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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Taking that argument and turning it around, the force org chart says that the only compulsory units you have to take are an HQ and two troops - everything else is optional i.e. you dont have to take 9 quad mortars - you could do plenty of damage with three. or one.

I really don't see what your point is. Mandatory vs. optional FOC selections has nothing to do with how fluffy your list should be.

You don't understand my point despite quoting it?!?
There is nothing saying anything is mandatory beyond that HQ and two troop choices - just because you can take 9 quad mortars doen't mean you should. try using something else other than those 'best in slot' units for a change.

The problem with 'your way' of 'having fun' is that it's toxic to the way that most (nearly all) 'have fun'; we are in it for the fluff - that means we don't really care about winning or losing, it's what you're re-enacting that counts more than anything (it's why some people get 'funny' about mk8 marine armour)

And your way of playing is toxic to the kind of competitive game that other people want to have. Having different preferences is fine, even when those preferences conflict, but please stop assuming that your way of playing the game is somehow morally superior.

There is nothing toxic about the way everyone (apart from your gaming group) plays - it's quite healthy actually - evidenced by how poular the HH became without B@C reducing the price of tactical mk4 marines.

When looking at a force, you make some fluff for it, right? you said so yourself in your first post - so why does the primarch of a legion go out on patrol with a scouting party and happen to come accross another primarch on patrol with a scouting party?

Because the game is actually a "zoomed in" view of a larger battle, with the two primarchs and their elite bodyguards meeting in the middle with the intent of killing each other. See, that wasn't so hard to come up with!

Fair enough once, maybe twice with different primarchs, but every game?

Oh brilliant, you don't read what i write and then accuse me of not reading what you write - you didn't bother reading the books it's clear, because in book one has absolutely NOTHING on using the missions outside of a campain - i challenge you to find a quote that says so!

Of course there's no explicit quote, because FW assumes that their audience is smart enough to figure out that they can use the army lists and missions as single games, even if they aren't explicitly given permission to do so. That's why the book gives you a general space marine army list for constructing your own forces, not simply a list of "historical" forces that you are to use in each mission. And you'll notice that most of the campaign missions are the same kind of "pick armies, roll on a random table to see deployment zones and mission objectives" games as found in normal 40k.

The underlined bits are the important ones here.
If you were doing one-off games it was your houserule, nothing more.
When book 1 referrs to 'battles in the age of darkness, the only battles in the age of darkness take place as part of a campaign as detailed by that book.

, if you want an implicit statement of "this is for general gaming", just look at page 183:

The following section details rules for playing games of Warhammer 40,000 set against the background of the dark and terrible wars of the Horus Heresy, along with a full army list for the Space Marine Legions as they were during the dying days of the Great Crusade.

That is the subtitle for the coversheet for the section titled 'Battles in the age of darkness & Space marine crusade army list', not a rule.

Note the following:

1) The rules are for playing games of Warhammer 40,000, not games of The Horus Heresy Campaign.

Book 1 betrayal page 143: "The Isstvan 3 campaign shown here is a narrative campaign system designed for use with the 6th edition rules of warhammer 40,000...."

It tells you you are using the rules, not playing a game of warhammer 40,000 as part of a campaign system.

2) The space marine army list is from the end of the Great Crusade, not just the Isstvan III battle, implying pretty clearly that it is meant for general 30k-era games.

What were the space marines doing before the Horus heresy? Oh yeah, there were part of 'the great crusade' and their forces were structured as such therefore calling it a 'great crusade' army list is technically correct, since alternative organisational and combat doctrine were deployed and used as a result of the horus heresy.
This was definitely changed later on though. (see earlier quotes from book 2)

And then we look at page 277, where we find the following:

... and if you are using the Isstvan III campaign ...

IF you are using it. This rather clearly implies that not using the campaign system is a normal and expected thing to do with the army list, otherwise there would be no need to mention a specific situation that comes up when using the campaign.

