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.

As the title says do fluffy lists even stand the slightest chance of being competitive in 6th

Yes.

My very fluffy Elysian Drop Troops IG list (lots of veterans in Vendettas) is pretty good.

My Necron aerial invasion force (lots of Night Scythes) is pretty good.

Etc.

Now, if you redefine "fluffy" to mean "not competitive" like many "fluff" players do, then no, fluffy lists are not competitive.

No.

A truly competitive list is a list that's been min-maxxed extensively. Now, there are a few fluffy lists that are competitive, like Typhus nurgle-zombies and empidemus. Very competitive, but that's more an exception than a rule.

BlaxicanX wrote:
No.

A truly competitive list is a list that's been min-maxxed extensively. Now, there are a few fluffy lists that are competitive, like Typhus nurgle-zombies and empidemus. Very competitive, but that's more an exception than a rule.

"Fluffy" does not mean hodge-podge, nor is it the opposite of "min-maxed".

So my word bearers may stand a chance then

Captaintyrius wrote:
So my word bearers may stand a chance then

That depends on how well optimized the list is. "Fluffy" says absolutely nothing about a list's power level, there are hopelessly weak fluffy lists and incredibly overpowered fluffy lists and fluffy lists everywhere in between the two extremes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
No.

A truly competitive list is a list that's been min-maxxed extensively. Now, there are a few fluffy lists that are competitive, like Typhus nurgle-zombies and empidemus. Very competitive, but that's more an exception than a rule.

"Fluffy" does not mean hodge-podge, nor is it the opposite of "min-maxed".

He wasnt saying that at all. Most people will agree with what he said. In general, a fluffy list will have been created with aim of sticking to a theme. This could be the background fluff/style of the army, or the players personal fluff, or whatever. What this often does is dictate the units that person will make use of, and how that army will behave on the tabletop.

This also usually (not always) means that those units are not necessarily the best choice to work together, or even particularly good units compared to others in that armies codex. This does not mean that the army cannot be competitive, it just means it is more likely to struggle against lists that have been designed with the goal of being a competitive army capable of taking on a wide array of opponents.

My list will be including a Dark Apostle as Warlord a First Acolyte (Chaos Lord) Basic Chaos Marines 2 or 3 units of cultists Terminators Possessed maybe a unit of chosen or a hell brute Raptors Bikes Havocs Spawn Land Raiders Vindicators Predators Rhinos seeing as that is pretty much all they can take in the book (im ruling out the DP as it cant be undivided)

My IG got better in 6th , specialy when now I can add ally . So I would say lists got better .

Captaintyrius wrote:
My list will be including a Dark Apostle as Warlord a First Acolyte (Chaos Lord) Basic Chaos Marines 2 or 3 units of cultists Terminators Possessed maybe a unit of chosen or a hell brute Raptors Bikes Havocs Spawn Land Raiders Vindicators Predators Rhinos seeing as that is pretty much all they can take in the book (im ruling out the DP as it cant be undivided)

In that case no, your list won't even be slightly competitive since it's just a random collection of units with no apparent overall strategy. Of course it isn't fluffy either, since it's just a listing of pretty much every unit in the book with no apparent overall theme.

 HerbaciousT wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

BlaxicanX wrote:
No.

A truly competitive list is a list that's been min-maxxed extensively. Now, there are a few fluffy lists that are competitive, like Typhus nurgle-zombies and empidemus. Very competitive, but that's more an exception than a rule.

"Fluffy" does not mean hodge-podge, nor is it the opposite of "min-maxed".

He wasnt saying that at all. Most people will agree with what he said. In general, a fluffy list will have been created with aim of sticking to a theme. This could be the background fluff/style of the army, or the players personal fluff, or whatever. What this often does is dictate the units that person will make use of, and how that army will behave on the tabletop.

This also usually (not always) means that those units are not necessarily the best choice to work together, or even particularly good units compared to others in that armies codex. This does not mean that the army cannot be competitive, it just means it is more likely to struggle against lists that have been designed with the goal of being a competitive army capable of taking on a wide array of opponents.

