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.

I was talking about joining a campaign that takes place on Armageddon... and possibly expanding my 164th Ash Vultures Kill Team to a 1000 point list.

Other Militarum players told me I should buy Gaunt's Ghosts and Ursula Creed.

But, my brain was like, "They didn't fight on Armageddon... that doesn't make sense."

Does this happen to anyone else? Does your headcannon get in the way of building competitive lists?

For narrative games/campaigns, all the time; but since winning isn't really the point in those, it doesn't bother me.

Basically yeah unless its a campaign/narrative/themed game then I don't really care too much if having 3 Hive Tyrants on the table is fluffy or not. Or if Hero X and Y were even alive at the same time let alone in the same region of space.

You can head-canon that they are just generic heroes of your own creation in your little pocket of the universe and they just happened to share names with famous people and share their stats.

In my personal headcanon, IXth legion has no psykers due to fearing the flaw too much (A psyker falling to Black Rage, that cannot possibly end well), so no libraries nor libby dreads for me. OTOH not sure those models are auto-takes anyway, although I think I've seen a bunch of Libby Dreads in netlists at times..

Generally I have a tight theme mind when I put a list together. It’s not the same every list, but I’m vary rarely just picking the cream of the codex without some restrictions of what I’m bringing.

That and I’m a TAC Ultramarine at heart, so I generally take a little of each kind of slot from the old FOC. Where 40k generally rewards skew and specializing.

Post 7th edition balance hasn't been that much of a problem anymore, so anything fluffy works on the table.

Yes? No?

NO: If I'm just throwing something together for a random game? Or I'm intentionally making something to win? Cannon - company or head - doesn't play any part. If it's got rules I'll use it.

YES: I also tend to make themed lists/forces. If it doesn't fit the theme? It doesn't get used. Doesn't matter what its stats/effects are.

Not really. I only have aesthetic or thematic preferences, not fluff-related ones. For example, my Drukhari army has no Coven units such as Talos pain engines and the now-defunct Grotesques, but only because I prefer my space elves to be sleek and graceful rather than slow and brutish. (Also, I hate painting flesh.)

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
Other Militarum players told me I should buy Gaunt's Ghosts and Ursula Creed.

But, my brain was like, "They didn't fight on Armageddon... that doesn't make sense."

You do you, but I don't necessarily see an epic hero as the actual character, especially given how often such models die in games. I once played a campaign where my Morvenn Vahl model was simply fluffed as the leader of my custom holy order.

.

Yes, so I basically have all the named characters "counts as" because my brain doesn't allow for unlimited named characters... there is one Creeeeeed! and there are others who simple "count as" Creed, but have their own names and stories.

This is why I am not a fan of named characters getting stats... and much preferred it when there were Champions and Heroes instead of a named character with special abilities.

-STS

slade the sniper wrote:
Yes, so I basically have all the named characters "counts as" because my brain doesn't allow for unlimited named characters... there is one Creeeeeed! and there are others who simple "count as" Creed, but have their own names and stories.

This is why I am not a fan of named characters getting stats... and much preferred it when there were Champions and Heroes instead of a named character with special abilities.

-STS

Agreed.

I'd much rather "Here's a generic, customizable statblock. If you wish to represent Marneus Calgar, select Artificer Gravis or Terminator Armor, Twin Mastercrafted Powerfists, and a Mastercrafted Storm Bolter."

I'd love to add some destroyer units to my necrons. I like how they look. I like how they play. But my overlady's lore is largely about her fondness for her collection of exotic species and how she's loathe to be rid of them. So destroyers or even flayed ones would kind of clash with that theme.

(I'll probably figure out a way to justify it one of these days though. Crypterks muttering about how the increase in destroyer cultists must surely be a reaction to the overlady's constant allocation of resources to support her living pets rather than her dynasty at large.)

Heh, if GW provides Champion upgrade sprue that's would be great. Upgrade for each chapter, for IG etc. I think many people buy them. I don't want Leontus, I don't like how he looks and he never be in my part of galaxy, but I like kit for Lord-General to represent some high command.

 JNAProductions wrote:

slade the sniper wrote:
Yes, so I basically have all the named characters "counts as" because my brain doesn't allow for unlimited named characters... there is one Creeeeeed! and there are others who simple "count as" Creed, but have their own names and stories.

This is why I am not a fan of named characters getting stats... and much preferred it when there were Champions and Heroes instead of a named character with special abilities.

-STS

Agreed.

I'd much rather "Here's a generic, customizable statblock. If you wish to represent Marneus Calgar, select Artificer Gravis or Terminator Armor, Twin Mastercrafted Powerfists, and a Mastercrafted Storm Bolter."

I'm of two minds. I'm not a fan of special characters that are just +1 versions of generic datasheets, but I don't mind 0-1 characters that either represent specific people or else hyper-rare types of people who wouldn't reasonably appear in multiples at a given location.

So that sisters character that can blast people with psychic attacks? Fine. Wouldn't really make sense for there to be multiple sororitas psykers in general, let alone on the same battlefield. Her datasheet works for those who want to tell that character's story or for those who have their own super special totally-not-her-you-guys sororitas character that tosses mortal wounds around for whatever reason.

