# Old 40K vs. New 40K (evolution of the fluff)



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

Horus Rising was my first 40K novel. My started delving into the fluff around 3 years ago. I'm far from an old-timer. 

How much different is new 40K different from old 40K? In what ways are they different? From what I've heard, old 40K was a lot goofier and quirkier, more humourous and eccentric. It seems like the atmosphere has changed dramatically

Do you prefer the old whacky 40K or the new more serous 40K? Why?


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

I can't wait to hear from other responses. I too, started off reading BL books with _Horus Rising_. From earlier novels, in some of my threads, I've seen a lot of the focus in humanizing the Primarchs, and often having an astartes or the astartes relate to the readers. The rembrancers, and the human qualities of the super warriors made the novels enjoyable and emotional.

I believe we've escaped that plain and gone totally into "bolter porn." The novels are strictly about moving very fast from different and new topics. You have the argument also that the new fluff is "upgraded" material. To me, its just made up stuff. Do we want some updates? Sure, but there has been so many inventions in the lore, that authors focus their talents into surprising the reader and putting them on their feet. 

Its because of this I think you will see a big division amongst Heresy readers. Some enjoy the excitement and surprises and don't really mind the character development. And then you have the older readers, who very much miss the development of characters in the novel. 

And though I'm trying to reason with how the other side of the argument thinks... I just can't help but say... this fluff has become "whacky!" I'm not the only one that was disapointed by how their legion was depicted in the so called "legion novels." 

I strongly believe there will be more readers that will start despising the Heresy if they don't change their route. Seriously, the only thing it will take to change it is converting the fluff of those sensitive about it. It isn't like an all out outrage. But its like, Blood Angels here we come to reck your day! Only the Blood Angel fans get devastated. then the Iron Warriors, then the Death Guard, then the White Scars. One novel at a time.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

Personally most of the changes to 40k that i dislike were the changes made before the horus heresy series was started.
Fungoid orks. Fuck that shit. I liked the old ork fluff not the new version.Ere we go and waaaagh the orks are fantastic works. I am still looking for copies of those two but they are not to be had.
Squats. Don't like them so the tyranids can eat them. That just irritates me as a pathetic cop-out.
There have been others, the rework on the necrons was one. Previously they were the implacable legion that would end all life and they had that terrifying inhuman aspect. Now there are necron heroes, they can be friendly to blood angels etc. They have lost their terrifying inhumanity.


----------



## TRU3 CHAOS (May 21, 2010)

I could go on with codex fluff but there would be a bunch of cry babies. I guess I wish they could truly make more money by not being so extreme in this new era of fluff.

As far as BL books I stopped reading after the word bearers era. With the Creed and First Heretic. Really surprised with swallow and Thorpe they didn't use Reynolds. Thorpe is in that category of new lore.


----------



## maelstrom48 (Sep 5, 2012)

My first 40k book was Angels of Darkness by Gav Thorpe. It was a fantastically written book, and a great introduction into the 40k universe--all the intrigue and darkness Thorpe described made the setting feel very real. Even though he was working with Astartes, he did a good job treading the line between marking their superhuman nature versus their very human faults.

His second book in the series, I don't even remember the name of. It was pure action, marine vs ork, and it bothered the hell out of me. I think that's what ckcrawford meant by 'bolter porn', and I definitely agree with him; I hate seeing that stuff.

Horus Rising was by far the best 40k (30k?) book I've read by the BL, mostly because it was Dan Abnett who wrote it. In my opinion, he's the best author the BL has, and they made a big mistake allowing other authors to write the next 2 books in Garvi Loken's saga. Their writing was shoddy in comparison. The viral bombing of Istvaan III somehow managed to be _boring_. How is that possible?!

