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.

As above, excluding tourney spam lists, how much are you willing to choose units based on what is "right" rather than what is "best"

For instance, I run a Raven Guard army out of the BA codex, but don't take Priests, Death Company or Sang Guard, as they are specifically Blood Angely. The lack of Priests especially is a drawback on the tabletop, but I am happy to compromise to keep the flavour of the list.

So, how far would you go?
Only one Termy squad/Land Raider/any other elite unit to reflect rarity?
Only one named HQ, as two high profile characters in one small engagement just wouldn't happen?
Do you follow the historical wargaming route and painstakingly collect a force as it appears in the fluff, regardless of it make a competitive army or not?

This is the discussion forum, discuss!

I have never owned a guardian defender, nor have I ever planned too for my Eldar. I have always strongly objected to the idea of giving dart guns and tissue paper armor to a dying races artists, poets, muscians and cooks and shoving them on the front line as cannon fodder (except maybe as part of an escalation event resulting in a last stand scenario; which could be fun because i could then break out another model I never use, the Avatar). I did break down at one point and used some storm guardians a few times for specilized roles, but i felt dirty doing it so even they didn't see much use.

I am actually making some Storm Guardians, but than again I am using a combo of normal Eldar models/codex rules and the old Dark Eldar plastics (for flavor) for my army. I figure they are supposed to represent Corsairs, so they wouldn't have the same beliefs as Craftworld Eldar. They don't have a problem jumping out of a Wave Serpent right into combat.

I think some sacrifice for a theme is cool. It makes you think and play differently. If I were to field my old Space Wolf 13th Company models with the new SW codex, I would still leave out all vehicles and transports beyond bikes, so they keep the feel of the old 13th Company rules from The Eye of Terror Campaign.

I might even add a squad of Thunder-wolves, because IMHO, they fit the 13th company fluff even more than the normal Space Wolves! Also probably a scout squad or two (because their scouting fashion fits the way the 13th plays), and maybe...maybe a Venerable Dread. But never more than one and only because I love the model, and none of the normal Special Characters.

I run a Templar's list with no BP and CCW crusaders, purely because bolters are much more effective. Not fluffy but needs must

azreal13 wrote:As above, excluding tourney spam lists, how much are you willing to choose units based on what is "right" rather than what is "best"

For instance, I run a Raven Guard army out of the BA codex, but don't take Priests, Death Company or Sang Guard, as they are specifically Blood Angely. The lack of Priests especially is a drawback on the tabletop, but I am happy to compromise to keep the flavour of the list.

So, how far would you go?
Only one Termy squad/Land Raider/any other elite unit to reflect rarity?
Only one named HQ, as two high profile characters in one small engagement just wouldn't happen?
Do you follow the historical wargaming route and painstakingly collect a force as it appears in the fluff, regardless of it make a competitive army or not?

This is the discussion forum, discuss!

From my lengthy roots in the game I still have a hard time including Khorne and Slaanesh or Nurgle and Tzeentch forces in the same chaos marine or chaos daemon armies. It just rubs me the wrong way that chaos is now one big happy family. I did play one massive chaos daemons battle where I *had* to use all 4 to make up the points, but it bugged me the whole time.

Skriker

Fluff has nothing to do with actually playing a game of 40K

Do not gimp yourself for Roleplay.

I use BA, and I dont field DC, Sang gard, or priests, and I do very well.

Priests are not needed, they are nice to have in the right situation, but they cost an elite slot, and that is tough to give up.

Skriker wrote:

From my lengthy roots in the game I still have a hard time including Khorne and Slaanesh or Nurgle and Tzeentch forces in the same chaos marine or chaos daemon armies. It just rubs me the wrong way that chaos is now one big happy family. I did play one massive chaos daemons battle where I *had* to use all 4 to make up the points, but it bugged me the whole time.

Skriker

From my lengthy roots in the game I still have a hard time to not include different Chaos God units, especially those with animosity, in my chaos marine or chaos daemon armies. Cross-god animosity was the first thing that drew me to Chaos. It made the army unique and different, made it stand apart from loyalist Marines and other, more uniformly themed armies. Running uniform mono-God list always seems to be besides the point, a waste of potential as it's essentially just a loyalist-force with added spikes, rather than capturing the unique roots of what playing "chaos" truly means. The unfortunate heritage of cheap WAAC-cop outs who wanted to play Chaos but "trick" their way around the animosity rules that gave the army its soul.

Zweischneid

DeathReaper wrote:Fluff has nothing to do with actually playing a game of 40K

Do not gimp yourself for Roleplay.

I use BA, and I dont field DC, Sang gard, or priests, and I do very well.

Priests are not needed, they are nice to have in the right situation, but they cost an elite slot, and that is tough to give up.

Erm... Ok?

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I have to say I disagree with everything you say!

Sang Priests are what give BA Assault squads the edge they need, I guess in a mech list they would be less important, so if that's what you run then fair enough, but I've seen them appear in many competitive/tournament lists.

As for not gimping yourself for roleplay? I dont know how far back you go in the hobby, but back in the RT era, the game was almost an RPG with lots of fighting, that's where I hail from and still like an element of that in my armies. The best way I can sum it up is I will choose fluffy units, but will think long and hard about the optimum/most efficient wargear choices for the units I do field.