That is from Calleb Decima's profile on utilising the Ordo Reductor as an allied detachment for your loyalist marines - let me serve you the whole quote...

"Calleb Decima is an HQ choice for an Ordo Reductor allied detachment, and if you are using the Isstvan 3 campaign, this detachment may only be chosen by the Loyalist side"

First off, this was clearly written with the knowledge that an 'Isstvan 5 campaign system' was on its way next.
If we take your method of using the subtitle from the coversheet, the Ordo Reductor one says this...

"The following section contains rules for the forces of the titan legions and the Ordo Reductor of the Mechanicum as involved in the battle of Isstvan 3"

Ignoring your logic; an Ordo Reductor allied detachment couldn't be used as a primary detachment and furthermore - aren't the 40k allies matrix.

In short: everyone but you seems to have figured out that the 30k rules and army lists were meant to be used in general gaming, and that the narrative campaigns were just one way of using those rules, not the only or default way.

Maybe you should actually READ what i wrote earlier rather than skimming to pick a bit you could argue against - book two allowed the one-off games to be played with this little gem...

Book 2 page 162 paragraph 2: battles in the age of darkness is first and foremost intended to reflect the unremitting savagery, monumental scale and dark technologies at work in the titanic conflicts of the horus heresy in exciting tabletop games, but the rules and missions presented here can also be used to fight major battles of the 41st millenium as well, and players should feel free to adjust them, and utilise them in this manner as they see fit.


Quit showing up in a thread which is asking how to avoid powergaming to post about how you think powergaming is good and to be encouraged - it's off topic.


getting back on topic - i think that 'best in slot' mentality can only be mitigated by the person making the decision and the key point they need to consider is...

Book one, page 184 paragraph 4: ...so if you are intending to make use of the more unique and powerful units available, the only caveat is to ensure your opponent is okay with this beforehand (as a generality at least)

I whole heartedly agree with SirDonlad. The WAAC mentality is toxic to the overall community. The argument that players shouldn't whine about OP lists and instead should take the best list available is a poor one as it wrecks the scene for everyone. Instead of seeing 18 different legions with a wide subset of different lists, we end up with every player fielding a handful of netlists that just spam 3 or 4 units. The game becomes boring and the flavour of the HH is lost. The more players that adopt this mindset, the harder it becomes for fluffy players to enjoy games because their lists start getting stomped. The fluffy players give up on the game and the WAAC guys run the roost. 30k is designed for players who are willing to invest even more money and time into creating "historically" accurate lists. In my opinion 40k has never been designed for the ultra competitive and 30k even less so. If you just want to play optimal lists against other optimal lists, you can already do that in 40k. Why do you even want to play 30k at all if not for the fluff? It's virtually the same game only with more room for flavour in game that fits the established background. If you want generic netlists armies then why spend £70 per book for reams of fluff intended to inspire your army? Why spend twice as much on an army if you don't really care if it represents something from the HH? 40k fives you the option to make up a Chapter/Craftworld/Klan/Warband that can be whatever you want. 30k still gives you freedom but it's supposed to be guided by established history and flavour.
Of course there is nothing stopping you having fun however you want, just don't try and convince the rest of us that we're "doing it wrong" because we don't like being crushed by boring spam lists.

Hhaha this is just going back and forth now isn't it.

It comes down to what mentality a person has, seriously, some people get enjoyment just by performing the activity regardless of outcome, for others they get their enjoyment once they achieve the desired outcome (winning).

For example, since I started my Alpha Legion I am yet to win a single game of HH (I have come very close once). I don't get sad though, I use it as an opportunity to assess what worked and what didn't and change it up again! To others though they would have cracked the sads long before now.

I do thinks Fluff in HH plays a bigger roll, but this is also partially enforced with special units and Rites of War, encouraging people to play a legion in a certain way.

 SirDonlad wrote:
You don't understand my point despite quoting it?!?
There is nothing saying anything is mandatory beyond that HQ and two troop choices - just because you can take 9 quad mortars doen't mean you should. try using something else other than those 'best in slot' units for a change.