So to me, the problem with 40K lit isn't so much the changes in fluff canon/tone, but the fact that GW continually pumps out poor novels so they can collect their money.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

To be honest i dont think "old" 40k was wacky and funny, thats a misconception, in many ways it was much darker and nastier and more adult, many things are no longer available or talked about because the company went for a younger audience, things like the human bombs and the imperial guards youth soldiers (forget the name) spring to mind and stealer hybrids and covens, Yes the Orks were very comedy rich, but at the same time they were also very well written and had masses of really good solid fluff too, and yes they were and still are made of fungus.
i think the "look" of 40k has changed, the models are no longer as psychedelic as they were in the 90's, and the art work is less John Blanche and more moody and real.
Also i think that WD has alot to do with the feel of the game, back when i started WD and Journal were used to put out new rules and army lists and were very much part of the hobby, they also had adverts for non GW products and were aimed at a much older audience, later on that changed and it became a silly WAAARGHHH type of affair when fat bloke took over and made it into a much less serious rag aimed at kids, then when he left it died on its arse and basically became a marketing tool and a catalogue and the rules and hobby articles were pretty much gone.

personally i think despite some extreme elements of fluff, overall the new fluff for 40k is much more realistic, the Dark Eldar fluff is a good example of this, the codex really gives them depth and shows them as a real culture,not just some emo pirates who want to eat your heart for shits and giggles. The necron fluff also does the same, it was a brave move of GW to walk away from mindless robots, but im very glad they did, you have mindless robots in the form of Nids, so giving the necrons character was a good move.

If i was going to pick fault it would be with chaos marines, they are really getting short changed by having a single codex, considering the nuber of legions and warbands i think they could be expanded on more.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I'm with BK on this one. I actually like the new versions of recent codexes, the changes made to DE and necrons especially. The extra insights into the tyranids psychology gleaned in their latest dex was also a much appreciated addition. Mindless drones mostly yes, but there is at least now potential for some to become something a bit more. 

On the Heresy itself, at first I was glad that a lot of it was being so well expanded on. But now like others I am noticing a change of pace. So much ground was covered in the first five books that the current rate of progress has just killed my enthusiasm for the series.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Serpion5 said:


> I'm with BK on this one. I actually like the new versions of recent codexes, the changes made to DE and necrons especially. The extra insights into the tyranids psychology gleaned in their latest dex was also a much appreciated addition. Mindless drones mostly yes, but there is at least now potential for some to become something a bit more.


I have to strongly disagree here. Giving the Necrons...personality, sort of made them more generic.

I think it moved them too close to the Eldar--an ancient, once great, race with an odd sense of honor that can occasionally ally themselves with the "lesser" races almost on a whim. Yeah, they're different, but do we need another one of those rolling around the universe?

I thought the Necrons were a lot scarier before. There was no compromise. They were a natural disaster. You either fought them as hard as you could or run for the hills. Fail in other choice and you died. Simply as that. No negotiation. Ever.

You don't want everyone to be like that, but we already had forces that fit this niche. The Necrons and Tyranids fit the other one--the emotionless destruction of human society.

Also the idea of a Tyranid leader makes no sense to me. Does the Stormlord somehow keep knowledge only it has access to? If so, why? Why doesn't every strategy he thinks of instantly become usable by the entire Tyranid race? Why do they need some sort of physical manifestation to work?

And for that matter, it says that _every_ hive tyrant is a unique being. Each time one is killed, it can be revived with its own memories and knowledge.

Why? Why would they bother? Just infuse each one with everything it could need to know. Why limit its knowledge?

Heck, the codex even says the Tyrants have _character_. The hell?


----------



## Chompy Bits (Jun 13, 2010)

Well, considering that the first 40k book I ever picked up was a Goto DOW novel, almost everything since then has been an improvement. Almost. :laugh:

Seriously though, I don't think 40k used to be 'wacky'. Sure the Orks were pretty out there, and there were some truly terrible unique characters like Mad Chainsaw Johnson and Inquisitor Obiwan Sherlock Clousseau, but, from what I can tell, 40k was actually a lot more grimdark back in the day. As B&K has said, it's GW changing their target audience that has had a lot to do with how things have progressed.

