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.

VoidAngel wrote:Great Gak of Gork - are you all illiterate?

Hmm, we don't like your idea so we must be illiterate.

VoidAngel wrote:
Audience: Friends and like-minded FLGS patrons you might get a pick up game with.
Type: Friendly game, with some voluntarily agreed to structure aimed a characterful armies that are not jarringly at odds with the common perception of said armies.
Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing - because it's a FRIENDLY game, for FUN.
Reasoning: Many, but not all, players will have trouble achieving this in the total absence of any sort of guidelines. "Don't be cheesy" is enough for *some*, but not all, players.

So, it was about composition more than it was about fluff, despite your protests to the contrary.

But you're going to continue with your homebrew priest spam because that's fluffy - right? And you're going to come up with rules that, handily, don't impact your army one bit.

If you are dead set on imposing composition then I suggest you browse some of the australian forums. They have all kinds of sophisticated comp rules. None of them suceed in stopping people from taking hard armies though.

No, illiterate was the wrong word. I need a word that means,
"I will read your words and apply whatever meaning I like to them in order to argue with you about your own intent - which obviously I know better than you do."

Locking servitor, please come put this thing out of its misery.

Something I should point out: Fluffy means you're adhering to OTHER people's stories. You read about Blood Angels being Assault-oriented and prefer jetpacks, so you make a "fluffy" list based off that. You start calling them The Emperor's Hand Maidens then it's a completely different story (no pun intended). You want to play a Iyanden force? Spam Wraithguards, Wraithlord and warlocks, and keep the fleshies to a minimum. Dont like it? Go make a homebrew if you want to keep it fluffy (or choose another craftworld) or just admit you're not being fluffy about it. What you SHOULDN'T do is start spamming aspect warriors (in particular fire dragons), paint it in Iyanden colors, AND (this is the important part) then call it fluffy, because while Iyanden certainly does have all of that, they're rarely, if ever, going to be that concentrated in one coherent force. This is also why Fluffy = Stereotype, because it's the embodiment of the actual style of the force in question, tailored to what it likes to field, not what it has, and what makes it unique. Fielding Dev and Tact squads for BA is technically allowed, that's why it's in the codex (otherwise, like the BT and Librarians, you wouldnt get the option period) but to field one to play like the BAs described in fluff (hence the turn fluffy) you would need alot of jump pack equipped troops, since that's what they prefer.

VoidAngel wrote:No, illiterate was the wrong word. I need a word that means,
"I will read your words and apply whatever meaning I like to them in order to argue with you about your own intent - which obviously I know better than you do."

I think you did that yourself with your constant self-contradiction.

You told us that it was all about the fluff, not about comp at all because you love hard armies. Then you turn around and tell us that it's all about getting rid of cheesy WAAC armies.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Something I should point out: Fluffy means you're adhering to OTHER people's stories. You read about Blood Angels being Assault-oriented and prefer jetpacks, so you make a "fluffy" list based off that. You start calling them The Emperor's Hand Maidens then it's a completely different story (no pun intended). You want to play a Iyanden force? Spam Wraithguards, Wraithlord and warlocks, and keep the fleshies to a minimum. Dont like it? Go make a homebrew if you want to keep it fluffy (or choose another craftworld) or just admit you're not being fluffy about it. What you SHOULDN'T do is start spamming aspect warriors (in particular fire dragons), paint it in Iyanden colors, AND (this is the important part) then call it fluffy, because while Iyanden certainly does have all of that, they're rarely, if ever, going to be that concentrated in one coherent force. This is also why Fluffy = Stereotype, because it's the embodiment of the actual style of the force in question, tailored to what it likes to field, not what it has, and what makes it unique. Fielding Dev and Tact squads for BA is technically allowed, that's why it's in the codex (otherwise, like the BT and Librarians, you wouldnt get the option period) but to field one to play like the BAs described in fluff (hence the turn fluffy) you would need alot of jump pack equipped troops, since that's what they prefer.

That was beautiful. These are tears of joy. Someone got it. I didn't wake up in Bizzaro-verse today, where up means down, and guidelines offered in a spirit of good gamesmanship means fascist attempt to dictate game conduct to total strangers.

VoidAngel wrote: That was beautiful. These are tears of joy. Someone got it. I didn't wake up in Bizzaro-verse today, where up means down, and guidelines offered in a spirit of good gamesmanship means fascist attempt to dictate game conduct to total strangers.

None of which had anything to do with "cheese" or "waac" or your fluff restrictions.

What he just said was "you can do anything like if you homebrew". How does that pertain to your stated objective?

Because his objectives are to make a set of guidelines for you to play a "fluffy" force from the official fluff, not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

That's not what he just said -

VoidAngel wrote:Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

Not like his homebrew priest spam then?

