Leafblower is like marmite

[addamsfamily36]

Removed

[Dingareth]

I like challenge, and playing mech guard fits my fluff. I play a Death Korp f Krieg linebreaker squadron. Need Medusas to break down the walls, Manticores for long range bombardment, MeltaVets are the guys that ride up to a bunker and blow it open with Meltaguns, all while the inquisitors that orchestrated the attack fly around in their Vendettas, making sure everything goes to plan.

So what's that, a competitive list that's fluffy? Oh no, who would have thought of it!?

[Melissia]

I personally like to base my armies around either fluff, backgrounds, stories etc (my high elf army for example is a shadow warrior themed list)So why isn't a leafblower list fluffy? Why does a fluffy army have to be weak?

[UltramarineFan]

So why isn't a leafblower list fluffy? Why does a fluffy army have to be weak?

There's nothing particularly fluffy about the leafblower list but I agree that fluffy armies don't have to be abd ones, its a myth that still hangs around even though its been disproven more than once, you can have a list that is fluffy and strong.

[Bean]

As's been said, most of the op is just silly.

There's no reason a list can't be fluffy or themed and competitive at the same time.

There is no moral high ground in focusing on fluff or theme over effectiveness.

Frankly, people who are incapable of having fun against lists that are far more effective than their own are far more objectionable than the people who build those more effective lists.

[Melissia]

And why isn't a leafblower list fluffy?


I've seen a Grey Knights army wipe the floor with a leafblower list, by the way... skill and luck still play a good part into it.

[Dingareth]

There's nothing particularly fluffy about the leafblower list but I agree that fluffy armies don't have to be abd ones, its a myth that still hangs around even though its been disproven more than once, you can have a list that is fluffy and strong.

Why is a Mech Guard list unfluffy?

[Bean]

To be fair, he didn't say that the leafblower is unfluffy, he said that it isn't particularly fluffy.

Now, I'm not really sure what "particularly fluffy" is supposed to mean, and, really, I'm a little dubious on what "fluffy" means, in general.

I mean, if "fluffy" means, "representing something which actually appears in the fluff" then virtually no armies are fluffy. If it means, "representing something which could appear in the fluff without destroying your suspension of disbelief," then you should find every army fluffy.

Basically, though, no matter how you look at it, a leafblower guard army is extremely fluffy. It's pretty much exactly what guard do. The only thing that really stands out about it is that many of the guard companies in the fluff aren't supplied with enough armor to field an army like the leafblower. But, then, many guard companies do have that much armour--according to the fluff.

There is actually no basis at all for saying that the leafblower is unfluffy--or even that it is not particularly fluffy. It isn't indicative of all guard armies in the fluff, ever, but it is very representative of a certain (and not uncommon) set of those armies.

[Melissia]

To be fair, he didn't say that the leafblower is unfluffy, he said that it isn't particularly fluffy.

Which is irrelevant to my objection.

I asked him WHY. I want him to explain himself, so that I might tear his opinions down, because I'm a ***** and that's just something I enjoy doing.

[MVBrandt]

It's really hard for almost ANY guard army not to be fluffy ... there are trillions of guardsmen and hundreds of thousands of regiments in an imperium that spans an entire galaxy ... as long as the list is book legal, it's probably fluffy.

[Nabterayl]

I mean, if "fluffy" means, "representing something which actually appears in the fluff" then virtually no armies are fluffy. If it means, "representing something which could appear in the fluff without destroying your suspension of disbelief," then you should find every army fluffy.

Basically, though, no matter how you look at it, a leafblower guard army is extremely fluffy. It's pretty much exactly what guard do.
Quoted for truth. The only "real" formations the IG codex can make are an infantry company, a mechanized platoon, and an airborne platoon. Every other list the codex is capable of creating is a mere representation of a high-level "real" formation, or an actual formation that draws from multiple battalions, if not multiple regiments. I think 150 guardsmen on foot backed by three Leman Russ would strike most people as a "fluffy" list, but that's elements of two regiments right there. Even if you substitute Basilisks for the Leman Russ, you're still talking about elements of two battalions at a minimum.

[Fellend]

Seriously, How can Melissa not be warned for trolling? But I hate to agree with her. What's a fluffy IG army? Since every possible variant of IG exist I don't see why an armoured company would be unfluffy.

See, said with nice words, no rudeness required, no internet trolling needed and no the rage can stay with BA.

[Melissia]

Because I'm not trolling?

[addamsfamily36]

I had just said some nice things about your posts mellisia in a different thread regarding a beginner to 40k, to then check up on my thread to see a bit of an angry response lol.

firstly i think i should go straight in and apologise , im still relatively new to forums and posting and not everything i say comes cross clearly or how i mean it to. leafblower lists can definately be fluff orientated as can other lists of a similar nature. But (and im saying this from my personal experience) Alot of these lists i have seen are never backed up by fluff or a good background story. this is obviously not the case across the whole gaming community, thats why i said open for debate/discussion. but from my personal experience the lists liek this that i have faced are step one open codex, step two right as beardy a list as possible step 3 play and destroy. and I'm saying i do and dont like this for the reasons i gave:

I like to play them for the competitive challenge, but i also like to see both sides having fun and i dont always see that.

Yeh of course a leafblower can be themed, however you can make up any fluff or theme you want to justify maxing out on an "undefeatable army"

Take my high elves. i love the shadow warriors background and the concept of the shadow king. in particular the white dwarf story that included eltharions swordmaster rules (if anyone remembers that article). so i had two themes sword masters and shadow warriors working together so i included a unit of each into my army, backed by standard core of spearmen. so i have my army, i have the background for its theme/reasons for units etc. But i didn't exploit the codex for all it was worth and make up my own background like have seen been done. i took the units based on the storyline i liked and wrote a simple balanced list around that, one that has shooting defence offence and magic.

rarely do you see fluff that explains the use of certain lists unless it has been made up by the person themselves which im all for using your own creativity (ive wanted to write a pirate list for years), but i wouldn't even think about rules until i had a background down first.


all in all i was posting my experiences and asking the opinions of others. it wasn't a set in stone
statement. i hope that smoothes over the matter:)

[ColCorbane]

Why can't a list just be a list?

