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.

I will say I consider a fluffy army to be an army built with story in mind.

For example, if someone builds a Baneblade, they can either:
1) Octoblade it, making it able to swap variants on a whim
or
2) Make it a single type of tank and put no further thought into it, just to kinda have one
or
3) Make it, name it, figure out what company it is attached to your army from (or what company it is in if you're building more than one), figure out the name of its commanders and how old it is. Paint/decal the name on the side, keep track of kill rings on the barrel for other LOWs, etc etc. It is a Baneblade and shall be a Baneblade forever more.

The first one of these is the competitively sensible way to own a baneblade.

The second one of these is the casually sensible way to own a baneblade.

The third one of these is fluffy/narrative.

It applies to your whole army list too, just scale up the problem:
1) Built to be optimal now and in the future as its first concern (competitive)
2) Built to be easy to transport/fun to paint/whatever now and in the future as its first concern (casual)
3) Built with a distinct narrative in mind for the army, now and in the future (narrative)

The fluff can "justify" anything, but having an idea that is inspired in the fluff is still fundamentally different from having an idea that is "justifiable" in the fluff.

The intent matters, not the content of the list.

This whole discussion is why I think balance is so important.

I really hate the idea that I'm slitting my own throat by taking too many suboptimal choices.

I also really hate the idea that I need to "hold back" when making an army so as not to overwhelm people.
This is a balance that's impossible to find, what one player deems "just the right side of the line" is well into another player's "totally OP" or vice versa.

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh I dont know if it's exactly possible to argue that current DE are MORE flanderized than their original incarnations. But hey, you're right, maybe they do take their 'note' a little too far.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to finish painting my blood angels sanguinary guard - it's so difficult to get the right gemstone paint on the blood drops encrusting their encarmine axes and the blood chalices on their angelus boltguns are just so fiddly!

Marines are undoubtedly worse, but then I don't play them. So I don't really care on the whole "if a Space Wolf Army exists and half the points aren't into Wulfren and Thunderwolf Cavalry etc, is it really a Space Wolf army?"

Whereas I do feel DE are "guys in flying paper transports." And... that's kind of it. You have to try really hard to make an army that doesn't conform with that - regardless of whether you are fluffy or not-fluffy.

I think I'm just jaded because DE used to be a super snowflake army, and increasingly it just feels like everyone else's. I'm not sure you can escape this beyond doing something weird. (As in here are my 60 Hellions because... uh...)

Whereas, for example, I sort of think "stealth Marines" is the stupidest concept GW have ever come up with. But if you built an army using just Phobos Armour guys, and say 3 Invictors (okay this was the meta)... it could be... different.

Tyel wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
tbh I dont know if it's exactly possible to argue that current DE are MORE flanderized than their original incarnations. But hey, you're right, maybe they do take their 'note' a little too far.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to finish painting my blood angels sanguinary guard - it's so difficult to get the right gemstone paint on the blood drops encrusting their encarmine axes and the blood chalices on their angelus boltguns are just so fiddly!

Marines are undoubtedly worse, but then I don't play them. So I don't really care on the whole "if a Space Wolf Army exists and half the points aren't into Wulfren and Thunderwolf Cavalry etc, is it really a Space Wolf army?"

Whereas I do feel DE are "guys in flying paper transports." And... that's kind of it. You have to try really hard to make an army that doesn't conform with that - regardless of whether you are fluffy or not-fluffy.

I think I'm just jaded because DE used to be a super snowflake army, and increasingly it just feels like everyone else's. I'm not sure you can escape this beyond doing something weird. (As in here are my 60 Hellions because... uh...)

Whereas, for example, I sort of think "stealth Marines" is the stupidest concept GW have ever come up with. But if you built an army using just Phobos Armour guys, and say 3 Invictors (okay this was the meta)... it could be... different.

An All-Wych Cult army isnt going to just be 'guys in paper transports'. "guys in paper transports' is typically the current meta setup of a patrol of each of the three subfactions, because once you get 1-2 squads of each troops plus 3 HQs and buy each of them a transport, you're at like 1500 points and you've got 6 raiders on the table.

