yeah, TS+ DG is the one I mentioned myself. That ones definitely kinda funny. And yeah 6 Daemon Princes would be like end times gak wouldn't it?

Multiple daemon princes would only make sense if you had a greater daemon or a daemon primarch to command them, otherwise I think they'd fight each other.

Haha my friend has a list with 6 ba capts.

Andykp wrote:
I don’t look at tournament lists often but when I do they all make me scratch my head. None of them bear much resemblance to the back grounds I know. And the way they are played is horrendous also. In the times of dark reapers and winged tyrants I saw a battle report and it was so crazy the way they played. No idea why those involved even bothered playing 40k when the story mattered so little.

This is something that I have always wondered. If you are a super-competitive person and sacrifice virgins to the Gods of balance, surely Warhammer isn't the game for you? Min-Maxing, Spam etc are all just ways to try and exploit game mechanics. I like to play the armies as you would imagine them working *IRL. It's why I don't really like seeing 'big baddies' in smaller games. People who play 1000 point games and bring super-heavies.... no thanks.

Marines get a pass because tacs are unplayable.

This is 40k, everything is and is not possible at the same time and the warp is always a great excuse. I could have an Eldar falling in love with an Ork if i wanted to and then make a coop list of 1k eldar and 1k orks. XD

Ahriman hiding behind a horde of Nurglings.

The one I can't stand is the Archon acting like a Master of Ordnance - standing in a group of Ravagers and reciting Vect's Horrible Poetry at them (promising that the sooner they kill their targets, the sooner he'll shut his cake-hole).

The sad part is that this is probably the most effective way of using him because GW still can't design DE HQs that are actually worth a damn.

Any guard and marine mix. Both factions fight very differently and will be used at different points of a battle. While both will be present at a battle, the marines are drop shock troops while the guard would be holding the line and or pushing.

That said im sure scenarios have come up that includes both (ie marines arriving to help the guard hold out against a superior foe...ect).

As a chaos player, I agree with the dual primarchs. While both may be present at a battle both will be in different area's leading their respective forces. About the only way they would be in the same area of battle is that a super high value target (rowboat) was there.

The ebb and flow of a chaos invasion is that all four gods unite to roflstomp the imperium. They do so. But the moment victory is at hand they devolve into a squabbling children and pursue seperate goals. And at worst they start fighting.

Point being is that its very fluffy for demons of opposing gods to be present at the same point of a battle. Its even fluffy that opposed legions are present. But it will almost always devolve once the battle has been won.

Any list that beats me is obviously unfluffy super competitive gak. Every game I won was clearly because I am a god tier strategist.

Primortus wrote:
Magnus and mortarion in the same army is obviously the worst option. The only reason I could see this working from a narrative perspective is if the other army had rowboat. They MIGHT put away their differences to get a better chance at killing their brother.

The runner up choice for me is when people make their warlord a random company commander in an imperial army that includes knights and space marines. That would never happen.

I have that same problem when I include magnus in my army because he SHOULD be the warlord, but his trait sucks real bad. So I really want someone else to be my warlord, but I have a really hard time justifying that from a fluff angle.

An Imperial Guard officer could almost certainly be a battlegroup commander over other options, depending on the demeanour of the others involved in the operaiton.

In Sanctus Reach, the IG general is the group commander over the Knights until the Space Wolves arrive.
In Shadowsword and Baneblade, the force, which contains Black Templars, is lead by the Imperial Guard generals.

There's probably more instances, but I haven't read that many of the 40k novels.


And there's fairly good reasons this might be:
An Inquisitor could appoint the IG officer to be battlegroup commander.
The Space Marines could have ulterior objectives and want the IG to take care of the strategic planning and logistics of the conquest so that they can focus of their goals.
The Space Marines could be late arrivers, and defer to the IG commander's superior experience regarding the situation as it has developed so far.
The Imperial Knights have no useful experience commanding and organizing large army groups, and don't care to deal with the logistics of an invasion as long as the IG guy puts them in the place of glory at the tip of the spear.
The battlegroup is very large, and the Imperial Knights or Space Marines are just tiny parts of it.
etc.