As far as the HH fluff goes, my one serious gripe is with continuity. It seems like with almost every release the order of the Magnus censure / Dropsite massacre timeline gets altered, and it's starting to fuck about with the story. But then, I suppose it could be argued that this is a symptom of how the heresy series seems to have become bogged down, as others have mentioned.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

My first exposure to 40k was the novel Space Marine and I can go along with the guys who say if anything 40k has mellowed and lightened up a fair bit since those days. That first novel was quite "dark" and the "goings on" on a space hulk was quite graphic.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

I don't think there's a clear cut distinction when it comes to quality. I think it comes down to the themes and concepts that dominate the setting at the time that the authors are writing, and how much leeway said authors have in bringing in their own ideas and flavor.

Regardless of the time it was written in, I'm a fan of those works that I felt were true to the dystopian, gothic setting of 40k. I'm not a fan of gimmicks that end my suspension of disbelief.

Here's an example:
1. I don't mind how Orks are depicted.
2. I don't like obvious jabs at humor like "Orkimedes" (spelling?)
3. I don't like it when an obviously xenophobic entity like the Imperium uses Orkish terminology ("Waaagh!", "Nob", "Boss", etc.).


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

I think the older fluff was a little more dark and a little less grim (or maybe the other way around), if that makes any sense. Especially back in the Rogue Trader period, where there was lots of black humor and irony, and the Imperium had a very rag-tag, Mad-Max-in-space sort of feel to it. 

I think something that really set in as time went on was the fetishization of the Space Marines. This has always been present to some degree, as the SM's are basically the flagship of the entire game, and the major movers and shakers in the background material, but I feel like, beginning around 3rd edition and culminating in 5th, they became invincible superman, as opposed to elite, genetically enhanced special forces, which isn't too far off, to be fair. This was really exacerbated with Ward's Codex: Space Marines. Leaving his gameplay-related decisions off the table (that is a discussion for another time and place), he is, straight up, not a very good background writer. The Grey Knights and Space Marine codices feel like something a younger player would write about his own, made-up chapter, trying to make it the end-all be-all, trying to make the setting conform to his ideas, rather than the other way around. 

I will give him some credit and say that the background changes in his Codex: Necrons were just what the race needed. Before, they were stuck with an outdated, one-note codex still lingering from the days of 3rd edition. I found the old Necrons so boring, not just in terms of force-composition, but with the background portraying them as an implacable, encroaching, unstoppable force that was sure to beat out the Tyranids in terms of galactic genocide. And I know, not least from reading this thread, that people preferred them that way. But to me, it was one-dimensional. We already had one army of life-eating drones, mindlessly serving a higher power. Characters, and especially villains, need flaws to make them interesting. The only thing I sort of miss is the fact that, with the C'Tan now mostly domesticated, the Pariah gene has mostly disappeared from the fluff, which is a shame, because it was such a cool angle.

As a Chaos player, I wasn't too thrilled with the background in our 5th edition codex. Sure, they put a lot of emphasis on the renegade chapters, and the make-your-own mentality that was mostly missing from the previous codex, but it lost a sense of purpose too. The previous codex had emphasized them as flawed villains who were committed to domination and had the will to see it through. 5th edition made them feel more petty, like just a bunch of squabbling warbands. Now, this "Path to Glory" had been a fixture of Chaos ever since the old Realms of Chaos books, but the Chaos Marines had always been shown as guys who, while they pursued their own destiny, were still committed to the larger picture of tearing down the Imperium. I think 6th edition really struck that balance, emphasizing once again that Chaos was the path of the individual, willing to risk anything to gain everything, while bringing back that image of apocalyptic prodigal sons. 

