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.

Element206 wrote:I think that fluff has already been incorporated into the rules in many instances (Blood Angels). Your quoting/referencing subtle details that are intended to accentuate the storyline/fluff and give a dynamice feel to the characters/units. I think the way the game is now is good enough...without adding another level of confusion with additional esoteric rules

You didn't really read any of this, did you?

Ixias wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:One Imperator Titan would own any Apocalypse battlefield even more than they already can.

Completely unrelated, but do the Imperator Titans have actual stat entries somewhere?

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2440056_Imperial_Datasheet_-_Emperor_Battle_Titan.pdf

Sadly, compared to fluff, it's not awesome enough...

Ixias wrote:You didn't really read any of this, did you?

I did. I hope you werent expecting me to read all 4 pages of the thread though. I responded to your initial post:

Ixias wrote:What would happen if fluff was rules?

your thread doesnt present a clear idea or any type of outline for what your looking for. If your just looking for examples of 'one-liners' in fluff then your right, I didnt list any. But how exactly do you expect people to respond to a post with little direction of what your looking for?

While you do have a point, there was clarification in the third post of the thread. I also gave examples in my initial post even though you are correct that I did not explicitly state what the purpose of the thread was.

EDIT: Anyway, misunderstandings aside let the thread continue.

since I misunderstood what you were wanting...allow me to rectify that I know that your not inferring we SHOULD play with the fluff rules, but your right, it would be out of sheer stupidity if we did! Anyway, I imagine you were looking for something more on the lines of this:

- Warlocks -- "a witchblade strikes with devastating bursts of force that can incinerate a foe where he stands." -- lets make it a close combat blast weapon with a template and a roll-to-hit is instant death!

New USR 'Plot Armour'

Up to 12 non-special character models without an armour value may be given this USR:
- Models with this USR must have a name painted/written on their base, this gives them a 2+ Plot Armour save against all wounds.

Special characters automatically get the Plot Armour USR and do not count towards the 12 model limit.

If fluff was rules:

A squad of 10 marines would be able to take on literally hundreds (maybe even thousands) of nids and orks without losing half their squad. (same with CSM)

There would be FAR more nids/orks but they would die FAR easier.

Guardsmen are pretty close as they are IMO

Eldar would generally be a bit better all round.

Necrons would be even harder to kill.

GKs would be like marines but 10x more so (even better against daemons)

Witch hunters are pretty close IMO

Tau would be harder to kill and allot more devastating firepower.

Explosions would actually throw people after being hit.

You would do saves before rolling to wound.

(mind you to make this all fit the entire model range would need to be rebalanced as well)

Wazdakka would tank shock titans, and they would explode, and he would survive.

EagleArk wrote:Wazdakka would tank shock titans, and they would explode, and he would survive.

Lol'd at that one, had forgotten that piece of lore =)

If fluff was rules, what C.S.Goto says would actually be right... *shudders*

Element206 wrote:since I misunderstood what you were wanting...allow me to rectify that I know that your not inferring we SHOULD play with the fluff rules, but your right, it would be out of sheer stupidity if we did! Anyway, I imagine you were looking for something more on the lines of this:

- Warlocks -- "a witchblade strikes with devastating bursts of force that can incinerate a foe where he stands." -- lets make it a close combat blast weapon with a template and a roll-to-hit is instant death!

Check around halfway down page 2 for the "Fluff RAI" argument