Should we feel un-wolfy when/if we spam?

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Well I can't comment on that because I most of my lists have been played at 1000 point levels, and there's not room for a lot of variety there.

 

For example for me a solid 1000 point army would be:

 

Wolf Priest: jump pack

Lone Wolf: twin wolf claws (although I'm thinking of the Mark of Wulfen/two wolves combination if I can work up enough enthusiasm to paint them, storm shield and mark is a pretty tough combination for only 65 points)

10 Grey Hunters: 2 plasma guns, plasma pistol, power fist, Rhino

10 Grey Hunters: 2 melta guns, plasma pistol, power fist, Rhino

10 Skyclaws: flamer, power fist

6 Long Fangs: 5 rocket launchers

 

It covers most things I'll find at 1000 points. The Long Fangs deal with armour, the Hunters mutilate the enemy with short range fire, and the Claws sweep the enemy away with preferred enemy and berserk charge. The Lone Wolf fills up the points, and has held up an Autarch for two turns, inflicting two wounds on his enemy, before being cut down.

 

However at the moment I also have another 10 man Hunter unit, identically equipped to the melta squad, 7 Hunters with a meltagun, plasma pistol, power weapon and mark of the Wulfen, 15 Blood Claws, with two flamers and a power fist (and a Wolf Guard leader with power fist) a five man terminator squad with a mix of single claws, storm bolters, power fist and assault cannon, and another Long Fang pack with 2 lascannon and 3 rocket launchers. Those are my painted models. There are far more that have yet to be assembled and/or painted.

 

One thing I feel like doing is an assault Long Fang pack. That is, the squad has 5 heavy bolters, and the pack leader has a power weapon. They can clear out medium infantry like nobody's business, and if need be they can support some of the younger pups with a well timed charge.

[Emperor's Scourge]

Eww...Skyclaws. :P Although, I'm sure the Wolf Priest makes it a pretty hard hitting pack.

 

My last post was rhetoric by the way.

 

I like my go to list. There's just something about having six PFs on the table that makes me tingle. Although, my FW Dreadnought speaks to me from the shelf. It says, "make a 1500 pt Bjorn list."

[commander alexander]

From my point of view, its hard not to spam. I don't get to play often enough to try out non spam lists. So it is pretty difficult for me to make an effective list without spamming. Although I do like the fluffier thoughts of small strike forces with unique units. :rolleyes:

[stinkenheim]

ok, you want to know what list i use. remember this is 3k pts (my standard fare) and a city fight force.

 

Bjorn Stormwolf, WL w/TDA, SS, TH, WTT and WTN

 

Voltaar the Bloody, WP w/Runic Armour, WTN, WTT

 

Morrgrim Silvertongue, RP w/ Runic Armour, WTN, WTT and occasionally COTS depending on who im playing and what powers i take

 

4 WG w/TDA, SS, TH one with CML in a redeemer

3 WG PL w/TDA power fist, storm bolter

1 WG PL w/TH

1 WH PL w/Bike and wolf claw

 

Ven Dread w/Assault cannon, hvy flamer, extra armour, WTN, WTT (i think) and SOM

 

Dread w/TLLC, Hvy flamer, EA, WTN

 

3 x 10 GHs w/Flamer, Meltagun, PW, Totem

 

10x BC w/Flamer, PF

 

3 x Swiftclaws w/PF, Flamer and attack bike

 

Vindicator

 

Tri las Pred

 

LS Typhoon.

 

LF w/5 ML

 

think thats it, although may have forgotten something. to me not a powergaming list. no transports for instance means i have low manouverability, but in city fight it doesn't matter too much as you are usually required to sweep through buildings as such my force advances either as a whole or in two groups. its when they are seperated into two groups that my use of cut and paste squads because effective as i do not need to worry should the dual melta squad get vapourised leaving a duel plasma squad to try and stop a land raider. every squad is the same, so i know how they work and what they can safely acheive. i also know when a flank/position is close to being compromised and can act to counter the problems.

also not the lack of anti-tank ranged weaponry, i have 7 missile launchers (5 lf, typhoon and CML) and 4 lascannons (which can only fire at two targets). its not alot in such large games, especially should i play Guard or Nidzilla, i can struggle in that respect but i like the foce i play. its an up close, in your face army and it works well with the fluff for space wolves. sure i might not be able to take much down at range but get near me and you get hurt.