Yes, and nobody here is arguing that the rules require you to take 9 quad mortars. You made a true statement, but it doesn't have any apparent connection to the discussion here.

There is nothing toxic about the way everyone (apart from your gaming group) plays - it's quite healthy actually - evidenced by how poular the HH became without B@C reducing the price of tactical mk4 marines.

Only because you define "nothing toxic" as "my group enjoys it" and don't seem to care if you're excluding other potential players from your group. Ignoring the potential harmful effects of your behavior does not mean that those effects go away.


As for the rest, I'm not going to dignify this absurd idea that playing 30k outside of a narrative campaign was some kind of house rule with any further responses. It's obvious nonsense, and trying to explain this to you is not accomplishing anything.

I only play for fluff. I still would like to win. Best games are the closest ones in winning/losing. Of course winning is better, but a 6-5 game is much better than a 10-1 arse stomping.

So for IWs I run 1 havac, 1 siege term, 1 sicaran and 1 scorpius in my Hvy slots. Always RoW because that is fluffy.

Im trying to firgure out where in the rules it says this is a fluffy game and you must play fluff

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im trying to firgure out where in the rules it says this is a fluffy game and you must play fluff

Welcome to human culture, where a lot of rules aren't written.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

And? The fact that a lot of players, even enough players for "general consensus" to be an appropriate description, have decided that competitive play is not welcome in their community does not change the fact that this "don't build powerful lists" rule is not found in the rulebook. It's nothing more than personal opinions about how to have fun the right way, combined with a bizarre need to declare that other people are having fun the wrong way..

War gaming is a inherently social activity. I think you'll find that general consensus matters quite a bit.

And yes, if someone is having fun in a way that bums everyone else out, they're utterly within their rights to say it's the wrong kind of fun.

What you're arguing against is the idea that groups create their own rules, independent from rules you've arbitrarily selected as the final arbiter of the game.

So because some people have arbitarily decided it is a fluff based game, everyone must play it.
Im going to tell you something interesting. ALL LISTS ARE INHERANTLY FLUFFY.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
ALL LISTS ARE INHERANTLY FLUFFY.

Salamanders

HQ
1 seige breaker
TROOP
2 10-man tactical squads
ELITE
4 3x quad mortar support squads w/ phosphex + shatter shells
HEAVY SUPPORT + FAST ATTACK
2 fire raptors
3 medusas
LORD OF WAR
Typhon seige tank


not fluffy, not fun to play against, overall not a generally good time. It should be noted that this ISN'T a good example of a 'cheesy' list as it was thrown together in under 2 minutes and without the rule book on hand

So your saying the salamanders would never run those? Maybe they somehow got the short end of the stick and now what to perform a seige because their the only ones there.
Also, that list is illegal, Salamanders cant take posphex.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So your saying the salamanders would never run those? Maybe they somehow got the short end of the stick and now what to perform a seige because their the only ones there.
Also, that list is illegal, Salamanders cant take posphex.

You can't assume that your fellow players are idiots who will believe your nervous 'b-but it's fluffy!' when you bring your minmaxed mortar lists.

Your intent is obvious and it is somewhat insulting that you think it would not be, and at least where I play, the response to your list would accordingly be displeasure.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So because some people have arbitarily decided it is a fluff based game, everyone must play it.
Im going to tell you something interesting. ALL LISTS ARE INHERANTLY FLUFFY.

Only if you define "fluffy" as "plausible, given the fluff."

I think most casual players see fluffy lists as being representative of the background, meaning they strive to be typical, and not corner cases.

That sounds like their problem and their baggage about the game.

The difference for me is how much effort the player puts into the fluff and how often their list changes.

For example, a player who names all of their characters, picks what major battles their army list participated in (or at least was drawn up for if not deployed), and the like is awesome.

Furthermore, a player who says "This is Commander Asterion of the 6th Salamanders Siege Task Force" and keeps playing the same army for all of eternity is a fluff player.

