Saturday, 3 April 2010

Fluff nuts Vs WAACs

I took a plunge into the rather iffy depths of BOLS a moment ago and came across this article:

I consider myself to be a rather middle of the road player when it comes to fluff and gaming. I have an interest in the fluff and background to the universe but I also like to push my skills as a player. I get upset when people treat both of these things as mutually exclusive. Thats not to say that I don't like people who prefer one over the other, its just not neccassary to wail on others that don't agree with you.

I have seen on some forums that people get taken to pieces because they have included a unit just because they like it, despite being considered crap, Pariahs spring to mind here. This is the whole argument that the fluff nuts bring up which can be summarised as "Take what you like, play for fun". Define fun. Fun is different things to different people. However there is something to be said for taking a "crap" unit and making it work. Just like some people can do with Rubrics and Vipers. Arguments of this nature though lead to the so called meta-game of 40k where absolute efficiency is king. Why take Vipers when Fire Dragons and the like can do more for less points.

Fluff nuts are not with out blame though. The author of the linked article is just as bad as the Win At All Cost players (for more discussion on that look up Danny Internets, he has an awesome series of articles on the subject of competativeness). The above author, who is not alone and is just serving as my example here, is suggesting that optimising your list to win makes you a bad person and no fun to play to play against. This isn't true. Just because I have no historically themed IG or I'm not wearing a wolf teeth necklace while my SW on the board does not mean that I am ignorant of what happened during the Horus Heresy. Seriously, I make a list for my army and then build fluff around it, this way I get something that is both competative and has history for when I need it.

All in all both camps need to stop this holier than thou attitude and remember that there are different kinds of fun.


  1. What's the emoticon for thumbs up? :D

  2. {^} ? I dunno but thanks for the props :)

  3. Good post.

    I'm a recognized competitive player and analyze effectiveness to the nth degree. But efficiency isn't a formula... it's just a guideline to building a good list.

    A good general with a decent list can overcome any mediocre general with a tuned list. It's why you still see things like Footdar taking national tournies.

    Plus, pure efficiency analysis doesn't easily allow for synergy, "X factor" or just plain randomness. A selection that is ideal for a certain type of army build and/or a certain type of play style does not mean that it is ideal for ALL builds/players.

    Eh. To keep this from spinning into a huge rant... yeah, you've got a great point.

  4. I'll join TKE with the {^} if that is the thumbs-up emoticon.

  5. Yay I've invented a new emoticon!