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.

OK, so I've been listening to all the whining...I mean...discussion about lists that are not 'fluffy', and I wondered if there was a way to write rules that help ensure an army is played with an acceptable amount of 'fluffiness'. These are my initial thoughts. Add or discuss as you be inclined. Note: amendments in blue.

1) You may take one HQ choice in games of 1850 points or less.
2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.
3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.
4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.
5) Select equipment appropriately. If power swords are supposed to be "rare and precious artifacts of the Chapter" - and you have as many as you are allowed to field by the rules...something is wrong. Rule #3 is intended to help prevent this a bit. That and, well, most armies are centered around the regular soldier.

That should be an OK start. This is not a philisophical discussion of fluff players vs. Winning Is Everything players, or causal vs. tournament players. It's an attempt to put some semi-concrete rules around how to play 'fluffy'. For the record, I just like to play. If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair - or at least fun for both of us. If it's a tournament, I expect some beardy horror designed only to crush everything in its path. I love the fluff, but will construct lists for fun, or just to see if they'll work sometimes.

This is definitely a good start.

But you also need to change missions, etc.

Special Characters should probably remain for vanilla-style dexes like C:SM, C:CSM, Orks and Dark Eldar. Alot of them are the only way to access "fluffy" HQ choices (Kharn in particular embodies the rage and close combat nature of khorne and is actually immune to psychic powers, a very fluffy choice, while typhus has a template weapon and Nurgle's Rot, both of which he can use like normal weapons, kinda like him spewing noxious fumes, again fluffy). Beilal and Sammael too, as they're the only way to build actual Deathwing and Ravenwing armies. Other characters, like Mephiston, Swarmlord, Yriel, and others of the like dont really add much in terms of fluff, so it's acceptable that they're discarded.

Kanluwen wrote:But you also need to change missions, etc.

Why is that?

I don't think you really need rules 1-3 they seem rather arbitrary. The last 2 should cover things.

One of the strongest lists I have ever faced was a fluffy imperial fist list. Also limiting HQ choices does not a fluffy list make. There are so many fluffy situation where having 2 HQ is more fluffy than none. For example I have a fluff based witch hunter list an inquisitor and a canoness lead the army because it has both inquisitorial and ecclesiarchy units.

...Oh, and change daemon armies majorly, IMHO, if your HQ is a blood thirster, you should not be able to field daemonettes...that is all...

VoidAngel wrote:OK, so I've been listening to all the whining...I mean...discussion about lists that are not 'fluffy', and I wondered if there was a way to write rules that help ensure an army is played with an acceptable amount of 'fluffiness'. These are my initial thoughts. Add or discuss as you be inclined.

1) You may take one HQ choice.
2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.
3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.
4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.

Why is having two HQ choices un-fluffy?
What does letting your opponent know what special character you're taking have to do with fluffy-ness? Nothing.
You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable? And it hurts some armies much more than others? (mostly the weaker ones) And prevents some fluffy combinations.
Blood Angels have exactly as many tactical squads and devestator squads as any other chapter. They do not have more assault squads. I suggest you read the BA codex.

The problem with forcing so-called fluffy armies is that it only corresponds with that person's idea of the fluff. You clearly seem to think that BA should have lots of assault squads. Read their chapter composition and you'll see that is not the case. An all assault squad army is perfectly fluffy for BA or UM - they both have assault companies. Likewise, a perfectly fluffy BA (or UM) army is all Tac squads and transports (tactical company).

Trying to limit people to going along with your interpretation of the fluff is a very poor idea.

I prefer to come up with a decent list and then come up with a way to justify the army existing.

Sometime spam list are the fluffiest list =) Vulkan SM list, IG mech spam are both examples of a competive list that play and feel very much in character for the armies the represent.

Scott-S6 wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:OK, so I've been listening to all the whining...I mean...discussion about lists that are not 'fluffy', and I wondered if there was a way to write rules that help ensure an army is played with an acceptable amount of 'fluffiness'. These are my initial thoughts. Add or discuss as you be inclined.