I don't play competitively, so my priority is to ensure both me and my opponent have a good time, so I try and field a visually interesting, varied army that will put up a fight, but I don't care if I lose, nor am I looking to pwn anybody.

azreal13 wrote: I run a Raven Guard army out of the BA codex

Oh the irony...


Anyway, I go pretty far myself, oftentimes compromising playability even moreso than the average player because I develop unique army fluff that further limits me (for example, Tyranids without shooting ability.guns/ranged weapons)

DeathReaper wrote:Fluff has nothing to do with actually playing a game of 40K

Cool. You know that's an objectively false statement, right.

I play mono slaanesh daemons...enough said.

I play SW.

I NEVER run more than one Rune Priest and sometimes...yes sometimes I do not even run one. *GASP*

I RARELY (That's another way of saying less than 3) use JotWW.

I do not run MSU/Razorback spam.

MSU hardly fits the doctrine of the SW.

Razorbacks are not THAT common.

My Long Fang's armory includes stuff OTHER than missile launchers. *GAAAASP*

My Wolf Guards are not always optimized. Yes I know a power fist does the trick but the Thunder Hammer is COOLER.

Sometimes I even use Combi-Flamers instead of melta *GASP*

So...yeah. I will gimp my army if it means playing a fun army and giving an entertaining battle to my opponent. I do not care that much about winning, as long as I can have some reckless fun while playing.

I play SW.

I NEVER run more than one Rune Priest and sometimes...yes sometimes I do not even run one. *GASP*

I RARELY (That's another way of saying less than 3) use JotWW.

I do not run MSU/Razorback spam.

MSU hardly fits the doctrine of the SW.

Razorbacks are not THAT common.

My Long Fang's armory includes stuff OTHER than missile launchers. *GAAAASP*

My Wolf Guards are not always optimized. Yes I know a power fist does the trick but the Thunder Hammer is COOLER.

Sometimes I even use Combi-Flamers instead of melta *GASP*

So....... you're saying you are like me, and still play the Space Wolves from 4th edition?

Wheres the leman russ?

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.

ph34r wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Fluff has nothing to do with actually playing a game of 40K

Cool. You know that's an objectively false statement, right.

It is actually true, because if it were false I would only have to field 10- 15 marines to kill all of my opponents. Which we know to not be the case.

The Fluff has nothing to do with the actual 40k Rules.

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.

There are other examples as well, but it is late.

I prefer fun lists over fluff lists. If the list is no fun to play, screw fluff.

However, when playing campains or similar, I will always field my orks corresponding to the fluff I have planned out for them.

For example, my burnaz would never accompany my biker warboss anywhere, because they hate his guts. Unless, of course, their boss (one of my Big Meks) is present and telling them to do so, or the big boss is there. No one would argue with him. At least not twice.

My IG army is filled with stuff I enjoy using. So my Ratlings, two Platoons, pair of Basilisks, Leman Russ, Valk and Vendetta are all in there for fun, not because it is gamey. Not one PW or melta-Vet squad in sight

My leader is Straken, just using a different model, the old Catachan captain model with the power fist is what he actually looks like. Why do I do this? The model was one of the first I ever collected, given to me as a birthday present from my now deceased Grandfather. I have used him for years and I am not changing it anytime soon. And I like to think Straken's rules fit the way my commander has fought in the past. And if my list wins it is through tactics, not gamey-ness. If it loses I won't mind, I just enjoy fielding my army

I would never include any other Affliliated daemons in my monokhorne Daemons. Tgat I don't have yet.

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?

Game Rules Summary:

You MUST take an Inquisitor to include them in your army.
Normal inquisitors only get one squad of Henchmen [their personal squad]
One inquisitor special character can get a bunch of Henchmen [but fluff wise, he has control over an entire sector]


In terms of Squad composition, They are a bunch of crazy dudes, with access to an above average amount of weapons and vehicles, as inquisitors can go anywhere and take whatever they want.


The only thing I think you can be talking about is the fact that the Inquisitor does not have to be joined to his squad of henchmen, he has the choice to join them or a squad of GK

Fluff wise, the Inquisitor either wants to join the best dudes on the field for extra protection for himself,
OR
His squad of 3 meltagun guys are criminals who he has given the chance to redeem themselves before the emperor by Dying in combat, so he hangs out with the GK instead
OR
He is a Radical and has some other more secret goals and as such wants to keep his distance from the Grey Knights, so he goes off and does his own thing with his henchmen.
OR
any number of other things. Retinue =/= standing next to the inquisitor for the entire battle.



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

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.
===============================================================


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.

GW insist on making codexes where the only useful/powerful lists have nothing to do with fluff whatsoever.
There's no reason sanguinary prists should give feel no pain...there's no reason IG should spam melta vets...there's no reason whatsoever for Long Fangs.
So no I don't care about fluff.

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?

The actual nuts and bolts of a game of 40k mangles any concept of fluff. Very few armies get to fight how they would in a fluff like manner. By agreeing to a standard game it virtually guarantees a non fluff experience.