 

so in this situation i don't see my spamming the weapon configs on squads/WG to be a problem, and i would be suprised and a little annoyed were i to be called a power gamer by someone.

i repeat not all 'spam' is bad, mostly thats just the stuff that comes in tins.

 

@levitas my earlier post wasn't aimed at you btw, sorry if it seemed like i was having a go at you.

[Lord Ragnarok]

I'm simple in my philosophy....its a game, its fun, only a rude opponent can damper my spirits. If someone takes a super strong list and super boring list that is there business. Now if it is a strong tourney scene its usually no holds barred anyway(except cheating).

[Freman Bloodglaive]

Eww...Skyclaws. :blush: Although, I'm sure the Wolf Priest makes it a pretty hard hitting pack.

 

Started using them when I was running pure infantry, and yes, the Wolf Priest does allow them to hit very hard. Unfortunately they are a glass cannon, if they get bogged down (especially against Marines) the lower WS means they do suffer. At least Oath of War doesn't expire after the charge.

[Stormbrow II]

I'd like someone to explain to me why powergaming or playing to win is bad? Really, I would. I don't mean a long-winded rant but something constructive.

 

@Levitas: When you slate spambuilding you're knocking a very valid army building choice. It's one I choose sometimes and if you don't like it: TS. ;) It might often be a one-trick pony but its still often a good way to get to know how the choices within a codex work so to complain about seeing it everywhere (GH and LF for example) is bound to invite censure. Especially on a dedicated Wolf forum (you can't tell anyone what to do with their army - you have to wait for them to ask and then give advice or they'll do the opposite of what you say). You don't like what I'm saying: you get the finger. ;)

 

Saying that, GreyMage and TigX are arguing it best when they advocate balanced builds because they're designed to take on all-comers whereas spam tends to be a Rock, Paper, Scissors thing. One spam army I proxied was the Razorspam list (10 or 11 of the things in a 1750 game) but if your opponent has a variety of units that can multi-task (and killing mech is one of them) then you tend to run into trouble. This is often the case at tournaments where you maul your way to the top with your gimmick army and expect to stomp on people but get crushed by lists with seemingly strange choices (Tac squads in BA lists). They're usually up there for a good reason and part of it is having a list that is able to take on anybody.

 

One of the best ways to get to know how the different units in a list work is actually to spam them, play a few games to highlight their strengths and weaknesses and start including (read: spam) other units to augment or compensate respectively.

 

Anyone else notice that none of the folks complaining about redundancy post their lists? I'd love to see the right way to play this game guys.

At what points? My lists change dramatically at different point levels i.e. Ven Dreads are brilliant in lower points games but suckier as points go up.

[Emperor's Scourge]

Ugh guys I was being rhetorical. Keep your lists to yourselves. Although its nice that you all think you play 40K "the right way." :lol:

[Skalver]

I'd like someone to explain to me why powergaming or playing to win is bad? Really, I would. I don't mean a long-winded rant but something constructive.

 

When two players with rich varied lists with a good variety of units both strong and weak play each other they get a game of chess.

When two players with spam lists play each other they get a game of checkers.

 

That sums the objection to powergaming up in a nutshell. To stretch the analogy further, if two players each show up with a set of checkers pieces they get a game of checkers and they are both happy. If one player has chess pieces and the other has checkers pieces, they are forced to play checkers. Thats fine for the guy with the checkers pieces, but the other guy showed up wanting a game of chess.

 

There is nothing wrong with playing to win, no more than there is anything wrong with playing for the story, or just wanting to play with whatever the coolest looking miniatures are. The problem comes when both players in a game have different expectations and if you make clear what you expect of a game in advance of turning up to play it will ensure that both sides do better. A lot depends on your club. If you are in a club that is very competitive and tournament focussed then thats fine, if you are in a club that runs long narrative based campaigns and you show up with the same powergaming list every week then you are using a powergaming mindset in the wrong situation.

 

I suspect a lot of it comes down to how you found your way to the hobby, if you come from a strategy gaming background then you probably see powergaming as the entire point of playing, if you came from a roleplaying background then the idea of powergaming seems ridiculous as it gets in the way of narrative and variety. The game can be approached from both sides and neither is right or wrong, they just both tend to get in the way of the other.