1) You may take one HQ choice.
2) Your HQ choice may not be a special character, unless your opponent knows which one it will be. You're entitled to the same courtesy.
3) You must take a minimum of 4 Troops choices.
4) Read your codex. If the list you construct does not seem to adhere to basic themes of your army - go back and start over. Yes, this is a bit subjective - but be honest. If you have a Blood Angles list full of Devastators and Tactical squads equipped to turtle...you probably have failed to grasp the flavor of your army. A reading of the fluff should reveal this to you.

Why is having two HQ choices un-fluffy?
What does letting your opponent know what special character you're taking have to do with fluffy-ness? Nothing.
You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable? And it hurts some armies much more than others? (mostly the weaker ones) And prevents some fluffy combinations.
Blood Angels have exactly as many tactical squads and devestator squads as any other chapter. They do not have more assault squads. I suggest you read the BA codex.

The problem with forcing so-called fluffy armies is that it only corresponds with that person's idea of the fluff. You clearly seem to think that BA should have lots of assault squads. Read their chapter composition and you'll see that is not the case. An all assault squad army is perfectly fluffy for BA or UM - they both have assault companies. Likewise, a perfectly fluffy BA (or UM) army is all Tac squads and transports (tactical company).

Trying to limit people to going along with your interpretation of the fluff is a very poor idea.

I agree with the first three but arn't you trying to force your own view of a "fluffy" force on him too? BAs are famous for their assault squads and close combat. The OP specifically mentioned "Turtling" as a tactc, in combination with Dev and Tac spam. The only chapter that does that regularly is the Imperial Fists. True all Chapters have these companies in reserve, but tactics is also an important part of fluff. The BAs might do it if they were under siege. It's not very fluffy to think that your army is always besieged by the enemy now is it? (especially since Marines tend to take the initiative).

This is why whenever I make a themed list I tend to lay down hard restrictions and guidelines when asking for crits. There will always be that one person who goes "Oh, but this force has (insert non fluffy but effective unit) listed in their composition, so you should spam it because it is fluffy!" As someone pointed out before, normal Warhammer games represent a small skirmish. Just because they have these forces doesnt mean they will always appear. Whereas the "fluffy" choices tend to appear alot in the backstories, so it makes sense that they should be the majority, if not completely take over, a list that is designed for a small, random skirmish.

"Special Characters should probably remain for vanilla-style dexes like C:SM, C:CSM, Orks and Dark Eldar."

Yep, hence the proviso in rule one. It's one simple rule, instead of a rule followed by a list of exceptions.

I'm not sure why scenarios have to change too..but open to ideas.

"I don't think you really need rules 1-3 they seem rather arbitrary. The last 2 should cover things."

Could be, but I felt if there were no clear-cut rules at all, I'd accomplish nothing. Some players need structure because they just don't get the concept of not doing something that is technically legal.

On spam: yes, there will be exceptions - and that's why that one is not a hard-and-fast rule.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I agree with the first three but arn't you trying to force your own view of a "fluffy" force on him too? BAs are famous for their assault squads and close combat.

Check the current codex. They have no more assault squads than any codex chapter so to say that a BA army isn't fluffy because it consists of tacticals and devastators is simply incorrect.

They might be "famous for" their assault squads but BA have no difference in their chapter composition to a typical marine chapter except for their abundance of land raiders.

They can field an assault heavy army but so can any codex chapter. Likewise, they can also field a tactical or devastator heavy army.

Why is having two HQ choices un-fluffy?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Usually, 2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor. Not always, but often.

What does letting your opponent know what special character you're taking have to do with fluffy-ness? Nothing.

>>>>>>>>>>> Belligerent much? It lets your opponent know your intentions. The idea here is that the other guy understand that you are taking Mephiston not because he is a ridonkulous monstrosity that will eat half his army, but because...(insert fluffy reason here).

You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable? And it hurts some armies much more than others? (mostly the weaker ones) And prevents some fluffy combinations.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, yes I do. I even say that in the post. Again, these are guidelines for discussion, not proposed changes to the game. Or did you miss that?

