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.

Before 8th dropped, and everyone was complaining about ridiculous formations and OP army builds, I remember hearing about players getting rewarded for having "fluffy" armies.

Even the 2 GW stores I visited were talking about if you build your army more in line with your factions background those will be advantages. Such as Iron Hands going more mechanical, Salamanders using more flame type units, Death Guard going more infantry (as opposed to 20+ bikers) etc. etc.

Was this a speculation? Was this the plan? Or is this the plan moving forward?

It makes great sense in my opinion, but I am not seeing or hearing anything about it, yet. In fact, I am seeing the opposite...especially as I am building my DG army with some very fluffy units not able to be taken as "DG" units. Its odd.

Also the fact Iron Hands are nowhere to be found aside from a paint job. Again, very odd.

I am disappointed that more of this was not fleshed out before 8th dropped. Its a big deal and I assume they had a decent amount of time to work on it. I am hoping the fleshing out of "factions" is not done a slow, trickle pace, like the codex/supplements of 7th. That was one reason of the unbalance I believe. It would have been nice to get some decent FLAVOR for your specific army from the get go, even if it was not huge.

Having reasons and incentives for buying, building, painting, and playing a specific faction is what I am hoping for. Is it coming?

They said Stratagems would do that but so far we don't have any faction specific ones yet.

GW will be releasing more fleshed out Army Codexes at a time TBD, and I have read that they are looking to get them out sooner than they have in the past (within one year was the earlier speculation). It would have been nice to have more unique bonuses sprinkled through the books though at release.

Just about any army you put together is fluffy if you have fluff for it.

Some things:

1) Fluff is written for "rule of cool" not "this will transfer well into a game". We end up with a lot of abstractions and muted/over-enhanced options as a result of this.

2) Even with their recent improvements, GW is still a money-whoring female dog that can't write for gak.

3) Most 40k fluff is terribly written anyways, and some may say it's fluffy to have a multilaser Land Raider, and that some is C.S.Goto.

4) These are indexes to get us up and running, there will be codexes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blacksails wrote:
Just about any army you put together is fluffy if you have fluff for it.

I, for example, have a Craftworld that got hit so bad by the Cicatrix Maledictum that it "broke" the Avatar of Khaine. Now everyone's going murderous and has to relieve tensions by being part-time soldiers. And so I end up with Guardianspam.

 Blacksails wrote:
Just about any army you put together is fluffy if you have fluff for it.

Sure. But I am talking about translating that to the table. Like making a DG player want to run Terminators over Nurgle Bikers. In 7th it was a no brainer to take bikes....even though it was more fluffy to take Terminators.

I am just hoping there are cool reasons to take fluff moving forward.

Being "rewarded" for a fluffy army is a very vague concept and frankly the army lists in the Index books are quite sparse with just units and only a smattering of special rules.

There are some early indications that infantry and hordes in particular have done well from the removal of templates so Nids, Orks and IG all do well with large numbers of basic grunts backed up by a few characters and some heavy support.

Eldar have seen jetbikes moved to the Fast category (where they should always have been in all fairness) meaning that Guardians and Avengers will now form the core of Battalion/Brigade armies.

Blood Angels look to have their best units in the Elite category and rely on the aura buffs of their various HQ characters to really boost their punch in CC.

Space Wolves Grey Hunters are now a solid choice. At just 1 point more than tactical Marines, they trade the ability to take heavy weapons for double the close combat punch and a bunch of melee and special weapon options.

Basic transports have gone up across the board making mechanized infantry an effective build for several races (especially Eldar and Tau with their flying transports).

I think that Command Points are the reward for taking "fluffy" armies with plenty of Troops but other Detachments are available allowing people to run their DualWings, Wraith Hosts, Kan Mobz etc if they wish.

I think that people expecting faction-specific bonuses may have been expecting too much off the bat. Possibly these things will come in time but I suspect that too much and too many may result in them reproducing the problems they had with Formation bonuses being too good.