Why does every list have to be fluffy or unfluffy? MinMaxed or not? Leafblower? AlphaStrike? Cheesy? Beardy???

One man's fluff is another man's cheese!

[Melissia]

I'm not being angry. It's just silly to say something like that without providing reasons for it, because it ends up with the argument becoming "yes it is" "no it isn't" repeated over and over again. If you post the actual reason you believe something (IE, "that isn't fluffy, because X, Y, and Z), then that can be disputed (or defended) with far more coherency than just saying "that isn't fluffy".

[Nabterayl]

Don't mind Mel. She's not trolling, she's just blunt.

addamsfamily, if I can jump into the discussion, would it be accurate to recharacterize what you're saying as the difference between defining "the game" as what happens on the tabletop and defining "the game" as what happens on the tabletop and your word processor both?

[addamsfamily36]

addamsfamily, if I can jump into the discussion, would it be accurate to recharacterize what you're saying as the difference between defining "the game" as what happens on the tabletop and defining "the game" as what happens on the tabletop and your word processor both?

Nabterayl feel free to contribute, i welcome comments (this particular thread has the most interest so far much to my pleasure even if its been a bit of an up and down one but thats half the fun :) )

erm i did however get a little confused by your statement thoguh so if you could dumb it down for me i would be grateful.

Melissa i'll happily supply my x and y's

My interpretation or use of the word fluff is in reference to background stories.

examples:

-the high elf story i gave earlier
-mephiston holding a doorway for 6 hours alone
-anerion fighting 4 greater deamons
-the make up of a race space marines into chapters etc

Guard an this quote comes directly from the 40k rule book have this under weapons of war :


Each imperial guard regiment is largely uniformed in its composition. an infantry regiment will contain nothing in the ay of heavy artillery, whilst an artillery regiment will contain little else

So for me imperial guard fluffs in the guard book might theme an all infantry or all mech/artillery army but not both.

So for me a leafblower list (or ones that i have seen) have found the best combinations (which is perfectly fine), but ignored the regimental structure, as you would need a much larger points game than 1500-2000 to start bringing whole regiments together. "Enter apocolypse games"

and in doing so in my opinion they aren't backed by fluff or background if you will

[Dingareth]

But, what if, as per my army, the battlefield you see as you play represents a very small portion of a huge battle. How can you say that's not justified? Give me an army and I'll give you a justification, anyone now. It's not hard.

If the units were put into the book than they were obviously ment to be used. I find it tiresome when people try to make other people's army fit into their definition of fluff. Why is the only fluff that's acceptable what come out of the stories in the books or out of Black Library? If I write this huge fan fiction out my awesome chapter the Imperial Lists, and their awesome Captain Fistander, than who are you to tell me that my fluff is unacceptable and I'm being cheesy because I'm using Lysanders rules to count as Fistander?

On that note, why can't "I want to play this army" just be enough? Why do we need justifications at all? If I really like Hammers, than I'd probably use Thunder Hammer Storm Shield Terminators, and if I found something that made those better, than of course I'd use it. What's cooler than a gigantic, electrified hammer? A really old, really well made, gigantic, electrified hammer of course! Why can't Medusasa are cool, or "I really like Thunder Hammers" be enough?

[Gooball]

Why can't a list just be a list?

This.
In tournaments you play to win first and foremost, this means you should try your best to win= Leafblower
Everyone seems to read too much into lists, hell every single time i make a list i don't even consider the fluff or how competitive they are, i do it because i want to try out different units and see what happens. This is because i never have any idea of what army im going to be facing. Next time you make a list look at your collection, pick some models that are fun to play with, well painted, or just damn cool (chenkov ftw!)

My army is normally a blob of 100ish infantry supported by a leman russ and armoured sentinels, this list wouldn't stand a round in a tournament but i just like the way the chenkov rules work and the idea of a tank spitting out plasma death-bolts
The point is to ave fun. if you can't have fun even while losing then this probably isn't the game for you.

[addamsfamily36]

But, what if, as per my army, the battlefield you see as you play represents a very small portion of a huge battle. How can you say that's not justified? Give me an army and I'll give you a justification, anyone now. It's not hard.

If the units were put into the book than they were obviously ment to be used. I find it tiresome when people try to make other people's army fit into their definition of fluff. Why is the only fluff that's acceptable what come out of the stories in the books or out of Black Library? If I write this huge fan fiction out my awesome chapter the Imperial Lists, and their awesome Captain Fistander, than who are you to tell me that my fluff is unacceptable and I'm being cheesy because I'm using Lysanders rules to count as Fistander?

On that note, why can't "I want to play this army" just be enough? Why do we need justifications at all? If I really like Hammers, than I'd probably use Thunder Hammer Storm Shield Terminators, and if I found something that made those better, than of course I'd use it. What's cooler than a gigantic, electrified hammer? A really old, really well made, gigantic, electrified hammer of course! Why can't Medusasa are cool, or "I really like Thunder Hammers" be enough?

I totally agree with looking at a table top army as only a portion of the entire force, but not everyone plays this way and im just making that observation.

At no point have i forced anyone to change their army or forced them to make their army fluff orientated or not. throughout my posts i have tried to maintain a level of fairness and left the topic open for discussion often saying "in my experiences" and in "my opinions"throughout i have stated that these were MY thoughts not ONCE did i say that others should adhere to my points of view otherwise i would have put ALL LISTS SHOULD BE FLUFF ORIENTATED AND COMPLY TO MY OPINIONS!! but i didn't.

