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.

BA troop fluffy?

Tycho
Assault marines + rhino

Fluffy yes?

Play fluffy with necrons

sourclams wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:I play Fluffy. It feels wrong to field any Sorcerors or Havocs in a Khorne Army, as well as allow anything but mech marines in a Plague Marine Army (Mortarion taught his sons to fight in mechanized formations).

Not to call you out, but you have got that totally backwards. Sorcerors have never had any place in Khornate lists, but World Eaters often used Havocs and heavy support weapons were a common part of their combat doctrine.

Mortarion taught his sons to be relentlessly utilitarian in battle. Death Guard almost never utilized armored vehicles, resulting in heavy reliance on squad-based special weapons. The Death Guard were the quintessential footslogging plasma Marines.

This nicely sums up one of my biggest problems with 'fluff' adherents; over time, fluff changes, and many times fluff is wrongly interpreted, often by those who most rigidly adhere to it.

Havocs could not take the Mark of Khorne in 3.5. The Mortarion Blurp was also from 3.5, where full Death Guard armies are allowed to take Rhino-mounted Plague Marines as a Fast attack choice, as Mortarion taught his legion to rely on troops more than anything else. Much of the fluff around Khorne states that he dislikes ranged combat, as only cowards killed from a distance. Anything from the current book is only to justify the stupid generalization they made.

EDIT: For the record I specifically mentioned Havocs because I knew someone was going to come around and "correct" me. Seriously, Khorne with Ranged Weapons = Blatant retcon because they wanted to generalize things.

Wardragoon wrote:Play fluffy with necrons

Dont be silly in Fluff necrons dont suck...

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Havocs could not take the Mark of Khorne in 3.5. The Mortarion Blurp was also from 3.5, where full Death Guard armies are allowed to take Rhino-mounted Plague Marines as a Fast attack choice, as Mortarion taught his legion to rely on troops more than anything else. Much of the fluff around Khorne states that he dislikes ranged combat, as only cowards killed from a distance. Anything from the current book is only to justify the stupid generalization they made.

EDIT: For the record I specifically mentioned Havocs because I knew someone was going to come around and "correct" me. Seriously, Khorne with Ranged Weapons = Blatant retcon because they wanted to generalize things.

Evidence that fluff changes. Whose fluff is more right or more wrong? By today's standards, which are arguably "worse" given the state of the codex, Khornate Havocs are running around and Death Guard can drive rhinos, but shouldn't, but used to.

The 'fluff' justification is a totally moving target.

sourclams wrote:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Havocs could not take the Mark of Khorne in 3.5. The Mortarion Blurp was also from 3.5, where full Death Guard armies are allowed to take Rhino-mounted Plague Marines as a Fast attack choice, as Mortarion taught his legion to rely on troops more than anything else. Much of the fluff around Khorne states that he dislikes ranged combat, as only cowards killed from a distance. Anything from the current book is only to justify the stupid generalization they made.

EDIT: For the record I specifically mentioned Havocs because I knew someone was going to come around and "correct" me. Seriously, Khorne with Ranged Weapons = Blatant retcon because they wanted to generalize things.

Evidence that fluff changes. Whose fluff is more right or more wrong? By today's standards, which are arguably "worse" given the state of the codex, Khornate Havocs are running around and Death Guard can drive rhinos, but shouldn't, but used to.

The 'fluff' justification is a totally moving target.

Personally I go with the fluff that doesnt need justification

There were World Eaters toting Heavy Weapons in Slaves to Darkness. They even had Librarians.

They slaughtered their Librarians upon dedication to Khorne. Also, I said Khorne Armies, not World Eaters =P

I play fluff, or at least I like to think I do. I usually think of a theme for my IG army to be on a list and bam! Got my list. Tau on the other hand, ya no idea how I come up with lists.