 

Your entire question however I would argue misses the point of gaming somewhat. You seem to be saying you will keep doing what you are doing unless someone can show you it is bad. Theres a whole world of good things you can do with this game out there, sticking to a single one because nobody can show you it is bad is just unnesscesarily limiting your options. Yeah powergaming is often a lot of fun, but I always find the games where two charchterful forces fight each other tend to produce much more memorable moments. You will remember your lone unit of Blood Claws tearing up the enemy much more than you will remember when the 4th identical Grey Hunter pack does the same.

[Decoy]

I purposefully don't use "Redundancy" squads. Never have, never will. I agree with the OP, to be bluntly straightforward, and I'll go further than that by stating that folk who "spam" builds, units, et cetera, are playing against the spirit of the Wolves, and should find a different army more suitable to their uncreative, lackluster method of army building.

 

From a Fluff perspective, Wolves, as a general rule, tend to be anarchic. While it shouldn't be said that Wolves would adopt a particular type of tactical approach and shun other methods, it seems to (to me, and apparently the OP, and a few others) simply -feel- wrong. No Wolf Lord worth his salt would simply organize Squads with the EXACT SAME weapon loadout, justified by the rather obvious feeling that adaptability is key in a wartime scenario. While there may be a squad or two out there with two, three Plasma weapons, there would be next to no chance of having four, five or six of the exact same squad in an army detachment. Two? Maybe. Three? Stretching it. Tactically, it makes little sense (in a real-life sort of justification using an interesting little thing called common sense. I know it's bad to inject real life to 40K, however.)

 

In terms of rules-based justification, I concede that yes, the Codex allows for it. As seems to be the case with every powergamer, "It's in the Codex, I can do it, go suck an egg." Good for you, that proves you can read. Now prove that you can comprehend said reading, and understand that the Wolves, of all armies, simply wouldn't organize like that. If you're in this game to win, that's well and good, and you have every right to play that way.

 

Just don't start whining and crying when I slaughter you to a man by turn three with my fluffy, non-"Redundant" list. I'll forgive you for being an uncreative, unimaginative, soulless husk of a human being if you'll forgive me for the violently embarrassing :evil:-whoopin' I'll lay down on your sorry self.

 

(NOTE: In case it could be construed that way, this isn't a call-out. Just a general statement on almost any "Cookie-cutter" list, with an emphasis on Wolves.)

[stinkenheim]

to me the game is about fun for both players first, followed by the result.

whilst there is nothing wrong with powergaming or fluff lists, you have a responsibility to ensure yor opponent also enjoys playing you. basically you have to be a good opponent to play against- no rules lawyering, no gimpy arguments, no sulking etc. if you turned up to a friendly game with your cheesiest list then thats not fun for the other person, unless obviously they were expecting it or did likewise. in friendly games, especially against friends, i believe it is better to take a more laid back list and just enjoy the game.

i have a friend who i play against rarely because of work who take abaddon, a DP w/lash and a greater daemon in a 2k pts game and then has the cheek to moan at my space wolf list because i had more than 2 hqs, this was back in the day when we needed 1 for every 750 pts. he failed to see how by turning up with a list untterly devoid of character and instead relying on the bigges sticks in his codex to bludgeon my face in could be seen as being a bit cheesey. i'm not sulking, but i feel that if he had a more balanced list that the game would have been better, and both of us woul have had more enjoyment from it.

depending on your club i think depends on the sort of list you should regularly use. the more 'hardcore' your club then the more hardcore your list. its a simply thing, but i feel that powergaming lists shouln't be sprung on people in friendly games at least not without a bit of warning. you have after all a duty to your opponent to ensure they gt as much enjoyment from the game as you do, even if that means you don't win that match. having said that there is nothing wrong with going out to win, and i would not advocate throwing a game to gift your opponent victory as that does no favours to anyone.

 

obviously this goes straight out the window in tournments, in such situations i think the phrase is 'go nuts'.

 

by the way, i know i have said that you need to try and make sure your opponent has fun, well i mean that. i get told i'm too serious or that i only seem to enjoy playing when i win. that isn't try, during most of the turns i sit quietly trying to plan ahead and also formulating counter tatics dependant on my opponents move (although i try not to let them dictate what i do) it just so happens that during turn 5 and 6 i don't need to do it to such a degree and so I laugh an joke about more and it also happens that after turn 6 i've normally won the game. now i make an effort to act more like i do in the later stages of the game all the way through. doesn't mean i don't carry on formulating battle plans, but i do it with more of a smile and a laugh now. seems to be going down better with my opponents.