Eh, the way I think about this (many DPs fighting together, Primarchs in every list, etc.) is that my tabletop force represents only a small part of a much larger army, but that the battlefield I'm playing on represents the decisive moment of the decisive bit of the battle. Thinking about it like that it make more sense that this would be a bit with the army's strongest heroes and toughest guys, rather than less. For example, wherever Mortarion, Magnus, or Guilliman go major things are going down, so it's no surprise those are so frequently seen on the table. Similarly, you can be sure that when Nurgle and Tzeentch are getting along that stuff is going down.

It's why there are so many documentaries about the Western Front in WWI, and yet you don't hear about a geriatric Englishman and Turk who get into a porridge fight in a Brazilian nursing home in 1916. Everyone's doing their bit, but only some battles are influential enough to be worth the representation.

 SHUPPET wrote:

meleti wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest the armies I see at the top tables are actually , for the most part... I don't know. Normal. Most of them have a bunch of troops, unlike many 7th armies with crazy formations , and barring some cases like those Tyranid lists with 9 ripper swarms and spamming zoantrhopes, Tyrants and tyranid guards, most of the othe list(A castellan supporting a infantry heavy IG army is absolutely fluffy) are actually fine.

I agree that mostly the dissasociation with the fluff comes from how they play the game. In the top tables the game is based around using those loop holes (Like the SocalOpen with the untargeteable infantry inside buildings) and in general "ugly" ways to play the game that feel wrong.

I feel the same as well for the most part. I can't really think of many egregious examples of lore breaking.

All the TS + Nurgle Chaos lists are pretty hilarious from a lore perspective. And just the general idea of six or so Daemon Princes all fighting alongside each other.

Yeah, TS+ DG is the one I mentioned myself. That ones definitely kinda funny. And yeah 6 Daemon Princes would be like end times gak wouldn't it?

The Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerker shenanigans pre nerf.
I imagine it to be HIIIIIIIGHLY difficult to infiltrate a bunch of Khorne berzerkers since A: The most of them are ex World Eaters and not known for subtilety and B: The Alpha Legion itself does not particulary seem like they would go full specialist route with their marines, ergo not modify their bodies with butcher Nails. (then there's the issue with AL that all units are trained to work individually as sabotage cells and seamlessly fold back toghether into bigger groups called hosts. For that to work you need discipline and a functioning brain, both things Berzerkers lack thanks to the nails.)

All World Eaters are Khorne berserker not all Khorne berserker are world eaters. The first Iron Wariors book has an Iron Warrior Khorne berserker. No butchers nails not an ex-world eater.

I love all the examples of unfully lists given. We have examples of space marines allying with Necrons to fight Tyranids in the fluff another example of space marines allying with Tau to fight Tyranids. We have examples of the inquisition allying with Dark Eldar to try and fix the golden throne. With crazy examples like these actually in the fluff there is literally no list that can be made that "I'm like naw just don't buy it". Not everyone plays games for the fluff as well at the end of the day its a game to play to have fun. Different people have different versions of fun. Neither way is wrong.

 Galas wrote:
barring some cases like those Tyranid lists with 9 ripper swarms and spamming zoantrhopes, Tyrants and tyranid guards

As a Tyranid player, how common is this? I've never heard of Zoans getting much use since the Smite nerf, and Tyrant Guard have never really come across to me as a particularly strong unit. Especially when it's cheaper to buy an extra HT than take 12 wounds worth of guards.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:


Death Guard and TSons being best buds in competitive play springs to mind.

Hit me with the most unfluffy lists that are currently seen in competitive play!