I like the new shared detachments as I feel I can build pretty much any style of force I want for my existing armies without undue restrictions. The only question is how many CPs I feel I need.

Vaxx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Just about any army you put together is fluffy if you have fluff for it.

Sure. But I am talking about translating that to the table. Like making a DG player want to run Terminators over Nurgle Bikers. In 7th it was a no brainer to take bikes....even though it was more fluffy to take Terminators.

I am just hoping there are cool reasons to take fluff moving forward.

Special rules and synergistic effects probably. Gotta wait until codex time.

 Selym wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Just about any army you put together is fluffy if you have fluff for it.

I, for example, have a Craftworld that got hit so bad by the Cicatrix Maledictum that it "broke" the Avatar of Khaine. Now everyone's going murderous and has to relieve tensions by being part-time soldiers. And so I end up with Guardianspam.

And my Tau are a spaceborne asteroid mining\manufactory. 2 Stormsurges for positional defense and a slew of crisis suits to agile-ly engage any enemies that get into an engagement distance, with the only real infantry being pathfinders for their markerlights, and counts as kroot in the form of ork shoota boys (that can survive in vacuum).

Vaxx wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
Just about any army you put together is fluffy if you have fluff for it.

Sure. But I am talking about translating that to the table. Like making a DG player want to run Terminators over Nurgle Bikers. In 7th it was a no brainer to take bikes....even though it was more fluffy to take Terminators.

I am just hoping there are cool reasons to take fluff moving forward.

Mmm, so there are degrees of fluff now, eh? I must have missed the memo where nurgle terminators were more fluffy than nurgle bikers. Shame that my theoretical White Scars descendant chapter turned to Nurgle isn't as fluffy as I thought it was.

Fluff is fluff is fluff. When you start arguing over what's more fluffy, then you've kind of missed the point what it means to be fluffy.

This won't be fully realized until actual codices are released for various armies/factions. They've stated on several occasions that this is where army specific strategems etc. will come into play (and likewise you'll probably see different unit entries for various Space Marine chapters etc.).

As it stands now you can build an exceptionally fluffy army - moreso than in the past. However that's up to you and you're not getting special rules to make them "feel" particularly different.

I believe the idea here, at this stage, is that keyword based rules prevent un-fluffy combinations seen in the past.

Ones that come to mind are Dark Angel's characters leading Imperial Guard Blob Squads, or the "Superfriends" and "Bark-Star" type combinations where units from multiple chapters would be cherry picked and put together to stack benefits and bonuses in a way that was not consistent with the fluff.

Now, I can take Guard, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves all in one army. But, I get no bonuses for it - the various character buffs are keyed to the keywords for the respective chapters and regiments. I can pick a Chimera as a dedicated transport for a tactical squad... they just can't get into it, and their tech marines can't repair it. In this way, themed armies are encouraged, while a good amount of creative freedom remains.

Oggthrok wrote:
I believe the idea here, at this stage, is that keyword based rules prevent un-fluffy combinations seen in the past.

Ones that come to mind are Dark Angel's characters leading Imperial Guard Blob Squads, or the "Superfriends" and "Bark-Star" type combinations where units from multiple chapters would be cherry picked and put together to stack benefits and bonuses in a way that was not consistent with the fluff.

Now, I can take Guard, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves all in one army. But, I get no bonuses for it - the various character buffs are keyed to the keywords for the respective chapters and regiments. I can pick a Chimera as a dedicated transport for a tactical squad... they just can't get into it, and their tech marines can't repair it. In this way, themed armies are encouraged, while a good amount of creative freedom remains.

Which one could argue is also anti-fluffy. You would think something as ubiquitous as a *Rhino* would be easy to work with, faction alignments be damned. It gets even more hilarious if, for whatever reason you're running a Founding Chapter teamed up with one of their Successors, or vice-versa. Could you imagine the fate of the Celestial Lions as a result?

