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.

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

I like to play fluffy...
It's more fun that way...
Though winning is nice as well, but it's more of a secondary option.

well all the armies play to win... so wouldnt that make those player more fluffy?

Although you do actually want to have the units in your army make sense

my deathwing could be counted as fluffy

My MW army is all fluff... suicidal... but fluffy.

Fluff is always concern number one for my lists.

The reason people play to win is because it's a game that, in the end, has a winner and a loser.

As for fluff, it needn't necessarily compete with competitiveness. Newer codecies tend to have more options that are actually viable, which allows them to play fluffier lists that are actually competitive.

For example, my guard army is all-infantry with a human wave charging in under heavy weapons fire, and is plenty competitive. What's not fluffy about that?

I suppose there is nothing wrong with wanting to win, but it was that must win/power game mentality that caused so many problems for 40k back in the day.

Personally I like to play 'fluffy' armies that reflect how SM's come across in the fiction and I’m lucky that my group of players are all 30+ and don’t really care about who wins anymore.

The folks I play with are nice, polite, and follow the rules. With those things assumed I do not think there really is a way to "attempt to win too hard."

I find it a lot more annoying to play someone who does not play to win than to play someone that does.

That said, fluff lists are great, especially to play campaigns with or whatnot. The issue there, in my experience, is that debates about campains/fluffy battles are not something folks online can really help you with, that is for your gaming companions.

Also, I play Tyranids. If I do not keep making my lists stronger I am breaking the idea of the fluff, since it is one fleet.

What i find a bit more annoying is when the models one likes are really rubbish in the rules. For example there is something pretty cool about imperial guard with mortars or sniper rifles but there is little point in trying to play them. Or dark eldar mandrakes, the metal SM veterans. Then there's the opposite where the rules are great but the models horrible, wont give any examples of this because that's a different subject.

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

Why do you feel that building a strong army prevents you from "having fun with friends and the experience of actually playing and imagining the epic struggles of humanity against aliens and itself"?

I build pretty strong lists but I also have pages of army fluff and plenty of fun.

I agree with Ailaros... there's nothing mutually exclusive about being both fluffy and competitive. I sure as heck plan on being as competitive as possible with my fluffy army, though it may never reach the top levels due to it's build. But I have no problem with people wanting to have winning armies... and if they can look cool and have a story behind them... so much the better!

Considering you have "The Dude" as your avatar, you sure are painting a black and white picture here. You don't need to throw fluff out the window to be competitive, and how is taking a bunch of bad units more or less fluffy? The idea of the game is for people to enjoy it, if they want to play an army that has a chance to win, how does that make it less fun for them? Have you ever played a completely one sided game of 40k? It's quite possibly the least fun you can have for 1 1/2 hours, unless the fluff of your army is that your battles last 1/2 as long as normal because it consists entirely of Scouts in Landspeeder storms, a Chaplain alone in Terminator armor and whirlwinds.

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

I'm a theme builder in 40K (would be in FB, but I'm so inexperienced there that my "theme" never gets too far past "oooh, this looks neat!"), which ultimately means I end up getting stomped a lot, but not before making people sweat through some unfamiliar situations.

Sometimes I feel like I'm in the minority of SM players, simply because I a) don't play a sub-codex and b) I play all deep-strike for the fun of it. But I know going into a game that I'm either going to win big or lose big, and I'm fan with that from the start.

Most people play because they want to overcome an obstacle to feel the rush of "hey, I just beat that." Some play because they're like me and have a running narrative in their head during each turn like they're reading some dime store adventure novel. Each style has different expectations, so there's a different idea of "fun."

Personally, though, there are a lot of things that are very powerful and effective that I just find BORING. Back when I quit a while back, every single game was against khorne berzerkers and blood angels, and it was just a festival of rhino-charges each and every game. It got so bad, that I forgot what other armies LOOKED like after a while. I take it during my absence that things shifted to a longfangs and IG artillery style - but without the unintentional hilarity of guessing ranges, that seems awfully boring and mechanical to me. But to others, the predictability and "that's the way it works, and it should work that way" rules balancing is what makes the game fun.

I will never, ever, ever win a tournament. I'm lucky if I win a *game*, but everything I do is grounded in my interpretation of the fluff, because that's what drew me to the hobby in the first place. The actual dice rolling is secondary.

PS - the best variants for fluff are campaigns, skirmishes, warbands, and Mordheim / Necromunda, IMHO. The full versions of Warhammer are less conducive to an RP approach than the "watch as your force develops" game variants.

I guess maybe I am just lucky that my "club" (my friends who I game with) each have a different army and are always changing around their strategies. I also only get to play occasionally, and rarely go to tournaments (though I enjoy them and feel that is where you can go to be more "competitive"), so essentially every game I play feels new and exciting and fun, it hasn't gotten stale nor do I feel like everyone is copying each other (we have: Deldar, Orks/Chaos, Necrons/Chaos, Blood Angels, Tyranids, and SM/Dark Angels. My GF is also making an Eldar list, but she isn't yet ready to play). Regardless, I feel like variety from my opponents gives me the spice some of you are missing.

It's insanity to expect that in a game where one person wins and the other loses those who intentionally handicap themselves simply for the enjoyment of fitting a preconceived theme would be anything but the minority.

Blame GW for fluff being uncompetitive in the majority of cases. They could give in-game bonuses for background-consistent unit and model combos, or they could balance new codices so that the competitive power build that inevitably arises is also a themed build.

