Leafblower is like marmite

[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.