And if i did then i would be a complete ***!

I'm not telling anyone to do anything i was posting my view and asking for others instead im being told who am i to tell someone whats right and whats wrong.

[Melissia]

So don't be surprised when people don't like your view, and then post "you're wrong here's why."

[addamsfamily36]

I sided with both viewpoints from the word go, i appreciate looking at an army in all lights and have said previously that i have done so myself. but i never once said you must take on my views and my posts have been based on my personal experiences of playing the game and i asked for others. I didn't ask for accusations of "forcing people to do things my way" which i haven't.

I was asked for examples to back my opinion of a certain topic within the subject of my post, and i gave them. because two different people have different views of a word for example fluff doesn't make one right or the other wrong.

I even stated i enjoy using creativity and welcome peoples own stories and background or fluff if you will. what i dislike is people designing and army list and then making up some rubbish to justify it jsut take the list and play it, i have no problem with that. where as if they wrote a nice idea or had an idea for particular unit types like a person who loved terminators etc then designed their army around that then i prefer the way that army has been designed, even if it is really beardy or good. because like we both said luck still plays a huge part in the game.

i wanted peoples thoughts and views, and i encourage people to give them, what i didnt ask for was to be accused of doing thigns i didnt do.

[Melissia]

I sided with both viewpoints from the word go
So don't be surprised when people don't like your view, and then post "you're wrong here's why."
Ahem. Especially given the intricacies of the English language and how things are easily misunderstood.

[Gooball]

Or the power of the interwebs to make everyone beleive they alone matter ^^
Nothing personal to any of you, just seen way too many trolls across forums to be optimistic over interwebs

[addamsfamily36]

?

sorry not 100 percent sure what your last post was saying (it confused me slightly) so if you could rephrase or explain i woudl apprciate it.

I have enjoyed our banter btw, and i have praised you in another post. :) so i hope no harm no foul.

[Nabterayl]

So for me a leafblower list (or ones that i have seen) have found the best combinations (which is perfectly fine), but ignored the regimental structure, as you would need a much larger points game than 1500-2000 to start bringing whole regiments together. "Enter apocolypse games"
This is what I brought up in my earlier post - you need to field an Apocalypse list in order to put even a single company on the table. Let's take a look at some real Imperial Guard companies. A light infantry company in the 17th Tallarn Desert Raiders consists of:
One company command squad, with
One attached scout Sentinel squadron, and a heavy weapons platoon consisting of
One platoon command squad, commanding
Two mortar squads, each consisting of three mortar teams, plus
Two anti-tank squads, each consisting of three lascannon or missile launcher teams, plus
Two fire support squads, each consisting of three autocannon or heavy bolter teams, in addition to five infantry platoons, each consisting of
One platoon command squad, commanding
Five infantry squads.
That's one CCS, eighteen heavy weapons teams, five PCSs, twenty-five guardsmen squads, and three Sentinels - easily 276 models, at a minimum cost of 1675 points. And that doesn't take into account any attached priests, commissars, or squad-level weaponry. Big, but doable in a standard game. Two such companies puts you squarely in Apocalypse territory. The 17th Tallarn Desert Raiders have twenty-seven infantry companies alone. You'd need the largest of mega-battles to represent a single regiment. Note that any vehicles at all would have to come from a different battalion within the regiment at a minimum.

Now let's take a look at a mechanized company. The 114th Cadian is a mechanized infantry regiment. A single mechanized company in this regiment consists of:
One company command squad, in a Chimera, commanding four mechanized infantry platoons, each consisting of
One platoon command squad, in a Chimera, plus a Salamander, commanding
Five squads of guardsmen, all in Chimeras, supported by
One heavy weapons squad, in a Chimera.
The IG codex doesn't even allow you to recreate this list (can't buy a Chimera for heavy weapons squads), but you can come pretty darn close, and if you do, you'd be fielding 229 infantry models, plus 26 Chimeras, which is over 2600 points without any upgrades at all. Give the company any equipment and you're already on the brink of Apocalypse - and again, the list would contain no heavy support, no elites, and no fast attack at all, because those elements would come from a different battalion.

In short, I'd wager that 90% of even the "fluffy" Guard lists represent a combined strikeforce from multiple battalions at a minimum. And a fairly elite one, at that. Throw one Basilisk and one Leman Russ into either of these companies and suddenly you're drawing from three different battalions for a company level action (two different battalions and a whole other regiment, in the case of the Cadians). I mean, that's not normal stuff.


Nabterayl feel free to contribute, i welcome comments (this particular thread has the most interest so far much to my pleasure even if its been a bit of an up and down one but thats half the fun :) )

erm i did however get a little confused by your statement thoguh so if you could dumb it down for me i would be grateful.
What I was getting at was that it seems to me like you're defining "fluffy" as essentially "being created from a backstory," or at the very least having a backstory. And to you, that seems to be an integral part of "the game." But somebody else might pick up the rulebook and say, "Look, I don't see anything in here about creating backstories. I'm totally fine with people doing that, but it's not part of the game." And it kind of seems like your response is, "Yes, it is part of the game." True, not true, true-with-modifications?

[DarkLink]

Because I'm not trolling?


Don't mind Mel. She's not trolling, she's just blunt.


If anything, the OP is trolling by making comments without backing them up. Melissia is just calling them on it.

[addamsfamily36]

What I was getting at was that it seems to me like you're defining "fluffy" as essentially "being created from a backstory," or at the very least having a backstory. And to you, that seems to be an integral part of "the game." But somebody else might pick up the rulebook and say, "Look, I don't see anything in here about creating backstories. I'm totally fine with people doing that, but it's not part of the game." And it kind of seems like your response is, "Yes, it is part of the game." True, not true, true-with-modifications?