[Stormbrow II]

Thank you for showing up Skalver.

 

I've been intrigued by the spam/powergaming is bad debate (the thread compares/contrasts it with cheating) since seeing this thread from Whineseer and one particular thing struck me:

 

Competitive gamers need to be mindful of the expectations of the casual gamers when playing in a casual environment, and the casual players need to leave their subjective limitations at the door when dealing with a competitive game.

This I agree with. Especially that it goes both ways. The "casual" gamers seem to think that they have a monopoly on defining what's fun and want to impose their own personal limitations on everyone else. I, and probably many other competitive gamers with me, find this not only annoying but also rather insulting.

 

What I wanted to point out, though, was that competitive does not equal wanting/having to win. Tabling my opponent in turn four is just as little fun for me as being tabled myself. I'd much rather barely turn a tie (or a loss) into a win in the last five minutes of turn six. Merely sitting down, rolling some dice and moving some miniatures around isn't all that great in my opinion. It might be, once in a while. But mostly, I might as well sit down and watch someone else play. Which is the same, but without needing to get up from my chair.

 

I was going to contribute to that debate but that post pretty much sums up the hobby for me and summarises our argument too I think. I'd much rather a hard-fought game against someone with a hard army (typically made and played by a good player) than by coasting to victory over a fluff bunny. I'd also like to not be berated for taking certain units over other ones or for someone to turn to me after a game they've lost and say "At least my army is fluffy."

 

Your entire question however I would argue misses the point of gaming somewhat. You seem to be saying you will keep doing what you are doing unless someone can show you it is bad. Theres a whole world of good things you can do with this game out there, sticking to a single one because nobody can show you it is bad is just unnesscesarily limiting your options

No it doesn't. I play my games predominantly one way but what I'm asking is why so many people will come and slate people for playing that way. I've had my fill of narrative gaming (campaigns with more than 2 people are fail) and I've found that the competitive gaming is what works for me. I've never said fluff gaming was 'teh ghay' or anything, I was just asking why one side is superior to the other in so many people's eyes? Or should I just accept that it's Horses for courses and move along?

 

@Stinkenheim: Could you please use Caps in your posts? It makes it hard to read the wall of text when it's all lower case. Thanks.

[Decoy]

No it doesn't. I play my games predominantly one way but what I'm asking is why so many people will come and slate people for playing that way. I've had my fill of narrative gaming (campaigns with more than 2 people are fail) and I've found that the competitive gaming is what works for me. I've never said fluff gaming was 'teh ghay' or anything, I was just asking why one side is superior to the other in so many people's eyes?

 

Because it just is. Similar to how the space between galaxies is increasing in distance, how the moon ended up PERFECTLY complementary to the Earth, and why the universe is so incredibly uniform in constitution. "It just is." You can ask the question until you're blue in the face, but the only answer you'll ever really get is "It just is." Learn to accept that.

 

Truth be told, this thread surprises me a fair bit. However, in the same vein, it highlights an important issue. Take a look at the "Join date" and post count of the "OMG SPAM IS GREAT!" folk, and then do the same for the folk who insist on running a fluffy army. The divide is clear as day and highlighted in neon.

 

Just goes to show that the Win At All Costs and Flavor Of The Month players tend to prefer "The most efficient" (powergamed) army lists, while the Dyed-In-The-Fur Fluffboys prefer a fluffy, characterful army.

 

Go ;)-ing figure.

[TiguriusX]

No it doesn't. I play my games predominantly one way but what I'm asking is why so many people will come and slate people for playing that way. I've had my fill of narrative gaming (campaigns with more than 2 people are fail) and I've found that the competitive gaming is what works for me. I've never said fluff gaming was 'teh ghay' or anything, I was just asking why one side is superior to the other in so many people's eyes?

 

Because it just is. Similar to how the space between galaxies is increasing in distance, how the moon ended up PERFECTLY complementary to the Earth, and why the universe is so incredibly uniform in constitution. "It just is." You can ask the question until you're blue in the face, but the only answer you'll ever really get is "It just is." Learn to accept that.

 

Truth be told, this thread surprises me a fair bit. However, in the same vein, it highlights an important issue. Take a look at the "Join date" and post count of the "OMG SPAM IS GREAT!" folk, and then do the same for the folk who insist on running a fluffy army. The divide is clear as day and highlighted in neon.