Eldrad in most of his iterations where he's basically just a farseer on foot but better? Not great. He ended up playing the role of everyone's personal craftworld's super duper psyker. Could have just been a generic datasheet.

Eldrad in the current edition where he's the only guy with Mind War and Doom and fills a very different role from other seers? Weirdly more okay even though I'd probably prefer we just go back to buying powers as wargear again.

I always make a Knight Rampager my warlord, so...

And when I play loyalist Marines, there's usually a minimum of three Librarians, and NO Epic Heroes in sight.

Headcanon can be the solution rather than the problem. Obviously Fabius Bile's not going to take time out of whatever mad science he's up to to administer a round of +1 Attack jabs to my little warband's legionaries - but I've got Lady Philomena, who's carrying a needle pistol and a fancy cane and has extra-attack medical robo-limbs sticking out of her abdomen, nobody's confused about what the miniature is on the tabletop. I'm not running Red Corsairs so Huron's not going to be there, but if I want I've got Inaaya Pureheart and her exalted weapon and burning power claw and half a daemonette growing out of her backpack to warn her when somebody gets within 9" so she can do her reactive move... you get the idea.

I mean everyone's got to make their peace with how fluffy they want their list to be versus how much they just want to use the best options available to grind their opponents into the dust (or 'stand a fighting chance' in my case, I'm not good at the actual game), but I feel like that doesn't have to be anything more than what rules you feel comfortable using (for instance, I've had the Void Dragon used against me in 1K games, and if I played Necrons myself I just wouldn't). Of course Gaunt's Ghosts weren't at Armageddon, this squad's 'Skinny's Spectres'...

Not really, partially because I see my collection as more of the whole army with different lists being different deployments sent on different missions. Half of the fun of something new being good is figuring out why it's now part of my force. It adds a sense of the storying happening to them rather than me trying to be king of the sandbox. That's probably also a big part of why I'm drawn to things like Deathwatch though where variety is the name of the game.

Literally ALL the time.

I won't put a unit in an army until a narrative "trigger" unlocks it.

In Commorragh? I don't get Incubi until we capture a shrine.

In GSC, I can't field unless we infect it or breed it.

My Sisters get reinforcements from central command based on what threat they are facing, and I don't get Penitent units until we have something to repent.

Chaos grows from cultists- so once I've recruited enough cultists, they can use a ritual to summon Daemons. There also a map they can find that will lead them to a Soulforge. If they recruit enough cultists AND they summon Daemons AND they find the forge, then and only then will Slaanesh deem them worthy enough to send his Noise Marines to them.

But then I'm a narrative escalation guy- it's the entire reason I play the game. Just building a 2k army to fight another random 2k army would be boring as hell to me.

My answer is "yes" in terms of following my headcanon but "no" in terms of hurting my army lists.

My current gaming is entirely narrative/scenario driven, but when I was playing "current edition" games, I still developed a specific background for my Space Marines. The Iron Defenders chapter was a 14th Founding Ultramarines descendant, and its doctrine was based on focused firepower at the expense of close combat. No bikes, no speeders, no scouts. I personally didn't like the models, and didn't feel that were tactically necessary, so that went into my lore.

I eventually got two speeders (they came in the 3rd ed boxed set) and made some scouts for "guest players" (friends who wanted to try marines). I still hold the line against bikes.

Did it hurt me? I don't think so. At the dawn of 3rd, a shooty SM force that could cut down Blood Angels was somewhat unique and since the preponderance of opponents in those days either sported red or white-and-black power armor, if you could beat those guys, you pretty much had an overall winning record.

I think that having constraints like that forces you to think harder about what you are doing. The same goes with special characters: I never used them.

My army therefore may have been deceptive - a bland collection of tactical squads with some vehicles, no flashy characters, just bunches of guns and I painted them in a particularly low-key paint scheme (Feldgrau). But they got the job done and still do, although the current environment is more collaborative and creative than competitive.

I only lost two games with them during the 3rd ed. era when I frequented the FLGS gaming tables: one to a IG player whose incredible good luck mirrored my complete inability to stop rolling ones (dreadnought assault cannon self-destructed on its first shot), and the other to my wife's Chaos Marines, no doubt aided by her clothing choices.

My Imperial Guard likewise had a look and feel, but it was much less successful. It used a lot of gimmicks, like "a word in your ear" allowing me to move an opposing unit or the Sentinels getting a pre-game move. It was still annoying to play because tracks couldn't move and fire their main guns.

 Lathe Biosas wrote:
I was talking about joining a campaign that takes place on Armageddon... and possibly expanding my 164th Ash Vultures Kill Team to a 1000 point list.

Other Militarum players told me I should buy Gaunt's Ghosts and Ursula Creed.

But, my brain was like, "They didn't fight on Armageddon... that doesn't make sense."

Does this happen to anyone else? Does your headcannon get in the way of building competitive lists?

Yes. I don't like and I don't use power armoured Grey Knights. I don't even care that the 10th ed ones have a +2sv. To me a GK army is a terminator army. If there is something in it that isn't a terminator, then the options are either a transport for terminators or "large" terminator like a dreadnought.