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.

On my blog yesterday, I wrote a baby essay about how much the fluff of a game influences my enjoyment. For a follow-up post I plan on making, I'm interested in the opinions of the rest of my fellow gamers.

-So how much does lore influence what you play? Is an army's background the be-all, end-all of your decision? Does gameplay influence what you choose?

-For you hardcore guy who play simply for the competition, I'm really curious to know if you pay attention to your army's fluff. Even if you chose an army based on its win percentage, do you read anything about your army's story, or are they just pieces of plastic/metal that represent a set of rules?

Thanks in advance for your input. My last question for a future blog post got a fantastic response on these forums, so I'm excited to see what you guys come up with again. Make sure you subscribe to my Facebook page if you want to stay up-to-date with similar posts. Plus I have a giveaway coming up, so you don't want to miss out on that action!

Not really. I like theming my armies based on the fluff visually, but it doesn't affect what units I bring. I simply bring units I think look cool.

I have 2000 points of Alpha legion that I picked up after reading Legion.

I find reading a good book will get me excited about that army or whatever and will in turn make me want to model and paint them.

I play 40k/fantasy almost completely for fluff (well, that and the models). The game itself, while fun, is not particularly tactical when compared to historicals. Those are the games I play for tactics. Playing GW games is like watching Die Hard for me, I just want to see people get mashed up. It rules.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I have 2000 points of Alpha legion that I picked up after reading Legion.

I find reading a good book will get me excited about that army or whatever and will in turn make me want to model and paint them.

Yeah, dude. Dan Abnet got me into IG, Ol' Bill King into dwarfs.

100%.

Without the lore, it's just a bunch of mediocre, overpriced models with a game that really needs some improvement, with most of the factions allowed to go outdated while a few of the authors' favorite factions are updated regularly.

A significant amount, but it's generally not enough to be a tipping point; I love (most of) GW's fluff, but I no longer play their games. I really like Warmahordes and Malifaux fluff, though admittedly not as much as GW's. It's mostly the gameplay and models and purely subjective value for money I perceive in these games (and lack of value for money in GW games).

There are a few other games I'm interested in, but don't have the time or money to play right now (go go college round 2!); Wargods of Aegyptus in which fluff, models, and rules are a factor, Dystopian Wars (Mostly models and the general concept as I don't know a whole lot about the fluff and haven't played many games), and Warpath, whose models and rules I like and fluff I know absolutely nothing about.

I'll freely admit I'm sometimes tempted to pick up 40K and WHFB again, but then I remember how much I dislike GW and/or I add up how much it'd cost me for a 2000 point army in 40K or Fantasy (and how gakky I find 8th WHFB to be) and that ends it for the time being.

To clarify, I don't just mean individual models you play.

For example, I chose my first 40k armies based entirely on fluff, with no regard to how they play. Orks was my first choice because I love how they're the only thing in the universe that can make me smile. I love their randomness; their belief that "red goes faster" and so it does; killa kans; warmongering; etc. However I found that was a mistake (and good content for a future blog post), because fluff wasn't enough when it comes to playing a 3 hour game with an army whose mechanics you hate.

But to me, I still have to like the story of the army I play. In Warmachine, for example, I want to play Circle of Orboros and Retrebution of Scryah for their models or gameplay mechanics. But I just can't get behind their story, and it irritatingly holds me back.

But I only play with a group of friends in my buddy's basement, so maybe I just have the luxury of being picky and not needing to worry about the power level of my army.

Ah. As for factions within a game, I'm not so sure it's fluff as general aesthetics and themes that seem to draw me to armies (though fluff can help); I like the look of the Prussian units in Dystopian Wars and I liked the high-tech, gun-heavy, lightning-everywhere aesthetic of Cygnar, all though the main reason I picked Cygnar as my first faction is the other three people I started with picked their factions (Menoth, Khador, and Cryx) before I did so I figured "what the hell" and grabbed the Cygnar battlebox. Turns out I like pretty much everything about them.

 RayofPaintStudios wrote:
To clarify, I don't just mean individual models you play.