"We've lost our entire Apothecarion to 'Ork Snipers'. Can you assist us?"

"Sorry, but I am only authorized to handle Geneseed for Marines that have <Chapter> Black Templar. Rules are rules."

"But we're both successors of Dorn, and we stand on the brink of annihilation."

"I only enforce the rules, for fluff's sake. That ADB git is clearly a WAAC bastard."

Or use your Celestial Lions painted marines with the Black Templar keyword because Balance=/=Universe Representation

In the universe a Warboss in a Bike can destroy a Warlord Titan in one single charge. Should that be possible in the game?
Maybe in 7th edition

 Galas wrote:
a Warboss on a Bike can destroy a Warlord Titan in one single charge. Should that be possible in the game?
Maybe in 7th edition

Maybe if they reintroduce wargear that allows you to make an additional attack if you roll a 6 somewhere? "I made a 6+ save, I'll take another attack. . ." "Wot?"

 Galas wrote:

Spoiler:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

Oggthrok wrote:
I believe the idea here, at this stage, is that keyword based rules prevent un-fluffy combinations seen in the past.

Ones that come to mind are Dark Angel's characters leading Imperial Guard Blob Squads, or the "Superfriends" and "Bark-Star" type combinations where units from multiple chapters would be cherry picked and put together to stack benefits and bonuses in a way that was not consistent with the fluff.

Now, I can take Guard, Dark Angels, and Space Wolves all in one army. But, I get no bonuses for it - the various character buffs are keyed to the keywords for the respective chapters and regiments. I can pick a Chimera as a dedicated transport for a tactical squad... they just can't get into it, and their tech marines can't repair it. In this way, themed armies are encouraged, while a good amount of creative freedom remains.

Which one could argue is also anti-fluffy. You would think something as ubiquitous as a *Rhino* would be easy to work with, faction alignments be damned. It gets even more hilarious if, for whatever reason you're running a Founding Chapter teamed up with one of their Successors, or vice-versa. Could you imagine the fate of the Celestial Lions as a result?

"We've lost our entire Apothecarion to 'Ork Snipers'. Can you assist us?"

"Sorry, but I am only authorized to handle Geneseed for Marines that have <Chapter> Black Templar. Rules are rules."

"But we're both successors of Dorn, and we stand on the brink of annihilation."

"I only enforce the rules, for fluff's sake. That ADB git is clearly a WAAC bastard."

Or use your Celestial Lions painted marines with the Black Templar keyword because Balance=/=Universe Representation

In the universe a Warboss in a Bike can destroy a Warlord Titan in one single charge. Should that be possible in the game?
Maybe in 7th edition

It's more a statement that a blanket keyword system by itself is an overcorrection to said combos like Barkstar, since it nukes options that "should" make sense. A Techpriest Dominus should be able to repair Rhinos, especially if those Rhinos belonged to the Steel Confessors! If you really wanted to nerf the Barkstar, just make DA Allies of Convenience with the rest of the Imperium. It's both fluffy (they are very secretive/debatably closet heretics), and balancing (DA are expensive with lots of unique buffs that get disproportionately good when applied on large units of cheap models). Other than some Daemonkin Cabalstars (which weren't remotely as good), I can't think of any notable deathstar that didn't use DA for buff-stacking.

The "keyword" fix is an overreaction the same way that the "can only place half your units in reserve" is a band-aid fix vs "alphastrike" armies that doesn't even properly mitigate their threat, since half units != half points, yet makes Pod armies/Elysians/other fluff armies that were middling at best outright illegal. Powergamers will find a workaround, and fluff armies are SOL.

That being said, Warhounds don't belong in standard 40k anyway. Maybe for a "scenario" game or so, where there were actually rules for being able to launch your Bike up a ramp and land it on top before you turn 40k into Shadow of the Colossus, but still...