What? Chaos armies being a hodge-podge of everything is pretty much the only fluffy way to play them outside of playing 30K. That's kinda the point of Chaos, splintered, angry, dispersed and uniting wherever and whenever behind whoever manages to united them for a raid, campaign or crusade.

They've even all traditionally been in one book, before GW decided to defile 40K with all the ported over Heresy-nonsense.

Even in the new books, especially Typhus and Ahriman have been participating in raids, black crusades and other campaigns from the eye of chaos. They don't get along any worse than Grey Knights and Space Wolves do.

Mortarion and Magnus however? Can't see that happening unless their respective chaos gods order/trick them to do so or when they fight a foe they hate more than each other.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
People are barely using Custodes Captains at this point. It's the equivalent to whining about Kony in 2018. It's weird and detached from the current game.

They are still used a great deal in competitive.

It's really surprising how fluffy many top tier lists tend to be.

 xttz wrote:

 Galas wrote:
barring some cases like those Tyranid lists with 9 ripper swarms and spamming zoantrhopes, Tyrants and tyranid guards

As a Tyranid player, how common is this? I've never heard of Zoans getting much use since the Smite nerf, and Tyrant Guard have never really come across to me as a particularly strong unit. Especially when it's cheaper to buy an extra HT than take 12 wounds worth of guards.

Zoanthrope spam can put out serious mortal wounds. It's not really doing anything yet but it's seeing tables because tyranids fundamentally struggle with Knights, and Zoanthropes bypass T8 3++.

Bharring wrote:
It's really surprising how fluffy many top tier lists tend to be.

I think the disconnect in 8th is more interaction than composition which was more of a 7th edition issue. Guard backing a knight is pretty fluffy. Guard beingon the battle field making the knight essentially go super sayian and suddenly have access to a ton of abilities it would not have otherwise breaks immersion. CP needs to be separated from army composition and either be limited to what is bringing it or tied entirely to points.

Daemon Prince Spam and Smash Captain Spam. The lists look ugly as hell.

There is also Archon and 3 Ravagers which make me cringe whenever I see. There are many good things in the Drukhari Codex, but people just take the short-cut to get access to Agent of Vect while playing Ynnari or Asuryani.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

meleti wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To be honest the armies I see at the top tables are actually , for the most part... I don't know. Normal. Most of them have a bunch of troops, unlike many 7th armies with crazy formations , and barring some cases like those Tyranid lists with 9 ripper swarms and spamming zoantrhopes, Tyrants and tyranid guards, most of the othe list(A castellan supporting a infantry heavy IG army is absolutely fluffy) are actually fine.

I agree that mostly the dissasociation with the fluff comes from how they play the game. In the top tables the game is based around using those loop holes (Like the SocalOpen with the untargeteable infantry inside buildings) and in general "ugly" ways to play the game that feel wrong.

I feel the same as well for the most part. I can't really think of many egregious examples of lore breaking.

All the TS + Nurgle Chaos lists are pretty hilarious from a lore perspective. And just the general idea of six or so Daemon Princes all fighting alongside each other.

Yeah, TS+ DG is the one I mentioned myself. That ones definitely kinda funny. And yeah 6 Daemon Princes would be like end times gak wouldn't it?

The Alpha Legion Khorne Berzerker shenanigans pre nerf.
I imagine it to be HIIIIIIIGHLY difficult to infiltrate a bunch of Khorne berzerkers since A: The most of them are ex World Eaters and not known for subtilety and B: The Alpha Legion itself does not particulary seem like they would go full specialist route with their marines, ergo not modify their bodies with butcher Nails. (then there's the issue with AL that all units are trained to work individually as sabotage cells and seamlessly fold back toghether into bigger groups called hosts. For that to work you need discipline and a functioning brain, both things Berzerkers lack thanks to the nails.)

I used to justify it by saying that the Alpha Legion hid their zerkers in barrels and just had a switch or something to pop the containers open, at which point the zerkers would rush out like a pack of screaming monkeys.