Scott-S6 wrote:That's not what he just said -

VoidAngel wrote:Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Because his objectives are to make a set of guidelines for you to play a "fluffy" force from the official fluff, not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

You sure about that?

Also, note that my blurp specifically states that fluffy lists exclude homebrew stuff, as those dont need to justify anything because there's no official fluff on it. You are trying to defend and discredit the same thing at the same time, which does not work.

Scott-S6 wrote:That's not what he just said -

VoidAngel wrote:Purpose: To shut up whiners about "cheese" "unfluffiness" and "WAAC" playing

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:not make random justifications just to get a balanced or WAAC list.

Not like his homebrew priest spam then?

MechaEmperor7000 has the right of it. This DOES NOT APPLY to homebrew. I would not USE my homebrew under these guidelines - it makes no sense!

How many times have you fielded a perfectly legal force and heard, "That's not fluffy. Dark Angels would never (insert objection)" ? My goal was to curtail all that, by offering a structured way to build forces that almost *had* to be fluffy.

The problem is, one size won't fit all. The way I first went, it will work for many armies, but gimp a few. You'd need at least two sets of guidelines. One for the first category of army, and another for the second.

Again - you'd AGREE to play by them, with FRIENDS.

I don't hear that at all, but then I play with people who are able to take a measured understanding of the fluff so that they can realise that combinations beyond the most typical are not automatically un-fluffy.

How do you plan to address the power disparity that such a thing would create? Since some codexes have extremely powerful spam lists that fit the stereotype but others do not.

You do know that players who play fluffy choose to abid by the handicaps and restrictions imposed by such limitations right? And for those lists that have "extremely powerful spam", they tend to be lists like the BA and SW codex, who are written specifically for that chapter, not as a vanilla-style dex like CSM, SM and IG. Try playing an all Slaanesh Force. Sure you have lash, but you dont have any of the other stuff that make Lash usefull (bar the Doom siren, but that's only on champions). Playing Plague Marines? you suddenly find yourself lacking heavy fire power or much survivability in the face of Battle Cannons, which normal CSM fodder perform much better in. Playing Fluff means you will likely loose most of the time, but you play something that's straight out of the stories, kinda like when you put on a bath towel and imagined yourself superman. Sure falling on your face after jumping off a chair hurts like hell, but for a moment you flew, and you were just like your hero.

So, like I said, if you're going to force people to play the stereotype list, how do you balance that some codexes are extremely powerful with that list but others are not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:kinda like when you put on a bath towel and imagined yourself superman. Sure falling on your face after jumping off a chair hurts like hell, but for a moment you flew, and you were just like your hero.

Most children do that once and then realise that it's a bad idea.

And yet you're arguing so feverently for a boardgame. If you must play, at least have some pride.

As for balance, There's really not a single fluffy list that is actually grossly overpowered, at least not in an all-comers list. Things like BA and SW, those will be overpowered no matter how you build them, so themed (like an all-sang-guard army to represet Dante's personal guards) and fluffy (like an army that makes no use of normal tanks, but only assault squads with other JP-equipped elements) may actually lower the power of these armies, as you suddenly lost access to alot of the synergistic units that made the army unstoppable, and have narrowed it down to just a handful of units that plays by a specific style. An Iyanden army is grossly overpowered against a Nidzilla army, mainly because nearly anythign that even gets remotely within range of the WGs are gonna be shot to hell and back by their wraithcannons. However if you start lobbing battlecannon shells at them from an armoured company list, suddenly they dont seem so strong anymore.

VoidAngel wrote:The problem is, one size won't fit all. The way I first went, it will work for many armies, but gimp a few. You'd need at least two sets of guidelines. One for the first category of army, and another for the second.

No, the problem is that only the subjective parts of your guidelines had anything to do with fluff. The other restriction did nothing to encourage fluff.

As I've said several times in this thread, there are much more constructive ways to encourage players to take more interest in the fluff than FOC restrictions which do not - they simply move the goal posts for the people that build hard lists.

For example, missions with uneven forces and objectives or narrative campaigns can pull players focus away from winning as the top priority.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

VoidAngel wrote:MechaEmperor7000 has the right of it. This DOES NOT APPLY to homebrew. I would not USE my homebrew under these guidelines - it makes no sense!

So, under your guidelines, homebrew armies are forbidden? Or they get to ignore the restrictions?