Which is completely irrelevant; Mechanized IG is both fluffy and competetive. Flamers, Screamers and Fateweaver are fluffy and monstrously powerful. Drop Pod armies can be both fluffy and competetive. Foot Necrons can be both fluffy and competetive. I could go on and on. He was implying that most competetive lists are "unfluffy" and that those that aren't are exceptions. Fluffy powerful armies aren't exceptions. There's loads of them. For every Space Wolf gunline there's a Deathwing, Green Tide, Armoured Fist or Drop Pod list.

If you use your imagination, any list can be made fluffy.

Captaintyrius wrote:
My list will be including a Dark Apostle as Warlord a First Acolyte (Chaos Lord) Basic Chaos Marines 2 or 3 units of cultists Terminators Possessed maybe a unit of chosen or a hell brute Raptors Bikes Havocs Spawn Land Raiders Vindicators Predators Rhinos seeing as that is pretty much all they can take in the book (im ruling out the DP as it cant be undivided)

Okay, this is an example of a non-competitive fluffy list. Also, how is this a fluffy list? You pretty much just listed everything in the codex, and that's not really a good idea hahaha

But yeah, fluffy can be competitive. All you need to know is if the fluff you are sticking to can be a competitive idea, like a fluffy Elysian's army is right now because of flier rules and how strong IG are in general at the moment. I say that because there are cases where sticking straight to fluff leaves you with big holes in your list that are hard to fill with the fluff restrictions, or in general sticks you with a bunch of units that are less than desirable. Like, making a fluffy Penal Legion army (assuming you use actual Penal Legionaries and you don't just use Platoons).

It may not be the best or most point efficient list, but lists with a theme can still do well, you just need to consider what units do and do not fit with your list and make sure you try not to leave any glaring weaknesses in your army that can easily be exploited.

For example taking into account my local meta, if I were to field a tactical marine heavy(from whatever chapter) list I know there are several things to ensure the list can do:
Kill AV 13/14
Kill MCs and FMCs
Kill Termies
Kill Flyers

BlaxicanX wrote:
No.

A truly competitive list is a list that's been min-maxed extensively. Now, there are a few fluffy lists that are competitive, like Typhus nurgle-zombies and empidemus. Very competitive, but that's more an exception than a rule.

You seem to be confused by two things.

Firstly, min-max and fluff aren't mutually exclusive.
Secondly, competitive doesn't mean WAAC.

I've taken a fluffy SW list that was competitive, but not like the WAAC net lists. My regular IG list is a fluffy mech list and is certainly competitive.

I suppose it depends on the army?

Some lists have options that are certainly fluffy, but tend to suck in comparison to "this is what the author actually wants you to take" - in your own Codex as well as the one your opponent uses.

*coughcanonesscough*

So, is a Imperial Guard foot army list that has PIS armed with grenade launchers and flamers and with Lascannon/Sponson Heavy Bolter russes any more fluffy than a mechanized veteran list with plasma and melta guns supported by medusae? No, cause saying there is only one right way to run guard ruins the fun of the army. Every army list I've seen is perfectly fluffy, except maybe one or two grey knight builds.

Whenever I see an army list with the word "Fluffy" in the title I expect a list that is made up of random and subpar units just for the sake of running random and subpar units. I honestly think that some people who make fluffy lists just want an excuse to avoid facing powerful builds or, if they do face one, they'll get an excuse when their army is shredded. "Oh, I was running my good fluffy list and he ran his no no spammy list. What a jerk for ruining my perfectly lore friendly battle report!".

Drop Pod SM army with a few scout squads, DSing Terminators, Assault marines, Land Speeders... You get the picture. Tabletop nightmare for your opponent.

Captaintyrius wrote:
As the title says do fluffy lists even stand the slightest chance of being competitive in 6th

This depends entirely on what you mean by "fluffy". If you mean an army designed with a clear theme, fitting into some aspect of the background, then it may well be. Whether a given army conforms to the fluff and whether it is competitive have nothing to do with one another. If you mean an army which is a "fluffy bunny", as in soft and squishy, built with no thought as to its competitive performance, no plan for how units will work together and achieve missions, or how they will counter enemy units you expect to see, then of course it will not be competitive.*

*That being said, such armies are slightly more usable in 6th, as they were in 5th, than they were in 4th and earlier editions. Just because as of 5th they dumped Victory Points as the primary means of determining victory, and made the game more about objectives. When the game is focused on objectives, and there is a good amount of LOS-blocking terrain on the table, it's certainly easier for a less-powerful army to beat a more optimized army by virtue of superior play and positioning, because you can suffer greater casualties than the other guy and still win if you're on more objectives at game end than he is. When victory is primarily determined by how much damage the armies inflict on one another, the advantage of the more optimized and min-maxed army is more prominent and exacerbated.

