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.

Hetelic wrote:Fluff is the reason you play with models, and not bits of paper with "A", "B", "C" written on them

Fluff is the reason you play with models not bits of paper. I personally play with the models because I think they look cool.

Melissia wrote:Gee, I was thinking it was God's opinion, not mine. No gak? It's my opinion?

Wow. I'm shocked. I didn't think I had opinions.

Thanks for telling me I'd never have figured that one out by myself!

Then don't state such opinions like fact.

washout77 wrote:
Oh well, move on, your opinion isn't fact and neither is ours. People play the game for different reasons, so let them. Yeah, the rules make the game. But without the (poorly written) fluff behind those rules, how many people would honestly be attracted to the game in the first place.

Fix'd that for you.

I was also never stating that people don't play the game for fluff. I was saying that the initial attraction of the game to the majority is indeed the game itself. Whether or not they like the rules once they understand them, or whether or not they like the fluff once it's presented to them. I was also stating that the fluff is not the only reason 40k is so popular as other people seem to think that without it there's nothing left. Which frankly is absurd considering every gaming group I've been involved in (yes not a huge sample size) only cares about the game as a tactical simulation.

It's like Xcom, but with minatures. I don't play xcom because of the story line, I play it because I like the tactics. Kotaku's Game of the Year is a tactical simulation with no story line? I thought these kinda things would be nothing without story.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Then don't state such opinions like fact.

I didn't, that was merely an asinine and nonsensical assumption on your part.

Why is everyone so antagonistic here? Hahaha, now I'm slowly remembering why I like the Historical boards more than the 40k boards.

Also, im a bit confused now as to what the point of this argument is now. It's kinda digressed from explaining what fluff was to arguing about how important it is.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Which frankly is absurd considering every gaming group I've been involved in (yes not a huge sample size) only cares about the game as a tactical simulation.

So what you're saying is: Most 40k players have bad taste in wargames?

I'd believe it.

Melissia wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
Then don't state such opinions like fact.

I didn't, that was merely an asinine and nonsensical assumption on your part.

Incorrect. It's not my fault for reading it how you presented it.

Example of presenting something as opinion: "I think that x = y"
Example of presenting something as fact: "X = Y"

See the difference? This is all in typing, you are responsible for the tone of your words, not the reader. Your argument is like saying I should be able to understand you despite spelling errors.

washout77 wrote:Why is everyone so antagonistic here?
Also, im a bit confused now as to what the point of this argument is now. It's kinda digressed from explaining what fluff was to arguing about how important it is.

I don't believe I'm being antagonistic, if I am I apologise, I don't insult people in an irrational way (*ahem* that wasn't antagonistic was it?).

At least what I believe the discussion is: People assume that fluff is what makes 40k viable. I am saying it is not, the game is more important for the viability of you know...war-games. The fluff is as the word - there to pad out the back ground for people to enjoy the game more. It's an augmentation to what is inherently a game.

Yes it's gone off-topic, but what internet discussion doesn't?

Void__Dragon wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
Which frankly is absurd considering every gaming group I've been involved in (yes not a huge sample size) only cares about the game as a tactical simulation.

So what you're saying is: Most 40k players have bad taste in wargames?

I'd believe it.

Probably, I enjoy it, I enjoyed it as a kid, I enjoyed previous editions, and if I hadn't spent so much time and money, I wouldn't be quite so hooked. Also it's the most popular war-game I know about. I'd rather have people to play against than be smug knowing I'm playing an unpopular, but better written game.

 Griddlelol wrote:
[snip]

Everything every person posts, unless backed up by evidence, is an opinion.

Including your post where you said "fluff is unimportant" without indicating that it was your opinion. We both recognize when posts are someone's opinion-- the difference is that I have no need to dismiss your opinion as "merely an opinion".

More on topic: The models are mediocre and the painting a bore, while the game is more luck based than strategic and is heavily unbalanced by not only game standards but also even by industry standards-- leaving the only thing that attracts me the "fluff". Ergo, without it, the hobby is worthless.

 Griddlelol wrote:

[Yeah stuff above it]
I don't believe I'm being antagonistic, if I am I apologise, I don't insult people in an irrational way (*ahem* that wasn't antagonistic was it?).
[Yeah stuff below it]

Eh, it's fine. I wasn't talking about just you, more like the whole board tends to devolve into this, I don't hold gruges or even really get angry at anyone. It's the internet, we're never gonna meet in real life, so why bother Thanks for the info on the topic, now it kinda makes sense. Good point on the off-topic as well hahaha

Wouldn't quite call 40k a wargame though. I used to call it a wargame, but after playing some actual wargames I think of 40k as just a table-top game. Wargame implies some sort of tactical/strategical thinking, which I have sorely lacked in 40k for a while.

 Griddlelol wrote:
That's your opinion. Frankly I couldn't care less about it. If I want well written science fantasy, there's a million better choices than the GW writers.

