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.

Feldmarshal Goehring wrote:In our local group, we all have our armies that we love the models and the fluff. Everyone has more models than can fit in anything except apocalypse, so you see the same person running different units from their dex together on different days.

However, Most of us have a power build version that we take to tournaments for the ultra competitive play.

I always thought most everyone did it that way. Play for fun and fluff, but keep a strong tourney list for trying to make a good showing.

Hey, that's dangerously rational!

EasyE wrote:Should people respect the background of the race that they play instead of making only a powerbuild?

What background? I can't find anything in any of the newer codicies about rivalries between chaos powers, single legion chaos armies, eldar craftworlds, ork klanz, or anything of the sort! The army list doesn't put any restrictions on any units based on sub-faction, craftworld, chaos god, or anything else, so how am I supposed to know what is what?

And with GW's endorsement of "counts as", why couldn't I use Eldrad Ulthwe as Aldred Elthwu of Saim Hann?

You are imagining a distinction that no longer exists in 40k. How is a new player supposed to know that Saim Hann are the wild riders and use predominantly jetbikes? Aside from the mini-blurb that says "prefers jetbikes and quick assaults", there is nothing in the army list that tells the player what a Saim Hann army is supposed to look like. Actually, the codex just says that anything in the codex represents an Eldar army, so since Saim Hann are eldar they must be able to use anything.

Pg 2 "Eldar Army List: The Army List takes all the troops presented in the previous section and arranges them so you can choose a force for your games."

Hell, this means you could use Eldrad in a Saim Hann army and not even change his name or paint him different! All troops in the previous section, (which includes Eldrad) and arranges them so you can choose them. NEAT!

Pg 59 "The following pages contain an army list that allows you to field an Eldar army and fight battles..."

Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?

whitedragon wrote:Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?

By Learning about their army. If you want to play a Power Cheese army in XYZ colours, go ahead, I will still have more respect for the new player who took the time to find out and learn the fluff behind his army and build his Army Accordingly.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?

By Learning about their army.

From where? What should he learn? What should he ignore? Is all fluff still equally valid, or only stuff from certain time periods? What about players that create their own craftworlds? What sources should he use to learn this stuff?

If you want to play a Power Cheese army in XYZ colours, go ahead, I will still have more respect for the new player who took the time to find out and learn the fluff behind his army and build his Army Accordingly.

Again, what fluff? According to what?

Use Eldar as an example. Tell us what a player should know, what makes a fluffy list, what makes a cheesy list.

All you've done so far is repeatedly say "I respect players that field armies that look the way I think armies should look," which is fine, except we're not all mindreaders.

Waaaaaaagh! wrote:

whitedragon wrote:Wow, the same thing as above just restated. So once again, how is a new player supposed to know any different?

By Learning about their army. If you want to play a Power Cheese army in XYZ colours, go ahead, I will still have more respect for the new player who took the time to find out and learn the fluff behind his army and build his Army Accordingly.

Where are they supposed to get that fluff Waagh? Most of it doesn't exist anymore, or only exists through the rose tinted glasses of veterans. Where would a new player find out about Wild Riders of Saim Hann, Nuadu Fireheart, and their goofy clan structure?

EDIT:

Damn you Polonius, you posted a schoche before me...

People that have an army only have to change their tactics when editions change. People that only have a list moan and complain every edition change, because they are forced to buy new models.

I once was a list player; back in the 90's. I have been collecting since 95. In 2ed edition, I had an almost unbeatable Chaos Space Marines: Iron Warriors and Nugle list, and when the change to third edition happened, I was screwed as I only had the models in the list. This forced me to expand my collection. I would say that I have quite an army right now, over 100 Iron warriors and 40 Deathgaurd, easily over 6000 pionts worth of models. When it comes time to make a list for a battle, i can pick and chose for all the options, making whatever suits my mood and is best for the task at hand, beating my opponent. When the change from 3rd to forth happened, I barely even noticed; I was prepared. When fourth to fifth happened, I rejoiced as I was more than ready to adapt.

That being said, I am still collecting and painting CSM, there is no-such thing as a complete army. Unless you have a full chapter/legion, then you're done, time for a new race.

A LIST IS JUST A LIST, BUT AN ARMY CAN MAKE MANY LISTS!

skullkandy wrote:I know, I know, I like to have a challenge when I play a game and don't wet myself If I lose so I see no point in copying one of the three lists that everyone seems to be using over and over or making broad statements about a lists being completely "useless" because it isn't taking advantage of chesse and loopholes.