But to simply scream 'you're hobbying wrong!!!!' at those trying new things in a win/lose game strikes me as petty and tyranical.

Just ebout every army I own is fluffy, I don't think I've ever taken units just because "they're the best" I take them because 1 I like the fluff behind it, 2 I want to incorperate it into my force, 3 I like the idea behind the unit and 4 I either like the model or the idea of converting my own.

For instance in my Space Wolf army I love the idea of barbaric heroes fighting huges odds and monstrous creatures and such so I take Lone Wolves, yes they aren't the best on a comptetitive stand point but I like they're fluff. Heck even my Wolf Lord has a Frost axe and Storm Shield which may not be the best layout for him but that's the image I have of him in the fluff so that's what he has on the model.

@ OP, you're looking WHEYHEY too much into simple observations you have made on the internet. Whilst Dakka at least is generally a good place of entertaining, relevant and often logical(!!!) discussion, the opinions shown on the internet are neither necessarily right or reflective of the populace.

One of the main reasons that 40K is the most popular game of its type is the rich background that supports it, to suggest that people completely ignore this is ludicrous.

Furthermore, I would not advise to take sections such as 'Army Lists' as a representation of peoples armies; if an army is on such a part of the forum, it's typically because they want it to be more competitive, not fluffy. A likely reason to join a forum is to receive advice on your army. Fluff is (near) constant, competitiveness is not.

The fact of the matter is is that competitive armies are more likely to be talked about because they are more relevant; playing is the fundamental part of 40K and people - particularly in a male-dominated hobby - are naturally going to want to win. If a player chooses to take competitive options then do not be surprised. The fluff and in-game part of 40K are two separate areas and are neither mutually exclusive nor reliant.


I say this not because I'm a 'WAAC' gamer but because I believe your opinion and opening post is quite simply, wrong. You'll see Min/max lists because that is the area in which they are being discussed, it is not representative of the community and I believe a thread like this will simply cause mundane posting of people claiming that their list is either fluffy (interesting!) or that there's not a problem with competitive armies. I do not believe that such a thread will produce anything of note or positivity except possibly changing your opinion.

Just wondering, but what is fluffy?
A mechanised army, think Melta vets, can be very fluffy with IG.
And isn't it like in any game? When I play, I prefer it too win rather then loose. I think everyone prefers winning over losing?
Some just want to win more then others...

RedGuardian73 wrote: So why all the Min/Maxing?

Confirmation bias.

I try to build armies as fluffy as possible as I don't consider myself a Power Gamer.
I did the whole MTG tourney scene and it got really pricey with the new way the sets are released and it became a lot less fun to play as all everyone did was power game.

Now I've just made my first purchases for my DC army.
This is an army that cannot claim objectives, which is a massive disadvantage, but OMG can they tear crap up .

I wouldn't consider that army power gaming as the entire army is nothing but DC, Astaroth, Tycho, Lemartes, Chaplains, DC Dreads, Rhino, Drop Pods and probably a couple of Stormraven.

Totally fluffy.

But on the other side Multiple Marked Chaos Armies and Salamander He'stan led armies with tons of Speeders are about as fluffy as a kick in the nuts.

BTW - Lovin' the Dude. The Dude Abides.

The internet is for how to win. Thus that is the advice given, because while anyone can give you advice on how to be fluffy, that is much more of an astetic choice and not everyone will agree on what is fluffy.

So you post on the internet to learn how to win. You actually play the game with your friends to learn how to have fun with the game.

I think you will find that unless all your friends are also devoted followers of internet advice, fluff and fun are pretty easy to find.

My SM are always fluffy, because they aren't "counts as"!

I play Raven Guard because I love the fluff.

That said, one thing that always rubs me the wrong way is seeing lists where Shrike is stuck with a bunch of Assault Terminators.

Really? Why would Shrike with his jump pack march around with a bunch of terminators?

To me that is a total fluff fail. Shrike belongs with Assault Marines, nuff said.

I take deathwing with standard land raiders, do I really need to say much else(though I do plan on expanding into more stuff/grabbing inquisitors)

yeenoghu wrote:My SM are always fluffy, because they aren't "counts as"!

QFT!!!

That gets my vote for best ever Dakka post. If such a thing would be created.

Sorry OP but the models are to expensive to buy units that do not perform on the battlefield.

Its hard for me to field anything but a decent list just because I dont own any of the bad choices in my dex.

And spam like internet list tend to look more focused then some random collection of models thats supposed to be "fluffy" IG chimera/vets build and the like seem perfectly fluffy to me I see no reason why someone should be labled TFG because they have spent the time and money to field a viable army.

d-usa wrote:I play Raven Guard because I love the fluff.

That said, one thing that always rubs me the wrong way is seeing lists where Shrike is stuck with a bunch of Assault Terminators.

Really? Why would Shrike with his jump pack march around with a bunch of terminators?

To me that is a total fluff fail. Shrike belongs with Assault Marines, nuff said.

Hey, if you want to get some terminators into position discreetly, Shrike is the only guy sneaky enough to do it!

purplefood wrote:I like to play fluffy...
It's more fun that way...
Though winning is nice as well, but it's more of a secondary option.

And I find it more fun to play very challenging games with balanced armies and good generals. Balanced doesn't mean 'ZOMG cheeZ hAx'. It's pretty darn easy to make lists fluffy and competitive list.