An All-Wych Cult army I'd assume would use...all of the wych cult units? Of which only 2 can have transports? So you'd be looking at some transports, some hoverboards, some bikers, and some beasts on foot plus maybe a plane or two.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
This whole discussion is why I think balance is so important.

I really hate the idea that I'm slitting my own throat by taking too many suboptimal choices.

I also really hate the idea that I need to "hold back" when making an army so as not to overwhelm people.
This is a balance that's impossible to find, what one player deems "just the right side of the line" is well into another player's "totally OP" or vice versa.

honestly I think a big part of what is hurting the game balance right now are these auras and overlapping auras. its hard to balance a game where the presence of a character or 2 can either buff 1 back field unit or a whole army for the same points. I am really hoping that gets reigned back to choosing just one unit for that buff to apply to per turn.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
A fluffy list is when I look at the other side of the table and I like what I see. A competitive list is when I look at the other side of the table and I don't like it

This is the only true definition of fluff, and I cant tell whether it was a joke or not, but its correct.

To some people, the definition of fluffy is 'variety' - basically a list that has some infantry, some tanks, some fast stuff, some shooty stuff, some melee stuff, basically a zero-skew TAC list of some faction.

To others, see Unit above, the defintion of fluffy is "basically a tournament skew list, but skewing into something that isn't necessarily good." This is usually based on either "theme" - ie a white scars list that is 100% bikes, a Iyanden list that is 100% wraiths only, etc or "realism" based on the in game world i.e. 'in canon superheavy tanks always have 3 in the company and they never have any other units.'

To still others, certain armies - most typically Tau, Knights, sometimes Harlequins can never be fluffy, they won't play against them because they dont think they fit into the game world, others are only fluffy if they lose (Orks, Daemons vs GK, any Xenos vs DW, chaos generally, Guard) and some are only fluffy when they win (marines, custodes, knights) because of how powerfully they are portrayed in the fluff.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
A fluffy list is when I look at the other side of the table and I like what I see. A competitive list is when I look at the other side of the table and I don't like it

This is the only true definition of fluff, and I cant tell whether it was a joke or not, but its correct.

To some people, the definition of fluffy is 'variety' - basically a list that has some infantry, some tanks, some fast stuff, some shooty stuff, some melee stuff, basically a zero-skew TAC list of some faction.

To others, see Unit above, the defintion of fluffy is "basically a tournament skew list, but skewing into something that isn't necessarily good." This is usually based on either "theme" - ie a white scars list that is 100% bikes, a Iyanden list that is 100% wraiths only, etc or "realism" based on the in game world i.e. 'in canon superheavy tanks always have 3 in the company and they never have any other units.'

To still others, certain armies - most typically Tau, Knights, sometimes Harlequins can never be fluffy, they won't play against them because they dont think they fit into the game world, others are only fluffy if they lose (Orks, Daemons vs GK, any Xenos vs DW, chaos generally, Guard) and some are only fluffy when they win (marines, custodes, knights) because of how powerfully they are portrayed in the fluff.

If you think my definition is "skew only" then you don't really get my definition.

Some armies in the fluff are "skew only" in that they solely consist of a single unit type (Imperial Guard) and any other unit types come from other supporting units.

But if you asked me what a fluffy, say, Tyranid list looked like? It'd almost certainly be the opposite of skew, with unit types each assigned to purpose with a singlemindedness that makes them almost incapable of doing anything else, necessitating diversity so that every type of purpose can be achieved by the list.

Again, though, the fundamental definition of fluff for me is intent rather than the content of a list. Did you bring it because it was good? Did you bring it because you wrote a narrative for it? Or did you bring it for some other reason?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
A fluffy list is when I look at the other side of the table and I like what I see. A competitive list is when I look at the other side of the table and I don't like it

This is the only true definition of fluff, and I cant tell whether it was a joke or not, but its correct.