Do you know how many of these "fluffy" armies originated? Several "expansion" codexes (Like Codex Armageddon and EoT, as well as Codex: Craftworld Eldar) and Unique organisation rules (like the Legion Rules, Doctrine System, and Chapter Traits) does exactly what VoidAngel tried to do, restrict some choices so that you'd try to use other ones more effectively. These were done with little more than some FoC restrictions that Void attempted. Sure it's not perfect, and that's why he's been asking for advice. All you've done, though, is question his perception of fluff. Instead of making another 4 page long argument of how "little" we know of fluff, as well as how "fluffy lists dont work because no two people define fluff the same way" maybe you can contribute one of these "more constructive ways to encourage players to take more interest in fluff".

And I must point out again: Void meant for these guidelines to be the basis for Offcial Fluff armies, since Homebrew Fluff armies tend to work backwards (choices justifies fluff, rather than fluff justifies choice) in that regard. You field an army full of bikers and dreadnoughts, then go back and write in the fluff that your army prefers these things. In Official Armies, you read about BAs prefering Assault troops, so you field alot of assault troops.

And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists (like a mech IG themed Steel Legion list) are vastly more competitive, viable, and 'hard' than certain other fluff lists (like Wraith-spam Iyanden eldar).

And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists can still suck completely and be disallowed under the given restrictions (A Hunt for Voldorius themed force with Shrike+Khan).

Additional rule for playing fluffy: No more imperium on imperium fights.

sourclams wrote:And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists (like a mech IG themed Steel Legion list) are vastly more competitive, viable, and 'hard' than certain other fluff lists (like Wraith-spam Iyanden eldar).

And you're still missing the point that certain Official Fluff Lists can still suck completely and be disallowed under the given restrictions (A Hunt for Voldorius themed force with Shrike+Khan).

Hence why people should stop bashing the OP for being ignorant of fluff and making a broken sent of guidelines, and actually offering suggestions on how to improve the guidelines, no?

No. You're never going to come up with a set of comp guidelines that is both reasonable and balanced. There's simply too much internal and external disparity in balance between codices.

Not all fluff is created equal. Steel Legion is going to be more powerful than Iyanden Eldar simply because it has a mountain of S7+ at low AP values in effective transports while Iyanden Eldar has a bunch of T6-8 models trying to footslog in the face of withering fire. Fluff does not equate to balanced. You can have a fully competitive theme list (Warboss and Green Tide) that simply crushes a weak, non-competitive theme list (Ahriman and Thousand Sons Rubric Marines).

Declaring x special characters, x hqs, and x troops simply re-shuffles the deck to favor whatever codex has the most powerful troops that are least reliant on special chars. Ironically, the newest books are most capable of still building a powerful list given this restriction, and the older books are the most penalized.

Then what if just for Fluff?

Requia wrote:Additional rule for playing fluffy: No more imperium on imperium fights.

Umm no. Imperials have a history of fighting amongst themselves. Some little thing called the heresy and all those rogue elements, not to mention times where loyal forces opened fire on each other due to conflicting goals.

Plus your little rule would significantly reduce the pool of opponents you could play. I'm sure that's a good way to promote a hobby.

VoidAngel wrote:Oh, and DA example guy - I can beat that with any army you care to name, and any cooperation from the dice (my greatest enemy) - and yes, using my own guidelines.

Well, if your army list is going to be as well thought out as your 'fluff' army comp suggestion, I would say you are biting off far more than you can chew.

Well, it couldn't possibly be more well thought out than your brilliant contribution to the thread...

VoidAngel wrote:Well, it couldn't possibly be more well thought out than your brilliant contribution to the thread...

That's an interesting statement coming from the OP that pretty much contributed exactly what to the gaming community or the dakka forums with this thread or his own responses.

I didn't set out to "change the face of gaming." I had an idea on lunch and put it up - openly looking for input and suggestions. I got a metric assload of uncalled for nastiness and douchebaggery from people that can't effing READ. And now you've joined their ranks. Congratulations.

One, maybe two people got what I was about. The rest of you...seem to have toted some kind of baggage into the thread that I knew nothing of. Perhaps the 'welcome' thread should contain some big scary warning about what will happen to foolish novices who cross into the Forbidden Zone of Compositional Suggestions (queue scary music).

Sod off.

pretre wrote:

Requia wrote:Additional rule for playing fluffy: No more imperium on imperium fights.

Umm no. Imperials have a history of fighting amongst themselves. Some little thing called the heresy and all those rogue elements, not to mention times where loyal forces opened fire on each other due to conflicting goals.

Plus your little rule would significantly reduce the pool of opponents you could play. I'm sure that's a good way to promote a hobby.

A) There's a difference between the occasional infighting and imperium vs imperium representing 2/3rds of the fights. And the bulk of the heretics are represented by Chaos forces, not imperial codices.

B) These are not meant to be rules for everyone.

Locked by OP request