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!
