# Whats more important to you fluff or performance ?



## brother william (Jan 22, 2009)

What keeps you playing your army ? is it fluff or is it how they play on the table top. Personally for me without good fluff i wouldn't even consider an army, whats the point of having the most powerful troops if they are also boring as a wooden post ? 
On the other hand i would find it really hard to play an army long term if they were crap on the table.


----------



## Barnster (Feb 11, 2010)

Personally for me i find the fluff keeps bringing me back to an army. I have frequent breaks from armies but if the fluff there I inevitably return to them, regardless of how they play.

Plus its sometimes good to be the underdog, makes playing the game alot more fun


----------



## Durzod (Nov 24, 2009)

As far as armies are concerned, performance is more important than fluff. I hate to take the trouble to write up an army, paint it, drive in to the LGS, and arrange a game without having a chance of winning. That's why my wood elves are rarely seen since 8th ed. 

This being said, the choice of units within the army is determined by the fluff I've come up with for the army. I'm still toying around with an all mounted (plus a single hydra) Dark elf army. So far it's done well, despite the nerf that cavalry got in 8th. And nobody else I know fields a large unit of Dark Riders with shields and no RxBs. They're not the best, but they serve the fluffy purpose of linking the fast cav with the slower core of the army.

I'm kind of a whim player. Having so many armies collected over the years it's easy for me to say "Gee, I feel like playing Orcs this time", and out comes Peg-Eye Guznit and his merry band of orc pirates. Or bring out my Dwarf Marines (the only shooting are a gyrocopter and a unit of 10 quarrelers) and see if I can FINALLY outmaneuver the terrain!

Often the builds I come up with face an uphill battle (especially when the tables aren't level), but that's the challenge: to see if I can buck the odds and pull off a win. But there has to be that chance.


----------



## Dave T Hobbit (Dec 3, 2009)

I am drawn toward armies based on the models and the fluff. Unless, I like a high proportion of both then how well the army plays is not a consideration.

As my skill at painting and converting has increased over the years my ability to field more competitive builds by including units where the out-of-the-box unit looked ugly to me has increased; however it is still fluff and aesthetics that drive my hobby.


----------



## Tim/Steve (Jan 25, 2009)

First and last I take armies that are able to win... but within that I'll play around with fluffy ideas. I'm quite willing to trade a little bit of power for an army I feel comfortable with...


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

Performance. Thunderwolf spam + Longfang spam = sweeeeeet...

Fluff is great too, but I always lose when I try that...


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

DestroyerHive said:


> Performance. Thunderwolf spam + Longfang spam = sweeeeeet...
> 
> Fluff is great too, but I always lose when I try that...


A 40k Answer to a Fantasy question. Nice work.

----

I like my Fluff, I love the Teclis/tyrion story, so I usually run Tecky. However, due to him being so darn hardcore, it allows me to play around with other units and try new things without being battered.


----------



## brother william (Jan 22, 2009)

I lol'ed at that


----------



## experiment 626 (Apr 26, 2007)

I always prefer backstory to outright power as it makes my armies truely unique and because I suck at rolling higher than a 2... You could give me the most hienously broken power builds of 7th ed daemons and I'd still get massacred!:blush:

My VC army for example is a pure Lahmian build; only female vamps, some remnent liche priests who count as necros, wights, skeletons, dogs and such. Not a single ghoul, zombie, vargulf or other ickky thing in sight!
Sure the army gets utterly face-punched in 8th as only the wights can really fight, but it looks awsome to see a VC army that has a very Khemri style look even if those archers never shoot...

Cheers!


----------



## Stuntiesrule (Mar 22, 2009)

Well for me fluff is what brought me to my dwarfs in the first place but their solid performance on the tabletop keeps me coming back to them.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Performance!