I play it because I love "playing Warhammer", that's fluff too.
If I wanted a game with well written rules, I would play something else

Even if it's importance relative to crunch is a matter that varies from player to player, I feel good fluff always contributes to a game's success.

Personally, and I don't think I'm alone in this, I tend to overlook mechanical issues much easier in a game with good fluff than in one with no/bad fluff.

I think the main reason people get into 40k is going to be that it has a large fanbase and you can consistently get games. I got into 40k because i thought the models were cool, i found the setting cool, but most importantly, there were lots of people playing it in the store. Some of the little models i see in my lgs are pretty cool, and the fluff descriptions are cool, but no one plays it, so i could care less. However, once i decided to play, i think fluff was the main reason for what army i chose. And i think that it's a safe bet that that is true for most people. Then, when you get to models and units, some people choose them for fluff, some choose by crunch. No problem with either. Only thing is, don't bring an all crunch list to play with all fluff people and then be an ass about winning, and don't bring an all fluff list to play with all crunch people and then be a bitch about losing.

In summary, i think the popularity of the game and it's rules is what brings people in, what army they choose is decided by fluff, and then what units they choose is variable.

 Griddlelol wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:


Whoosh. That was the sound of the point going over your head. Playing is part of the hobby. So is building and painting the models. And fluff. 40k is not limited to one of these.

Again you're missing the obvious point. All those things are for the ultimate point of playing the game.

Actually, both of you missed the point. Per GW's only official mouthpiece (Jervis in the White Dwarf) the Purpose of The Hobby is the models. Everything else is secondary, including the game, rules and even paint. He even went on to say that you could get rid of Paint and Rulebooks and only have the models whereas the inverse is not true. For reference this is in the February 2013 WD that was just released. I bring this up simply because if there ever could be an authority on this subject that would be it.

Now your purpose might be to just play a game, paint something or even just read the books regardless of what Jervis might think. Interestingly, one of the last two paragraphs in his little article brought up that if you are approaching The Hobby the way others want you to and not how you want to then you are doing it wrong; with due exception to playing at a hobby center: you're supposed to follow their rules. Which, as usual, directly contradicts his previous statements. Take from that meandering mass of words what you will.

clively wrote:
Per GW's only official mouthpiece (Jervis in the White Dwarf) the Purpose of The Hobby is the models.

I don't care.

GW's opinion on the matter is as irrelevant as the fact that my cat just farted.

 Melissia wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
[snip]

Everything every person posts, unless backed up by evidence, is an opinion.

So if I say my hair is black, but don't give any evidence, its just an opinion? Not a fact?

Interesting call...

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Fluff is unimportant filler GW puts in our rulebooks to make them bigger and more expensive.

Ignore it; 40k is about winning.

 Griddlelol wrote:
Seriously though, it's a game with stories to back up the arbitrary units in the game. When I was 12 I loved the stories about guardsmen and the idea of being an under-dog. Now, not so much.

You know what sells better than the novels and books? The models to use within the game.

OP, be warned:

Ignoring the fluff will expose the 40K mechanics for the outdated, poorly balanced, poorly worded, confusing, clunky and complicated mess they are. This is a situation to be avoided at all costs.

 Kaldor wrote:
OP, be warned:

Ignoring the fluff will expose the 40K mechanics for the outdated, poorly balanced, poorly worded, confusing, clunky and complicated mess they are. This is a situation to be avoided at all costs.

 Melissia wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Fluff is unimportant filler GW puts in our rulebooks to make them bigger and more expensive.

Ignore it; 40k is about winning.

Without the fluff, 40k is nothing.

Without the game, 40k fluff is just a pulp fantasy ripoff story and the Hobby is collecting multiples of the same overpriced plastic figure.

As for as I'm concerned, pictures and models would suffice, they speak of the mood and the universe to me. A few general facts about the faction help but that's it, 100 pages book about a model or artwork I dislike is not going to make me like it, not to mention most 40k books are bad anyway.

It's that stuff inside your pillow that makes it comfy.

OK, i've got it now. thx a lot guys. blocking off now.

If 40k wasn't so "streamlined" and dice rolls meant more, fluff would be far, far more important.

From what I've read of 2nd ed rules (I think 2nd ed, WD167?), overwatch was something you opted for in your shooting phase, not something that occurred in your assault phase. You were actually searching for targets rather than pissing yourself that the're finally charging you and your dumbass commander didn't have the sensibility to deal with.

To hit damage a vehicle, you first had to hit a part of the vehicle, then you might trigger an explosion that ripped threw a vehicle and killed physically represented crew. This, as opposed to a system by which damage is limited to three points and the possibility that you might break a gun.

 Peregrine wrote:
Fluff is that thing that you ignore when building your WAAC list and brutally crushing the fun out of your opponent. Its main purpose is to describe how heroic and awesome their units are so that when your optimized spam netlist crushes it effortlessly the loss will be even more heartbreaking. Fortunately it's an entirely optional part of the game, so feel free to never think about it again.

QFT... couldn't have said it better myself. Like the word, its soft. Just like the people that bring it to the game table.