To some people, the definition of fluffy is 'variety' - basically a list that has some infantry, some tanks, some fast stuff, some shooty stuff, some melee stuff, basically a zero-skew TAC list of some faction.

To others, see Unit above, the defintion of fluffy is "basically a tournament skew list, but skewing into something that isn't necessarily good." This is usually based on either "theme" - ie a white scars list that is 100% bikes, a Iyanden list that is 100% wraiths only, etc or "realism" based on the in game world i.e. 'in canon superheavy tanks always have 3 in the company and they never have any other units.'

To still others, certain armies - most typically Tau, Knights, sometimes Harlequins can never be fluffy, they won't play against them because they dont think they fit into the game world, others are only fluffy if they lose (Orks, Daemons vs GK, any Xenos vs DW, chaos generally, Guard) and some are only fluffy when they win (marines, custodes, knights) because of how powerfully they are portrayed in the fluff.

If you think my definition is "skew only" then you don't really get my definition.

I used your statement above as a handy example of how, very often, people use 'fluff' to justify either needing to, or being allowed to, heavily skew their armies in a way that they might otherwise turn their nose up at in a tournament list. I was not taking it as your definition.

At no point did I accuse you of not holding a double standard whereby facing an opposing skew list you might turn your nose up for the very same reasons you consider your list to be fluffy. That is, if not prescriptively than descriptively basically the #1 requirement to consider oneself a 'fluffy player.'

Take your collection, come up with a justification for why your army is 'good' based on the internal narrative setting of the game, and when presented with a collection you feel is 'bad', find a way to justify how it has violated some standard based on the internal narrative setting of the game that you've previously used to establish your collection as 'good.'

It's handy to operate this way, because since the standard is your own, you can never fail to adhere to your own standard

Oh, I see what you're saying. The only part that is a misunderstanding of my point is:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Take your collection, come up with a justification for why your army is 'good' based on the internal narrative setting of the game, and when presented with a collection you feel is 'bad', find a way to justify how it has violated some standard based on the internal narrative setting of the game that you've previously used to establish your collection as 'good.'

This implies you collected your models in the first place for some unrelated, non-narrative reason and then ex-post-facto came up with a narrative justification. That's not a narrative collection based on my definition, because the intent of building the collection wasn't a narrative one. If you're planning to buy a model, before you EVER buy it, give some consideration to how it fits into your narrative for your collection (or, alternatively, write a whole separate narrative around it, but then unless you can bridge the gap between your other model's narratives and this new one, I hope you don't plan to use them together non-narratively!).

This is, for example, why I will never buy the Castigator tank. My narrative for my Sororitas is that they don't use vehicles because of a bad relationship with the Adeptus Mechanicus and other important vehicle maintainers, so howevermuch I might like the Castigator model, I won't ever add one to my Sororitas collection. I might buy one to build and paint and display separately, but it won't ever find its way into an army list with the rest of my Sisters.

It's handy to operate this way, because since the standard is your own, you can never fail to adhere to your own standard

Well, yes, though there's an implicit statement that I didn't make that should have about being able to source one's interpretation of the fluff.
For example, I could interpret the fluff to be that the Emperor is really a green alien cat god from Bikini Bottom, but if pressed I can't back up that interpretation so it would be fair of my opponents to consider my "green alien cat god Bikini Bottom residents" Custodes army to be unfluffy.

Fluffy Army:
"This is Primaris Captain Finius Bogg. He is a new captain and hopes to prove himself in this battle. As he is so new, the Forge Master of his chapter hasn't made him any new weapons (yet). All he has is a Bolt Pistol, Master Crafted Auto Boltrifle, and frag and Krack grenades. Maybe he'll get lucky and earn some upgrades or find something useful after this battle."
"Veteran Sergeant Kasadin is armed with a bolt pistol and chainsword. He has managed an impressive kill tally with it."
"This is Foe Reaper, my Gladiator Reaper tank with auto launchers. I've painted the number of foes it has killed on the side of it's hull."
"This guy is Lieutenant Dan. He has somehow managed to survive every battle he is in. He has a bolt pistol and master crafted power sword named Forest. He also has frag and krak grenades that he has never used."

