Tau Empire Codex 2013 | Army Builder Program
Dark Angels Codex 2013
Chaos Daemons Codex 2013
Chaos Space Marines Codex 2012

Warhammer 40k Forum Tau Online

 

Warhammer 40K Forum

Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army
Closed Thread
Old 07 Oct 2005, 04:09   #1 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 293
Default Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

Good day to one and all... something i notice on here from time to time is the threads that vary between those that approach gaming in a methodical, statistical approach (ie percentage of kills per turn for certain weapons) versus those that deal with the more background fluff... ie the Tau race, lifestyle, art of war etc....

Without trying to start a fight ;D, or get up anyone's nose, does anyone here have a direct preference for fielding Tau armies that are more rounded/fluff inspired (ie taking Kroot, Gue'va etc.) or Tau forces purely built to stand the best statistical chance of winning? I really want to find out why people field what kind of forces they have- for myself, i have a small 1200pt detachment that includes many weapons, configurations or troop choices that some people would consider useless/ ineffective.. however i field this army due to it being what i would consider a fluff compatible army, and so far i've really only had a few major losses (most of my battles have come out okay), including agianst armies that some people would consider as being assembled for maximum effectiveness...

A strange question i know, but i'd be interested to see what kind of forces everyone fields...
__________________

"Robed" Dark Angels-2500pts
kapow ur dead is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 04:27   #2 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 339
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

It kind of depends on what I expect to be playing against. Do the guys at my local shop play with fluffy armies, or hard-core competitive ones? Am I planning on going to a tournament that gives points for composition, or just wins?

If you could make all the armies equally effective, and yet different, that would be ideal...it would all boil down to the players' skill (and luck). You can't, really, so the next easiest thing is to let players make armies as tough as they can. At least then everyone is playing on an equal field in terms of expectations, so no one feels cheated when they come across an army many would consider "cheesy".

I guess that's the key, then....making sure everyone is playing on the same level. I've taken my competitive Tau (well, as nasty as they get...) list up against a fluffy Eldar player and mauled him with minimal losses. It wasn't a game at that point, just an exercise in rolling dice to arrive at the inevitable. I felt bad, he couldn't have had much fun, and over time lists evolved to result in an environment where players could field fluffier armies with some of the lesser used units and still have a chance to win, and everyone had fun.
foxxpetronivs is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 06:16   #3 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Retired back into the depths of the Internets.
Posts: 6,440
Send a message via MSN to mace
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

I'd have to say, it largely depends on the players' personal preferences as to what aspect of the hobby they like the most. Some will like the gaming side of it, and so will try and field the most effective and statically efficient force possible. Others will take this approach a bit more radically and start to do whats known as powergaming.. Other players, who like the fluff, would field a force that would accurately represent an actual army.. and so choose units that fit into this.. players who like painting etc would choose a large range of models, some that are often left on the shelf in other armies.

I think you get the point here.. but players generally field what they find either fun to play, or fun to put together or write about etc.

My army is pretty much an all-of-the-above army.. although its largely based on what models I like etc.. I'd say its still fairly competitive and fluffy (it's mech tau btw - mentioned several times in the codex ) That said though, I'm largely limited by money.. though I would consider some krootox once I've got a core force smoothed out and I've got a bit more money.
__________________
mace is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 06:32   #4 (permalink)
Kroot Shaper
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 56
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

My Tau generally grow based on what I feel like painting at the moment. Almost no thought into whether it will work on the field at all. Fluff matters a bit, at least insofar as I can incorporate fluff into the models. I mean, fluff is great for coming up with painting schemes, what the banners should look like, how much Tau gear your human auxiliaries should carry, etc. But anything that has no impact on the appearance of the models isn't that important to me. That said, a little storyline is fun, even if it is just to explain why certain troop choices were made, and why the fighting is going on. For me, that generally comes after though. I buy what I want to paint, and make it seem coherent later. Coming up with fluff about what units should be included doesn't make the painting fun itself, unless you can add bits to the models as you go.

So, to your question, neither really. I agree that army selection follows your focus in the hobby.
SandShark is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 06:44   #5 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 293
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

Ah yes, i couldnt remember what the term was- "Powergaming", thats it.