Blood Angels have exactly as many tactical squads and devestator squads as any other chapter. They do not have more assault squads. I suggest you read the BA codex.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You're an angry little man today, aren't you? I know the codex back to it's inception. It's not what they have available that I'm talking about, it's what they are characterized as fielding most often. You might want to read the fluff.

The problem with forcing so-called fluffy armies is that it only corresponds with that person's idea of the fluff. You clearly seem to think that BA should have lots of assault squads. Read their chapter composition and you'll see that is not the case. An all assault squad army is perfectly fluffy for BA or UM - they both have assault companies. Likewise, a perfectly fluffy BA (or UM) army is all Tac squads and transports (tactical company).

>>>>Again, this idea of 'forcing'...where? These are proposed guidelines for development for games between friends. I'm not trying to alter the core game.

Trying to limit people to going along with your interpretation of the fluff is a very poor idea.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Possibly. Do you think that might be why I posted it to a board for discussion, rather than just making it up by myself and handing it down from high on the mountain?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
"There will always be that one person who goes "Oh, but this force has (insert non fluffy but effective unit) listed in their composition, so you should spam it because it is fluffy!" As someone pointed out before, normal Warhammer games represent a small skirmish. Just because they have these forces doesnt mean they will always appear. Whereas the "fluffy" choices tend to appear alot in the backstories, so it makes sense that they should be the majority, if not completely take over, a list that is designed for a small, random skirmish."

Yes, exactly. That's where I was going.

VoidAngel wrote:. It's not what they have available that I'm talking about, it's what they are characterized as fielding most often. You might want to read the fluff.

The fluff that says "the 2nd through 5th companies are the chapter's backbone, the battle companies who form the core of any strike force and bear the greatest burden in any campaign"? So, that would be 24 tactical squads, 8 assault squads and 8 devestator squads.
It also goes on to say regarding the 8th (assault) and 9th (devastator) "are only deployed when an overwhelming single-minded approach is required".

So, assault heavy armies are not "fielded most often". A half battle company (3x tac, 1x ass, 1x dev) would be extremely fluffy. A force of four tacticals and two devastators is perfectly fluffy.

Just because the popular image of BA deployments is about assault squads does not mean that is typical. Also, there is always going to be a direct correlation between what they have available and what they field unless you're suggesting that the bulk of the chapter sits around doing nothing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:;You're an angry little man today, aren't you?

No, I just find the idea of what you're proposing rather repugnant. To say that someone's army isn't fluffy simply because it does not fit the stereotypical image of that army (even if the stereotypical image does not fit with what the fluff actually says!) is, frankly, ridiculous.

The only time a list becomes un-fluffy is if it directly contradicts a clearly stated point of the background. For example, White Scars expressly do not use Dreadnoughts, ever. If you want to include a dread in your fluffy white scars army you better have a pretty good explanation for it.

scott-s6 wrote:You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable?

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I do. I even say that in the post

No you didn't.


Why don't you just come right out and say that you have a problem with hard armies? That seems to be what this is really about.

"If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair"
"Usually, 2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor." - So, fluff isn't a concern - you're just concerned with people making hard armies.

This thread is actually about composition rules disguised under fluff.

two silly non fluffy things for IG:

stop using CCS's and PCS's as special weapons teams. those units should only be able to take one special. and give special weapons teams BS 4 (because they are special).

and infantry troops getting power weapons? craziness.

mrsmith wrote:stop using CCS's and PCS's as special weapons teams. those units should only be able to take one special.

FW did exactly that with the Elysian and Kreig lists. CCS's should not be suicide melta teams (suicide because, since they're non-scoring they're less tactically valuable than a vet squad)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrsmith wrote:and infantry troops getting power weapons? craziness.

Maybe for especially awesome sergeants. Since they did just take their power fists, lasguns and bolters away.

To expend on this topic, how about posting an army list, for your army of preferences, that you would consider fluffy.

Im interested in finding out what people would play, based on fluff, and how competitive it might be compared to other armies.

