Army Backgrounds: Do you have one? Why or why not?

[Paul]

Hello everyone!

I was reading some of the more venomous arguments between the "Fluff-bunny" camp and the "WAAC" camp. It was all fine and dandy (and a rather entertaining read at times) when something popped into my head.

I have a background for my army. A home-brew planet, regiment, fighting style, et cetera that I created to fill my niche in the vast Milky Way of the 41st Millenium. I know several people who have done the same.

In contrast, I know some people who simply paint their army, play with it, and discard it for another once they're done. There's little background (aside from that given by GW) in most cases. NOTE: This isn't a bad thing; some people think differently from me and I respect that. I don't mean to sound condescending.

SO.

I wanted to create an open thread addressing two things:
1) What's your army background? Do you have one? Or do ya just play because you enjoy the game, and immersion in the background is secondary.

2) What do you think? Is a background important? Does it add flavor? Or is it just a waste of time and effort, or at least a sign of maybe a tad of insanity?

As for me personally:
I've got a background. My planet is named Concordia, and it is a Knight World for a Lesser Forge World. It fields an Armored Regiment in the Imperial Guard (the Concordian 1st Armored), equipped predominantly with Leman Russes but with a larger proportion of specialized variants (one Vanquisher, one Executioner) due to the connection with the Adeptus Mechanicus. Repeated clashes with Chaos have also instigated Inquisitorial scrutiny (my friends Inquisitorial Guardsmen regularly skirmish with mine). Currently deployed in campaign allied with the 7th Trynzendian Foot (another buddy's shock infantry regiment).

I think it adds flavor. Whether or not it is important is up in the air for me, as I have no problem playing people without them hearing mine or me hearing theirs. But I do think it can help determine the course of one's army list builds as well as the models one acquires. For example, being based on Soviet armored tactics, my regiment relies on direct infantry support (tankodesantniki) and application of overwhelming firepower on a single target inorder to overcome the enemy. This, some may say, is evidence of my complete lack of sanity. I wouldn't necessarily argue against that...

Anyways, what are your thoughts?

[Xas]

I have an army background and I think it greatly increases your fun.
I however also like to get every % of effectiveness out of my army.

So I dont fit into either of those "camps".


The background for my Army collective of imperium-origined (meaning: non-xenos) is as follows:

The lead figure is a lord-inquisitor who has turned radical in his thoughts but so far managed to keep this hidden from the few people who could outmatch him in power and influence.

He has command over several Regiments of IG, a medium sized fleet as well as thight bonds to a Titan legion. He grants his troops free choosing of the means by which to complete their task and therefore many of the lower levels have turned to chaos for the gifts the chaos gods promise as well as help from deamons. As long as his troops fight well against xenos the lord-inquisitor doesnt care. He even has some loose arrangements with some of the traitor legions to call for assistance as kind-of-mercenaries. At the price of supplies and newer imperial technology they lend a hand in battle against some of mankinds greater foes.

His arch enemies are the tyranids and he thinks only by uniteing the imperium with their chaos-öoving brothers mankind as a whole can survive. While he himself hasnt yet made any deamonic pacts he thinks that because ultimatelly it is human emotions who command the gods of chaos they are a lesser evil than the total extinction that the xenos promise if left unchecked.

[Mal]

There is a time and a place for army background... and the gaming table isn't it.

This is not to say you shouldn't have an army background, it can be a lot of fun and very satisfying to have a well thought out army background for your finished army.

But when it comes to game time, don't give yourself a handicap for some 'fluff'... nobody will think highly of you for throwing a match like that.

As a side note, i've noticed a few people prattling on about the 'spirit of 40K' lately... what a load of garbage... the spirit of 40K is nothing more then powergaming kids... after all they are who the game is targeted for.

As for my armies, I have a background for around half of my armies... some I simply don't bother with as it essentially comers down to this: they are mean, they want to kill you... the end. I mean, how much story can you put into a nid force? they are hungry, your lunch... the end.

[Paul]

As for my armies, I have a background for around half of my armies... some I simply don't bother with as it essentially comers down to this: they are mean, they want to kill you... the end. I mean, how much story can you put into a nid force? they are hungry, your lunch... the end.

I don't throw the game because of fluff. I just don't take 9 Demolishers and call it a day. Not that anyone does, just illustrating an example.

So, your nids: What part of the galaxy are they attacking? Are they running into Imperial forces? Orks? Tau? What hive-fleet are they from? Are they a splinter fleet, or still part of a fully integrated fleet? Are they the vanguard of an as-yet-unseen threat from an unknown quarter? The remains of Leviathan or Behemoth? There's a lot of available background...

[SotonShades]

Peronnally I've got fluff for all my armies, and it is constantly evolving. From planetary origins, regiment names, even names and individual backgrounds for a few of the main characters. However when the models hit the table, they are game pieces and the fluff doesn't change my tactics (although which tanks I have for my Armoured Regiment are decided by fluff to a certain extent, but I have enough to be pretty flexible for most non-Apocolypse games)

I find the fluff drives me more on the craft side of the hobby than the gaming side. It drives me to do better, more exciting convertions and put more effort into the paintjobs. This in turn, having the nice models, makes me want to use them in as many games as I can as often as I can.