:)

You actually brought a smile to my face (in a 'i like your response' way)

Im going to take the true with modifications option if i can. For me i enjoy the storylines as much as the game and the painting etc as for me they all make up the hobby. So alot of my armies are built around themes or "fluff" but i do have one army that isn't and thats my beastmen (although havent worked a new list since book came out lol).

And i wasnt originally saying fluff is the only way to play, more that i had a dislike to armys that are not enjoyable to play against for alot of people, and have been designed with the soul purpose of winning in mind (i like to play them though as i enjoy a challege but thats going off topic)

Then an issue came up about the leafblower not being fluffy, so i gave my examples why based on fluff from the structure of guard regiments, the leafblower list ignores the makeup of a guard regiment and to me therefore can't be based on fluff, otherwise it would be an all artillery or all infantry list. (which i think you explained also in your post if i read it correctly)

But a nice post was made about viewing what was on the board as only part of the army. i agree with this statement, but not every game or mission played supports that idea.

[Lerra]

I like to think of each base of guardsmen as representative of 15-20 men. A tyranid termagaunt model represents maybe 50 termagaunts. In that way, you could run a whole IG company at lower points, but I've never seen people do this. People play what is fun, reasonable, and balanced, which is rarely a perfectly fluffy list. Fun is more important than accurate reconstruction.

At the end of the day, the game is only an approximation. Some codices don't lend themselves to fluffy lists. Example: Codex Chaos Daemons. If you want to take a balanced all-comers list, you have to take units from more than one god. Limiting yourself to only a quarter of the codex is not very fun and causes unit spam.

[addamsfamily36]

welcome to the thread lerra pleased to see a new face on my thread, ive seen some of your other posts in my browsing.

Fun for me is the biggest part of the hobby. and for me i find it fun to write themed armies, and not sure if you saw my high elf list structure that i briefly mentioned earlier,but i only included the fluff element to a certain degree of my army, so that i was free to use a balanced for for the rest of it. most of my friends dont play fluff or themed armies and thats fine, ive only recently started to incorporate stories behind my armies.

i just dislike armies that are designed with a sort of "win at all costs" attitude.

i do like you view of looking at one guard representing 15 etc , interesting way of looking at it. :)

[Nabterayl]

:)

You actually brought a smile to my face (in a 'i like your response' way)

Im going to take the true with modifications option if i can. For me i enjoy the storylines as much as the game and the painting etc as for me they all make up the hobby. So alot of my armies are built around themes or "fluff" but i do have one army that isn't and thats my beastmen (although havent worked a new list since book came out lol).

And i wasnt originally saying fluff is the only way to play, more that i had a dislike to armys that are not enjoyable to play against for alot of people, and have been designed with the soul purpose of winning in mind (i like to play them though as i enjoy a challege but thats going off topic)

Then an issue came up about the leafblower not being fluffy, so i gave my examples why based on fluff from the structure of guard regiments, the leafblower list ignores the makeup of a guard regiment and to me therefore can't be based on fluff, otherwise it would be an all artillery or all infantry list. (which i think you explained also in your post if i read it correctly)

But a nice post was made about viewing what was on the board as only part of the army. i agree with this statement, but not every game or mission played supports that idea.
If I understand you correctly I think you and I play the same way. I play to win, and I prefer it when my opponents do their best to beat me - but yes, I too would prefer to be able to place any given game in a narrative context, even if it's one we make up on the spot.

On the subject of the Leafblower, at least as posted here (http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2009/09/40k-ard-boys-armylist-leafblower.html), I'll note that most of the constituent elements can be found in a single regiment (except for the inquisitor, who is always fluffy) and the Valkyries (but a tactical wing could be detailed to support any regiment; that's what tactical wings do). Even the 17th, whom I mentioned (and I pick them because they're one of the few infantry regiments we have an explicit, actual, complete table of organization for) contains 39 Leman Russes, 150 scout Sentinels, 49 Chimeras, 48 Basilisks, 6 Bombards, 12 Griffons, 20 Hydras, and 5 Salamanders. So it's hardly a stretch to believe that even an infantry regiment could field a Leafblower (again, with inquisitorial and Navy support). The question is just why an inquisitor, a tactical wing, elements of two different infantry companies, elements of the anti-aircraft company, elements of the heavy artillery company and elements of another artillery company (the Manticore and the Medusas are almost certainly not in the same company) would all be in the same place.

But really, and I think this was Mel's implied original point, that's the same question that most Imperial Guard lists raise. Why would elements of the regiment's armored company (companies) be supporting these infantry? What are elements of one of the artillery companies doing there too? Why are the seconded storm troopers present? Leafblower's a little worse than most (drawing as it does from at least five separate formations within the regiment, not counting the inquisitor), but it's truly a difference of degree. I don't know that I can say drawing from three separate formations constitutes "fluffy" but drawing from five is over the line.

[addamsfamily36]

yeh i get the feeling we do.

As for the leafblower, i used it as an example to represent a lot of lists of a similar nature, and it had been going round the forum as a bit of a topic so seemed ideal, and it got response, which im happy with as my first thread was a painting article, which got a few good responses but just died off after about 6 or 7.

yeh that line is a dot lol :D

[Lanparth]

You know, defeating a Leafblower may be as easy as just taking piles of Deepstrike. Such as a big number of Drop Pods filled with marines that hold Meta weapons and Sterngard with Melta.

Drop in and destroy the heavy weaponry (Baskalisks and ect), and then mop up the Chimera's from behind.

[Dingareth]

You do know about Mystics right?

