Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm asking this question because over the past few years I've been hearing more and more people talking about fluff. I've been around this game since the day's of RT and the fluff (and game) were very different then today. Most people didn't talk about fluff, well nothing like they do now.

As for me I do enjoy fluff but in my opinion it has no bearing on how the game is played so at the end of the day fluff is just some stories that take place in the 40k world. I'm not calling anyone out with this but i don't understand why people let the fluff decide the game for them. It's just going to change again.

As I said the fluff is very different now and it even contradicts it self, so again I ask does fluff matter to you?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
I wouldn't say it's the end all be all of the game, but it does add to the game. It's much more entertaining to have a story why these forces are fighting on this particular battlefield than it is to just plop minis on the table and roll dice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,615 Posts
Yeah, absolutely. And I'm not offended at all, and I hope you don't think I'm having a go either, I'm really not, I just don't understand why anyone really cares that much about the rules.

It's true that various bits of the fluff have really changed since the old days. Did someone mention Zoats? Jokero digital weapons? The Squat Worlds? But...

The rules change too. So why base how you play the game on them? There'll just be a new edition out in a few years...

No really, it's a serious question.

I started playing Warhammer many years ago through RPGs, where it's primarily the unfolding story that's important (I know some people used to play D&D to 'win' but I never got that either). Even now, I'd much rather play in a campaign than just have a battle. Math-hammer never really appealed, and that's all it is without fluff, as far as I can see - two guys shouting numbers at each other until one 'wins'. May as well play 'rock paper scissors' as far as I can tell. I'd rather co-operate with my 'opponent' to tell a story any day.

Not the only way to play, obviously, but by far the one I prefer.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
I agree with you there, Red Orc. Some of the most fun I've had playing tabletop games was by playing in a campaign. Battle Reports tell the story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Everyone makes good points, I to fell in love with the RPG aspect of the game but in my opinion that aspect of the game is long gone. I love story arcs for campaigns but it does get hard to to that when they are changing the fluff every codex.

Now I ask do any of you build a army based on fluff? And would you do that even if it means that you're army might not be as good as the same army type that was built to be more effective?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Actually to be quite honest with you people who build their armies to fluff i've seen win more then super "uber" competative people. Probably due to the fact they've played more games ebcause games against them are usually more laid back, more fun and to be honest people are drawn to that sort of opponent. More games= more experience which means you get more tactical diversity. but that's just my humble opinion.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
6,544 Posts
I make a point of knowing the fluff intimately, and build my armies around that rather than what's simply good in the game. Wargames are, generally speaking, about creating as realistic a representation as you can on the table of a battle. In the case of Warhammer 40,000, the intent is to bring the 41st Millenium to life on the table. If you have an army thrown together of things that are good together because of how the rules read, it's not really in the spirit of that. That's really why I hate the new Chaos Space Marine codex... you can have, and are encouraged to have, an army that just wouldn't exist-- for example, a Lord of Slaanesh leading a bunch of Khorne Berserkers around.

I happily leave things out of my armies that might be better off in them if it makes more sense fluff-wise. You won't find Terminators in my Space Marine army unless we're playing a really big game where you'd actually have 1st Company support, or I'm using the Deathwing rules. Similarly, I don't bring Scouts unless we're playing a big game or the scenario calls for a scout unit (as opposed to a Scout unit-- there are scenarios where a forward recon unit makes sense to have around.) I limit myself to twenty Assault Marines and twenty Devastator Marines in a given army, because that's what a Battle Company has to call upon. If I bring a Land Speeder in a 2000 point game, then I either have an eight-strong assault squad and a ten-strong squad, or I simply don't bring one of the assault squads. The same goes with tanks-- if I bring a Predator, which has a crew of two Astartes, then there'll be eighteen Devastators left to work with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
That's really why I hate the new Chaos Space Marine codex... you can have, and are encouraged to have, an army that just wouldn't exist-- for example, a Lord of Slaanesh leading a bunch of Khorne Berserkers around.
Thats what I'm getting at. The fluff for Chaos now is that a army like this wouldn't be uncommon. So why would someone build there army around fluff only to have the fluff change? Yes things (in fluff) would change over time but Chaos now is NOTHING like it was a few version ago, the same can be said for DA they are NOTHING like they were back in the angels of death days.:ireful2:

Building you're army around the company format makes sense to me, even if I wouldn't do it that way.

