First lets clarify one thing....being a competitive player doesn't
automatically make you an asshat.... admittedly there are a lot of players who hide behind the competitive label who are actually WAAC gamers and a few players who think they're good players but only appear that way because they pick on weaker players or only play against people they know they can beat...that 2nd group are WAAC gamers who try to hide the fact but clubbing baby seals is only okay if you explain how your doing the clubbing at the end or as you go along...and even then it's still not nice ;-)
So with that out of the way...
When it comes to 40K I play competitive lists...with Warmachine your sort of obliged to play to win as it's actually designed that way and with Malifaux I play with themed lists almost exclusively because that's the way I enjoy playing that particular system. Despite what certain factions on the internet will tell you...none of these ways of playing are wrong...if done in the right way that is.
 |
| All Viable Options... |
Competitive.
The internets view of the competitive player tends to be that of the moody neck-beard who picks on every piddling little rule query, mis(interprets) every rule in his favour and strops like a little child when things don't go his way. Other warning signs involve blaming his bad dice rolls for every loss (whether they're actually bad or not), actual cheating (I've covered this subject in detail before) and generally being a complete twat...Though it's certainly true that this archetype exists it would be unfair to tar all those who enjoy playing to win with the same brush.
Playing any system competitively can come with certain drawbacks. The chance that all the coolest looking models also perform best in game isn't by any means a certainty and as you'll most likely be spamming those models that can impact on both your own enjoyment of the army and to a lesser extent your opponents as this is still a visual hobby primarily. It's also probable (in some systems) that an army that works from a rules point of view might take liberties with the background material or historical accuracy. Of course if none of these things bother you then it ceases to be an issue.
I personally get round the issues of background material by making my own up and from a hobbyist point of view I bypass the model spamming problem by utilising conversions and 'counts-as'. Obviously these are not solutions that are viable in every game system but are common enough to be worth mentioning.
'Fluffy'.
Whether your preference is for Warhammer, Warmahordes, Malifaux, Infinity, Helldorado or any of the myriad of game systems out there they all by definition have a certain style to each force. A Space Marine army is very different to a Necron one, Khador play in a variant style to Scyrah, Resurrectionists work in a way completely unlike the way an Outcast one does, etc. Nearly all gamers would have made their selection of a force based on play-style and/or appearance...even if they're of a competitive mind-set I don't know of a single system that has only one effective army.
I dislike the term 'Fluff' as it tends to imply that the background material is actually of no importance. It can obviously be ignored if you wish but to class it as unimportant I think does a great disservice to the hobby in general...however it can be taken too far...
I often hear the phrase 'I only play for fun'...That's fine but I have trouble believing that anybody enjoys losing every game. By definition if it's in an army list for a force it should be okay to field in your army because the game designers obviously wanted you to have it. Of course in certain systems (40K especially) an army list can cover a number of army types which will make many limitations self imposed. I once taught a person to play 40K who had a Space Marine army painted in Salamander colours and had chosen not to use certain Heavy Support choices because he considered them 'out of character'. Effectively he had an army that was obliged to work at close ranges as it needed to be in Melta/Flamer range to maximise it's potential. I pointed out that his army would greatly benefit from a couple of Predators to provide ranged support and perhaps a couple of units with longer range weapons to provide covering fire at longer ranges...his answer was that he didn't think that was very 'Fluffy'...My reply was that they were still Space Marines and winning battles was by definition 'in character' ;-).
In effect he had imposed limitations on himself in order to keep within the background material...but in this case those limitations were unnecessary...I'm not saying that this is always the case but it is a common mistake made by people obsessed with Fluff over effectiveness.
Theme.
Many people consider themed armies and fluffy ones to be the same thing...are they wrong?
In many ways creating a themed list is even more restrictive than making a 'fluffy' one. My favourite Malifaux crew is my Seamus 'The Mad Hatter' one and the models I choose my force from fit a particular theme...In this case undead hookers...Or more specifically I have taken a single aspect of his background (womanising serial killer) and made my model choices around this idea. Therefore I deliberately ignore viable choices that are entirely valid from a background point of view (such as Crooked Men) as they don't fit my theme...how is this different from my criticism of someone who takes a restrictive Fluffy list?
It isn't really, I suppose, lol.
However 'Theme' can also mean a particular paint scheme, unit configuration or just infantry instead of vehicles (or vice versa). Therefore themed armies can be a way of making a competitive army that's also fluffy or conversely can leave you with an army that's useless for anything other than decorating a shelf or making your opponents feel good about themselves as they beat your force into the ground for the tenth time that day.....
In Conclusion.
I'm a competitive player, who themes his lists and keeps to the fluff (even if it's fluff I wrote myself)...There's no reason why these concepts have to separate us into little camps, extolling the virtues of our own little worlds to the exclusion of all others.
There's room for all of these things in each of our hobbies and in my opinion your doing yourself and your hobby a massive disservice by ignoring them...
Thoughts and comments are (as usual) most welcome.