The problem with those extreme fluffy armies is that a balanced game can't have extreme cases.

EVERYTHING can be justified by the fluff. In a narrative/casual enviroment, ok, play what you want. But I see no problem with the competitive and "balanced" mode of the game not allowing some "fluffy but extreme" armies like Elyssian drop pods or a full Terminator army teleporting to the table.

Is not about Deathstars, is about how everything can be fluffy, but not everything should be allowed in the competitive game.

 Galas wrote:
The problem with those extreme fluffy armies is that a balanced game can't have extreme cases.

EVERYTHING can be justified by the fluff. In a narrative/casual enviroment, ok, play what you want. But I see no problem with the competitive and "balanced" mode of the game not allowing some "fluffy but extreme" armies like Elyssian drop pods or a full Terminator army teleporting to the table.

Is not about Deathstars, is about how everything can be fluffy, but not everything should be allowed in the competitive game.

You don't ban options. You rebalance your core rules to allow for more counter-options. You fix rule idiosyncracies ("Flyrant shoots out the rear" ) rather than doubling-down on them ("Vindicator shoots out the rear" ). You redesign armies so that you don't have units with extreme overlap ("Lootas vs Kannons" for anti-tank), and incrementally scale back ("Replace Bulky/Very Bulky/Extremely Bulky -> Bulky(X)", "Drop Soul Blaze", etc). I seriously doubt people complain about looking up USRs for, say, Kings of War.

Or I suppose you "make up" rules to favor the army you want to win, and ban counters to it. (Random tangent: Look up the MC02 Challenge. Sometimes accusations of tabletop WAAC can be taxpayer-funded!)

I don't think any options were banned, actually.

Full terminator armies are still possible in Narrative Play (i.e. fluffy play) as the 1/2 your army thing is only for Matched Play (i.e. less-fluffy.). Same goes for Elysian drop troops.

Also, you're a hypocrite:

MagicJuggler wrote:Warhounds don't belong in standard 40k anyway.

MagicJuggler wrote:You don't ban options.

Should options (i.e. the option to take a Warhound) be banned or not?

Why not match-play terminators with the elites-detachment-thingy?

1x Terminator Captain
3x Terminators

Because apparently is impossible for the narrative of a battle to start with half a Elissian Drop troopers army or Terminator army already in the battle. Or they come ALL at the same time or they don't go down at all

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think any options were banned, actually.

Full terminator armies are still possible in Narrative Play (i.e. fluffy play) as the 1/2 your army thing is only for Matched Play (i.e. less-fluffy.). Same goes for Elysian drop troops.

Also, you're a hypocrite:

MagicJuggler wrote:Warhounds don't belong in standard 40k anyway.

MagicJuggler wrote:You don't ban options.

Should options (i.e. the option to take a Warhound) be banned or not?

False equivalence. Were Warhounds part and parcel for 40k to begin with? If the game system were designed in a way they could scale up, maybe. Personally, once the Titans get broken out, I ask "why am I not playing Epic?"

Deploying Terminators on-table is generally the suboptimal use for them, as they lack their own mobility or effective firepower for their points cost. Being able to run them majority-reserved (or any other army, ex Drop Pods) is banned for matched play.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think any options were banned, actually.

Full terminator armies are still possible in Narrative Play (i.e. fluffy play) as the 1/2 your army thing is only for Matched Play (i.e. less-fluffy.). Same goes for Elysian drop troops.

Also, you're a hypocrite:

MagicJuggler wrote:Warhounds don't belong in standard 40k anyway.

MagicJuggler wrote:You don't ban options.

Should options (i.e. the option to take a Warhound) be banned or not?

False equivalence. Were Warhounds part and parcel for 40k to begin with? If the game system were designed in a way they could scale up, maybe. Personally, once the Titans get broken out, I ask "why am I not playing Epic?"

