Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was looking at another post, and I saw a list described as fluffy, and it occurred to me I don't know what that means. I mean to me that would mean the list conforms to how the army is described in the fluff, but there isn't anywhere in the fluff where it says "Sicarius goes into battle with 27 space marines and 3 dreadnoughts" so what makes a list fluffy?

 NinjaStars wrote:
I was looking at another post, and I saw a list described as fluffy, and it occurred to me I don't know what that means. I mean to me that would mean the list conforms to how the army is described in the fluff, but there isn't anywhere in the fluff where it says "Sicarius goes into battle with 27 space marines and 3 dreadnoughts" so what makes a list fluffy?

Flash Gitz


This is only what I read though.. I respect Flash Gitz as a unit that can shoot and ignore cover, ignore armor on a dice roll, and still reliably pile in with some tough lookin nobz should your army be in assault.

Fluffy means we go "YEAH FREEBOOTAS 20 FLASH GITZ DEAL WITH IT"

*EDIT* and your friend drops one 8+ pieplate on them and we understand why it's a point sink..

A fluffy list is a list where someone has put in models that conform with backstory, and not just the most competitive models they can field. For example, A nurgle army with 7 Termies, 28 PMs and some dreadnoughts, not using raptors, zerkers etc.

That said, only just got back into 40k, so I don't know if GW has changed the fluff again. I've been informed that chaos sacred numbers are no longer a thing...

Most of the time "fluffy" means "sucks at winning". Some people are either bad at writing lists or stubbornly determined to prove to everyone how little they care about winning, but can't admit that they just made a bad list. Therefore when they write a bad list they claim that, since it has to be good in some way, it must be a "fluffy" list. For example, an IG veteran squad with a flamer, a sniper rifle, and a melta gun is "fluffy" even though it has nothing to do with any of the background fiction. On the other hand an IG list with lots of vets in Valkyries/Vendettas is "unfluffy" because it's too good at winning, even though it is an excellent representation of the Elysian drop troops. When dealing with these people it's best to handle it like your young child's artistic efforts, pat them on the head and say "good job" and then ignore them.

Occasionally you will see someone use the term "fluffy" in the correct way, to describe a list that has been created with a primary goal of representing a specific force from the background fiction, even if that representation isn't perfectly optimized for winning. These lists are incredibly rare, and when you see one you should take a moment to appreciate it.

I find myself agreeing with Peregrine.

Basically, fluffy lists accurately represent how a fraction of a particular force would deploy in a small skirmish or snapshot of a larger battle.

Technically, degrees of fluffiness have no correlation with degrees of competitiveness. Both are separate and can be controlled individually.

Peregrine is largely correct.

There are a few occasions where certain options are 'unfluffy.' At one point, Salamanders were described in the lore as not making extensive use of jump troops, and I've been accused of 'cheese' or 'unfluffiness' for using them in my Salamander lists.

But, basically, fluffy means that the list corresponds with the background of the chosen force, be it generally or in a specific case. The preceding posts are correct that the term 'fluffy' gets trotted out occasionally to defend horrible lists.

In a game and setting like 40k, there are many possibilities for 'fluff.' You can try to emulate something that has already been described, whether in great detail or in more vague terms, such as "this is what a space marine company would roughly be composed of." You can also invent your own canon, be they representing new subfactions of the codex faction, or an entirely new one. Fluff is the representation of the story and background on the tabletop and can go beyond the lists to the missions, terrain, how the players control their units, etc.

Just remember that if you invent your own fluff, it has to conform to what other people think you should write and/or what is currently optimal in the metagame or else your fluff is badwrongfun. /sarcasm

By playing orks all lists are fluffy aslong it doesnt contain allies that aint dreadmob

The Dawn of War pc games are pretty good examples for CSM or the IG being fluffy orky allies.

 Jidmah wrote:
The Dawn of War pc games are pretty good examples for CSM or the IG being fluffy orky allies.

Well yer truuu but dats em freebootas!

Pretty much what others have said. Fluffy and Competitive are not mutually exclusive, a list can be both fluffy and effective, or non-fluff and weak, or any combination. A fluffy list can be anything from a an army that conforms to a particular tactic used in the fluff in general to an army that seeks to represent an army at a specific engagement. For example, a salamanders army that uses flamers a lot is an example of the former, while my ultramarines that are based off the book 'Fall of Damnos' right down to each weapon/squad markings/characters ect regardless of effectiveness in the game is more like the latter.

 phatonic wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The Dawn of War pc games are pretty good examples for CSM or the IG being fluffy orky allies.

Well yer truuu but dats em freebootas!

I think you shouldn't be calling Warboss Gorgutz 'ead 'unter a freeboota, you might end up as head on his pointy stick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warhammer_40,000:_Dawn_of_War_characters#Orks

The others have pretty much summed it up - fluff lists are lists built with self imposed restrictions based on what we know from the black library, FW books, and codices.

Some armies have a little restriction such as Tyranids, Tau or Cadian IG as their armies use a bit of everything.

I prefer fluffy armies, but it is difficult to keep them competitive. My deathguard CSM run in 7 man squads with a 7 man havoc team, lead by a DP/chaos lord.\ (everyone has MoN). Unfortunately I have to break the fluff a bit to include rhinos for my squads and obliterators (who are a bit of a grey area).

My farsight enclave has an easier time as crisis suits, broadsides, and firewarriors are all pretty good - allowing you to build a fairly competitive all-comers army (I'm still torn on the inclusion of the occasional riptide since it can be debated in the fluff.... depending on if you are an oldschool Tau player)

Rex Mortem wrote:
That said, only just got back into 40k, so I don't know if GW has changed the fluff again. I've been informed that chaos sacred numbers are no longer a thing...