 

Just goes to show that the Win At All Costs and Flavor Of The Month players tend to prefer "The most efficient" (powergamed) army lists, while the Dyed-In-The-Fur Fluffboys prefer a fluffy, characterful army.

 

Go :cuss -ing figure.

 

 

 

Please provide a copy of the Decoy SW codex. I am interested in how exactly one satisfies your fluffy SW requirements.

[Stormbrow II]

Just goes to show that the Win At All Costs and Flavor Of The Month players tend to prefer "The most efficient" (powergamed) army lists, while the Dyed-In-The-Fur Fluffboys prefer a fluffy, characterful army.

 

Go censored.gif-ing figure.

Ah, so because I'm a member of *this* forum since Oct 09 it is clearly impossible that I've never played with the Wolves before the 5th ed codex. Or anyone else for that matter.

 

Right. As you say yourself: Go f'ing figure. :cuss

[Decoy]

Glee!

 

Conflict! Division! Obtusenisity (lulwat?)

 

All right, since you've bitten the bait, we'll run with this (and address Tigurius as well.) The only thing I ask is you forgive any typos, considering my hands are numb from weedeating.

 

 

Through the course of the Codex (call it my codex if you will, Tigurius), there are almost innumerable descriptions of the Space Wolves. I could give exact quotes, and I will if you desire it, but for now, I'll save my time and simply paraphrase. Those major descriptions essentially point out the following:

 

*Each Great Company tends to favor a specific type of approach to war, not from a tactical mindset, but simply from preference.

*Each Space Wolf (Not just HQ choices) are highly individualistic.

*Each Space Wolf has a specific identity, inclusive of independant or special characters.

*Certain Space Wolves know "The soul" of every weapon in the armory, and will "take every opportunity to prove it". (Long fangs, particularly.)

*Certain Space Wolves are of such a determined mindset to slay that even the Great Wolf himself will not countermand them.

*In the case of Wolf Guard, they are expected to fight in the style in which they excel.

*Rountinely, weapons-selection is stated as the unit in question having an "Arsenal" of weaponry to choose from.

 

I could continue going with examples all throughout the book. However, every Fluff mention of anything approaching Wargear is rather straightforward in leaning away from cookie-cutter builds. Hell, we have a rule -specifically- for that.

 

So, the one main argument in terms of fluff is that certain Wolf Lords have specific styles of war. Ragnar is a drop-podder, Bloodhowl uses close combat specialists, Grimblood uses flamers (and lots of 'em). However, nowhere in these fluff snippets does it come anywhere near stating that "everyone uses the same weaponry." Grimblood is the closest, at best, simply because his Grey Hunters can only paint their faces once they have killed an enemy with flame. However, by that token, if someone were to attempt to justify their "flamer-spam", you have to realize that things like Wolf Guard, Blood Claws, et cetera would be built the same (No Cyclone for you, by your argument, get your heavy flamer) or not at all. Meaning those Blood Claws and Wolf Guard sarges best have flamers and combi-flamers. Redmaw? Same thing. Just because you have the Curse of the Wulfen prevalent in your army doesn't mean that all six of your Hunter squads should have flamer-plasmas as their special weaponry. Try mixing it up.

 

Anyways, despite the relatively convoluted argument, the point is simple. Cookie-cutter builds go against everything, fluffwise, that the Wolves represent. If you insist that fluff doesn't matter and you're just going to play how you want to play (be it because you can't think up a decent list, or want to "Be competitive"), be prepared to accept that folk will consider you a beardy powergaming flavor-of-the-month Gee-dub whore. If you want to play cookie-cutter builds, go play a Codex Marine army... But then again, if you did that, you'd have to give up your precious, precious powergaming goodness, and I know how much powergamers are loathe to do that.

 

Short answer as to why it's un-Wolfy to spam cookie-cutters: Because the Codex says so.

 

 

EDIT: Oh, aye, at least for me, Scourge. I know I'm a dick, and give no insinuation otherwise. As Lord Rags once said, "Not everyone rolled out of the womb clutching ale and howling praises to Russ" (paraphrased.) I know not everyone cares for the fluff as I do, and I acknowledge that. Likewise, they should know that I'll mock and degrade them at every opportunity, just because I can (which, if you'll notice, is the same reason people claim to play cookie-cutter builds.)

