Tactical Command | View topic

Page 1 of 3

[ 34 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

View unanswered posts | View active topics View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts

Fluff or Rules?

BlackLegion

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 8:37 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:13 am
Posts: 8711
Location: Leipzig, Germany, Europe, Sol III, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Universe

So what is more importand for you if you design a new armylist?
Do you follow the fluff and don't care about if the unit is useful in a game of Epic: Armageddon?

Or do you feel that the Rules are more important? Even inventing new units so that the army is more competitive in a game regardless if it is supported by Fluff?

Or something between?

I'm curious

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 9:12 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

I pretty much agree with what Hena said, and also voted for that option.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Justiniel

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:01 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 8:59 am
Posts: 3280
Location: Holywood, Northern Ireland

Both are important but the rules need to have the edge, after all who changes the fluff to suit new units (or drop units) even more that we do :laugh:

I'm with Markconz and Hena

_________________
I'm involved in Nunnery Practice :laugh:

My latest Blog http://www.players.tacticalwargames.net ... p?blogId=8

Top

blackhorizon

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:05 am

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:40 pm
Posts: 2842
Location: Netherlands

This is like the chicken and the egg. What came first?

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Top

Nicodemus

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:24 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 8:27 pm
Posts: 451
Location: Finland

Rulez rules, but keep an eye for fluff. It is a game we play, so rules must come first.

_________________
Eradication of Earth's
Population loves Polaris

Top

Crabowl

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:28 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:44 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Finland

Rules over fluff all the way. Fluff can be used to gain ideas but it is not the deciding factor how something works. I can sleep well at night even if my unit etries would have only AP5+/AT6+/45cm and forget completely that it's from a rocket launcher. I also don't care if I add or remove options or features from a unit that would fluffwise be different as long as it leads to a useful and balanced formation.

_________________
Gief more guns for less points!

Top

vanvlak

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:36 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:52 am
Posts: 10348
Location: Malta

Ummmm - if historical background or fantasy fiction or science fiction did not exist, there would have been no wargames, which originated from military training games and Mr. Wells' booklet i.e. history, and historical (military) requirements begat wargaming. So the fluff is vital. And at least in my case, I am only ever attracted by a set of rules by the fluff - at least initially. Thus I am not a fan of 1970s pulp-themed games, but love VSF. Game mechanics, however abstract, have to be based on real life or on fiction i.e. the fluff. We would otherwise might as well form the sudoku gamers club, or the abstruse mathematical modellers group, or log onto an online casino.
Oooh, that was almost a rant

_________________
Back from oblivion (again)?

Top

blackhorizon

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:38 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:40 pm
Posts: 2842
Location: Netherlands

Good post vanvlak, I tend to agree.

I think one should try to settle between a perfect balance between both as far as that is possible.

_________________
Light at the Horizon.

Warp Rift
Project Distant Darkness
Eldar MMS

GothiComp Hall of Fame
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=19176

Top

Chroma

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:28 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 3:06 pm
Posts: 9684
Location: Montréal, QC, Canada

I hate the word "fluff" used in this context... it seems to connote something light and unimportant.

I much prefer the word "flavour", which contrasts/complement the oft-used "crunch" when dealing with rules, to capture the harder to define design aspects that are beyond just statistics.

The "flavour" is important to us, or we'd just be playing Armoured Space Men vs Green Space Barbarians instead of EPIC.

_________________
"EPIC: Total War" Lead Developer

Now living in Boston... any EPIC players want to meet up?

Top

Dwarf Supreme

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:34 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:45 pm
Posts: 11148
Location: Canton, CT, USA

I voted for "Rules, but keep an eye on fluff." Ideally I'd like an equal balance of rules and fluff, but game mechanics really do need to take precedent to achieve a playable game.

_________________
"I don't believe in destiny or the guiding hand of fate." N. Peart

Top

Ginger

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:23 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

Like others, I think the terms used cover wide aspects of the hobby, and thus are open to very wide interpretation. IMHO it all tends to boil down to personal objectives :- do you like to play 'colourfull' games with the emphasis on playability, or are you trying to get 'realistic' results that fit some external criteria?

There are many other criteria which inform the personal decisions. For example :-
- how easy is it to learn;
- how much detail / complexity is desired;
- what is the level of game (strategic, tactical, skirmish) and ?the organisational level represented
- How much time should the game take to play
- How many participants
- etc

My personal preference is for a game that is fairly quick / easy to learn, but which still provides the possibilities for complexity if desired. One that represents strategic level of play (ie that abstracts detailed combat results), which is played between 2-5 people in around 2-3 hours. As such, I tend to lean towards a good set of rules that fit the background rather than a good background with some form of rules.

As an aside, it is interesting to consider that the most popular game by far is Monopoly (patented in 1935), and that the advent of computer games looks set to eclipse all other forms in the near future - eg World of Warcraft with reputedly 7 million players (wish I had shares in Blizzard ?

)

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt

Top

Lord Inquisitor

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:14 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Norfolk VA USA

I went for fluff but keep an eye on rules. And I think most of you that have said that rules are more important are kidding yourselves.

Every unit in every army is based off the background and/or the descriptions/models in 40K. Every statline, every weapon is equally based on background and 40k stats. Deviations from 40k stats are almost entirely justified by background rather than game balance.

Furthermore, army structure and army list for tournaments is even more based on the background. The codex space marine list reflects the codex organisation!

When making lists, background (or canon, or flavour - anything but "fluff!") is of absolute importantce and balancing the list comes in second. However balanced Khorne Daemon Engines might be, I think everyone would agree that they do not belong in the Emperor's Children list!

Top

Markconz

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:02 am

Purestrain

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Lord Inquisitor @ Dec. 21 2007,21:14)

QUOTE

Furthermore, army structure and army list for tournaments is even more based on the background. The codex space marine list reflects the codex organisation!

Vaguely... In epic 3 tactical squads always operate as formation. Or 2 devastator or 2 assault squads. Or 4 Landraiders or other tanks. Nothing strictly codex that those elements of a battle company or those amount of tanks should have to operate in that way. That's mostly epic game balance and army feel IIRC.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/

Top

Mephiston

Post subject: Fluff or Rules?

Posted: Fri Dec 28, 2007 5:49 pm

Brood Brother

Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:52 pm
Posts: 4262

(Lord Inquisitor @ Dec. 21 2007,22:14)

QUOTE

Furthermore, army structure and army list for tournaments is even more based on the background. The codex space marine list reflects the codex organisation!

Strange, but most tournament Marine armies I see have at most one tactical formation, up to 3 terminators and a lots of thunderhawks!

Not very codex imho.

Top

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Page 1 of 3

[ 34 posts ]

Go to page 1, 2, 3 Next

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:

Fluff or Rules?

Who is online