[eldargal]

I have created my own Craftworld, Cait-Badd:

The Eldar believe themselves to be a race doomed by their own folly, and thus a fatalistic attitude permeates there society. Of all the Craftworld of the Eldar only two have rejected this fatalism and strive towards restoring the Eldar race: Biel-Tan and Cait-Badd. While Biel-Tan has taken a zenophobic and militaristic approach, the farseers of Cait-badd have recognised that for the Eldar to truly regain their former pre-eminence they must increase their numbers. To this end the craftworld instituted what they half-jokingly refer to as the ‘Way of the Mother’, a structured system of breeding to maximise the number of Eldar births. It’s success can not be denied, over the following millennia the population of Cait-Badd has exploded.
Where even the other more populous craftworlds are still predominately empty cities floating through the depths of space, Cait-Badd is a thriving, populous hulk, its bonesingers struggling to expand the craftworld in all directions to meet the growing demands for space. Indeed, there are so many Cait-badd Eldar that in the last years of the 41st millennia they have been able to resettle permanently on some of their Maiden Worlds.

Unfortunately for the Eldar, many of these Maiden Worlds had since been claimed as Imperial agri-worlds, but in contrast to the xenophobic Biel-Tan, under Farseer Dru’slla Cait-Badd took a more diplomatic approach. Knowing the Imperium of Man was under significant strain from the ongoing conflicts in both Cadian and Armageddon systems, Dru’slla proposed a deal. The Eldar would assist the Imperium in both theatres of war, and allow the continued use of the Maiden Worlds as agri-worlds, if the Imperium would turn a blind eye to their relatively small resettlement.
The proposal was initially rejected, but after the Eldar came to the assistance of the Imperium at several junctures, including saving an entire Imperial fleet, a review was promised. With continual assistance rendered, success was assured when Chapter Master Calgar himself acquiesced, stating that the aid given had been invaluable, and that the damage the Eldar could wreak on the war efforts food supplies warranted a more restrained approach for so long as the Eldar kept their word not to interfere in Imperial agriculture.

The success and growth of Cait-Badd have had a number of startling cultural effects on the craftworld. The females of the world have taken on an increasingly dominant role, given the focus on breeding and mothering and the population as a whole has a significantly younger median age than any other craftworld. In fact, Farseer Dru’slla herself is extraordinarily young by Eldar standards, by human standards being in her early twenties. The autarchs of the craftworld too are, at this point, all female. Needless to say the Shrine of the Howling Banshee is a particularly popular one on the Cait-Badd craftworld.

To me background is of utmost importance. I want to know why my Eldar are risking their lives, what they are doing on that world, why they are fighting whomever it is they are fighting. Otherwise, what is the point?

[Grailkeeper]

My Marine Army had a distinct backround- it was a shadowy, dogmatic Imperial fists successor chapter, guarding a terrible Imperial Secret and bearing an overwhelming grudge against chaos. They were called the Grailkeepers (from where I derive my net name).

Every Character and most of the seargents had a name, and after I finished a battle I'd record all the details in a little book I had with the Chapter logo on the front- Win, loss, points level, against which enemy and opponent etc etc. I'd nominate a hero of the battle and why. I even put in one of those little imperial thoughts for the day - suffer not the enemy to live or what ever that suited the game.

Some day I'll read back over all those old battles and smile for a youth spent in door thinking about space warriors and their personalities when I should have been outside learning to chase girls.

The Fluff definitely influenced my playstyle as I was leaning to play, it helps that my characters personalities aided that playstyle- for excample my Chaplin Barucas lead from the front and was always the first to get to hand to hand with the enmey

[scadugenga]

The first thing I do when thinking about a new army (save Tyranids...) is think about where I envision them coming from, how to make the army more uniquely mine. "Fluff" in that case, is awesome.

I completely disagree with Mal over fluff to the tabletop. That's utter BS that you "hamstring" yourself with fluff.

There are two "modes" of play in 40k--fun, and competitive. Save the competitive play for tournaments.

There is no more sure recipe for a dissatisfying game for both parties than when the expectation for the game is not in synch. You have someone wanting to play a fun game playing against a competitive-oriented gamer and shenanigans will ensue.

[Mal]

I've not said anything of the sort, this is the second post i've found in the past 5 mins where you've assumed you understand what im saying without really reading my post properly and gotten it wrong...

gaming is gaming, friendly is friendly, competative is compatative...

I did not say to play competatively in friendly games, get your facts stright.

What I said is I see no reason for giving yourself a handicap in a game just to suit fluff. It makes no sense, fluff is good and fun, but it should be kept to the hobby side of the game, not the gaming side.

For example, I know a couple of people who only field scouts in their marine armies (apart from HQ), this gives a seriously unbalanced and rather easy to beat army... (once you know how scouts work that is), and how can it be fun knowing your army is going to loose without extreme good luck on your side?

Now there is nothing wrong with running scouts, but I don't agree with limiting your options to only scouts in games for a purely fluff reason. That is a handicap that you are giving yourself and imho removes an element of fun from the game (its not fun to slaughter scouts all the time, it gets a bit stale after a while).

What im saying is you can still have the fluff, but take a couple of support units, or fast attack to even out the balance of your scout army list... after all variety is the spice of life.

[scadugenga]

"There is a time and a place for army background... and the gaming table isn't it."

"But when it comes to game time, don't give yourself a handicap for some 'fluff'... nobody will think highly of you for throwing a match like that."

"i've noticed a few people prattling on about the 'spirit of 40K' lately... what a load of garbage... the spirit of 40K is nothing more then powergaming kids."

Right...what you seem to come across as is that you see no distinction between play and competitive.

I stand beside my original point. You have done nothing to alter that with your last post.