Fluff is a reason for us people in the hobby to rage righteously about something, rather than just throwing gak at eachother over who won or lost and why said win or loss was a result of a certain game mechanic. But I think you kind figured that out from the entire thread so far...

 Wyrmalla wrote:
Crunch is roleplaying gamer slang for the actual game mechanics of a system or setting; it is the opposite of Fluff, which describes things in an in-universe sense. For example, a special ability or feat's fluff might say that "You grew up in a school for mages, and have thus learned some of the rudiments of magic"; the associated crunch could be a +2 bonus to Spellcraft and Use Magical Device checks.

It is funny, but I have been a gamer of RPGs, minis and many other formats for the last 36 years and never once have I ever heard the term "crunch" within this context...interesting.

To the OP, fluff is the story behind the rules and the game. It gives us context, but in GW's case also gives us confusion because quite often the fluff says things about a unit or army that the rules do not. Ultimately, though, it is the rules that matter and the fluff is just the window dressing.

Skriker

 Goat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Fluff is that thing that you ignore when building your WAAC list and brutally crushing the fun out of your opponent. Its main purpose is to describe how heroic and awesome their units are so that when your optimized spam netlist crushes it effortlessly the loss will be even more heartbreaking. Fortunately it's an entirely optional part of the game, so feel free to never think about it again.

QFT... couldn't have said it better myself. Like the word, its soft. Just like the people that bring it to the game table.

Fluff is also the reason why, when my fluffy army wipes the floor with your pathetic netlist, I get to rub it in your face all the harder

The game is unbalanced, but it's still very, very possible to build lore-accurate army lists and win, even win frequently, against netlists.

 Melissia wrote:

 Goat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Fluff is that thing that you ignore when building your WAAC list and brutally crushing the fun out of your opponent. Its main purpose is to describe how heroic and awesome their units are so that when your optimized spam netlist crushes it effortlessly the loss will be even more heartbreaking. Fortunately it's an entirely optional part of the game, so feel free to never think about it again.

QFT... couldn't have said it better myself. Like the word, its soft. Just like the people that bring it to the game table.

Fluff is also the reason why, when my fluffy army wipes the floor with your pathetic netlist, I get to rub it in your face all the harder

The game is unbalanced, but it's still very, very possible to build lore-accurate army lists and win, even win frequently, against netlists.

No.

Unless the player backing the netlist is awful, or you are remarkably lucky, a fluff-list will not beat a TAC competitive "netlist".

 CaptainGrey wrote:
No.

Well, aside from when it happens, which is all the time.

Hell, many TAC lists ARE fluffy. Don't try to confuse take-all-comers lists with some half-assed netlist written by a so-called "Veteran" who is puling most of his tactics out of his ass anyway. Getting so absorbed in the metagame that you don't see anything else just makes you a weak player.

Melissia wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
No.

Well, aside from when it happens, which is all the time.

Hell, many TAC lists ARE fluffy. Don't try to confuse take-all-comers lists with some half-assed netlist written by a so-called "Veteran" who is puling most of his tactics out of his ass anyway. Getting so absorbed in the metagame that you don't see anything else just makes you a weak player.

CaptainGrey wrote:
Unless the player backing the netlist is awful, or you are remarkably lucky, a fluff-list will not beat a TAC competitive "netlist".

Awful, "half-assed" netlists aren't relevant netlists. Fluff lists will beat awful netlists fine because awful v. awful is a fair matchup.

Good netlists, which are truly TAC and competitive will smoke fluff-lists.

No one else here is referring to the "half-assed, made up netlists" that you seem to be defeating so handily.

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Awful, "half-assed" netlists are

All netlists, really.

If you aren't building/altering your own lists to suit your playstyle, attitude, and taste, you'll end up making bad tactical decisions for the list that you're using.

 Melissia wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:
Awful, "half-assed" netlists are

All netlists, really.

If you aren't building/altering your own lists to suit your playstyle, attitude, and taste, you'll end up making bad tactical decisions for the list that you're using.

Check out the generalizations we've got here, ladies and gentlemen. That's not true whatsoever.

I'd love to see your explanation of all the non-fluffy lists that win tournaments. Must be sheer dumb luck.

 Goat wrote:
QFT... couldn't have said it better myself. Like the word, its soft. Just like the people that bring it to the game table.

Actually, official surveys show that players who take into account fluff are on average 50% stronger, more endurant (Physically and mentally), and more attractive than weedy and nerdy WAAC players.

I of course am an exception. I am roughly 500% greater in all categories than even the average fluffy player, much less a WAAC player.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Goat wrote:
QFT... couldn't have said it better myself. Like the word, its soft. Just like the people that bring it to the game table.

Actually, official surveys show that players who take into account fluff are on average 50% stronger, more endurant (Physically and mentally), and more attractive than weedy and nerdy WAAC players.

"People who read sci-fi and make up stories for their toys are cooler than people who just use them to compete"

My Sides