[DarkLink]

Yeah, mystics can hurt that plan. However, second only to an all-outflanking army an all deepstriking army is probably one of the better options.

Of course, then the leafblower player can just reserve everything, then drive on and drop templates on the exposed and helpless drop-troops.

[Melissia]

Especially if they have leman russ battle tanks and plascan sentinels. Able to move and fire their templates... mm.

[UltramarineFan]

Which is irrelevant to my objection.

I asked him WHY. I want him to explain himself, so that I might tear his opinions down, because I'm a ***** and that's just something I enjoy doing.

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What I mean is that the list is not based around a key part of fluff, like maybe a paticular battle or particular trait of a certain armies background. Saying mech guard is fluffy is like saying that marines using drop pods is fluffy, its not really, its just one of the ways they can fight. If you take that as being fluffy then pretty much EVERY army you'll ever see will be fluffy.

[Dingareth]

HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What I mean is that the list is not based around a key part of fluff, like maybe a paticular battle or particular trait of a certain armies background. Saying mech guard is fluffy is like saying that marines using drop pods is fluffy, its not really, its just one of the ways they can fight. If you take that as being fluffy then pretty much EVERY army you'll ever see will be fluffy.

Yeah, that's exactly our point. What if I don't want to field Col Shafer's Last Chancers and would rather field the 189537438057th Penal Legion made entirely out of Lord Commissars, Storm Troopers, and Penal Legion? Is that unfluffy because Black library hasn't written about it?

[addamsfamily36]

I thought this thread had ended and died off.

if you read the entire thread, you'll see that it was more of dislike towards people at my local store that represent a growing number of players, that use tournament style lists to destroy beginners/regular gamers who play for fun not competition.

There were some miss understandings along the way, and the fluff argument was more to do with i like to theme my armies around something, that wasn't by any means a suggestion that you have to play a themed army or that an army can't be fluffy unless based on black library works etc far from it. But more of a dislike to making the fluff up to fit an otherwise "built to win army/tournament list" to justify the beard when playing at my local GW.

Anyways i don't think this thread needs reopening on that topic, it had fizzled down and come to a talk about tactics and mystics etc.

[Melissia]

What I mean is that the list is not based around a key part of fluff

Prove it.

[UltramarineFan]

Prove it.

You want me to prove that it isnt something, so you want me to find evidence to prove the non-existance of something? I have to find evidence for something not being there...
I think it would be easier if you proved that it is and went from there.

[Melissia]

You want me to prove that it isnt something, so you want me to find evidence to prove the non-existance of something? I have to find evidence for something not being there...
I think it would be easier if you proved that it is and went from there.
You're the one making the claim, you prove your claim. It's not my responsibility to make your argument for you.

[murrburger]

It's a dick army to fight, but it's not unfluffy. It's pretty hard to make an unfluffy army with anything, unless you go out of your way to break the setting.

"HAHAHAHAHA!!!!

What I mean is that the list is not based around a key part of fluff, like maybe a paticular battle or particular trait of a certain armies background. Saying mech guard is fluffy is like saying that marines using drop pods is fluffy, its not really, its just one of the ways they can fight. If you take that as being fluffy then pretty much EVERY army you'll ever see will be fluffy."

I don't get this argument. What is a fluffy list then? Why isn't making a list based on one of the ways they fight fluffy?

Particular battle or trait? Is this a battle found in the rulebook/codex, or one I can just make up on my own?
What's wrong with making your own Guard task force for a certain battle?

(My quote button isn't working, so excuse me)

[addamsfamily36]

murrburger firstly hi :)

Right i think a lot of the arguments in this thread have been down to a badly written opening post by me. I am new to posting online and bell of lost souls is the first community that i have joined and made regular posts since joining.

so my opening statements were not as clear as i intended them to be and i have been trying to Rectify this since and get my point across(maintaining polite fair and even been apologetic, just view my second post lol), there are some who have chosen to ignore these additional corrections and have focused on original posts. i have even been told i was "forcing people" which is utter **** but lets not go into that lol :)

So for the whole thread i am going to bullet point the issues i was trying to cover and hopefully it can be taken from there without any misunderstandings:

1- My "should we do it or should we not do it' from the very beginning of this thread, was in reference to over powerful army lists (that for me take the fun out of the game) that are being used at my local GW by a certain regular. i have no problem with these lists at a tournament if a player wants to win then go for it, but watching a player destroy a newbie's interest in the hobby is untasteful. It damages bringing new faces to our local GW and expanding our stores community.

2- The "leafblower" reference was just used to give an example of such an army that can be created.

3- I'm a huge fan of Background/themes/stories produced/found within GW's publications, and when i use the word fluff, it is in reference to these entires in the rulebook, the codex's the white dwarf etc that i am referring too.

4 - I did not say the "leafblower" list was not Fluffy in my original post i merely stated that i liked to base my armies around a piece of fluff that generated the army selection.

5- I was then asked to give reasons why a leafblower list isn't fluffy. Well based on point number 3, for me the imperial guard break down into seperate regiments, infantry, navy, artillery etc. To combine so many elements from different regiments would go against the descriptions of how the army fights/is organised into these regiments. You could look at the army list being only a portion of what you see. Or make up Your own story/background for an army which i like to see it shows creativity. But Fluff generally is used in reference to published pieces from GW. This does not mean that personal creations are not valid or valued contributions to the community as a whole.

[Sam]

5- I was then asked to give reasons why a leafblower list isn't fluffy. Well based on point number 3, for me the imperial guard break down into seperate regiments, infantry, navy, artillery etc. To combine so many elements from different regiments would go against the descriptions of how the army fights/is organised into these regiments. You could look at the army list being only a portion of what you see. Or make up Your own story/background for an army which i like to see it shows creativity. But Fluff generally is used in reference to published pieces from GW. This does not mean that personal creations are not valid or valued contributions to the community as a whole.