Deploying Terminators on-table is generally the suboptimal use for them, as they lack their own mobility or effective firepower for their points cost. Being able to run them majority-reserved (or any other army, ex Drop Pods) is banned for matched play.

Matched play is not Narrative play, and so will not reflect the fluff as well.

Also, Baneblades have existed on the tabletop since Citadel Journal 11 in the middle of Second Edition (1995) and Warhound Titans since at least 3rd Edition. So yes they have been in the game "to begin with".

Also, it isn't false equivalence. Making superheavies illegal actually does remove options from armies, such, as, say, a Mechanicus army built around Secutarii Titan Guard, who are only troops choices if a Titan is on the field and are Elites otherwise.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think any options were banned, actually.

Full terminator armies are still possible in Narrative Play (i.e. fluffy play) as the 1/2 your army thing is only for Matched Play (i.e. less-fluffy.). Same goes for Elysian drop troops.

Also, you're a hypocrite:

MagicJuggler wrote:Warhounds don't belong in standard 40k anyway.

MagicJuggler wrote:You don't ban options.

Should options (i.e. the option to take a Warhound) be banned or not?

False equivalence. Were Warhounds part and parcel for 40k to begin with? If the game system were designed in a way they could scale up, maybe. Personally, once the Titans get broken out, I ask "why am I not playing Epic?"

Deploying Terminators on-table is generally the suboptimal use for them, as they lack their own mobility or effective firepower for their points cost. Being able to run them majority-reserved (or any other army, ex Drop Pods) is banned for matched play.

Matched play is not Narrative play, and so will not reflect the fluff as well.

Also, Baneblades have existed on the tabletop since Citadel Journal 11 in the middle of Second Edition (1995) and Warhound Titans since at least 3rd Edition. So yes they have been in the game "to begin with".

Also, it isn't false equivalence. Making superheavies illegal actually does remove options from armies, such, as, say, a Mechanicus army built around Secutarii Titan Guard, who are only troops choices if a Titan is on the field and are Elites otherwise.

Baneblades were not something you saw in pickup play that often though (if ever), prior to Escalation. 2nd was also the edition where special characters were "with your opponent's permission."

For the record, I'm not against Baneblades being in 40k. Just against the system letting them Tokyo-drift while firing everything from a corner of a tank-tread...truth be told, I'd almost be in favor of only letting generic infantry and turret weapons get 360* LOS so you could do things like flank to avoid overwatch, but ymmv.

Regarding "fluffy" armies, I think 8th has done some stuff to help them and quite a bit to hurt them.

The good:
- The ally system is better in some respects.
- It doesn't cost an arm and a leg to give sergeants power weapons or such (probably still not worth it but it's a step in the right direction).

The bad:
- Many races can't ally under any circumstances.
- Corsairs are currently gone entirely (Thanks, GW, I'm glad I put a lot of time and effort into converting and painting a Corsair Prince).
- Most HQs have lost a lot of their wargear (as well as rules and such).
- The <keyword> mechanic can go die in a fire.

In terms of the armies I play, DE HQs are already incredibly bland, and losing most of their gear really didn't help (they even removed the Archon's Soul Trap). Not just that but with the loss of the Coven PfP table Haemonculi no longer regenerate and got nothing to make up for it. Oh, and even though it wasn't dependant on the PfP table, Urien lost his regeneration just for good measure - even though that's a core part of his fluff. In terms of <keyword> abilities, I think DE are the worst of any army because their army is subdivided into <Coven>, <Kabal> and <Wych Cult> with no possibility of overlap. So I can no longer have a Haemonculus using his buff on a squad of Incubi, nor an Archon or Succubus helping out a squad of Grotesques. And while I'm on the subject, why does the Archon have such a terrible aura? Other HQs have auras that let their units reroll 1s to hit. But the Archon - the leader of a glass-cannon army - instead gives his leeadership to units that will spend most of the game enclosed in transports and will likely be dead before ever having to make a Ld check anyway.

/rant