If, next week, it is Commander Pasterion of the 6th Salamanders Dreadnought Talon, and the week after Commander Blasterion of the 6th Salamanders Veteran Company, then it's somewhat less fluffy imo. Especially if each new list looks like a fluff 'corner case.' Not every 6th Salamanders X was a corner case, so having one with a cool backstory is fluffy, having eighteen with barely two pence worth of effort is not.

In most cases, it is fairly easy to discern who cares and not.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
That sounds like their problem and their baggage about the game.

Sounds like you need to go back to the ITC and play 40K wiht the min maxers and that is ok. Some people want to curb stomp people to get off , some people want the hardest possible competition and some people just want to hang out and play for fun . Which entails not dropping pant to measure "sizes" or pocket books or EGOs.

Most 30k plays came to 30k because 'for fun" 40k players are hard to find. All those min max , new rules every other week lists.

This thread seems to be a perfect example of "agree to disagree."

There's no wrong way to play, unless that play impacts on the enjoyment of you or your opponent.

 Griddlelol wrote:
This thread seems to be a perfect example of "agree to disagree."

There's no wrong way to play, unless that play impacts on the enjoyment of you or your opponent.

The problem is, Fluff Players aren't likely to damage the fun of their opponent. There's nothing inherent about fluffiness that will impinge upon your opponent, at least not that I can think of (I certainly could be wrong!).

Competitive (or 'Best In Slot') players can, and oftentimes do, disrupt the fun fluff players like (such as narrative battles) with their casual disregard for the fluff.

I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Griddlelol wrote:I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Desubot wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Why does it suck as a competitive player to table someone on Turn 3? Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Griddlelol wrote:I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Desubot wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Why does it suck as a competitive player to table someone on Turn 3? Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

Why cant you understand the there are many different types of players in the world.
as well you realize the "objective" of the game is to win while the point is the have fun right?

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

It does, but I think it also depends on the context. If it's a tournament, it may not be a satisfying win, but at least it gives you time to get a drink/snack and rest up for the next round.

Everyplace I've ever gamed, pick up games were pretty explicitly "tournament prep" or not. You knew if your opponent was playing something they thought could compete, or if they were just playing a casual game.

When I was a competitive player, I always used the latter as an opportunity to play my JV squad, the units that never saw the table in competitive play.

But yes, there's little enjoyment on either side for a well tuned tournament army to table a fluff bunny list, which is why a quick chat can resolve so much.

Play a substandard list, play down points, or play a weighted scenario where the casual player has the advantage. It can be a lot of fun, trust me!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

Because for a lot of players, winning only matters if they earn it. Some guys are just TFG, looking to push around kids and club baby seals. But a lot of people really see 40k as something worth competing in, to play against the best and become the best. There's no glory in winning a one sided fight.

It's winning games that matters, it's overcoming challenges.

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Griddlelol wrote:I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Desubot wrote:

 Griddlelol wrote:
I disagree, it sucks to play as a competitive player against someone who has a fluffy lift you can just table by turn 3.

Turn 3?

amateur..

But really it does suck when some one brings a very well made list (which can still be fluffy) against some one that brings a sub par or ragtag list (not that its not fluffy ether, ad by sub par i mean a list that isnt really well rounded. like forgeting to bring anti tank and such) its not particularly enjoyable for anyone unless they agreed to do it in a sort of narrative way.

Why does it suck as a competitive player to table someone on Turn 3? Are you saying there's more to the experience than winning? Because if there is, why are you trying to win so hard?

Why cant you understand the there are many different types of players in the world.
as well you realize the "objective" of the game is to win while the point is the have fun right?

I do realize that - in fact, if you read earlier in the thread, I said exactly those words.

So, here's my opinion:

If the objective of the game is to win but the goal is to have fun, then you can play two fluffy lists against each other and have fun while trying, in-game, to win.

If you want to win, then you should be fine with tabling your opponent by turn 3: You won! Hooray!

If you'd rather have fun some other way, then just play a fluffy list and that's much less likely to happen.