----------



## Troublehalf (Aug 6, 2010)

Has to be fluff for me. Reason I bought Lizardmen, I loved how they looked, the unique models they had and their back story. A race of once world rulers who sacrificed themselvees to save the other living races? Sounds good to me! Plus they live in jungles, I love jungles, allow for great terrain and stuff. Sure Lizardmen play well sometimes, but while I love winning and occasionaly love face-punching with things (MMO's, Card Games, Etc) I always get a kick out of being the underdog, putting up a brave fight or win . Problem is... Lizardmen don't really have a weakness... my army is huge (not painted) but apart from skinks, they don't really have ultra-useless units. Fluff is then the main reason, it draws me to lots of armies, mainly Blood Angels and GK (Yes I know, wrong section) but the units of Dark Elves (Executioners, Black Guard) and High Elves (Whire Lions, Swordmasters, Phoniex Guard) and Empire (Cannons, Riflemen) are all great looking and draw me in. The only thing I didn't like about Empire was the German titles and look... it didn't feel right... Germany didn't exist until 20th century... with them in Medieval garb... same with Bret.. they have a French feel. Wish there was a British/UK/England feeling army... but I guess GW kept it out to stop favourtism


----------



## Akatsuki13 (May 9, 2010)

For me it's a bit of both. I'm first drawn to armies because of their fluff and after awhile of reading up on them I try them out on the TT using proxies (often marked paper squares cut in the size of the unit squares). If I like the way they play, I'll buy them.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

l say 75% fluff and 25% performance.

l don't care don't losing but l don't want to lose every time.


----------



## Sworn Radical (Mar 10, 2011)

Simple answer: Fluff.


----------



## Sir Whittaker (Jun 25, 2009)

I picked Beastmen because I like the majority of the models (not you, you pesky razorgor) and the 'feel' of the army. But no one likes losing all the time, so if I didn't at least occasionally win they'd just sit on the shelf and I'd pick one of the more successful ones maybe.

Same goes for my TK, they're just on hiatus whilst the liche priests summon some new nasties from the depths of the necropolis (i.e. I've got to paint up the new stuff).


----------



## VeronaKid (Jan 7, 2010)

I would definitely say that the background behind the army is infinitely more important to me than how it performs in games; I am one of those players that can thoroughly enjoy getting trounced in a game as long as there are interesting moments that happen throughout the battle that gives further character to the whole experience.

Now, that being said- I honestly can't think of a single army in WHFB that has bad fluff per se; all of the army backgrounds are rich in detail and very different from one another. It's this fact that has kept me in the hobby all these years despite the fact that it is rapidly becoming almost prohibitively expensive. So, if all of the storylines are equally as interesting, can anyone say that that is the reason why they choose an army in the first place?  I reckon that some people are just more "drawn" to certain army types than others (for example, as interesting as I find the Dark Elf fluff, I could never imagine myself playing the army- slaughtering, torturing, etc.- just not my cup of tea), so probably choose certain armies because of that.


----------



## neilbatte (Jan 2, 2008)

I like to have a good mix of both when I'm building a new army If I don't like the backstory and the models then I won't buy them but if the army loses all the time then I won't expand them past the first draft of the army and will probably sell them or trade them on.
In all fairness though the thing that really dictates my army purcases these days is cost as with a home and family to pay for there is no way I can justify buying armies like I used to and have to factor how much an army will cost before anything else.


----------



## HiveMinder (Feb 8, 2010)

Definately fluff for me, with a generous helping of visual appeal. Performance is largely based on the person fielding them, and while there are some notable exceptions, generally pick up games will be fairly balance regardless of my opponent. Besides, "fluffy" does not equal "tactically weak". Occasionally, it does, but in the large majority of cases, it only requires finess to get the most out oft critisized units.

The long and short of it is that I'd be much happier losing with an army I loved, than winning with an army I hated.


----------



## Masked Jackal (Dec 16, 2009)

Losing is *not* fun, but as much as I can I try to stay within fluffy conventions. There's a certain balance of competitiveness and fluff that you can accomplish, and I try to stay in the sweet spot.


----------



## CountChocula (Jun 4, 2011)

I totally agree with HiveMinder on this. i would rather lose with any army that I absolutely loved (Thats right, you might know I have fanatics in my unit, and I know I have fanatics in my unit, but I guarantee when they come whirling out and destroy half my army I will be laughing harder than you are...I knew those madcaps smelled 'iffy.....) than to win with an army I absolutely despised..*cough cough* HE *cough cough cough*


----------