Actually, a barrell full of Berzerkers might be something AL does, take my exalt, and now go, create this model!

 SHUPPET wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I don’t look at tournament lists often but when I do they all make me scratch my head. None of them bear much resemblance to the back grounds I know. And the way they are played is horrendous also. In the times of dark reapers and winged tyrants I saw a battle report and it was so crazy the way they played. No idea why those involved even bothered playing 40k when the story mattered so little.

Perfect man! Give me some current examples!

It take your comment as saying that example is not sufficiently current. Maybe you should define what you mean by 'current'.
This week? This month? The above sounds like 8th edition to me.

Zustiur wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Andykp wrote:
I don’t look at tournament lists often but when I do they all make me scratch my head. None of them bear much resemblance to the back grounds I know. And the way they are played is horrendous also. In the times of dark reapers and winged tyrants I saw a battle report and it was so crazy the way they played. No idea why those involved even bothered playing 40k when the story mattered so little.

Perfect man! Give me some current examples!

It take your comment as saying that example is not sufficiently current. Maybe you should define what you mean by 'current'.
This week? This month? The above sounds like 8th edition to me.

I mean builds that are currently even playable, there's no set time frame. He's quite clearly referring to pre-Rule of 3 by "times of Dark Reapers and Winged Tyrants", and he didn't even specify them as the builds that were necessarily the ones he thought was crazy.

Cultists being "Veterans of the Long War" always strikes me as odd.


And any army using flamers as their premiere anti-aircraft weapon in their arsenal, of course.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Cultists being "Veterans of the Long War" always strikes me as odd.


And any army using flamers as their premiere anti-aircraft weapon in their arsenal, of course.

on the Cultists, that actually is difficult, a Veteran is someone that has participated in a war. Technically even retired from one. In this case however probably GW uses veteran as as someone that has survived his Feuertaufe.This would make any participant of a skirmish for Chaos that has survived a veteran.

Secondly; The Legions might have been the backbone but the armies even at that time (horus Heresy) had normal humans and it is quite likely that some of them atleast fled also into the eye of terror and we all know that time there is a wierd concept at best, so survivors are probably not as uncommon as one would expect.

thirdly: We rarely get defined what these cultists are, really. They range from the IW cannonfodder trained and firetested on their worlds in the warp, to cults in the material realm, to traitor guardsmen which are depicted in the CSM codex. In a way they can be veterans.

As for the flamer AA, i think the whole interaction needs to be looked at.

No.

"Veterans of the Long War" previously always was the distinction between Chaos Space Marines that date, through warp-shenanigans and simple age, all the way back to the Heresy, and those that turned Chaos in the meantime. E.g. Abaddon, Ahriman, etc.. were Veterans of the Long War, while Huron Blackheart or Zhufor the Impaler were not (being traitor Astral Claws / Storm Lords).

In 7th, more traitor-oriented books (Khorne Daemonkin for example couldn't get VotLW at all, being a religious cult worshipping Bloodthirsters, which older, more "legion-age" Marines like World Eaters probably would never do) were split pretty much along that line.

"The Long War" itself (of which they would be Veterans) is specifically a reference to the Heresy, which is called a "Long War", because it is in the eyes of those Heresy-era Marines "not lost" but simply still ongoing (if for a very long time).

Post-Heresy traitors wouldn't identify with the original Heresy (or "Long War") necessarily, but have their own agenda (e.g. the religious one of Daemonkin cults being one example).

A CSM unit using VotLW essentially implies these particular guys use their knowledge accumulated through (warp-distorted) 10,000 years of warfare, that the more recent (far more numerous) traitor Marines wouldn't know.

A Cultist unit using VotLW likewise implies these (usually at least 40 of them) guys you see there on the table also have some serious seniority on Dante or Calgar or whoever, have worshipped Chaos since before Bjorn was a Dread, Grey Knights even existed and can remember a time when the Emperor was still actively running the place.