[Stormbrow II]

If you want to play cookie-cutter builds, go play a Codex Marine army... But then again, if you did that, you'd have to give up your precious, precious powergaming goodness, and I know how much powergamers are loathe to do that.

Funny - regular Marines can throw out decent builds with the best of them. And no, you don't need Vulkan in all of them.

 

Short answer as to why it's un-Wolfy to spam cookie-cutters: Because the Codex says so.

So the Codex says its un-Wolfy, yet the army allows it?

 

If you want your mammy to hold your hand when you play that's fine but don't expect the grown-ups to listen to something that's so stupidly contradictory.

[Decoy]

Funny - regular Marines can throw out decent builds with the best of them. And no, you don't need Vulkan in all of them.

 

Very true. That doesn't mean that those "decent" builds don't run cookiecutter. Lasplas ring a bell?

 

 

So the Codex says its un-Wolfy, yet the army allows it?

 

If you want your mammy to hold your hand when you play that's fine but don't expect the grown-ups to listen to something that's so stupidly contradictory.

 

Chaos Marines also allows for two Lash princes and Khorne-Tzeench armies. Codex: Space Wolves also allows Wolf Lords to have two Powerfists. Just because you "Can" do something doesn't mean you should, or that it's an intelligent thing to do. You're perfectly capable of jumping off a cliff ("We have free will! Whatever created us allowed us to do it, so let's do it! Hurp durp!"). Doesn't mean you should.

 

I was going to post an ad-hominim attack in response to yours, but I think your "mammy" comment shows what type of person you are far better than any insult I have ever could. All I can say is Gods-forbid I expect lateral thinking from your type in regards to your rhetorical question.

[Skalver]

So the Codex says its un-Wolfy, yet the army allows it?

 

If you want your mammy to hold your hand when you play that's fine but don't expect the grown-ups to listen to something that's so stupidly contradictory.

 

Can we please please please drop the petty namecalling. If you seriously think you can put together a compelling argument about how anything that can be made with a deliberately flexible codex is equally representative of the fluff then go ahead. If you have to resort to insulting your opponents then don't waste our time.

[Grimtooth]

Go ahead and check my join date Decoy before you read this so I can be considered valid.

 

I already mentioned the right tool for the job and redundancy is just that. In real life, you wouldn't support your heavy machine gun crew with a squad of guys armed with pistols. I know this because I was a heavy machine gunner in the US Marine Corps.

 

The same reason applies in that you don't toss a a flamer in a squad you are tasking with hunting armor. In the name of fluffiness? That is crap. Fluffing yourself into ineffectiveness is not fluff.

 

Now in a typical scenario in my "spam" lists I would be running my dual melta squads supported by a dual flamer squad. Dual meltas to pop tanks/transports with flamer squad to hose down occupants. That is fluffy of a tactically planned force.

 

To paraphrase you, no Wolf Lord worth his salt is going to send his forces running around like a bunch of chickens with their heads cut off trying to flamer Land Raiders and melta mobs of Boyz in the name of the almighty fluff.

 

To role play just a bit, as the Wolf Lord of my clan, I task each of my packs with objectives they need to complete and thus must be equipped accordingly.

 

If Grey Hunter, Hrolf the Jackass feels like he doesn't want to hunt tanks today and wants to burn peeps with his favorite flamer, guess what? Too bad! I have Wolf Lord before my name, he has Grey Hunter. Turn in the flamer to the armoury Hrolf and check out your melta!

[Sarapham]

So the Codex says its un-Wolfy, yet the army allows it?

 

If you want your mammy to hold your hand when you play that's fine but don't expect the grown-ups to listen to something that's so stupidly contradictory.

 

Can we please please please drop the petty namecalling. If you seriously think you can put together a compelling argument about how anything that can be made with a deliberately flexible codex is equally representative of the fluff then go ahead. If you have to resort to insulting your opponents then don't waste our time.

 

 

Yet Decoy is allowed to "mock and degrade anyone" as he wishes because he follows the fluff?

[Decoy]

-snippity snip-

 

 

Oh, I think you mistake me, Ramses. I don't mean that armies designed with multiple roles are spam, I'm talking more specifically about four, five, six squads, all with all-plasma and a pistol. Cookie-cutter. If you happen to have three melta-squads and three flamer-squads, that's tactically sound as a general rule.