For example, I chose my first 40k armies based entirely on fluff, with no regard to how they play. Orks was my first choice because I love how they're the only thing in the universe that can make me smile. I love their randomness; their belief that "red goes faster" and so it does; killa kans; warmongering; etc. However I found that was a mistake (and good content for a future blog post), because fluff wasn't enough when it comes to playing a 3 hour game with an army whose mechanics you hate.

But to me, I still have to like the story of the army I play. In Warmachine, for example, I want to play Circle of Orboros and Retrebution of Scryah for their models or gameplay mechanics. But I just can't get behind their story, and it irritatingly holds me back.

But I only play with a group of friends in my buddy's basement, so maybe I just have the luxury of being picky and not needing to worry about the power level of my army.

Oh absolutely. Fluff determines aesthetics, and I base pretty much everything I buy and paint on aesthetics. I picked Tyranids because their general fluff and models are fantastic. I play Salamanders as a Space Marine chapter because of their fluff. I play Vampire Counts because I've always liked the whole medieval Undead thing, and I love the repurposing of Vlad into Warhammer (even though I don't play von Carsteins). I play Haqqislam because their models and fluff are great, but mostly the models.

Mechanics of an army I can deal with. But I'll never get motivated to paint stuff I don't like aesthetically.

Depends on the game.

40k? Not at all. I have Slaaneshi Daemon Princes and Khorne Berzerkers fighting with Necrons.

For LOTR, yes, very much so. I'm never going to field my Arnor army with Wild Men or similar.

Historicals I will also play with an army that's actually historical - no Gauls fighting with Saxons or anything like that!

For WFB I do to some degree. My army is winter themed so I will not field Dryads.

 Melissia wrote:
100%.

Without the lore, it's just a bunch of mediocre, overpriced models with a game that really needs some improvement, with most of the factions allowed to go outdated while a few of the authors' favorite factions are updated regularly.

It made me lol, but QFT.

I'm Eldar and Dark Angel guy.
The Eldar hook from back in the day:"What? They're railguns that fire throwing stars?! I'm in!" The stay....the fluff.
The DA hook from back in the day:"Seven foot white guys in hooded robes? This is so bad (racist). Let's make em brothers. Brother marines." The stay....the fluff.

I'm not really opposed to GW taking the fluff in an unexpected directions even though I'm as down with the fluff as I am. Example...I like the DE fluff and the Necron fluff too. Necron fluff was way divergent from it's original, but with it's new fluff I'm a lot less likely to think of them as T1000 knock offs. They're metal mummies, and I usually leave it as that.

The only reason i got into the hobby is setting. Im a completely roe hound in video games and it translated to tabletop, to the extent that the only think keeping me from actually getting into wargaming is i dont like the other settings, and GW is expensive.
I investigated Warhammer when i saw a Dwarf slayer. in Warhammer online. Wanting more i got Gotrek & Felix and got into the Dawn of War games, then the hobby. The setting dragged me in hard, to the extent that while i am too chicken to spend what little money i manage to earn on models, i will buy the all of the books.

 Melissia wrote:
100%.

Without the lore, it's just a bunch of mediocre, overpriced models with a game that really needs some improvement, with most of the factions allowed to go outdated while a few of the authors' favorite factions are updated regularly.

Agree with this 100%. At least where GW is concerned.

I choose a faction/army/game based on the style of play I enjoy playing.

I tend to like to get up close and personal, so factions that cater to that are more my speed. I typically do not like games that focus a lot on sniping, shot selection, and dedicatd wound allocation. Just not how I want to think when playing for fun.

The second most important thing for me is the background. I really only stay in touch an dplay 40K because of the fluff now.

Not a lot.
The look of the models influences what I play more than the fluff.
Then I look at what kind of army I can make from the figures I like the looks of.

Yes, I call it fluff. "Lore" gives it more gravitas than it deserves to have. Lore is the recorded myths and legends of fallen civilisations. Fluff is the non-rules background to games and has about as much substance as the stuff I recover from my navel (except my navel fluff has more consistency and is better constructed).