I feel the need to point out some apparent misconceptions as to how the Imperial Guard functions in battle. While the Imperial Guard is indeed broken into separate regiments, the purpose of this was to reduce the effectiveness of an individual regiment. In battle, elements of many different regiments would be combined, thereby making an army more effective than any of the regiments would be on their own. It would actually be more unfluffy to have an army consisting only of elements from a single regiment.

[addamsfamily36]

I feel the need to point out some apparent misconceptions as to how the Imperial Guard functions in battle. While the Imperial Guard is indeed broken into separate regiments, the purpose of this was to reduce the effectiveness of an individual regiment. In battle, elements of many different regiments would be combined, thereby making an army more effective than any of the regiments would be on their own. It would actually be more unfluffy to have an army consisting only of elements from a single regiment.



yes of course many different elements would be combined. When the guard are deployed by the imperium they would more than likely deploy vast infantry regiments supported by ranged artillery and tank squadrons. But there is no fluff that describes an army or battle similar to the list in question, unless you looked at that list as part of a much bigger force. (which i said is a valid way of looking at it.)

[Melissia]

Let's face it, it's nigh-impossible to create an unfluffy Guard list. Uncounted billions of humans are drafted into the Guard every YEAR just in order for planets to pay their taxes. So yeah. Somewhere, in some battle in the galaxy, at some time in the Guard's 10,000+ years of history, the exact setup you're using in your Imperial Guard army was likely involved in a heated battle against some other enemy.

[Grabula]

So why isn't a leafblower list fluffy? Why does a fluffy army have to be weak?


May be considered fluffy but as an interesting topic anyone interested in warfare should do some reading about the war in Chechnya. Russian troops didn't want to get out of their APC's during some fights because they thought they were better protected. The Chechens would hit the front and rear vehicles in a column boxing everything else in and then they'd pick off each vehicle one at a time, killing most if not all of it's occupants.

I like mechanized warfare. I like the idea of riding up to battle but from a realistic standpoint hanging out in a vehicle for too long can be extremely dangerous against anything but light fire.

Alternatively, during the Iraq war there are several stories of troops staying in their vehicles as they rolled through enemy territory since incoming fire was primarily from small arms. They remained relatively protected from this in their vehicles, however it should be noted that generally speaking once these troops arrive at their objectives, they tend to disembark for reasons of safety ( a sitting vehicle is a larger target and vision is decreased) as well as to apply greater firepower and to increase tactical sense.

In the real world, generally a vehicle is good for getting you from point a to point b but once you arrive it's typically better to disembark. I know it's a game but I sure wouldn't mind seeing this accurately reflected to some degree.

[Melissia]

Which isn't necessarily unfluffy, because Guardsmen are ALSO ordinary humans just like those :P

[UltramarineFan]

It's a dick army to fight, but it's not unfluffy. It's pretty hard to make an unfluffy army with anything, unless you go out of your way to break the setting.

I don't get this argument. What is a fluffy list then? Why isn't making a list based on one of the ways they fight fluffy?

Particular battle or trait? Is this a battle found in the rulebook/codex, or one I can just make up on my own?
What's wrong with making your own Guard task force for a certain battle?

(My quote button isn't working, so excuse me)

Of course you can make up your own. Making a list which happens to refelct the way the army fights is not fluffy as far as I'm concerned. Oh look I've written a foot marines list, it's fluffy, wow I've written a mech marines list, it's fluffy-sorry but as far as I'm concerned that does not constitute a fluffy army

[Melissia]

Of course you can make up your own. Making a list which happens to refelct the way the army fights is not fluffy as far as I'm concerned. Oh look I've written a foot marines list, it's fluffy, wow I've written a mech marines list, it's fluffy-sorry but as far as I'm concerned that does not constitute a fluffy army
Prove it. Put your money where your Calgar-kisser is, UltramarinesFan :P

[UltramarineFan]

You're the one making the claim, you prove your claim. It's not my responsibility to make your argument for you.

I think this argument really hinges on what you define as a fluffy army. Obvioulsy there is no set definition of this which is probably why we are having an argument about it. Now, as far as I am concerned just because the exact setup of armies that you are using as probably occured somewhere in 40ks long history does not define an army as fluffy because that logic makes EVERY army EVER fluffy and that just defeats the point of classing armies as 'fluffy'. That is why I think that for an army to be fluffy it has to be based on a piece of published background or a suitably detailed piece of your own background, for example a biker army led by Khan or crimson fists with very few scouts(if any) and many veterans led by Kantor(i use examples from SM codex because i know it best but you can get where I'm coming from)

[Melissia]

I think this argument really hinges on what you define as a fluffy army. Obvioulsy there is no set definition of this which is probably why we are having an argument about it. Now, as far as I am concerned just because the exact setup of armies that you are using as probably occured somewhere in 40ks long history does not define an army as fluffy because that logic makes EVERY army EVER fluffy and that just defeats the point of classing armies as 'fluffy'. That is why I think that for an army to be fluffy it has to be based on a piece of published background or a suitably detailed piece of your own background, for example a biker army led by Khan or crimson fists with very few scouts(if any) and many veterans led by Kantor(i use examples from SM codex because i know it best but you can get where I'm coming from)
Your definition is no better than mine then, because it just puts a small speedbump down before calling it fluffy.

[slobulous]

that just defeats the point of classing armies as 'fluffy'
There is no point in classifying armies as fluffy or unfluffy in the first place.

[Bean]

Slobulous is basically correct: there is little point in classifying armies as fluffy and not fluffy, and it is for a reason you expressed quite succinctly yourself:

If an army's being fluffy means that it is plausible to believe that its exact composition has showed up on the field somewhere in the 40k universe at some point, then pretty much every army ever is fluffy.