Ergo, either you should enjoy tabling your opponent by Turn 3 or your list is too strong and you should nerf it, if you want to have fun.

I would like to play fluffy as possible, but I would also like to have some sort of chance and unfortunately, many of the people at my local gw like to play the strongest units they can.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


If the objective of the game is to win but the goal is to have fun, then you can play two fluffy lists against each other and have fun while trying, in-game, to win.

If you want to win, then you should be fine with tabling your opponent by turn 3: You won! Hooray!

If you'd rather have fun some other way, then just play a fluffy list and that's much less likely to happen.

Ergo, either you should enjoy tabling your opponent by Turn 3 or your list is too strong and you should nerf it, if you want to have fun.

Why cant it be both.

 Desubot wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


If the objective of the game is to win but the goal is to have fun, then you can play two fluffy lists against each other and have fun while trying, in-game, to win.

If you want to win, then you should be fine with tabling your opponent by turn 3: You won! Hooray!

If you'd rather have fun some other way, then just play a fluffy list and that's much less likely to happen.

Ergo, either you should enjoy tabling your opponent by Turn 3 or your list is too strong and you should nerf it, if you want to have fun.

Why cant it be both.

Because, as I illustrated earlier, it is more of an imposition on the fluff player to play a competitive army than the competitive player to play a fluffy army, unless his only priority is winning, in which case he should be perfectly happy with beating the snot out of a fluff player.

And if winning only matters when it is earned, then play a subpar list and earn it!

I think this thread has hit it's limit. It's just going around in circles.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Because, as I illustrated earlier, it is more of an imposition on the fluff player to play a competitive army than the competitive player to play a fluffy army, unless his only priority is winning, in which case he should be perfectly happy with beating the snot out of a fluff player.

It really hasn't been illustrated. A fluff player playing against a competitive player has to make changes to their army or lose an unenjoyable game, while a competitive player playing against a fluff player has to make changes or win an unenjoyable game (assuming they don't enjoy a one-sided massacre of an opponent who can't fight back). Both players have to make changes, which means buying and painting new models, playing with stuff that you don't want to use for the sake of balance, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem is, Fluff Players aren't likely to damage the fun of their opponent. There's nothing inherent about fluffiness that will impinge upon your opponent, at least not that I can think of (I certainly could be wrong!).

Sure they are. If you bring your fluffy* army and I bring my tournament army you're damaging my fun. I'm not going to enjoy wiping you off the table in 1-2 turns while you fail to put up a fight because of how badly you've built your army. It's just a slightly less blatant version of making us go through all the work of setting up a game and immediately conceding defeat and packing up before any dice are rolled.

*Where "fluffy" often means "weak", not "follows the background fiction". I've seen a lot of players claim to have "fluffy" armies that were just random piles of units with no apparent attempt to tell a story or fit the established background fiction. Taking a sniper rifle, a grenade launcher, a melta gun, and a flamer in one squad is not "fluffy", it's just a bad strategy.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure they are. If you bring your fluffy* army and I bring my tournament army you're damaging my fun. I'm not going to enjoy wiping you off the table in 1-2 turns while you fail to put up a fight because of how badly you've built your army.

Is it badly built if it perfectly fills its purpose?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:


*Where "fluffy" often means "weak", not "follows the background fiction". I've seen a lot of players claim to have "fluffy" armies that were just random piles of units with no apparent attempt to tell a story or fit the established background fiction. Taking a sniper rifle, a grenade launcher, a melta gun, and a flamer in one squad is not "fluffy", it's just a bad strategy.

Well yes, that does not sound either fluffy or competetive, so I doubt it is what anyone means.

FWIW, even my typical Word Bearers list, which can look something like

Special character
Consul, usually Chaplain

Gal Vorbak

2x20 Tactical Squads

Contemptor Mortis
Sicaran


Is quite fluffy in my opinion, reasonably good, and will still get utterly destroyed by a quad mortar Typhon list.