Our hobby is a strange thing when you think about it. We
have vast amounts of information and background on a universe that to most
intents and purposes doesn’t exist, then spend endless hours discussing and debating it.
The lore for 40k is such a rich tapestry of stories and background details that keeping track of it all is often a long and convoluted process. Even within that framework, it's amazing to think how many different views are out there of what 'the Canon' is and how it applies to their own armies.
I’ve spent a vast amount of times in the past few days discussing Thousand Sons on various 30k Facebook groups. A particularly interesting conversation was had over the presence of cult markings or lack thereof on Thousand Sons models. For me, cult markings are a must. They’re talked about in the novels and they’re a cool visualisation of the special rules which the Legion gets on the tabletop. Seems simple, right? Well I was talking to a guy one one page who honestly can’t see why Thousand Sons would ever have cult markings on their armour. He argues that the cults are non-military organisations and their Legion-brothers can read everything they need to know in their auras, making such markings redundant.
Both these views could be considered ‘fluffy’ and correct, but approach the issue from two completely different directions. It really shows how two completely different approaches to the background can be taken and neither be considered wrong or counter to the established lore. This was even within the confines of 30k where there’s already such a wealth of information and background available to us and players generally care more about the background and fitting their army into a narrative than a lot of 40k players.
Talking of 40k, that's where it gets even more interesting. 40k is arguably a much vaster universe and pretty much anything can happen within it. Because of that, the concept of a ‘fluffy’ army gets even stranger. Of course you get people who build a battle company of Space Marines, complete with correct squad markings and weapon loadouts, but then you get some very strange army combinations which some people would look at and decide ‘”There’s no way that would happen”, but other people would see as perfectly reasonable.
A good example of this would be my mate Johnny. He’s a Black Templar player and builds towards their background - lots of assault-based beatstick units led by their special characters. He also builds hard lists and makes no effort to conceal his competitive side. Naturally he wants Gulliman in his army to make use of his re-roll buffs. No problem right? Gulliman is Lord Commander of the Imperium and fights all over the place. It’s a little cheesy, but it’s not counter to the established lore.
The lore for 40k is such a rich tapestry of stories and background details that keeping track of it all is often a long and convoluted process. Even within that framework, it's amazing to think how many different views are out there of what 'the Canon' is and how it applies to their own armies.
I’ve spent a vast amount of times in the past few days discussing Thousand Sons on various 30k Facebook groups. A particularly interesting conversation was had over the presence of cult markings or lack thereof on Thousand Sons models. For me, cult markings are a must. They’re talked about in the novels and they’re a cool visualisation of the special rules which the Legion gets on the tabletop. Seems simple, right? Well I was talking to a guy one one page who honestly can’t see why Thousand Sons would ever have cult markings on their armour. He argues that the cults are non-military organisations and their Legion-brothers can read everything they need to know in their auras, making such markings redundant.
Both these views could be considered ‘fluffy’ and correct, but approach the issue from two completely different directions. It really shows how two completely different approaches to the background can be taken and neither be considered wrong or counter to the established lore. This was even within the confines of 30k where there’s already such a wealth of information and background available to us and players generally care more about the background and fitting their army into a narrative than a lot of 40k players.
Talking of 40k, that's where it gets even more interesting. 40k is arguably a much vaster universe and pretty much anything can happen within it. Because of that, the concept of a ‘fluffy’ army gets even stranger. Of course you get people who build a battle company of Space Marines, complete with correct squad markings and weapon loadouts, but then you get some very strange army combinations which some people would look at and decide ‘”There’s no way that would happen”, but other people would see as perfectly reasonable.
A good example of this would be my mate Johnny. He’s a Black Templar player and builds towards their background - lots of assault-based beatstick units led by their special characters. He also builds hard lists and makes no effort to conceal his competitive side. Naturally he wants Gulliman in his army to make use of his re-roll buffs. No problem right? Gulliman is Lord Commander of the Imperium and fights all over the place. It’s a little cheesy, but it’s not counter to the established lore.
Except for the fact that Johnny dislikes Gulliman as a character.
He wants to say his model is ‘The Black Knight' - a strange being rumoured to be a
psychic manifestation of Sigismund himself. I laughed when I heard this idea, saying
there’s no way that’s fluffy. Except he could
be. The warp works in funny ways and there’s nothing saying that some Avatar of
the ideology and mindset of the Templars founder couldn’t make itself known in
some way, drawing on the zealotry of those who follow his teachings. It’s no
different to the Sanguinor in the Blood Angels really. If the Templars were
taken in by it and don’t realise its true nature, who’s to say it couldn’t
happen?