Since that pretty much is what it means to be fluffy, I don't tend to give a whole lot of credence to claims related to fluffiness.

[addamsfamily36]

Slobulous is basically correct: there is little point in classifying armies as fluffy and not fluffy, and it is for a reason you expressed quite succinctly yourself:

If an army's being fluffy means that it is plausible to believe that its exact composition has showed up on the field somewhere in the 40k universe at some point, then pretty much every army ever is fluffy.

Since that pretty much is what it means to be fluffy, I don't tend to give a whole lot of credence to claims related to fluffiness.

PLEASE read the entire thread if you wish to comment, as your comment directed at my, melissia's or Grabula's comments has no justification. "fluff" or "fluffy" is a word which means different things to different people and the entire thread has been a back and forth discussions on people views of not just fluff but many topics. ranging from Types of play to themed armies.

To agree or say that there is little point in *classifying armies* is to say that there is no point in theming armies. because if you had read the thread you would have seen that fluff/theme was one of the things discussed. no you dont have to play themed armies but don't come into a thread without reading it all and say you shouldn't.

[Bean]

I read the entire thread, and my position on what makes an army fluffy has exactly as much justification as you have given for any of your positions on the same.

"Fluffy" is a word that has different meanings to different people--all I have done is assert that it has a particular meaning to me. Given that you have made functionally similar assertions, your outrage is more than a little ridiculous.


On your final point, though, you're just wrong. First off, neither Slobulous nor myself asserted that there is no point in classifying armies--obviously, there are legitimate classifications one can make. He and I both asserted that there is no point (or little point) in classifying armies as fluffy or unfluffy, and that claim is not similar at all to the claim that "there is no point in theming armies."

It is certainly possible to have themed armies without any eye towards fluffiness or unfluffiness at all. I could have an army of nothing but Biker Nobs. That's a themed army; it has a theme. Its theme exists independently of whether we classify it as "fluffy" or not.

Finally, of course, there is the absurdity of your final imperative:

"don't come into a thread without reading it all and say you shouldn't"

Really? The thread is a discussion on the value of theme and fluff in armies, and I'm not allowed to post my opinion that fluffiness is not something by which we should be classifying armies? That's an entirely valid, entirely legitimate, and entirely on-topic opinion, which is not at all inappropriate for this discussion. Even if I hadn't read any of the rest of the thread (which I have--on what did you base that abortion of a conclusion, anyway?) it would still be an entirely legitimate post, well in line with the point of the discussion.


So, you can pretty much take your sanctimonious carp and shove it. Your outraged response is entirely off the mark, entirely without basis in fact, and, as a result, entirely illegitimate.

[Gnoblar with Pointy Stick]

The fluff is there for the same reason that "space Marine casualty" models and "baby Dragons" exist. For those who want to bother with it.
I say, let people do what appeals to them.
Some people like to kick serious *** by spending their time with the hobby figuring out the most broken units and most effective game winners.
Some like to construct perfectly fluffy armies that one might actually see marching down the battlefield in the forty first millennium.
Some people like to run armies that are unfluffy AND ineffective in combat, just because one particular thing appeals to them.
I have a Gnoblar Hoard Ogre Kingdoms list, which makes no fluff sense and loses constantly, but I love the little Gnoblars, so that's what makes me happy.
I say, whatever Pickles your Gherkin.
And if you're having a hard time playing against WAAC people, maybe you need to examine either your lists or how much you care about winning...

[addamsfamily36]

Really? The thread is a discussion on the value of theme and fluff in armies, and I'm not allowed to post my opinion that fluffiness is not something by which we should be classifying armies? That's an entirely valid, entirely legitimate, and entirely on-topic opinion, which is not at all inappropriate for this discussion. Even if I hadn't read any of the rest of the thread (which I have--on what did you base that abortion of a conclusion, anyway?) it would still be an entirely legitimate post, well in line with the point of the discussion.


So, you can pretty much take your sanctimonious carp and shove it. Your outraged response is entirely off the mark, entirely without basis in fact, and, as a result, entirely illegitimate.

The thread Isn't about fluff or fluff armies. It was a thread about a dislike towards a certain type of list structure. The fluff got dragged into it by a small comment based around theming armies, which i later explained. A few posts back from this one i even re-addresed the entire thread into a list of a bout 4-5 thigns(fluff beign the last on the list as it had crept into the thread)

my Annoyance/Outrage is because people are focusing on that and bickering back on forth and everytime i try and steer the thread back on to topic, it gets thrown off course again. so yeh i have every right to be aggrevated that the thread has lost all sense of its original purpose.

I wrote the original thread and even re-wrote it at later stages so people could fully understand the main topic. Based on this your post as are many others, Off topic making your post Illegitamate. People can go right about fluff elsewhere if they want, they can start their own thread which i believe someone has, but please don't start draggin this thread back into something it wasn;t intended to be as it was begining to steer back on course.

As for
He and I both asserted that there is no point (or little point) in classifying armies as fluffy or unfluffy, and that claim is not similar at all to the claim that "there is no point in theming armies."





What do you mean its not similar, its the same phrase/claim?

I will apologise for the outbreak, you jsut recevied the builidng frustration at this thread. Ive tried deleting it numerous times without success. Ive tried steering it back on course without success. for that i am sorry (and thats not a sarcastic sorry, or a scape goat i truly am apologetic for the outburst) so i'll leave it up to you to take it or leave it.