Competitive Army:
"Three units of <insert meta unit here> armed with <death guns>"
"Space Marine Captain with jump pack, Tears of Terra, and Storm Shield."
"I'm playing a Brigade battle formation. Here are my three troops choices. Three Troops MSU's of the cheapest models from the codex, no upgrades"
"Techmarine upgraded to Master of the Forge"
"Two Ancient Contemptor Dreads, all Volkite"

For me, fluffiness is about stories, but I'm an escalation Crusader, so any of my armies are in perpetual growth, and I try to let the battles determine how the army grows. If a unit gains a battle honour, I try hard to pick one that reflects the actual battlefield action that generated the XP to make the Battle Honour possible. I'm never giving a shooting upgrade to a unit that earned the Battle Honour by crushing people in hand to hand.

I just created a 25PL Crusade and had to break rules to do it. The idea is that an SoB Mission was completely destroyed by Chaos army. Every single survivor swore a penitent oath, which means it's a Vanguard; technically illegal in a combat patrol sized game. The whole Crusade is a Repentia Superior and a Priest, each leading 10 Repentia, and three mortifiers to back them up.

Some would call it skew, but I have no Obsec, so I will lose on objectives to any TAC list I face. I also have very little shooting- if the mortifiers go down, that's it. But the goal for this army is atonement; they don't care if they win- battlefield objective aren't things that they even think about- they want to tear the defilers of their Mission to pieces or die trying. Nothing else matters.

In subsequent games, these repentia may live to see themselves redeemed, reclaiming their lost identities, at which point they will begin to look like a more typical, rounded force. They will also receive reinforcements if they manage to get to one of the other Missions on the planet. I can't wait to play this Crusade.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Oh, I see what you're saying. The only part that is a misunderstanding of my point is:

 the_scotsman wrote:
Take your collection, come up with a justification for why your army is 'good' based on the internal narrative setting of the game, and when presented with a collection you feel is 'bad', find a way to justify how it has violated some standard based on the internal narrative setting of the game that you've previously used to establish your collection as 'good.'

This implies you collected your models in the first place for some unrelated, non-narrative reason and then ex-post-facto came up with a narrative justification. That's not a narrative collection based on my definition, because the intent of building the collection wasn't a narrative one. If you're planning to buy a model, before you EVER buy it, give some consideration to how it fits into your narrative for your collection (or, alternatively, write a whole separate narrative around it, but then unless you can bridge the gap between your other model's narratives and this new one, I hope you don't plan to use them together non-narratively!).

This is, for example, why I will never buy the Castigator tank. My narrative for my Sororitas is that they don't use vehicles because of a bad relationship with the Adeptus Mechanicus and other important vehicle maintainers, so howevermuch I might like the Castigator model, I won't ever add one to my Sororitas collection. I might buy one to build and paint and display separately, but it won't ever find its way into an army list with the rest of my Sisters.

It's handy to operate this way, because since the standard is your own, you can never fail to adhere to your own standard

Well, yes, though there's an implicit statement that I didn't make that should have about being able to source one's interpretation of the fluff.
For example, I could interpret the fluff to be that the Emperor is really a green alien cat god from Bikini Bottom, but if pressed I can't back up that interpretation so it would be fair of my opponents to consider my "green alien cat god Bikini Bottom residents" Custodes army to be unfluffy.

There are a whole lot of armies that have about 1% as much lore behind them as other armies. For some of my favorites, frankly I'd be amazed if we even had 1% of the lore content that say, Space Marines or IG have (Genestealer Cults, for example.)

Whether or not you think your 'pressing' about fluff is based on a perfect logical understanding of the source material, it's really first and foremost based on a gut feeling of 'that looks right to me' or 'that looks wrong to me.' I think you've probably run into this....a lot, WRT one particular detail of fluff vis a vis how many baneblades are in a thingy and how many other smaller things ought to be included alongside that number of baneblades.