Gibbsey wrote:I build listed based on what would be cool not on competitiveness or fluff although for SM i will try and choose a chapter that matches what im trying to do fluff wise, for example if i want to make a techmarine bike army with a lr redeemer then i see no problem using Salamanders as the chapter. Do Salamanders prefer bikes? no but they still have them and since the bikes have melta weapons and the techmarines have thunder hammers and fluff wise Salamanders do have some bike squads then the army is at least possible fluff wise. (small squad with redeemer and mm bike support)

A Salamander bike army is one of the unfluffiest things you could do. Due to the enviroment they come from bikes are very rarely used as there is no sutable way to train in their use. The old salamanders' codex had them at 0-1

BluntmanDC wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:I build listed based on what would be cool not on competitiveness or fluff although for SM i will try and choose a chapter that matches what im trying to do fluff wise, for example if i want to make a techmarine bike army with a lr redeemer then i see no problem using Salamanders as the chapter. Do Salamanders prefer bikes? no but they still have them and since the bikes have melta weapons and the techmarines have thunder hammers and fluff wise Salamanders do have some bike squads then the army is at least possible fluff wise. (small squad with redeemer and mm bike support)

A Salamander bike army is one of the unfluffiest things you could do. Due to the enviroment they come from bikes are very rarely used as there is no sutable way to train in their use. The old salamanders' codex had them at 0-1

Well if you look at their chapter company organization they do have bike squads and Vulkan hestan can request any Salamanders to go in his search for the missing artifacts, so a land raider redeemer with bike support while generally unfluffy is not impossible and would actuallly fit a fast outriding party

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Personally I go with the fluff that doesnt need justification

Except it all needs justification.

I'm impressed with the number of people who play "fluffy" lists.

To the OP:

I think there's a few reasons for your observation.

1) You're looking at people on Dakka. Nerds who spend their time on an internet forum discussing a game are going to be much more "intense" about that game than average.

2) You're probably spending too much time in Tactics or Army Lists. Those forums are very WAAC focused, simply because the easiest feedback to "How does this army list look" is to point out the ways you can improve it. Plus, those of us that do play fluffy tend not to bother to post our lists, as we're going with things we like over things that are "good", so there's no feedback anyone can give. Head on over to the P&M areas and you'll get a much different take on things.

3) Veteran players do tend to get a more WAAC as time goes on. It's true in 40k and it's true in every game. When you start out, you use whatever seems the most fun, or coolest, or whatever. But, then you come across an army (or deck or whatever) that is simply better than yours. You loose, repeatedly. That starts getting boring, so you tweak your list a bit to make it better. You start winning, so other people have to tweak their lists to stay competitive with you. Before you know it, your gaming group is all running top-tier armies. It takes a few really dedicated "fluffy and fun over winning" players to prevent this happening in a playgroup, but power creep is inevitable.

Very well said Grakmar.

Grakmar wrote:....
I think there's a few reasons for your observation.

1) You're looking at people on Dakka. Nerds who spend their time on an internet forum discussing a game are going to be much more "intense" about that game than average.

2) You're probably spending too much time in Tactics or Army Lists. Those forums are very WAAC focused, simply because the easiest feedback to "How does this army list look" is to point out the ways you can improve it. Plus, those of us that do play fluffy tend not to bother to post our lists, as we're going with things we like over things that are "good", so there's no feedback anyone can give. Head on over to the P&M areas and you'll get a much different take on things.

3) Veteran players do tend to get a more WAAC as time goes on. It's true in 40k and it's true in every game. When you start out, you use whatever seems the most fun, or coolest, or whatever. But, then you come across an army (or deck or whatever) that is simply better than yours. You loose, repeatedly. That starts getting boring, so you tweak your list a bit to make it better. You start winning, so other people have to tweak their lists to stay competitive with you. Before you know it, your gaming group is all running top-tier armies. It takes a few really dedicated "fluffy and fun over winning" players to prevent this happening in a playgroup, but power creep is inevitable.

This is a true point.
I have played a number of tabletop games that have competitive environments from the last decade and it is all the same. Everyone starts out at the beginning playing the game learning the rules in a haze, no one is really sure what they have or what they are doing. But as they play more and get a better grasp they get better and as a player gets better the thinking shifts from "wow that looks awesome" to the "how can this help my list," or "how will this compete at MFLG?"
And game designers do this as well by adjusting codex's and rules or releasing new sets and powers, and the players eat it up. And it happens to almost all gamers in one way or another.

No one likes to lose every game they play, and that is why reasons 2 and 3 from Grakmar above are so accurate. And point one is true as well because the people who spend there free time posting about it on the internet are far more "invested" in the game than the player who only shows up once a month and only has 2 models painted and they are the same two he's had painted for the last 6 months.

Grakmar wrote:I'm impressed with the number of people who play "fluffy" lists.

To the OP:

I think there's a few reasons for your observation.

1) You're looking at people on Dakka. Nerds who spend their time on an internet forum discussing a game are going to be much more "intense" about that game than average.