I will however stick by my view that your post was off topic, but seeing as so many post have it might as well have been a thread about fluff. :(

[Melissia]

The fluff is there for the same reason that "space Marine casualty" models and "baby Dragons" exist. For those who want to bother with it.
I say, let people do what appeals to them.
Some people like to kick serious *** by spending their time with the hobby figuring out the most broken units and most effective game winners.
Some like to construct perfectly fluffy armies that one might actually see marching down the battlefield in the forty first millennium.
Some people like to run armies that are unfluffy AND ineffective in combat, just because one particular thing appeals to them.
I have a Gnoblar Hoard Ogre Kingdoms list, which makes no fluff sense and loses constantly, but I love the little Gnoblars, so that's what makes me happy.
I say, whatever Pickles your Gherkin.
And if you're having a hard time playing against WAAC people, maybe you need to examine either your lists or how much you care about winning...

And some people like to do both one and two, such as me. To me, there is nothing unfluffy about an Imperial Guard Leafblower armor, or indeed any mechanized Imperial Guard force.

[Bean]

to addamsfamily36


As for



He and I both asserted that there is no point (or little point) in classifying armies as fluffy or unfluffy, and that claim is not similar at all to the claim that "there is no point in theming armies."


What do you mean its not similar, its the same phrase/claim?

It is not the same claim. It is not the same phrase.

Theming an army, or giving it a theme, is not the same thing as classifying that army as fluffy or not. This is true because themes can exist without fluff and vice versa. Theme =/= fluff.

As for the rest of it, fair enough. Apology accepted. It's probably fair to say that my response was more heated than necessary, as well, and so you have my apology for that.


I still think my post was on-topic, though. You basically said that you thought a list is unfluffy. I don't see why. I don't agree with your definition of "fluffy," and I think that a more reasonable definition of the term leaves pretty much army being fluffy. I don't see how that opinion is off-topic.

[addamsfamily36]

Thankyou, and apology accepted this end too :)

Below is the re-post of the original Starting post of the thread:


1- My "should we do it or should we not do it' from the very beginning of this thread, was in reference to over powerful army lists (that for me take the fun out of the game) that are being used at my local GW by a certain regular. i have no problem with these lists at a tournament if a player wants to win then go for it, but watching a player destroy a newbie's interest in the hobby is untasteful. It damages bringing new faces to our local GW and expanding our stores community.

2- The "leafblower" reference was just used to give an example of such an army that can be created.

3- I'm a huge fan of Background/themes/stories produced/found within GW's publications, and when i use the word fluff, it is in reference to these entires in the rulebook, the codex's the white dwarf etc that i am referring too.

4 - I did not say the "leafblower" list was not Fluffy in my original post i merely stated that i liked to base my armies around a piece of fluff that generated the army selection.

5- I was then asked to give reasons why a leafblower list isn't fluffy. Well based on point number 3, for me the imperial guard break down into seperate regiments, infantry, navy, artillery etc. To combine so many elements from different regiments would go against the descriptions of how the army fights/is organised into these regiments. You could look at the army list being only a portion of what you see. Or make up Your own story/background for an army which i like to see it shows creativity. But Fluff generally is used in reference to published pieces from GW. This does not mean that personal creations are not valid or valued contributions to the community as a whole.


Point 1 was meant to be the the threads topic.

point 3 was just a personal note on how i structure my own armies. and has become the main theme of the thread lol

The reason the fluff element became an issue i think, is because a guy at my local GW plays dark eldar and i am this particular armies like arch nemesis. Not only does the guy cheat lol but the army really exploits the codex for all its worth (which is perfectly fine), his army selection was based purely on an old staff members dark eldar army, and he makes up fluff/themes to fit the army. And i don't just mean like saying "they are raiders/pirates thats why there is a lot of this etc" some of his reasons come across as him simply trying to justify why he always plays the same list, when in reality he plays it because he wins a lot (again no problem with this). Personally i love playing this army. but he also plays new kids and i watch their faces as he harshly destroys their new hobby and i disapprove of that.

[murrburger]

Well... Dark Eldar are an old broken down piece of 3rd edition, and it's pretty obvious what's good in their army and what's utterly garbage. I don't mean to say this as a competitive player or anything. I mean...Scourges? They're not even a noob trap. Anyone who looks at them knows they're terrible.

Honestly... there's not a hell of a lot you can do with the book...

But, from the sounds of it, maybe it's not the army, but the player? Well... is he at least instructing them on anything while he plays, or helping them learn from their mistakes?

[addamsfamily36]

But, from the sounds of it, maybe it's not the army, but the player? Well... is he at least instructing them on anything while he plays, or helping them learn from their mistakes?

Unfortunately not. just turns up, plays, destroys, leaves.

As for the army choice your right very limited to as what you can take, but its literally a carbon copy of the staff members list.

[Dingareth]

Don't play him? And encourage your friends to do the same?

[synack]

Unfortunately not. just turns up, plays, destroys, leaves.

As for the army choice your right very limited to as what you can take, but its literally a carbon copy of the staff members list.

Meta game him then and build a list specifically to counter his. Do it time and time again until he learns to adapt and build his own lists.

[addamsfamily36]

Meta game him then and build a list specifically to counter his. Do it time and time again until he learns to adapt and build his own lists.

I don't like to tailor my armies specifically to beat an opponent, but write a balanced list to face all races. i have no problems against it, but its the new players i feel sorry for.

[Dingareth]

Meta game him then and build a list specifically to counter his. Do it time and time again until he learns to adapt and build his own lists.

List tailoring is not meta-gaming. Actually the meta-game cannot exist because of it. If there's a prevalence of mech, and so everyone tailors their army against mech, then the elite lists start showing up, the former mech players start playing horde armies to beat the elite guys, who now have to switch to a mech build to beat the hoarders. And so on...

Therefor, as a state, metagame cannot exist, nor be defined as it constantly changes- unless your group is filled with whiny *****es who refuse to change their army, then by all means, tailor your list against them to win.