As for the Heresy books, the first one I picked up was Galaxy in Flames, which intrigued me enough to pick up the previous two. Despite the amount of flak he receives, I think Ben Counter did a good job rounding off the trilogy, though of course, Horus Rising is by far the best. False Gods was... pretty okay. I don't really like Graham McNeil (something about the superficial way he writes characters and his grandiose dialogue feel off to me), and the way he handled Horus's 'conversion' felt rushed and clumsy. Maybe the order I read them in had something to do with my feelings; seeing how things had gone so to hell in Galaxy in Flames, then reading Horus Rising, I was expecting more from False Gods. As it was it felt like a weak bridge trying to link two mountains. 
As for the rest of the series, I think there is a division between the books that _deepen_ the story, and the ones that _widen_ it. The original trilogy, Fulgrim, A Thousand Sons, etc. or of the former category, delving into a lot of pertinent questions,increasing our understanding, but not decreasing our wonder. The latter category is made up of books like The Outcast Dead, Nemesis, Legion, etc. These focus on aspects of the Heresy that haven't really been brought up or explored, but don't usually penetrate very deep or have real impact on the background. The exception is Legion, which I thoroughly enjoyed, and gave us a look into the Imperial Army, allowing us to see from their perspective how the Astartes must be (as shown in Horus Rising, Abnett is very good at that). Most of the other "wide" books feel like they're just playing a role. They might as well be titled "Let's Look at Some Assassins for a Bit." They seem to exist for efficiency reasons, rather than artistic. 

Probably the best elements of background are the ones that don't take place on a battlefield, but sort of in the "backstage" of the 'verse (e.g. the Ravenor and Eisenhorn series') If anyone remembers the Crucible of War anthology, that had some great stories in it. Liberation Day, On Mournful Wings, and The Curiosity were really great science fiction that just sort of happened to exist in the 40k universe. This is a background that encompasses all manner of cultures, planets, and warfare, and lots of writers don't take advantage of that. Lord of the Night, for instance (my favorite BL book), is an in-depth character study of two people who couldn't be more different, yet are intrinsically alike. All this is set against a dark, gothic backdrop which feels like a living, breathing place, full of its own nuances and details. I can only think of three real 'battle scenes' all of which are brief affairs, but you're actually into the characters, the setting, and what's going on. 6th edition seems focused on re-deepening the background of the game, and sort of reflecting that in the added depth to the game. The constant war and conflict in 40k ultimately means nothing if we don't see its effect on the universe, how war shapes the various societies and races.


----------



## Marley (Nov 3, 2012)

I would regard myself as an old timer in fluff terms. Started with Games Workshop in 1990 when I read a few White Dwarf magazines. In my teens I did all the gaming/hobby thing and remember it fondly. Now my only involvement is the BL books.

Great things about the old fluff were all the little snippets of info in White Dwarf and rule and army books, all the amazing illustrations that just fuelled your imagination. For example - my first White Dwarf (the only one I kept !) has a section of John Blanche drawings in it and one is 'The Eternity Gate' with notes discussing the sheer scale of it - that blew my mind at the time and still does now ! There was so much darkness and mystery to Warhammer and 40K then which was amazing ......... BUT ....

Nowadays we have a hugely detailed and ever growing background that is only going to get even richer over the years. What we might have lost in mystery and awe is, in my view, made up for by the overall quality that BL tries to put out and the love I believe they and the authors show for the source material. 

When I think back to my 10 year old self and how happy I was with my odd White Dwarf magazine..... I would have LOVED what is available now :grin:


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> 3. I don't like it when an obviously xenophobic entity like the Imperium uses Orkish terminology ("Waaagh!", "Nob", "Boss", etc.).


Well, certain branches of the Inquisition try to study the innerworkings of different species. 

Heck, Yarrick learned to speak at least one dialect of Orkish. It's not surprising that the basic tenants of Orkish culture have disseminated to certain portions of the Imperium.


----------



## MontytheMighty (Jul 21, 2009)

hailene said:


> I have to strongly disagree here. Giving the Necrons...personality, sort of made them more generic.


Your argument doesn't make sense to me. 

You're saying that they're generic like Eldar now...

Weren't they generic like Tyranids before? 

I actually see more room for developing uniqueness with the current Necron fluff. The old fluff was one dimensional. Necrons were mechanical Tyranids...Tyranids were biological Necrons

Even in the current fluff, you can still find mindless killing machines. The low level necrons are pretty much all like that


----------



## maelstrom48 (Sep 5, 2012)

Man after my own heart, daxxglax. It looks like we have similar tastes in fiction. You made me want to pick up Lord of the Night.