Scott-S6 wrote:
The fluff that says "the 2nd through 5th companies are the chapter's backbone, the battle companies who form the core of any strike force and bear the greatest burden in any campaign"? So, that would be 24 tactical squads, 8 assault squads and 8 devestator squads.
It also goes on to say regarding the 8th (assault) and 9th (devastator) "are only deployed when an overwhelming single-minded approach is required".

So, assault heavy armies are not "fielded most often". A half battle company (3x tac, 1x ass, 1x dev) would be extremely fluffy. A force of four tacticals and two devastators is perfectly fluffy.

Just because the popular image of BA deployments is about assault squads does not mean that is typical. Also, there is always going to be a direct correlation between what they have available and what they field unless you're suggesting that the bulk of the chapter sits around doing nothing?

I disagree. Completely. But, perhaps we need to define terms (since you seem to have a vast disconnect between your assumed intent of this post and the motive of its author - and reality).

When someone talks about "fluff" - they are typically, and explicitly talking about "the popular image" as you put it. For example, "Blood Angles wouldn't stand back and shoot." It's not that they can't. It's not that they never, ever have - it is quite simply that this is not how 99.8% of players imagine them. There is a reason for this - and it is the FLUFF!

Scott-S6 wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:;You're an angry little man today, aren't you?

No, I just find the idea of what you're proposing rather repugnant. To say that someone's army isn't fluffy simply because it does not fit the stereotypical image of that army (even if the stereotypical image does not fit with what the fluff actually says!) is, frankly, ridiculous.

I find it amusing that someone can be 'repulsed' by a proposed suggestion that is welcoming input to improve it. Honestly, you act like I am trying to alter the core rules of the game. I'm not, this is (again) for games between friends, who WANT to put some intelligent structure around making lists that fit the characterization of their armies. I wanted to know if this attempt made sense to others, or failed - and if so, where and how. You are WELCOME to say, "Hey, I think you're missing the mark" - but you react as if I'm asking to come to your house and remove any models I don't think fit your army's fluff or something...

scott-s6 wrote:You realise that four mandatory Troop choices dramatically affects what points levels are viable?

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I do. I even say that in the post
No you didn't.

Yes, yes I did. Re-READ the OP.

scott-s6 wrote:
Why don't you just come right out and say that you have a problem with hard armies? That seems to be what this is really about.

Because I don't, and you're wrong. I field 'hard armies'. I've won tournaments. I like it when people field a bastard of a list for me to deal with. Really. - But they are rarely FLUFFY. That's what this is about. It's about a Saturday afternoon game where you and a mate say, "Hey, why don't we try playing real true-to-the-fluff lists today?" Sure...but what does that LOOK like composition-wise. I'm just trying to lend some structure to the attempt. That's all. I'm not trying to break your toys or take your candy.

scott-s6 wrote:
"If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair"
"Usually, 2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor." - So, fluff isn't a concern - you're just concerned with people making hard armies.

This thread is actually about composition rules disguised under fluff.

*sigh* Hey, guess what? You don't have to use ANY of these suggestions! How about that?! This is a totally theoretical, experimental, non-compulsory idea from a person you will never meet or play against! *gasp!*

Ok, so now that that's out of the way...do you maybe kind of understand what I'm getting at - and how it's absolutely nothing for you to lose sleep over?

VoidAngel wrote:When someone talks about "fluff" - they are typically, and explicitly talking about "the popular image" as you put it. For example, "Blood Angles wouldn't stand back and shoot." It's not that they can't. It's not that they never, ever have - it is quite simply that this is not how 99.8% of players imagine them. There is a reason for this - and it is the FLUFF!

So you're suggesting that the "popular image" of a chapter is the only way that it should be played? Even when the background does not, in fact, support it? Not to mention that those stereotypical armies you are suggesting are by far the least interesting and most over-done. Is it not better to encourage people to be more creative with their fluff and find the unusual compositions than to hamstring them at every turn?

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I did. Re-READ the OP.

Really? You want to quote what, exactly, you said in the OP regarding the impact of four mandatory troop choices?

VoidAngel wrote:

scott-s6 wrote:Why don't you just come right out and say that you have a problem with hard armies? That seems to be what this is really about.

Because I don't, and you're wrong.