I can have equivalent (read, zero) written fluff backing for the Tau earth caste genestealer cultists as I do for the Sisters of Artemis chapter of space marines who contributed a member to my Deathwatch army, but it's always up to the emotions and feelings of my opponents which they choose to challenge on the grounds of 'fluffiness.'

Oddly enough, in the very same Deathwatch squad I have no written fluff backing for Penitent 58325 of the Angels Redeemed, or why Brother Xanathar the blackshield with a distinctive powerfist would be allowed to seek redemption through death when the stumps on his forehead from what were clearly once horns are still visible, but their adherence to the strictures of The Lore has never actually been challenged. They just feel like something that should be allowed within the fluff, or feel like they fit the themes present within the fluff.

 Tamwulf wrote:
Fluffy Army:
"This is Primaris Captain Finius Bogg. He is a new captain and hopes to prove himself in this battle. As he is so new, the Forge Master of his chapter hasn't made him any new weapons (yet). All he has is a Bolt Pistol, Master Crafted Auto Boltrifle, and frag and Krack grenades. Maybe he'll get lucky and earn some upgrades or find something useful after this battle."
"Veteran Sergeant Kasadin is armed with a bolt pistol and chainsword. He has managed an impressive kill tally with it."
"This is Foe Reaper, my Gladiator Reaper tank with auto launchers. I've painted the number of foes it has killed on the side of it's hull."
"This guy is Lieutenant Dan. He has somehow managed to survive every battle he is in. He has a bolt pistol and master crafted power sword named Forest. He also has frag and krak grenades that he has never used."

Competitive Army:
"Three units of <insert meta unit here> armed with <death guns>"
"Space Marine Captain with jump pack, Tears of Terra, and Storm Shield."
"I'm playing a Brigade battle formation. Here are my three troops choices. Three Troops MSU's of the cheapest models from the codex, no upgrades"
"Techmarine upgraded to Master of the Forge"
"Two Ancient Contemptor Dreads, all Volkite"

Fluffy army:
Unoptimized and bad armies

Competitive army:
Everything else.


And this is why this kind of labels are just useless gatekeeping to feel superior to others. Just play whatever the feth do you want, stop silently judging others, and just go to events with like minded people.

Galas wrote:

The moment a player calls himself casual or narrative... Beware. Nothing good comes out of that crowd. "

Then you wrote:

Fluffy army:
Unoptimized and bad armies

Competitive army:
Everything else.


And this is why this kind of labels are just useless gatekeeping to feel superior to others. Just play whatever the feth do you want, stop silently judging others, and just go to events with like minded people.

edwardmyst wrote:
Title makes it clear, but many people describe their army building process as "fluffy" or "competitive". Where is this line?

If someone builds an army based on it's percieved competitive performance, then it's a competitive building progress.
May be a terrible list but that's beside the point.

Then there is the fuzzy line of when replacing weapons or units for fluff purposes means its no longer a 'competitive' build.

And of course the third army building process - "hobby". For example I have a custodes army based largely on having one of everything, no repeat poses, and what could be stretched ouf of a minimal set of box purchases.

Reading all of this I've now adjusted my definition of "fluff" to be "themed" building. I spent a good portion of my life as a history professor focusing on military history (not an unusual thing in this hobby) so will admit to absolutely NOT being a fan of GW's background material (as fluff is often called). Their level of Grimdark crosses MY boundary of suspension of disbelief, and falls too often into Male Macho or simply horror. So only the most basic of their background influences me, and most of that from 20 years ago. And please don't turn this into "It's not supposed to be real, dummy!!!!" that is in no way what my post is saying. They just go too far for me.

A.T. wrote:

edwardmyst wrote:
Title makes it clear, but many people describe their army building process as "fluffy" or "competitive". Where is this line?

If someone builds an army based on it's percieved competitive performance, then it's a competitive building progress.
May be a terrible list but that's beside the point.

Then there is the fuzzy line of when replacing weapons or units for fluff purposes means its no longer a 'competitive' build.