I think I can sum up your SM gripes pretty well with... FUCKING WARD! :ireful2:

Speaking of Ward, has anyone brought up Sisters of Battle yet, and how whenever they're mentioned in the fluff, it seems like they've been on the receiving end of a slaughter? The example that comes to mind is the new Grey Knight codex, where the GK's butcher some loyal sisters to they could coat their armor in 'innocent' blood and protect themselves from chaos. I mean come on. Give the poor girls some love for once.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

MontytheMighty said:


> Your argument doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> You're saying that they're generic like Eldar now...
> 
> ...


You bring up a valid point. 

It's probably just my own bias then. Incredibly powerful, whimsical beings just don't strike a chord with me.

That's why I also like zombies. They're relentless. They're going to destroy everyone you care about. And there's absolutely no way of stopping them unless you run away or destroy them.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

I always view the fluff like this.

We are looking back on records that have been kept over 10K years. Every codex is what information we though we understood. 

For example the crons. We though that they just teleported long distances. But with the new codex they use the webway. They have the tech to access the webway outside of gates.


And just for the record I know that's not true, But you know what I don't really care.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

maelstrom48 said:


> Man after my own heart, daxxglax. It looks like we have similar tastes in fiction. You made me want to pick up Lord of the Night.
> 
> I think I can sum up your SM gripes pretty well with... FUCKING WARD! :ireful2:
> 
> Speaking of Ward, has anyone brought up Sisters of Battle yet, and how whenever they're mentioned in the fluff, it seems like they've been on the receiving end of a slaughter? The example that comes to mind is the new Grey Knight codex, where the GK's butcher some loyal sisters to they could coat their armor in 'innocent' blood and protect themselves from chaos. I mean come on. Give the poor girls some love for once.


You should go to 1d chan -warhammer 40k. A lot of funny stuff about 40k and Matt Ward.

One is the Necrons. It first says there badass skeleton dudes... and then describes all the old fluff though it is all crossed out. At the end it says, badah bee, now your just the tomb kings that I used to know. Funny shit.


----------



## maelstrom48 (Sep 5, 2012)

ckcrawford said:


> You should go to 1d chan -warhammer 40k. A lot of funny stuff about 40k and Matt Ward.
> 
> One is the Necrons. It first says there badass skeleton dudes... and then describes all the old fluff though it is all crossed out. At the end it says, badah bee, now your just the tomb kings that I used to know. Funny shit.


Just read it.. Cried tears of joy.


----------



## Phoebus (Apr 17, 2010)

hailene said:


> Well, certain branches of the Inquisition try to study the innerworkings of different species.
> 
> Heck, Yarrick learned to speak at least one dialect of Orkish. It's not surprising that the basic tenants of Orkish culture have disseminated to certain portions of the Imperium.


I'm talking about fluff presented from the point of view of Imperial troops, officers, etc.

Let me put it his way. Clearly the Tyranids don't hold conversations with their foes. The Imperium came up with some apropos, even elegant, terms for them: Tyranid, hive queen, lictor, carnifex, etc. some of them (harpy, gargoyle, etc) are derived from our own myths. It's an appropriate lexicon that the humans of the Imperium would arrive at. I wish they would have done the same with the Orks.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Phoebus said:


> I'm talking about fluff presented from the point of view of Imperial troops, officers, etc.
> 
> Let me put it his way. Clearly the Tyranids don't hold conversations with their foes. The Imperium came up with some apropos, even elegant, terms for them: Tyranid, hive queen, lictor, carnifex, etc. some of them (harpy, gargoyle, etc) are derived from our own myths. It's an appropriate lexicon that the humans of the Imperium would arrive at. I wish they would have done the same with the Orks.


Well, the difference is that Orks have a vocal form of communication. Also humans have had contact with Orks since at least the GC--probably even before the DAoT since the Orks were probably made by the Old Ones, anyway.