So, why the single-HQ restriction which you've already said is because of the "abuse factor", not for fluff reasons.

Scott-S6 wrote:

mrsmith wrote:stop using CCS's and PCS's as special weapons teams. those units should only be able to take one special.

FW did exactly that with the Elysian and Kreig lists. CCS's should not be suicide melta teams (suicide because, since they're non-scoring they're less tactically valuable than a vet squad)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mrsmith wrote:and infantry troops getting power weapons? craziness.

Maybe for especially awesome sergeants. Since they did just take their power fists, lasguns and bolters away.

i didnt know that. i'll have to check them out.

VoidAngel wrote:Ok, so now that that's out of the way...do you maybe kind of understand what I'm getting at - and how it's absolutely nothing for you to lose sleep over?

I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm fortunate enough not to have to play with people that feel the need to try and impose their opinion on other people's army list.

You asked for input. Your extremely emotional language suggests that you need to work on dealing with criticism.

VoidAngel wrote:I like it when people field a bastard of a list for me to deal with. Really. - But they are rarely FLUFFY.

This is in direct contradiction to a number of things you've said in this thread. Such as " If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair" or "2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor".

VoidAngel wrote:Yes, yes I did. Re-READ the OP.

Really? You want to quote what, exactly, you said in the OP regarding the impact of four mandatory troop choices?

I can understand the 1 HQ. 40k is, again, a small skirmish that really shouldnt be led by two commanding officers unless it reaches the 2000 point threshold. It's the same mechanic back in pre-5th ed codexes, where a really powerful leader like Abaddon or Dante could only be fielded in a force that would be considered a "Major Engagement" type army. It's not really fluffy for them to lead a small kill-team of tactical marines, other commanders are more suited to this. Likewise, it made no sense for both Dante and Mephiston, two head honchos of the Blood Angels, to show up in a meager 1000 point battle, unless there was a campaign reason for it (maybe they snuck aboard Abaddon's ship and the battle depicted their fight in the command room, reminicent of the battle of Sanguinius and Horus. But honestly how many times will a situation like that repeat?).

The 2nd-5th company is the basis of your argument. However do note that these companies are not made up solely of Dev and Tacts. In fact there's only 2 devs in each of these companies. As well, the Descent of Angels rule specifically states that the Blood Angels themselves refined the art of deepstriking with their jump packs. One wonders how this could have turned up if they did not use jump packs moreso than any other chapter (in essence, if they indeed did spam tacts and devs like every other chapter, how come they're more proficient with Jump Packs?). Also note the fluff regarding Jump Packs: Almost all Blood Angels, regardless of final call, served in the Assault Squads after their training as Neophytes. They only adhere to the "official" 2 companies to adhere to codex astartes, but every marine is Jump-pack capable, and it's specifically stated that Assault Marines are incredibly common.

EDIT: Got ninja'd by Void. My second bullet still stands however.

Scott-S6 wrote:

VoidAngel wrote:Ok, so now that that's out of the way...do you maybe kind of understand what I'm getting at - and how it's absolutely nothing for you to lose sleep over?

I'm not losing sleep over it. I'm fortunate enough not to have to play with people that feel the need to try and impose their opinion on other people's army list.

You asked for input. Your extremely emotional language suggests that you need to work on dealing with criticism.

You are being obtuse. Seriously. I AM NOT trying to IMPOSE anything. I've done everything but draw it in crayon to get across to you that this is a SUGGESTION - for a FRIENDLY game where the players WANT to try to respect the fluff. You're exasperating. I'm not being emotional, you're being frustrating. And you have not offered criticism (not constructively, in any case) - you simply leapt to the attack - which invites a like response. You need work on argumentation.

VoidAngel wrote:I like it when people field a bastard of a list for me to deal with. Really. - But they are rarely FLUFFY.

This is in direct contradiction to a number of things you've said in this thread. Such as " If it's a friendly game, I expect your list to be fair" or "2 HQ choices are taken for maximum abuse factor".

I think we should just ignore his comments altogether. In his case, so long as the chapter has a single one of anything, spamming it would be fluffy. It's only unfluffy if the chapter has zero access to said piece of equipment.