This is something i've been on the recieving end of several times in tournaments or campaigns, and i even asked one guy once why he chose the Eldar he had- he said it was because they were almost statistically unbeatable if used properly... i asked about the background for his army, etc. He gave me blank stares, and sorta blurted out some response that translates to "i only play with what i need to decimate my enemies, and i coudlnt care less about the army background or any of that GW stuff"
__________________

"Robed" Dark Angels-2500pts
kapow ur dead is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 07:08   #6 (permalink)
Shas'Saal
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 229
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapow ur dead
and i even asked one guy once why he chose the Eldar he had- he said it was because they were almost statistically unbeatable if used properly...
this has piqued my interest, I am very curious about what constitutes a " statistically unbeatable" Eldar list.
Could you provide details?
__________________
Good, Bad, I'm the one with the gun
Shaso Rama is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 08:09   #7 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 292
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

at times like this we must remember the one golden rule: to have fun.
isn't that what the game is all about? i mean sure it's MORE fun when u win, but i would rather have an army that i can look at on the field of battle and say COOL!!
__________________
AUTHORITARIAN OPPRESSION, FAMILY ABUSE, DEPRESSION CAUSED BY CONFORMALITY AND ECONOMIC DEVISTATION WILL REIGHN. HUNGRY CHILDREN WILL NOT SPARE THE GROCER. REMORSE IN ALL FORMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM HUMAN THOUGHTS AND ACTIONS FREEDOM WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE THROUGH REVOLUTION OR DEATH. THIS SYSTEM OF A DOWN IS UNAVOIDABLE AS LIFE ON THIS PLANET BECOMES UNNECASSARY. WE HAVE THE POWER TO REVERSE THE TIDES OF TIME BY MAKING OUR AWARENESS OF ABUSE KNOWN TO THE POWERS OF INDUSTRY AND THEIR UNCOUTH POLITICAL ARMS. THIS IS THE ONLY WAY. OPEN YOUR EYES. OPEN YOUR MOUTHS. CLOSE YOUR HANDS AND MAKE A FIST!
Shaz Ya Self is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 08:22   #8 (permalink)
Shas'La
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 394
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

Quote:
Originally Posted by kapow ur dead
Without trying to start a fight* ;D, or get up anyone's nose, does anyone here have a direct preference for fielding Tau armies that are more rounded/fluff inspired (ie taking Kroot, Gue'va etc.)* or Tau forces purely built to stand the best statistical chance of winning?
I don't play Tau, but in general I try and find an effective army within the "fluff" I consider reasonable - ie just as there powergamers, there are powderfluffers. The fluff is quite flexible I find. Within the fluffiverse you could field very crap armies or fairly good ones. It is more fun for both players to give someone a good run for their money than be a fluffy pushover, and it is nice to win sometimes, and its even nicer to win if you have done it within the confines of youur fluffiverse, but to lose all the time but be true to the fluff I see as inherently pointless.

__________________
cheekeigh mon-keigh
freecloud is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 09:35   #9 (permalink)
Shas'O
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 8,194
Send a message via AIM to Vash113 Send a message via Yahoo to Vash113
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

My army is very fluff based. It is built not around power but versatility, I love having an escape route available at all times as it frustrates my opponents to no end when they think they have made a cripling blow only to see the damage pick up again without pause. The background fluff for my army has been re-written a dozen times and actually came almost before the army itself did. But for practical reasons I use the versatility a lot because I participate in campaigns and tournaments often, it means that instead of power gaming I can simply have a vast bag of tricks with which to use instead of just a bunch of lascannons or daemons.
__________________



Vash113 is offline  
Old 07 Oct 2005, 20:02   #10 (permalink)
Shas'Ui
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 820
Default Re: Statistically powerful army vs. Fluff/background army

As a few of you may know I am makeing my army nice and fluffy ( Thanks again by the way) But also giveing a decent fighting chance agaist powergamers. Heck I have talked to my warhammer team ( Five emmbers) and We have invoked a fluff rule because we all love th game for the fluff and the game itself, winning of coruse we all want that but hey isn't it better to win with an awesome army that has a uniquely made background to it? ( Rhtrorical question) That's my philosophy so that when you do win you get a kinda of "double" victory. For the battle field and creativity.
__________________
"Curses! Just when you've managed to bring the whole world under your evil influence some pathetic little Inquisitor goes whining off to the Adeptus Terra about rouge psykers and daemonic possession. I mean, do I look possessed? Well, do I? DO I???" -Personal log of Lord Varlak, 995.m41
Oniyoh is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Background/fluff for my army SunTzusProphet Fluff/Stories 4 03 May 2010 18:51
Army Background- The Lords of Contamination (Nurgle themed army, advice needed) kreative Fluff/Stories 0 27 Apr 2009 18:32
Need help with creating my Army (Background, Army Composition and Doctrines) Cal Imperial Guard 25 21 May 2008 19:36
A question of Merit. (Army background fluff) Gallthan Fluff/Stories 1 22 Jun 2006 16:12
Most statistically Challenging army? flowerfall General 40K 2 28 Nov 2005 13:22