As with many player-coined terms in 40k (see: "cheesy/beardy" or "list-tailoring") there are several interpretations of what "fluffy" actually means. Many people, myself included, define a fluffy list as a list which fits with the background of the army, or is written with a specific theme or story in mind (an armored company, an elite strike team, a genestealer cult). In this case, fluffy and competitive are not mutually-exclusive, an army can be min-maxed with specific tactical goals and still fit a theme very easily. However, there are some who define fluffy to mean a list that is built with ONLY the story and background in mind, with no thought given to tactics whatsoever. Under that interpretation, fluffy is non-competitive almost by definition.

It's better to look at the competitive list and ask if it is fluffy, than to look at the fluffy list, and ask if it is competitive.

Many fluffy lists are competitive, just by the broad nature of the fluff.

However, many competitive lists avoid certain fluff-based restrictions to min-max their list better.

If you want a competitive list that is also fluffy, don't build a fluffy list, and then adapt to be competitive.

Build a competitive list, and then replace unfluffy-bits as you see fit. You may lose some strong units, but the core of your army was still build to be competitive, and at the very least, your army will be decent (barring poor list-writing ability).

-TheCaptain

You can always make up fluff for a list.

There's no way to remove the suck from certain army themes, no matter how well you may try.

Captaintyrius wrote:
As the title says do fluffy lists even stand the slightest chance of being competitive in 6th

Definitely. A lot of fluffy but unpopular units have become a lot more effective in 6th edition, and the overall space of potentially valid armies has opened up a lot. Allies also open up a lot of options for fluffy and effective compositions.

It depends on what you have in the list,etc. I think anyone could make a fluffy necron, Death Guard, GK or more army that's pretty good.

Some examples of fluffy lists spring to mind that are at least *quite* competitive if not very, because they happen to approach fluff by using really good units in multiples:

Space Wolves Grey Hunter spam
Drop-pod Space Marines (particularly Pedro's Sternguard)
Melta/flamer Salamanders
Drop-pod melta/flamer Salamanders
Deathwing/Ravenwing Dark Angels
Combined infantry/mech Guard
Green tide Orks

 Peregrine wrote:


My Necron aerial invasion force (lots of Night Scythes) is pretty .

*sigh*....

I play a mainly Saim-hann jetbike army in my 5th edition games, I'm not sure how the same force would fare in 6th rules, though.

KRUDD wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


My Necron aerial invasion force (lots of Night Scythes) is pretty .

*sigh*....

Sorry, but the fact that you don't like how well it wins games doesn't make it any less fluffy.

Fluffy is NOT the opposite of Competitive. People seem to think this for some reason.


You can have a killer competitive list that is also fluffy.

IG Air Cav, Necron Airwing, GK Razorback Spam, Mech Guard, Long Fang Spam backing up GHs in Razorbacks, Tervigon Spam Nidzilla, triple Helldrakes...

all are competitive lists that are also highly fluffy.



Being Fluffy and Competitive are 2 independent methods of rating a list and they are not mutually exclusive.

My armoured company is quite fluffy, and most people don't want to play it, because that much AV14 is intimidating. That being said, it can't score objectives to save its life, but isn't half bad at tabling and just wrecking face.

Meanwhile, my Blood Ravens list does poorly most of the time with my theme of them being critically depleted, reliant on basic tactical marines and scouts, with only a few sternguard, no terminators, and a couple honour guard to protect my chapter master. It's fluffy; the ragtag remnants of the chapter, bolstered by a new generation of unremarkable recruits, but tends to die to better constructed lists. It's fun for themed friendly games, and in Apoc games; the small marine force surrounded by Guard, but in competitive games, consider them dead men walking.

Like everything else, there's no conclusive answer.