They haven't been a "thing" for some time now, though those of us playing chaos since the beginning still stick to them as best as possible. There also are no restrictions on combining all 4 chaos powers into a single army either, but some of us still do that too. I never ally khorne and slaanesh or tzeetch or nurgle. EVER. Found myself playing a daemon's army with someone else and they built the list. It contained all 4 powers and I felt unclean after playing it.

Skriker

 gossipmeng wrote:
Some armies have a little restriction such as Tyranids, Tau or Cadian IG as their armies use a bit of everything.

Tyranid armies are easy to justify fluff-wise as the Hive Mind just produces whatever it thinks it needs for the battle, other armies in-universe have to deal with thing like availability of equipment, limited numbers of elite forces, etc.

A fluff army os one that doesn't go for max power, but for how the army actually runs. Dark Angela use a lot of plasma, many players avoid plasma because it kills the users. Some IG regiments may use certain tanks considered "uncompetitive".

Basically, it's building an army for fun. an alien concept, these days...

 PrinceRaven wrote:

 gossipmeng wrote:
Some armies have a little restriction such as Tyranids, Tau or Cadian IG as their armies use a bit of everything.

Tyranid armies are easy to justify fluff-wise as the Hive Mind just produces whatever it thinks it needs for the battle, other armies in-universe have to deal with thing like availability of equipment, limited numbers of elite forces, etc.

Nids still do have a little bit of restrictions placed on them depending on which hive fleet you run (if you go by the fluff on documented battles). I don't remember the specifics, but I know one fleet was fighting the Tau and had limited use of complex monstrous creatures since it spent all its resources adapting smaller nid orgasms to the constantly changing Tau combat styles. Its not that the Tyranids couldn't have produced many larger creatures, they just wouldn't have been as effective against the Tau. Now if you wanted to run a fluffy nid list representing that hive fleet at that point in time then you would have fluff restrictions.

 Jidmah wrote:

 phatonic wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
The Dawn of War pc games are pretty good examples for CSM or the IG being fluffy orky allies.

Well yer truuu but dats em freebootas!

I think you shouldn't be calling Warboss Gorgutz 'ead 'unter a freeboota, you might end up as head on his pointy stick

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Warhammer_40,000:_Dawn_of_War_characters#Orks

Was talking about the IG part yeh knooo. All about em fancy hats.

True, if you wanted to recreate that ghastly piece of fluff you would restrict yourself to a swarm build for that particular battle. However, you could easily justify a non-horde list outside of that particular instance even if you were playing Hive Fleet Gorgon.

And 40,000k battles are rarely supposed to represent the entire engagement, rather being a smaller encounter between specific segments of the two armies. Epic had a good way of summing this up, as a close combat phase between two detachments in a single turn was representative of an entire game of 40k. So you could explain any composition by, 'the tau forces stumbled onto where the hive fleet had been landing the majority of their large creatures in preparation of forming a spear head assault,' to explain why there were MCs everywhere.

Cotton Wool?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Basically, it's building an army for fun. an alien concept, these days...

Not for all of us Falcon. I far prefer to build an army to a scenario that to the list optimizer's numbers. I just love playing games full of "useless" units that when used effectively still get the job done and beat the "perfect" list. Story and theme driven armies are much more interesting to me than just using the same optimized units over and over and over...

Skriker

I basically interpret fluff as using units that are the most representative of the army / style. For example, if you play Speed Freaks Orks, then using all bikes, trukks, and battlewagons. If you want heavy weapons, instead of using lobbas etc. maybe you would use some deffkoptaz with rokkits instead because it fits with the speed freaks theme even if it is less optimal.

Another example is something like a "fluffy" World Eaters army using only berserkers or troops with Mark of Khorne, a bloodthirster, bloodletters, and maybe some raptors with mark of Khorne etc. You would only want to use Khorne marks as he is the sole god they followed. It may not be optimized to win, but it sticks to the theme of the background etc.

It doesn't always mean that it is bad, but it usually means you are sacrificing some optimization for some "coolness" or "correctness" based on the lore. Some see winning as the ultimate "cool" factor etc. In my opinion, the best codexes are the ones that get the balance of "this unit is good, always consider taking it" with units that also fit the lore. Things like Grey Hunters are a good example. They are excellent game-wise, fit the lore of Space Wolves well, and are very well-liked.

- VardenV2

Fluff is when you write a list to be cool over one practically guaranteed to win - the two often mix though so, yeah...

Personally I do more modeling than playing so my list is more about fitting a theme rather than winning.

 VardenV2 wrote:
I basically interpret fluff as using units that are the most representative of the army / style. For example, if you play Speed Freaks Orks, then using all bikes, trukks, and battlewagons. If you want heavy weapons, instead of using lobbas etc. maybe you would use some deffkoptaz with rokkits instead because it fits with the speed freaks theme even if it is less optimal.

Another example is something like a "fluffy" World Eaters army using only berserkers or troops with Mark of Khorne, a bloodthirster, bloodletters, and maybe some raptors with mark of Khorne etc. You would only want to use Khorne marks as he is the sole god they followed. It may not be optimized to win, but it sticks to the theme of the background etc.

It doesn't always mean that it is bad, but it usually means you are sacrificing some optimization for some "coolness" or "correctness" based on the lore. Some see winning as the ultimate "cool" factor etc. In my opinion, the best codexes are the ones that get the balance of "this unit is good, always consider taking it" with units that also fit the lore. Things like Grey Hunters are a good example. They are excellent game-wise, fit the lore of Space Wolves well, and are very well-liked.

- VardenV2

You can still aim to make the most competitive mono-god list possible. Still, this fits the definition someone posted above, which is applying self-imposed limitations to your list building based on your own interpretation of the fluff.