I would never do that and consider it fluffy, but to Johnny there’s nothing wrong with it and accepts that although an Inquisitor might have a thing or two to say about the matter should they witness it, it can be justified within the 40k lore. More importantly for him, it fits the knightly theme for his army, even though it’s not strictly abiding by the existing lore. Fluff means different things to different people.
I’m not saying all armies can twist the background however they like and still be fluffy, but there’s a lot more wiggle room than some people think and what might be ‘correct’ to one person isn’t necessarily how another sees it. There are some real monstrosities of armies out there which can’t ever be justified, but these are fewer and further between these days. The detachment system in 8th edition 40k actually encourages and rewards you for taking armies which somewhat conform to the background.
To wrap up my slightly rambling thoughts, it’s interesting to think about how different people look at what would be considered ‘right’ within an imaginary universe. I’d certainly be interested in hearing how you guys approach the fluff.
Quick disclaimer: I know I use the word ‘fluff’ quite a bit in this post. I know some people don’t like that term and see it as somehow offensive to the background and lore. I don’t subscribe to this view. I see it as an affectionate term of the wealth of background material, novels and stories which form the backbone of the 40k universe. Please don’t hate me for using it!
I would never do that and consider it fluffy, but to Johnny there’s nothing wrong with it and accepts that although an Inquisitor might have a thing or two to say about the matter should they witness it, it can be justified within the 40k lore. More importantly for him, it fits the knightly theme for his army, even though it’s not strictly abiding by the existing lore. Fluff means different things to different people.
I’m not saying all armies can twist the background however they like and still be fluffy, but there’s a lot more wiggle room than some people think and what might be ‘correct’ to one person isn’t necessarily how another sees it. There are some real monstrosities of armies out there which can’t ever be justified, but these are fewer and further between these days. The detachment system in 8th edition 40k actually encourages and rewards you for taking armies which somewhat conform to the background.
To wrap up my slightly rambling thoughts, it’s interesting to think about how different people look at what would be considered ‘right’ within an imaginary universe. I’d certainly be interested in hearing how you guys approach the fluff.
Quick disclaimer: I know I use the word ‘fluff’ quite a bit in this post. I know some people don’t like that term and see it as somehow offensive to the background and lore. I don’t subscribe to this view. I see it as an affectionate term of the wealth of background material, novels and stories which form the backbone of the 40k universe. Please don’t hate me for using it!
It's certainly an interesting proposition, in a galaxy of a billion worlds, who's to say that something might not happen. My own personal take is that so long as I can see a logical argument for something I'm ok with it. Back in 7th I had this idea (and I still do to some extent) that my Dusk Knights marines were a chapter of specialist companies, and therefore one company would train 'like' the Imperial Fists and therefore use their chapter tactics, whilst a different company specialised more in use of assault bikes, so would use White Scars tactics on the tabletop. Personally I think that's actually more fluffy now in 8th, because the disparity between tactics isn't so glaringly wide. Inevitably however, One's ideas will cause concern for others. One particular example I remember was a squad piece for a golden daemon entry years ago, comprising a set of female space wolves. My fluff hackles instantly rose because that's just totally counter to the established lore that the space marine geneseed triggers off the y chromosome. Still a wonderfully painted squad but I couldn't get past the obvious lore-bending to a point where I liked the entry.
ReplyDeleteIt's a tough issue and no one wants to rain on another players parade. However, for me, Guilliman is Guilliman. The way 8th is set up is that you can only really take him in an Ultramarines detachment. There is no "Black Knight" no matter how cool an idea that is. I know that I would not be happy playing against someone who did that. As someone who follows the fluff and wants their game to fit the established lore I would not play against that list.
ReplyDeleteAm I being a dick saying that? I hope not as that is not my intent. Different things motivate us and give us our enjoyment. I'm a canon accurate fluff player.
All of my armies are my own creations. I do not build armies using established chapters, legions, warbands, etc. One reason I do this is for the freedom with painting and modeling. Another reason is to create my own fluff and not feel restricted by canon.
ReplyDeleteI, like your friend, do use special characters of my own devising. I have an Abaddon named Fane Bloodstar. I have a Huron Blackheart I call Psykill. I create my own models for them, paint them to match my warband, and setup fluff for them. They are only those characters in terms of rules alone, just like your friend.
