Topic: Fluff vs Playing

[premetheus]

OK so i thought i would post my first thread...and maybe it has been asked before, but seen as I don't do this too often I wouldn't know how to search properly to check.

When designing a list do you think of it in terms of fluff and hell with the fact you may lose a lot or do you think about gaming first?

[Ailaros]

gaming. Fluff can always change at a whim, but win-loss ratios can only be affected with list and playstyle changes. The only reason I'd put fluff first is if I didn't want to win.

Plus, in my case, my army's fluff is broad enough so that I could do basically anything with my list and still keep the fluff.

[wper34]

For me, fluffs & competitive edge (or gaming in your terms) sort of go hand in hand...

When I design my army lists, I tend to think of the fluffs first. (by imposing certain restrictions on the army I design) Then I take in account of competitive edge of the army list design and start working my way from there. To make army lists which are both competitive & fluffy.

Yes, we can have both of them working or being together in one list, but it does take a bit of work, as we need to think of many issues like:

1. Balance in firepower
2. Tactical flexibility the army as a whole has (ability to adapt to fight certain armies)
3. Each units role & functionality (eg. counter-assault, fire support, rapid response...)

There are also some other areas we should think about, of course. But these 3 points are the main ones from the top of my head right now...

[Chosen Man]

I'm in agreement with Wper on this. You can easily have both in your armies. It just all depends on your preferred playing style. Me personally if I had to put one before the other it would be background first for the majority of my list. This is a game to me, not a commitment. I want to enjoy myself and try out all kinds of different ways to run an army. I actually agree with the authors when they state that Doctrines are for flavor over powergaming. If I'm learning a new style, say Droptroops from basic Foot Infantry I might play in a more gamer style simply to learn the ins and outs of that style of play, but in the end adjust to a more fun style that fits a background.

[IGBunker (-Hela - Finnail-)]

i also combine both, more fluff for me thow. I play the Tanith 1st and only so i am quite limited on what i take... No GL, No LC, lots of flamers and snipers, No stormys and few tanks (i normaly dont follow this one), and also camoleane

Theni base lists around this and try to make a effective list with what i have advalable 2 me

[Talon Undecided]

Why not have both?

If we create competitive lists, all of them will turn out very cookie cutter (no Carapace, no Xenos fighters...) and be too similiar and become boring. Essentially, every Guard player migth end up having the same army, and then where's the fun in that? Fluff helps.

I remember Khemri (or was it someone else? Hmm.) telling tales of how his Tallarn Desert Raiders always simulate a 1980 Afghanistan War with his friends Vostroyans. That's fluffy. And probably effective too.

'sides, what you could do is to create a compeititive list, then come up with fluff for it. Take my Ghosts of Avia for instance. Airborne troops with a Ghosts name? The fluff for them is not published yet, but essentially the idea is for the troops and soldiers to appear from within swirling clouds of mist... I like it.

So go for both. Creating a fluffy army also fosters a sense of ownership, and you'll feel better for your Guard.

[IRolledA1]

At first, I played Tau, fought some iGuard (someone should really do an iGuard, iPod parody) and I loved it, killed Guard like nothing.  Then Tau got boring and I moved on to nids, then iGuard.

I vowed to make a fun army, not a cheap cheesy Space rines army.  (sorry rine players, I tried it and didn't much care for it).  I obviously chose fluff!

I should've chose Playing, fluff weighs me down.  But my fluff is kinda diverse, so it doesn't weigh me down too much.  Because of the fluff, games are more stressful and I have to really think! to make the best choice, (not like with Tau or Nids).

It put me in a position where it's 'not just mathhammer.'

[Greggor Sin, the Jolly]

When I first got into the game, I played for fluff... I played LatD, not at all cheesy (I've never even heard of battlecannons at the time...).  I took units that I liked, and characterized all units I took (ie, gave them reasons to be fighting, reasons as to why they fought a certain way, reasons why they didn't have some things, etc).

But I never won.

Then I started picking up on armies that had simple-win lists (ie, Leman Russ IG), and tried them out.  It not only helped me to win a few games, but helped teach me how to fight without them (your LR won't survive every battle, and my opponents had no trouble fighting without one...).

Now, I play a mixture of fluff/win.  My only exception being my unit of Khorne Berzerkers led by a Slaaneshi SorcLord in Terminator Armour - they're in my tournament lists.

But my next planned list is Nurgle-Daemons.  7 squads total, ~7 in every squad.  I hope it'll win, with my experience, but I know it's going to be fluffy.