I'm not sure if you realize this, but you sound like the sore loser. "Cheese" and "Loopholes" eh? Please elaborate with examples of what you would place in those categories.

I have found the term "cheese" is most often used by people who can't adapt and overcome a particular strategy - and not necessarily because it is insurmountable.

Personally, I like that some folks just cruise the net for Lists and slap them together.

When I take a "normal" army list and beat them, it makes it all the sweeter. Nothing is better than smiling across the table at the Double Lash/Plasma Cannon/Plague Marine army of doom and smiling: "Good Game man, you almost had me there on Turn 1."

To those who call others 'Carebear', 'Fluff Nazi', and 'Casual Gamer Nerd'.....

Your Tears are like mana to me. They taste like a warm summers' day. Their nectar will succor me through the long dark of the night.

Because when these kind of guys lose...they got nothing else.

If you are looking for a customizable system to build "uber" forces and crush your enemies with, Magic The Gathering is still going strong.

Corum wrote:
Because when these kind of guys lose...they got nothing else.

...what? People that play competatvie lists have no lives?

What if someone has an entire Nurgle/Slaanesh combined forces army? Does that suddenly make it okay for that person to field Fzorgle power builds?

I still want to see a list that breaks the fluff in half (psst, it doesn't exist).

Good points all.....But hell im a Hardcore Veteran Fluffer....im the nerd who buys each codex weither it's my army or not, just to read the new army rules....Im the person who spends hours doing and re-doing their army list to find the exact flavour that suits my theme. I spend days and weeks painting and getting ready for the one night a week i can take my force down to my local and play. And hell i enjoy the gaming, win or lose (unless the opponent is a jerk), shake hands and leave happy that a good fun game is had by all. Maybe im lucky that i have a good group of players, or maybe i dont see the game as the ultimate part of the hobby.

And the one thing ive learned, entering tournements in my local area with a fluff army has two added bonuses, 1. i get points for the fluff and army build around it and 2. loosing to all the power builds mean i normally get symapthy points from the judges and my opponents and will take best general/sport and/or the last place prize, which if i remember correctly was a Landraider and two Rhino kits (compared with a Space marine Battleforce and codex - won ironically by an orc player). So fluff wins for me.

I dont care if i win or lose if i played a good sport and had fun, and im happy to take home the last place prize.....

What if instead of "tournament" they used the word "Pageant."

Warhammer 40,000 Army Exhibition

Would people still go?

I think the issue isn't really tournament play. Anybody who makes 'fun, fluffy' army for tournament play with more of an eye towards their fluff than the competitive aspects of their army for a tournament probably deserves to lose, and if they bitch about it alot, they REALLY deserve to lose. Regardless of the army I play, I expect to see power builds at tournaments - there is a lot more at stake there than just the immaterial outcome of a game or two. I expect my opponent to be at their best, and I will try to be at mine.

However, where the lines start to get fuzzy is in friendly play. Everybody knows you can win a tournament with that power build if you know what you are doing, but friendly games aren't about (at least for me) winning. It's about narrative. At a tournament, you get the thrill of climbing the ranks to be number one, but that is just not something that everybody wants or needs. If I show up at the FLGS and I just want to have a fun, fluffy game, I don't want to have to set up against that same vet air cav list or dual lash/oblit spam list I fought 10 times at the last tournament.

I think friendly games are a way to create a narrative with the game. It's not a place for WAAC gaming, where this unit has X% chance of killing that unit and therefore you have a X% chance of winning. It's a game where the noble, courageous 122nd Cadian protects their home from the bloodthirsty ravages of an invading World Eaters company.

There is a time and a place for both fluffy play and powergaming, and it's when the two clash that it becomes a problem.

Abiding by fluff that no longer exists adds a major strain to making an army/list/collection-of-models-used-for-gaming. I can say that with years of DM experience, you'll always have the guy who wants to have an elf that's less refined than the drunken dwarf player, or the wild, unrefined wizard. The gaming stereotypes are broken alot, and it's fun when everything is kept in check granted, but ti can be a lot less fun when everyone has to be looking over their shoulder for the fluff reaper. Just make a list to play a game with. That's it. Trying different stuff makes it more fun too. For the life of me, I don't know anyone who only has enough models for one list.

I dont get why you can't do both; play a hard army at tourneys and fluffy in friendly.


I like playing unconventionally like multiple Techmarines w/ Thunderfires etc.. Squads of Servitors etc.. in fluffy games. I pretend that I have 2 MOF per Dread and then I have 1 techmarine that follows the dreads and the servitors around then I have tactical squads in rhinos.

I have never won a game with it but man is it fething fun to play.