If I could make my own rules up for my own characters then I gladly would. Until such a time (likely never), this is the only option open to us.
As a general rule, I'm cool with what anyone wants to do. If what they are doing is fun, creative, and they enjoy it, then who am I to piss on their parade?
I have generated my own system and planets, created characters, IG regiments and SM chapters, Inquisitors and all sorts. The fluff (a word i use a lot), lore and background of the 40k universe is what attracts me most. The ability to create your own part of it, to just let your imagination run wild is the part of the hobby that has kept me coming back again and again over the last 20 odd years.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the attraction of stocking to a named chapter and following the lore and background that others have set out, it feels like your just going through the motions, with no personally. I'm not going to look down at anyone who does that with their 3 company of Ultramarines or Imperial Fists but it's not for me.
The main thing as far as I'm concerned is that everyone is having fun painting and playing with there little men.
I seem to have come to this post a little late. I have recently acquired a Krios battle tank which I would like to use as part of my Adeptus Mechanicus forces in 40k. As you may know, this unit does not currently have rules in 40k (although it is fairly easy to infer them based on other 8th edition rules and the existing 30k rules for the model). How would you feel about facing this model on the battlefield? Personally I feel there is no fluffy reason why a Mechanicus army wouldn't have access to a relic from the Heresy so using one should simply be a matter of agreeing the crunch.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you guys. I'm mostly a player who sticks to established lore and stuff which already fits in with what exists, but I'd never look down on a another player whose interaction is on a different level to me, even if my inner fluff nerd twitches silently at times.
ReplyDeleteA good example is in 30k. It's rare to find a World Eaters player who doesn't use Galan Surhlak to buff their combat units. This really bugs me, as do most Special Characters. They can't be everywhere at once and it frustrates me that you see him on pretty much every table. This is especially irritating, as 99% of 30k players build armies which are otherwise extremely true to the lore.
Like Steven, I don't see any attraction in premade characters at all outside of 'historical' scenarios. It's why I won't touch Ahriman in 30k, despite him being extremely powerful and one of my favourite characters in the novels. There's just no 'wiggle room' to do my own thing!
On the other hand if someone wants to do what Thor does and make their own version of the character, just using their base rules, I'd never have an issue. At least then someone's made the effort to reconcile the presence of the character with their army's fluff :)
@Ed - That's awesome. I'd have no issue at all facing your Krios, as long as the rules you'd derived seemed fairly balanced. It used to be a lot easier to do that kind of thing before the 30k/40k split, as they shared a base ruleset, so you could use stuff in both eras.
That said, you might not have to do that once Fires of Cyraxis comes out and FW gives us rules for 30k Mechanicum in 40k :)
As far as the Krios goes, it's basically a Predator with the cannon from a knight Magaera (sp?) Hopefully, Fires of Cyraxis will fix all that and allow me to buy some of those nice Automata that Forgeworld make for use in my 40k army.
DeleteI think I can pretty much sum up my thoughts like this. If my opponent is clear about what their models represent and their army is organised to an agreed limit (points/power levels etc) then I'm pretty much happy to fight anything. After all, this hobby is all about expressing yourself; who am I to deny that to a fellow hobbyist!
Great post! you raise some interesting points. I tend to subscribe to the ethos of "it's your hobby, play your toy soldiers the way you want to!" (you paid enough for them after all!) In terms of justification for things, if it can be legitimately explained in the lore, that's even better. When it comes to cherry picking the models you want for rules on the table top and "re-imagining" the fluff to circumvent any negatives (such as Imperial soup losing chapter tactics), in an environment other than open play/unbound I feel a little uncomfortable with that.
ReplyDeleteWe all look at ranges for other factions with jealousy, I’m sure Dark Angels would love some Death Company who have learned the secret of the fallen and lost their minds to rage to go smash face, I wouldn’t field them in a list where there was competition involved or people had paid points to balance an army.
I think sometimes you have to accept that on the competitive table top not everyone is going to have all the same toys to play with. In the example of Gulliman being justified as a Sanguinor equivalent, I can see that, but a Primarch is a considerable step up the power level! If Johnny wanted his “black knight manifestation” character, that’s cool! Go for it! But use the profile of someone who already fits that e.g. the Sanguinor, Sigismund was good, he wasn’t a Primarch!
That’s just my take on the situation, I’m not saying anyone is wrong or right. If both parties are cool with proxies etc, have fun! Just try to keep it "fair" if you are paying points (which are meant to enforce limited and a balance on games)