And of course the third army building process - "hobby". For example I have a custodes army based largely on having one of everything, no repeat poses, and what could be stretched ouf of a minimal set of box purchases.

Another good "method" in the discussion. I also have a GSC army built out of what I could stretch from leftovers, give-aways and a few basic boxes split among my group. I never had a plan to run GSC at all, but my group wanted them as a good "bad guy" list. So the army is basically what GW put in their "start collecting" run. I've never even added in any of my massive IG collection as traitors. So, not really a fluff list built on a concept, and certainly not built competitively for tournament style. Jusdt built to play on the table with my friends.

 the_scotsman wrote:

It's handy to operate this way, because since the standard is your own, you can never fail to adhere to your own standard

I am attrocious at understanding social situation, but even I know that there is no way, if you engage in social interaction, to be able to have something like your own standard. Unless you are in a type of interaction, where the other person or persons have to shut up and do what they are told by you.
If we reduce the question of what is and what isn't fluffy to this, it in the end goes down to, armies people I like good, armies people I don't care about bad. Which reduced again gives us the result of, my army fluffy other people armies not so much. Even identical armies can be considered non fluffy, because of some wierd aspect like, they have not put in enough work, the army isn't painted the right way, they haven't been playing the faction for 20 years or they are 11, and there for can't really appriciate the lore, ergo can't have a fluffy army.

Reading all of this I've now adjusted my definition of "fluff" to be "themed" building. I spent a good portion of my life as a history professor focusing on military history (not an unusual thing in this hobby) so will admit to absolutely NOT being a fan of GW's background material (as fluff is often called). Their level of Grimdark crosses MY boundary of suspension of disbelief, and falls too often into Male Macho or simply horror

Really, as a history professor you feel like that? I am 15 and my history knowladge is based on obligatory 4 school lessons per week, and I can't think of a single attrocity commited in the w40k that did not happen within 50km or where I live, with in the span of last 150 years.

Karol wrote:
...Really, as a history professor you feel like that? I am 15 and my history knowladge is based on obligatory 4 school lessons per week, and I can't think of a single attrocity commited in the w40k that did not happen within 50km or where I live, with in the span of last 150 years.

There's a lighthouse powered by human souls within 50km of where you live?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Karol wrote:
...Really, as a history professor you feel like that? I am 15 and my history knowladge is based on obligatory 4 school lessons per week, and I can't think of a single attrocity commited in the w40k that did not happen within 50km or where I live, with in the span of last 150 years.

There's a lighthouse powered by human souls within 50km of where you live?

Amusing, and to the point, and I really wish you'd list 50 more since my reputation has been impugned (love that word...swords at dawn!) but engaging is a mistake in this case...

Who doesn't love a silent G?

Almost as hardcore as an O.G.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Karol wrote:
...Really, as a history professor you feel like that? I am 15 and my history knowladge is based on obligatory 4 school lessons per week, and I can't think of a single attrocity commited in the w40k that did not happen within 50km or where I live, with in the span of last 150 years.

There's a lighthouse powered by human souls within 50km of where you live?

Define Light house, because there were mass graves of people who were expirmented on in Goldap hospital and those that Luftwaffe was testing their new bombs and ammo. It wasn't stricktly a light house more like a signal tower. But it is brick and mortar, even today. And the experiments did fuel the german research.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Karol wrote:
...Really, as a history professor you feel like that? I am 15 and my history knowladge is based on obligatory 4 school lessons per week, and I can't think of a single attrocity commited in the w40k that did not happen within 50km or where I live, with in the span of last 150 years.

There's a lighthouse powered by human souls within 50km of where you live?