 

What I tend to rage against is people who run EXACTLY THE SAME SQUAD, three and four and five times. All it takes is a five or ten point piece of wargear to differentiate the squads, keeping the squads both fluffy and tactically sound. I agree with you, having all squads take all different weapons is indeed tactically and strategically unsound. That is no excuse, however, for four to six to twelve squads all running the exact same configuration. That, by it's very nature, is what I consider "unfluffy".

 

If you have two tankhunters and two flamers, how is that any amount of spam? Makes perfect sense to me. An entire army based around Lasplas or All-Plasma or Everythin' but Variety? Notsomuch.

 

EDIT: To Sarapham: I don't think I directly called him a name, per se. Moreover, my statement is sort of a broad-brush, not aimed at anyone in particular.

[Skalver]

So the Codex says its un-Wolfy, yet the army allows it?

 

If you want your mammy to hold your hand when you play that's fine but don't expect the grown-ups to listen to something that's so stupidly contradictory.

 

Can we please please please drop the petty namecalling. If you seriously think you can put together a compelling argument about how anything that can be made with a deliberately flexible codex is equally representative of the fluff then go ahead. If you have to resort to insulting your opponents then don't waste our time.

 

 

Yet Decoy is allowed to "mock and degrade anyone" as he wishes because he follows the fluff?

 

No, everyone has to behave regardless of what they think.

[Requiem of the Wolf]

So the Codex says its un-Wolfy, yet the army allows it?

 

If you want your mammy to hold your hand when you play that's fine but don't expect the grown-ups to listen to something that's so stupidly contradictory.

 

Can we please please please drop the petty namecalling. If you seriously think you can put together a compelling argument about how anything that can be made with a deliberately flexible codex is equally representative of the fluff then go ahead. If you have to resort to insulting your opponents then don't waste our time.

 

 

Yet Decoy is allowed to "mock and degrade anyone" as he wishes because he follows the fluff?

 

No, everyone has to behave regardless of what they think.

Everyone here is depending on your view of the Space Wolves,either a fellow brother and son of Russ,worthy of your respect and you should treat them as brothers,saving your anger for the traitor legions and those that seek to destroy all that we hold dear. To treat them any other ways is to dishonor yourself,and all that your brothers and ancestors have done,fought,bled and died for. Or someone who not only shares your love and enjoyment of a very fun pastime but enjoys the specific flavor of said pastime, and should be treated decently as a fellow human being and not with scorn and harsh words. Remember the cardinal rule of gaming,that it is supposed to be fun for all involved.

 

Either way,while discussion is without a doubt the primary purpose of these boards,it should be kept civil,for all the reasons stated above and a hundred more that shouldn't need to be said. No matter your position on the fluff,you all should know these facts in your hearts.

 

Personally,I believe that a poster said it best in one of my earliest questions upon joining the forums. "Come down to it,a Wolf Lord has final say about his Company and how it is equipped and appears. If he got a wild hair and decided to change the color of all the armor to bright pink,not only would his Wolves do it,no one would have the balls to say word one about it. No Wolf Lord would be foolish enough to cripple his Wolves ability to fight,but beyond that how he decides to equip and use him is his decision and his alone and the simple fact is,certain situations will call for different tactics,and a Wolf Lord (or player) that doesn't pay attention to tactics,and the opponents he will face will know nothing but defeat.

[stinkenheim]

@ decoy, so do you consider my 3/4 grey hunter squads all with melta, flamer, power weapon and banner to be un-fluffy? and if so, why? sure i could take two dual falmer and tw dual meltagun squads but that makes my list easier to beat as i only have 2 units capable of dealing with armour and two capable of dealing with hordes.

sure by only having one flamer and one melta in the squad they are not specced in anyone role, but they are capable of multiple roles on the battlefield.

im not attacking you, i just fail to see how by adding a plasma pistol into one squad or maybe a power fist in place of the weapon my list would suddenly become more 'fluffy'... fluff which as i have said before only came into force in this edition. before hand there was no mention of the individuality of the wolves restricitng how the armed themselves.

 

@stormbrow, sorry if my lack of caps hurts you eyes but hey ho, my psot and i'll type how i like :P (note that was me being sarcastic) i usually post in a rush and my keyboard misses out random letters so i'd rather go through it making sure the words are there than sorting out the punctuation on have typed sentences... still i may at some point learn how to write in proper english ^_^