Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner
21 - 26 of 26 Posts

·
Critique for da CriticGod
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
I appreciate his point but I don't agree with it, and it doesn't really refute my point anyway.

I'm not saying anyone's fluff is wrong per se. Nor am I saying playing ultra-competitively is wrong.

I'm saying, playing ultra-competitively and trying to claim you aren't because of some bizarre distortion of the setting is disingenuous.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 · (Edited)
I'm saying, playing ultra-competitively and trying to claim you aren't because of some bizarre distortion of the setting is disingenuous.
Firstly, who said ultra-competitive cannot be fluffy? The two are not mutually exclusive. Many of the most competitive Imperial Guard lists would fit even the most dogmatic view of the fluff.

Secondly, it's not a 'bizarre distortion of the setting', it is simply the setting. The fluff includes passages about the Mighty Mangler's Battlewagon Brigade, and Air Cavalry Imperial Guard regiments, and all-Bike Space Marine armies. But nowhere does it say that there has never been a heavily Thunderwolf-based army, or a Dark Eldar Kabal that view the ground as unworthy and so use a high number of Venoms and Razorwings, or a Sept with heavy ties to the Earth Caste and thus a higher proportion of Riptide Battlesuits.

If the only fluff you could use was what is directly written into the codices, it would be a very dull setting indeed (and nonsensical to boot - if your opponent has Ultramarines and you have Ultramarines, you're not allowed to kill him so you just run around in your Rhinos all game and then dogpile the objectives a la The Matrix)
 

·
Critique for da CriticGod
Joined
·
3,351 Posts
I don't have a particular build in mind which violates what I would consider good conduct so I don't really have any emotional reaction or aversion to the named builds you listed. Nor am I referring to 6th edition specifically. I think this same position can be expressed in almost any similar game. And I can think of a few armies I faced in previous editions which were abusive. Though I don't think any of my opponents ever had the gall to try and tell me that they were fielding an army right in-line with the setting.

It's sort of like the famous quotation about pornography, "I know it when I see it."


Mind you this isn't a witch hunt. When "I see it" I just generally avoid playing those people because we clearly value different things. I don't go about brow beating them over their narrow minded fluff-apostasy.


p.s. - I do happen to agree with you that there are objectively best units, items, combinations, and builds. I think the players who argue that point are not clearly considering the nature of points efficiency and efficacy.

And that actually adds to my belief that some combinations are abusive. Not simply because there may be combinations for which the designers did not account, but because the cycle of publication/republication creates inherent inequalities.
 

·
Rattlehead
Joined
·
6,741 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 · (Edited)
I don't have a particular build in mind which violates what I would consider good conduct so I don't really have any emotional reaction or aversion to the named builds you listed. Nor am I referring to 6th edition specifically. I think this same position can be expressed in almost any similar game. And I can think of a few armies I faced in previous editions which were abusive. Though I don't think any of my opponents ever had the gall to try and tell me that they were fielding an army right in-line with the setting.
But they would be completely right to tell you that's it's in line with the setting. Just because it's not a letter-perfect recreation of the Space Marine army from Fall of Damnos or Orar's Sepulchre doesn't mean it's not a fluffy Utramarine army.

Mind you this isn't a witch hunt. When "I see it" I just generally avoid playing those people because we clearly value different things. I don't go about brow beating them over their narrow minded fluff-apostasy.
Which is fine, and your choice (I'm not sure if I would avoid somebody because they hold different values, because if I did I'd rapidly be alone, but I think I see your point), but this is a list-building tactica i.e. a way of making your list better. And as you said, some choices are objectively better than others. What this tactica isn't is a discussion on whether competitive armies are fluffy and fulfill one's desire for a cinematic game, because everybody has a different opinion on what follows the narrative as this past page has so aptly demonstrated.

EDIT: @Kreuger, have you seen the new addition on the OP?
 
21 - 26 of 26 Posts
Top