I chose orks based entrirely on fluff. I liked the idea that orks don't care who they kill or how they do it, just as long as something ends up dead.

I chose to ally my orks with Chaos followers of Tzeenech because I loved the history of 1k sons.

Now if I make a 3rd army it will be Imperial Guard. Why? Only because they have balls so large that their balls have balls. Who else goes into battle wearing only t-shirts while armed with flashlights. The amount of testiculuar fortitude they show is mind boggling.

Originally I did, but Matt Ward appeared and I avoid his armies like the plague
Generally I convert everything to match a novel I wrote, because then it's the most personal

I'd like to say I build a very "fluffy" army list in that I try and stick to a central theme, or Chaos God in my case.
Only Nurgle, only Khorne, etc. But the reality of the matter is that no matter how much I WANT it to be very influenced by "fluff", it never is. There are some options that are just BETTER when taken in a non-"fluff" approach.
To be fair, I never play Slaanesh. Ever. Their lore isn't my thing.

 Melissia wrote:
100%.

Without the lore, it's just a bunch of mediocre, overpriced models with a game that really needs some improvement, with most of the factions allowed to go outdated while a few of the authors' favorite factions are updated regularly.

Quoted for truth. I play Sisters because I like their background and role in the Universe. I play Guard because I emphasize with the idea of the common soldier having the brass ones (be they gonads or ovaries) to go up against demons, super soldiers and aliens that in most situations they call in super soldiers to have. I play Ariadna in Infinity because I like the idea of a culture based on the cream of the crop for the US, UK, French and Russian militaries who have been forced to survive alone cut off from humanity for a century or two and still manage to curb stomp the guys with the giant mecha and power armor

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
100%.

Without the lore, it's just a bunch of mediocre, overpriced models with a game that really needs some improvement, with most of the factions allowed to go outdated while a few of the authors' favorite factions are updated regularly.

Quoted for truth. I play Sisters because I like their background and role in the Universe. I play Guard because I emphasize with the idea of the common soldier having the brass ones (be they gonads or ovaries) to go up against demons, super soldiers and aliens that in most situations they call in super soldiers to have. I play Ariadna in Infinity because I like the idea of a culture based on the cream of the crop for the US, UK, French and Russian militaries who have been forced to survive alone cut off from humanity for a century or two and still manage to curb stomp the guys with the giant mecha and power armor

Aye, me three.

The fluff means everything to me.. I really immerse myself more in that side of it than everything else really.

I play maybe twice a month, I paint maybe 3-4 hours a week... but I am always reading books, fluff, chapter gak on the internet.

The story makes the game in my eyes, Ive always been an exhaustive reader, and its that whole side of things that drew me into the gaming in the first place, not the other way around.

 jonolikespie wrote:
I have 2000 points of Alpha legion that I picked up after reading Legion.

I find reading a good book will get me excited about that army or whatever and will in turn make me want to model and paint them.

Lol. Same here!

I was playing DE, then read Deliverence Lost. Since then I've sold the Eldar and have almost 5k points of Raven Guard.

God knows what might have happened if DL had actually been a good book!

 azreal13 wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
I have 2000 points of Alpha legion that I picked up after reading Legion.

I find reading a good book will get me excited about that army or whatever and will in turn make me want to model and paint them.

Lol. Same here!

I was playing DE, then read Deliverence Lost. Since then I've sold the Eldar and have almost 5k points of Raven Guard.

God knows what might have happened if DL had actually been a good book!

I loved DL.. Corax is probably my favourite after Gulliman.

Have you listened to the audio book Ravens Flight?

Go download it.. Corax kicks some serious ass in that one, you cant help but smile when he is ripping people apart and tab flicking rocks through traitors jugulars.

I jest, I actually really enjoyed it too, just seem to be in the minority with others on the board.

Haven't listened to Ravens Flight, but it is printed in Shadows Of Treachery so I have read it and I agree tis awesome.

I'm a bit of a fluff nutter, so I would say the fluff for any given faction in a game is why I play that faction.