Humanity has had a lot of time to figure out how they work. What their culture is. On the other hand, humanity as a whole has only really been aware of the Tyranids for 250 years. Just a drop in the bucket when dealing with the Imperium.

Additionally, Ork forces have allied themselves with human forces before. It would not be entirely strange for the humans to learn the Ork designations for the Orkish troops.

The Imperium has had a lot of time and a lot of contact with the Ork race. It's not unexpected they know a lot about them. Even from an "inside" point of view of the race.


----------



## Khorne's Fist (Jul 18, 2008)

I started playing using Rogue Trader, which is now vacuum packed in my attic. The fluff was great, and had a lot of nods to the culture of the time it came out. For me the biggest change is with Space Marines. They were originally psychopaths that were treated much the same Eversor assassins nowadays, kept in storage until they were needed. The legions individual identities were not as defined, but they've had more than 20 years to work them out.

I suppose they had to change them into the noble warrior monks, or else every chapter would be like a bunch of World Eaters running around, which wouldn't sell anywhere the same amount of codecies or novels. Or maybe they would.

Since then we've seen the introduction of the Necrons, Tau, Tyranids and Dark Eldar, all great additions. The development of the Heresy fluff isn't quite what you'd call new fluff, just the fleshing of a skeleton. 

The easiest way to see the change in fluff is to read the Inquisitor trilogy and compare it to the current stuff. Some drastic stuff in there that has either been retconned or dropped altogether. 

I don't think you can really say that old or new is better than the other, because the new is just a development of the old. There was a much darker feel to the fluff back then though, definitely aimed at an older crowd than todays iteration.


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

Haha, agreed, Khorne's Fist. I didn't start with Rogue Trader, but I've scoured a lot of the old fluff and the old Space Marines were straight-up maniacs. Badass mofos, to be sure, but they were the most brutal and insane individuals in a brutal, insane universe. I remember in one Soul Drinker's novel, an IG general basically describes them like that, and they sure must seem that way to most people in-setting.



hailene said:


> Well, the difference is that Orks have a vocal form of communication. Also humans have had contact with Orks since at least the GC--probably even before the DAoT since the Orks were probably made by the Old Ones, anyway.
> 
> Humanity has had a lot of time to figure out how they work. What their culture is. On the other hand, humanity as a whole has only really been aware of the Tyranids for 250 years. Just a drop in the bucket when dealing with the Imperium.
> 
> ...


I think it's important to take the view point of human characters into account, especially since the Imperium is such a xenophobic, humanocentric entity. Take, for instance, the short story Liberation Day, which follows a revolt by a group of human slaves aboard an Ork space hulk. One of the slaves happens to have been the apprentice to a Magos Biologis and makes a reference to "orkoid" behavior. The other slaves ask him what this means and he explains that "ork" is their proper name, but they all just scoff and say that the filthy greenskin xenos don't deserve proper names. 

Like, you'd never hear a human, maybe not even an Inquisitor/Magos, say "ork weirdboy." They would probably just say "greenskin sorcerer" or "xenos witch," because that's putting it in terms they can understand.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

daxxglax said:


> I think it's important to take the view point of human characters into account, especially since the Imperium is such a xenophobic, humanocentric entity. Take, for instance, the short story Liberation Day, which follows a revolt by a group of human slaves aboard an Ork space hulk. One of the slaves happens to have been the apprentice to a Magos Biologis and makes a reference to "orkoid" behavior. The other slaves ask him what this means and he explains that "ork" is their proper name, but they all just scoff and say that the filthy greenskin xenos don't deserve proper names.
> 
> Like, you'd never hear a human, maybe not even an Inquisitor/Magos, say "ork weirdboy." They would probably just say "greenskin sorcerer" or "xenos witch," because that's putting it in terms they can understand.


Some would definitely not care a bit about what the Orks call each other. Other portions, like the Magos you described or some characters, like Yarrick, would be more interested in the specifics of Ork kulture.

Look at it this way: if someone didn't care a bit about Orks, would they compile a thorough document like a codex? Or would someone who has a vested interested in Orks try their best to compile the most accurate information available?


----------