VoidAngel wrote:And I quote: "5) Select equipment appropriately. If power swords are supposed to be "rare and precious artifacts of the Chapter" - and you have as many as you are allowed to field by the rules...something is wrong. Rule #3 is intended to help prevent this a bit. That and, well, most armies are centered around the regular soldier. "

So, no mention of the fact that your proposed rule 3 will impact the viable points-level of games and will hurt the power level of some armies much more than others?

VoidAngel wrote:It's very simple: Most battles are not engagements of epic proportions that would see two members of the upper echelons of command attending.

Again, you are not fully considering the fluff. Librarians provide long range communications for space marines, a Captain is always going to have a librarian handy. There are plenty of other combinations that are perfectly fluffy.

Re the list you suggested - You have a company commander accompanied by all of the assault squads from his company but only one of the six tactical squads. You also have a rather high number of death company for such a small force. 30 DC members for the whole chapter is considered a worryingly high number. You also have two Baals and one Stormraven despite stormravens being 2.5x as common as baal's. So it could be called un-fluffy. However, as I've said earlier, I'll only call a list un-fluffy if it blatantly breaks the background.

Would you describe the list below as fluffy (for BA)

Captain (JP)
Librarian (JP)
Command Squad (JP)

Tactical Squad, Razorback
Tactical Squad, Razorback

Typhoon
Typhoon

Devestator Squad, Razorback
Devestator Squad, Razorback


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I think we should just ignore his comments altogether. In his case, so long as the chapter has a single one of anything, spamming it would be fluffy. It's only unfluffy if the chapter has zero access to said piece of equipment.

I've never said anything of the sort, quite the opposite.

VA has said that BA armies which are not assault heavy are un-fluffy when, in fact, BA have no more assault squads than anyone else. A genuinely fluffy BA list should not be all jump-packs.

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.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Also note the fluff regarding Jump Packs: Almost all Blood Angels, regardless of final call, served in the Assault Squads after their training as Neophytes. They only adhere to the "official" 2 companies to adhere to codex astartes, but every marine is Jump-pack capable

The same is true of all codex chapters where marines go from scout->dev->assault->tactical. So, at any given point in time roughly 72% of the chapter is either currently an assault marine or has been one in the past.

As an argument against the 1HQ restriction, why can't you imagine that this particular game of say 1000 points you are playing is one part of a giant engament raging across the planet. Your battle is only 1000 points of say the 10,000 points worth of battles being fought.

I think the rulebook even mentions how a game of 40k represents two parts of a greater army meeting each other on the battlefield. So if you look at it that way you can have 2 big leaders in a small game because perhaps this is the command detachment of the army.

Edit: Oh looks like people already made this point. I type way too slow, or maybe I should hit F5 more often : p

Scott-S6 wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I think we should just ignore his comments altogether. In his case, so long as the chapter has a single one of anything, spamming it would be fluffy. It's only unfluffy if the chapter has zero access to said piece of equipment.

I've never said anything of the sort, quite the opposite.

VA has said that BA armies which are not assault heavy are un-fluffy when, in fact, BA have no more assault squads than anyone else. A genuinely fluffy BA list should not be all jump-packs.

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? Plus, it's stated in the Assault Marines Fluff that they are incredibly common in Blood Angel armies. That's why they're *gasp* troop choices instead of fast attack. What about mounted Assault Squads in Rhinos? These could simply be Tactical Marines who thought it'd be more prudent to take the fight to the enemy rather than sit back. Given that Assault squads are "incredibly common" (Pg 24 paragraph 3), there should be at least one squad in an army to be fluffy, and at least half of the army should be given jump packs.

Scott-S6 wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Also note the fluff regarding Jump Packs: Almost all Blood Angels, regardless of final call, served in the Assault Squads after their training as Neophytes. They only adhere to the "official" 2 companies to adhere to codex astartes, but every marine is Jump-pack capable

The same is true of all codex chapters where marines go from scout->dev->assault->tactical. So, at any given point in time roughly 72% of the chapter is either currently an assault marine or has been one in the past.

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.