TBH most stuff that happened during WW2 was more grusome most fantasy writters are capable of writting specially because at the end of the day grimdark comes normally from exaggeration and at one point numbers so big become just statistic (there goes another planet wooo another exterminatos yay) but in real life you have people doing attrocities as routine and without a second tought. Specially when in most warhammer context stuff like sexual violence is passed over and in real life it was done in sistematic scale.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

a_typical_hero wrote:

Spoiler:

Karol wrote:
It is not fantastic, when the same designers write the DE book and the DW book. And one feels like someone pre build an army, wrote rules for it and then assgined point costs and the other feels like someone had to do a lot of copy pasting, because DW players are suppose to buy primaris, combined with a prior big nerf of everything that was good about the army in the first place. What does it say about GW and their vision how a faction should be played, if they get two such different results in the end?

And this ain't no regular game, so the chance of a patch fixing stuff in 3-6 months time is not there. You get a codex out and it is bad, you are stuck with it for years.

You might have a point if DW (or Space Marines) was a bad codex, which it is not.

No idea what you mean with prebuilt armies.

"DW players are supposed to buy Primaris" needs more than just your personal opinion to back that up with facts.

Firstborn were buffed and remain the more flexible and in some cases more optimal options (Eradicators and MM attack bikes?) compared to Primaris.

Erads are restartes, no? Not sure I follow your reasoning here…

Mindset makes all the difference.
Is the game about creating theater on a table, a little world governed mostly by assumptions taken from this one (that there is gravity, that bullets moves faster than motorcycles, none of this needs to be spelled out in the rules because these assumptions are imported from our everyday experience) and moderated by a rules system?
Or, is the game about the rules system and how to collect enough of the right kinds of tokens to win?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Karol wrote:
...Really, as a history professor you feel like that? I am 15 and my history knowladge is based on obligatory 4 school lessons per week, and I can't think of a single attrocity commited in the w40k that did not happen within 50km or where I live, with in the span of last 150 years.

There's a lighthouse powered by human souls within 50km of where you live?

He said atrocity… the astronomicon is a glorious gloss on the glory of the guiding vision of visionary empire!

And yes, evidence is all around us… I see people sacrificing themselves to such vision every day.

My general rule of thumb is that if you’re building a list and you’re annoyed that the Rule of Three exists, you’re probably on the competitive side of things.

I find the latest codices have helped with fluffy lists. Sp[ace Marines 8.5 and 9.0 where solid in that they made a space marine army, more or less, work like a space marine army was fluffed as working. the sisters codices also seem solid that way. I can't comment on the other codices as I dunno eneugh about the armies to say for sure. it'd be nice if a fluffy army was ALSO compeitive

BrianDavion wrote:
I find the latest codices have helped with fluffy lists. Sp[ace Marines 8.5 and 9.0 where solid in that they made a space marine army, more or less, work like a space marine army was fluffed as working. the sisters codices also seem solid that way. I can't comment on the other codices as I dunno eneugh about the armies to say for sure. it'd be nice if a fluffy army was ALSO compeitive

Yeah, apparently people don't like that though. See Dark Eldar for a recent example.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
3) Make it, name it, figure out what company it is attached to your army from (or what company it is in if you're building more than one), figure out the name of its commanders and how old it is. Paint/decal the name on the side, keep track of kill rings on the barrel for other LOWs, etc etc. It is a Baneblade and shall be a Baneblade forever more.

This is how I work with units in my various armies. If you want to run nameless/deedless dudes, fine.
But then don't act like I'm weird when I know the names of who's on the table for mine.

 jeff white wrote:
Erads are restartes, no? Not sure I follow your reasoning here…

Attack bikes with MM are better then Eradicators; Firstborn are the more competitive choice if you look for efficiency.

Karol said that DW players are supposed to buy new Primaris, when in reality Firstborn provide the better units, competitively speaking. So where is the (evil) incentive to make DW players buy new stuff instead of using their old one?

(I'm aware that DW specifically can't take Attack bike squads, it still applies where you have Primaris with a clear equivalent of Firstborn)

Attack Bikes are pretty much the singular example of this.

Tacticals don't get a look in, unless you want a backfield camper who will contribute nothing to the game so the few points saved becomes worthwhile.
Scouts have been rendered almost totally obsolete in the face of the various Phobos units.

DW being a notable exception since Primaris don't get the special ammo.