2) You're probably spending too much time in Tactics or Army Lists. Those forums are very WAAC focused, simply because the easiest feedback to "How does this army list look" is to point out the ways you can improve it. Plus, those of us that do play fluffy tend not to bother to post our lists, as we're going with things we like over things that are "good", so there's no feedback anyone can give. Head on over to the P&M areas and you'll get a much different take on things.

3) Veteran players do tend to get a more WAAC as time goes on. It's true in 40k and it's true in every game. When you start out, you use whatever seems the most fun, or coolest, or whatever. But, then you come across an army (or deck or whatever) that is simply better than yours. You loose, repeatedly. That starts getting boring, so you tweak your list a bit to make it better. You start winning, so other people have to tweak their lists to stay competitive with you. Before you know it, your gaming group is all running top-tier armies. It takes a few really dedicated "fluffy and fun over winning" players to prevent this happening in a playgroup, but power creep is inevitable.

He speaks truth!

Personally I build my armies to fluff,my Death Guard have a limited number of vehicles,loads of Plague Marines and Terminators and hordes of Plaguebearers.
In my Goff Ork there's not a Loota to be found,and only a single mob of shoota boys,but you'll find loads of Kanz and Deff Dreads.
In my Praetorians,which is still under construction,I plan to have a base of platoons of men supported by HW squads,with a single veteran squad in the army.
It's just how I enjoy building my armies,I enjoy crafting them along a certain theme rather than simply going A+B+C+D=WIN...of course that's just my opinion and way of doing things.

Around here it seems everyone around here are WAAC gamers that power-maxes their list running 10 Chimera Vendetta/Melta spam IG leafblower lists or Space Wolves. The other day I saw a new kid who just started 40k with Tau get tabled on turn 3 by some 20 year old veteran playing his tournament wolves list and smacking high-fives with his buddies at the store. The kid cried. I guess that's just how some people roll.

I play fluffy with all my armies when possible and try to make fun themed lists that are actually effective. Of course with the WAAC guy in our group, it's hard to enjoy myself some times, well except for that one game were I killed nearly half his stuff and only lost a single tau model vs his Tzneech demon army of cheese.

My space marines are Imperial Fists, and I run a siege breaker mech list. Termies, Vindicators, lots of heavy weapons. Is that not fluffy?

Brother-Thunder wrote:My space marines are Imperial Fists, and I run a siege breaker mech list. Termies, Vindicators, lots of heavy weapons. Is that not fluffy?

Some armies are made for fluff and sometimes the Fluff makes the army. For Imperial Fists, they are siege experts and if one runs them in that manner their army is not only fluffy like a bunny it's as blunt as a hammer.

SO sometimes you can have your cake and eat it too.

It's entirely possible to play very fluffy armies and that still make very powerful lists with come codexes, Imperial Guard especially. Yeah, bringing 6 squads of mechvets, a quad melta CCS, 3 vendettas and a bunch of Leman Russ tanks might scream cheese, but it's also not exactly out of line with IG fluff. You've got a well equipped mechanized platoon, a wing of attack craft providing close air support, and a squadron of supporting armor, very standard combined-arms military stuff in a fairly standardized manner.

The problem when it comes to fluff is the min/max armies, like Eldar lists with two squads of barebones jetbikes, and then nothing but Warwalkers and Seer Councils.

So from what I've read Fluffy Players are actually a silent majority? And I should have written that my orignal statement was just my opinion but forgot to.

People like this: http://talesfromthemaelstrom.blogspot.com/ are so fluffy you choke and get hairballs. They're still out there, you just don't normally see them at tournaments or keeping up with the latest figures.

RedGuardian73 wrote:So from what I've read Fluffy Players are actually a silent majority? And I should have written that my orignal statement was just my opinion but forgot to.

Yes, we are, because of two reasons;

1) Most hobbyists do NOT use the various 40k forums in any capacity. Many of them do not even know forums exist for this game. In my store, out of the 20ish 40k players, maybe 4 go to online forums regularly.

2) When we do come online, there isn't really much to say. The fluff players tend to congregate to specialized forums for their armies, while the power gamers and WAAC players flock to forums like this one, where there is no centralized forum for Orks or Skaven.

Sure, at the-waaagh.com, you can find plenty of power lists, but most of the posts are crazy conversions, paint jobs, stories and fluff lists. Post one fluff list here in the list forums and watch it get torn apart.