Please keep it going everyone, I want to know if I am the only person that feels this way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Fluff change is part of the game, you can't expect the fluff to stay the same for a plot that is open-ended. 40k will never have a defined story (for a respective army) because things need to change and stay fresh otherwise no one will play this game.

Getting back the main point, I don't usually base a game on fluff but it does help flesh out why the game is going on and how the two armies in conflict interact with each other. But this is a strategy game so I do tend to focus on that aspect of it, and i do keep in mind the fluff, so, I have to say I'm torn here, I guess I do both...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
Some armies are a lot easier to build without fluff than others. Chaos is pretty tough to build without fluff. Vanilla marines, IG, and Orks don't have much of a problem building armies just by picking stuff off the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Some armies are a lot easier to build without fluff than others. Chaos is pretty tough to build without fluff. Vanilla marines, IG, and Orks don't have much of a problem building armies just by picking stuff off the list.
I don't understand how Chaos is tough to build without fluff. Under the new army rules/fluff you can take just about anything without an explanation. Chaos now is more about undivided than the pure army lists.

And yes some armies are much easier to build with little to no fluff. But all can be built this way that is the way they are writen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
Chaos undivided is easy to build without fluff. But 95% of the time, the chaos factions do not ally with each other unless it suits them. So it made no sense to have plague marines, Thousand Sons, Noise Marines, and World Eaters. They hate each other
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
75 Posts
For a lot of people, fluff is means to an end. In the end, fluff is up to the player to interpret. My favorite part of the game is fluff, because I love the gaming aspect that I am making "history". If I have a character that did particulary well, or survived in an unlikely position, I create fluff for him. For me, the game is more a means to an end, rather than the fluff playing the supporting role. The game is a way to make fluff that pertains to my army and that I can relate to.

One reason I love fluff so much is that the Black Libriary basically introduced me to the game. Therefore, I see fluff as even more important than the gaming aspect. Many people may see my army as contradictory to my views. I have 20 khorne berzerkers in my army, a squad of Nurgle Chosen, and a Chaos Sorcerer as the HQ in a Word Bearers army painted red and gold instead of red and silver. This may seem ridiculiusly unfluffy to the casual bystander, but my created fluff makes sense to me and is understandble based on my fluff. Short version is that my army is an elite conglomeration of Word Bearers units (Gold is the step above silver) and thus the army contains a balance of dedicated units. Much of my army fluff is based on the conflict in the army and the characters torn between accomplishing their mission, and fighting their enemy.

(In order to portray this inner turmoil, I am considering making a special rule for my army like: If a dedicated unit moves within 6" of another dedicated unit, then both units must take a Leadership test using the same modifiers as losing an assualt. I don't think a casual opponent would have any problems with me using the rule.)

So on further examination, my army isn't without a legitimate background story. Or at least it is to me anyway:grin:.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
202 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Chaos undivided is easy to build without fluff. But 95% of the time, the chaos factions do not ally with each other unless it suits them. So it made no sense to have plague marines, Thousand Sons, Noise Marines, and World Eaters. They hate each other
I'm not going to turn this into a issue of Chaos but, it does makes sense for a powerfull lord to have all of the mentioned in his warband for the simple fact that he can use all the help he can get and what the hell does he care about any beef the gods have with one another. That and the fact that there isn't that anomasity rule anymore. So as it stands now with the fluff a mixed army for chaos wouldn't be uncommon.

This is for kharnthebetrayer, I love the fact that you made fluff for you're army. To me that is more along the lines of what the game should be not taking every once of fluff that GW writes and treating it like it is the bible and you can't go against it. Keep up the good work and you're army sounds like it is built alot like mine.:biggrin:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,648 Posts
In my opinion.....

Fluff is nothing more than what we want it to be. For me, my armies have their own stories and backgrounds and this will often influence the army build and play-style as well. But I do notice that as the years go by, I feel less inclined to allow the competitive aspect of the hobby to overshadow the hobby aspect. I imagine that most veteran players know how to make a killer uber-list, but would rather stick to some 'official' or custom background for their army, kneeling to 'fluff' in the creation of their lists. Kudos to these folks, as it is they who make the game enjoyable for those who are not out to trash their enemies rather than having a fun comfortable game among friends.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top