When it comes to GW, I play Tau because i like the idea of a young race, untouched by the warp, and because they feel like a sci-fi race with their drones, walkers and skimmers, and not a fantasy archetype with tech bolted on the top.

I play Salamanders because i like the idea of these particular space zealots being all about fires, forging and being nice to the local human population (I think it was the scant fluff in Codex: Armageddon that got me started there), and now Nick Kyme has really hooked me in with the Tome of Fire series

If I played Warmahordes, i would play the Menoth faction because I like the religious fanaticism that drives it, and the idea that they feel marginalized because their God is no longer recognized by the mainstream. Also, i like to burn stuff.

When I played WFB, I played Bretonnia, because i absolutely fething love Arthurian mythology with the knights, the grail quests and so forth, and they were the tabletop embodiment of that.

I played Skaven because the fluff of the Council of thirteen and especially, the battle on the bell appealed to me.

I played (and will play again) Tomb Kins because I liked the Nagash story back in WFB4 and back then Undead wasn't split into Vampire Counts & Tomb kings. When they did split, I found the changes with bloodlines and the von Carsteins uninteresting so i went Khemrian.

The only two games I can think of where my choice of faction wasn't influenced by the fluff as much were Necromunda, where I picked Orlocks because they came in the box and my buddy wanted to play Goliaths so we traded off and Blood Bowl, where i wanted to play a fast fragile, pass-heavy team as everybody else in my league was playing grind it up the middle running teams. I opted for High Elves for my Yvresse Towers because they had the better looking models at the time (mid 90s)

For me it's fluff + looks.

I play Dwarves in fantasy entirely for the fluff. I'm not that enamoured of GW's fat viking dwarf look, but I absolutely love the fluff so I'm in.

I collect Chaos for the looks and the fluff, but also because the book allowed me to make an all cavalry raiding army and the models available were nice.

I collect Orcs and Goblins not for their Fantasy fluff, which I find okay but not great, but for the general background of orcs in fantasy, especially LOTR. I like the looks of most of the models, especially the Brian Nelson sculpts.

I collect Undead more for the feel than any particular storyline bit. I mean, the storyline of Undead is cool, but I am more interested in using them in a variety of games, rather than just the GW arena.

Orks in 40K are entirely a fluff choice for me, again I love Brian Nelson's models but I had a small collection of Gorkamorka, Blood Axe and Deathskull minis from late second edition.

Crimson Fists are just there because I had some space marines and I wanted to paint them in a cool scheme. I don't like the background of the Crimson Fists particularly, if I was picking a loyalist chapter based on fluff I'd go for someone more interesting.

Word Bearers are because of Aaron Demski-Bowden's interpretation of them, completely. It doesn't hurt that I get to paint Daemon models and that crimson and silver are a great colour scheme though.

Trollbloods are a model choice rather than fluff, as are legion. Circle have my favourite fluff in Warmachine.

My Evil LOTR force is based on the excellent designs from WETA, which are miles ahead of anything GW have produced for the range themselves, and I've always been fascinated by Tolkien's orcs ever since I was a kid, so it was inevitable that I'd end up with some in miniature form.

There you go. More information than you ever wanted about my various armies.

For me, lore is pretty much 100% of the draw. I like how some of the models look, but I've never started playing a faction because of models or rules.

I don't worry about the fluff much, I prefer the gameplay overall, the fluff just gives a narrative to why these two armies fight but it doesn't influence the actual play of the game for me.

I have to say 'lore' feels like far too weighty a term to use to describe the 'background story of the particular miniatures games that we play,' I feel 'fluff' works far better. Yet, I can't coherently explain why that should be so.

I don't worry about the fluff much, I prefer the gameplay overall, the fluff just gives a narrative to why these two armies fight but it doesn't influence the actual play of the game for me.

 Ouze wrote:
For me, lore is pretty much 100% of the draw. I like how some of the models look, but I've never started playing a faction because of models or rules.

Same here. My Chaos Space Marines that I have just begun were inspired by the Horus Heresy novels which I enjoy.