Well, 40K is and always has been a game. A game that comes with some added stories that give context, in particular to the antagonism most of the available factions harbour towards each other.

It is not, however, first and foremost a story/setting, that comes with some form of table-top simulation would aim to "simulate" precise events from stories on the table. .

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?

You missed his point, svendrex. Of course you need an inquisitor to take a henchmen.

What he's saying is that there is a rule in the rule book concerning Retinues. In the fluff of the Henchmen, they're called retinue. However, they don't get those rules in the game.

Joey wrote:GW insist on making codexes where the only useful/powerful lists have nothing to do with fluff whatsoever.
There's no reason sanguinary prists should give feel no pain...there's no reason IG should spam melta vets...there's no reason whatsoever for Long Fangs.
So no I don't care about fluff.

That is kinda the point of this thread. yes it is very easy and generally the best way to win a tournament to build an army that does not look like the fluff.

BUT

How far outside of the competitive tournament mindset will you go to make a list that looks more like the fluff.

EXAMPLE:
there are many Guard players who play at my FLGS. One of them plays a competitive chimera spam list. Another plays a mixed catachan army, based on models that he likes and thinks look good. (rough riders on cold ones for example). They are both fun to play in different ways.

lazarian wrote:

The actual nuts and bolts of a game of 40k mangles any concept of fluff. Very few armies get to fight how they would in a fluff like manner. By agreeing to a standard game it virtually guarantees a non fluff experience.

the game mechanics prevent you from playing a very strict interperation of the fluff.

Will One space marine kill 30 guardsmen? Probably not.
Would there really be a ton of meltaguns in a guard army? Maybe not.

HOWEVER

This does not prevent you from playing a game where winning/loosing is the Primary objective, it is only the secondary objective.

For some games the primary object is "A good Story". Not necessarily "A story exactly the way it would happen in a Codex or in a BL book"


My FLGS is running an Escalation league at the moment with a stronger story focus.

Each Special Character can only be taken by one player, so you will never have a Logan Grimnar VS. Logan Grimnar's long lost twin battle

The missions are each set up as a Story, even when this gives one player a big advantage. This week you had an attacker and a defender. The attacker had to sneak through a minefield (The whole board is difficult terrain) at night (night fighting the whole game) to shut down a transmitter by turn 4 or 5.

Was the mission balanced? NOT AT ALL. The defender had a huge advantage.
Was it enjoyable? NOT IF YOU ARE A COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENT PLAYER. But the mission did make for some fun, different, and interesting games with dramatic battles being fought over the transmitter in the center of the board.


40k is in the unique position that people play it for drastically different reasons. Some people play it as a competitive tournament game, some play it as a story based, large scale, role playing game, some people use it like a model train set, where the "Art" is the most important thing.

kronk wrote:

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?

You missed his point, svendrex. Of course you need an inquisitor to take a henchmen.

What he's saying is that there is a rule in the rule book concerning Retinues. In the fluff of the Henchmen, they're called retinue. However, they don't get those rules in the game.

Yes. But the retinue rule has not been used in ages (Tau Codex being the last one)? They obviously don't use that rule anymore, and just have it in the rulebook for backwards compatability of the old Codexes until they are all updated.

Zweischneid wrote:
Yes. But the retinue rule has not been used in ages (Tau Codex being the last one)? They obviously don't use that rule anymore, and just have it in the rulebook for backwards compatability of the old Codexes until they are all updated.

I agree with your assesment, Zweis. I'm just highlighting what DR's point was.

kronk wrote:

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?

You missed his point, svendrex. Of course you need an inquisitor to take a henchmen.

What he's saying is that there is a rule in the rule book concerning Retinues. In the fluff of the Henchmen, they're called retinue. However, they don't get those rules in the game.

Okay, I did miss his point there. However, in the same paragraph of fluff where they are described as a "retinue", they are also described as a "coterie", "warband", "network of advisors", and "retainers". To me it just looks like someones used the Thesaurus to find synonyms of "small groups of people". If henchmen were Always described as retinues in the fluff, then the point might have further merit.



If you look at the most recent FAQ for Ogre Kingdoms Army Book, there is something that illustrated the duality of GW games as being both Narrative and Competitive in nature.

According to the fluff, Orge mages do not wear Armor
According to the rules, Orge Mages can wear magic Armor.

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.



In theory, you can play 40k just fine with bases with a piece of sprue sticking up to represent the height of a model, using colors or numbers or words to show who has what wargear. Then, make some cardboard boxes the correct size for your vehicles and you are good to go. Cheaper, no painting needed, and you can clearly tell which model is which. There will be no change in how the game is played.


Buying ANY models [whether they are GW or third Party] says that there is some aspect of the "game" BEYOND the rules that is important to you, whether that is story or simply the visual appeal.

If the rules and pure competition were the only reason you played 40k, then you would not have a model collection.

TH3FALL3N wrote:I run a Templar's list with no BP and CCW crusaders, purely because bolters are much more effective. Not fluffy but needs must

HERESY

I feel bad if I use something that may even be the slightest bit of un-fluffy, I even feel awkward putting 1 bolter squad in my templars list

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.