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.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:I've heard armies described as "fluffy" and it had a purely positive connotation. Fluff itself hints at being pejorative while not always being so.

for a long time 'Fluffy' meant non-competative which is why it was positive. It meant someone was playing for fun to recreate the background rather that choosing units to win.

For most TV and comics I hear the term 'canon' tossed around which irks me, I'm sorry comparing Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the Bible is just wrong.

Lore really sounds full of itself.

Background is OK.

In college whenever an otherwise good film slowed down to talk we would yell PLOT! and fast forward.

Yeah, that's we're talking about isn't it. The talky stuff that fills time between explosions.

chromedog wrote:Because "lore" would give it a gravitas and credibility that it doesn't have - hence it is called "fluff".

Fluff is "filler" and padding, and essentially lightweight content. Those parts of the "rule book" that are not "rules". Those 5 minute "human interest" stories on News broadcasts, for example, are often called "fluff" or "puff" pieces.

This. If the fluff didn't change every time GW needed to release a new unit one could arguably call it lore or background. As it is one cannot.

Fluff started being used as a term more and more during the 3d edition, lean days of all stats and no substance. Then as the BL books started going over the top on the backstory, the inherent discussions began revolving around why the BL info was more indepth.

As they went on to the IA books, and the additional info, they never really kept the info up to date and consistant within the armies in question, nor the connectivity between the different conceptions of the game were not fluid.

To the point, now where we are seeing Mad Warts babble and the over the top stuff that is coming out of left field to completly change well established ideas of the game.

All in all it is used diragatory, in reference to BS information that is coming out of BL and cosecutive writers that are pulling stuff out of thier hole, and writing it out as gosple according to GW.


This is what happens when Bean counters take over Arkahm. Its all in all about pushing product, now so honest backstory really doesn't matter.

Case in point, the 2d compnay of Ultra marines, or the IG regiments throughout the game. Even tioe Orks, being basicly plant men, now, with no original continuance of thier OP material.

Other examples include the reason behind the Squat purge, The war against the SOB's by those GK's, and Gorkamorka's endgame.

All in all GW does give you a whole new meaning of WTF.

Eilif wrote: It also smacks of taking it way too seriously. No offense to those that use the term, it just ain't my cup-o-tea.

+1 this bit, too.

The people who call D&D background "lore" are also guilty of taking the entire thing waaaaaay too seriously.

chromedog wrote:
The people who call D&D background "lore" are also guilty of taking the entire thing waaaaaay too seriously.

Mm, no. Not really.

Says the guy with the old wizzerd avatar.

Quiet you!

Magic Missile!

I don't believe in magic.

Galaxy levelling wave motion guns, however ...


... are equally pants.

Give me a death star superlaser any day.

I'm pretty sure all stuff that people had that did not benefit combat or other skills that related to earning exp in an old MUD I played was referred to as fluff as well.

chromedog wrote:I don't believe in magic.

You can't just not believe in it, man. You have to roll to disbelieve.

I can disbelieve in magic.

I believe in rayguns and spaceships, not this girly UNICRONS* and dragons crapola.


*This is NOT a typo. I don't believe in unicron, either.

chromedog wrote:I believe in rayguns and spaceships, not this girl unicrons and dragons crapola.

Are girl unicrons some kind of necrons variant? They sound... hot.

But I doubt they really match up well with the fluff.

Unicron is supposedly a planet sized transformer from a theorised animated movie about robot cars and jetplanes that fight.

Like such a thing can exist ...

spaceelf wrote:Its fluff because the Necrons team up with Blood Angels. Even the people who write the books do not take it seriously.

That was so unrelated it wasn't even funny...I think people are just looking for excuses to post that picture......

Anyway, fluff......just think of a fluffy pillow. The pillow case itself is empty, but when theirs fluff inside it makes it much more comfortable, so fluff=filling in a way...

The way I see it 'fluff' is a derogatory term for writers. Would you call all literature or other written forms of the human imagination (such as mythology) 'fluff'? It doesn't really mean anything, it may have no real impact on anyone's life, but it stimulates the imagination and may give us pause for thought/a moment of escapism, it may also be deeply profound. Of course I'm not saying that the 40k 'fluff' in anyway equates to humanity's greatest literary works (although if interpreted it would be up there for me) - but it's an immense achievement and with it getting so large and bloated, it's little wonder why (without the direction of Rick Priestley or Andy Chambers) it's taken a tumble since 4th Ed.

I also see it as slightly derogatory to the hobby itself - without the 'fluff' behind the models, the models may not look as good as they do as their creation is often an 'organic' synergy between written, drawn and oral thought. Space Marines wouldn't be as cool as they are if the term didn't carry with it the fictional foundation it does. If Dracula had been half the book it was, the term/creature 'Vampire' may have been very different and nowhere near as captivating and enduring as it has been for the human imagination over the last century or so.

Whether some people like it or not, the minis they love (and to a certain extent the rules they use) are informed by the 'fluff' to a greater/lesser extent - or indeed vice versa (the minis help create the 'fluff'). I don't see creating new units or races as a negative thing, as it's an expansion of the Warhammer/40k saga (which is what it is) and if we only had the units that were in Rogue Trader (without any revision/expansion) then I doubt this forum would exist.

In short I find hobbyists who could care less for the 'fluff' to be slightly ignorant and bemusing. As it is, it is the 'fluff' which threads/binds the minis and rules together (no matter how abstractly) and personally I see little point in playing the game/collecting an army, without it - you might as well play chess or scrabble. For historical wargamers it's the history that counts (at least the era they're playing in if not specific battle re-creations) and so with fantasy wargaming it is the fantasy background that counts. I never got into LOTR, not because the game isn't good or the minis are horrible (as they're quite fine) but I just could never get into the story beyond the movies - for me that has an ending, but with 40k or Warhammer, it's pretty much endless.

If you took away the Dark Side from Star Wars and instead had some relentless hippy quest for Luke's 'true self' it wouldn't be worth anyone watching it, would it? The Phantom Menace had about 6 minutes of Dark Side (or in Maul's case 'Moderate Side') and that's why it failed. Whether you like it or not 'fluff' matters - I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'canon' or 'lore' but in the end it's not what you call it that counts, it's what it 'is' that matters. So long as people understand what the term refers to, then it doesn't really matter.

Anyway, fluff......just think of a fluffy pillow. The pillow case itself is empty, but when theirs fluff inside it makes it much more comfortable, so fluff=filling in a way...

And it would be a pretty useless pillow if it didn't have the 'fluff', wouldn't it? Like a car without an engine. @ bombboy1252 - a good analogy

Kid_Kyoto wrote:For most TV and comics I hear the term 'canon' tossed around which irks me, I'm sorry comparing Buffy the Vampire Slayer to the Bible is just wrong.

That's a little disingenuous: the use of the same literary term does not, of itself, invite comparison between two very obviously different works. It is interesting, however, to note that the Bible, like Doctor Who, the DC Universe or Warhammer 40,000 would fit the literary notion of an 'unfolding text', i.e. the work of many different individuals, the 'finalised' versions of which were beyond the knowledge of the original writers.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Lore really sounds full of itself.

Yes, yes really it does. To answer the original poster, I suspect that 'fluff' - as distinct from 'crunch' - has made its way into Warhammer from the world of board games - certainly that was where I first encountered it back in the 1990s - where, particularly in Euro-type games the 'theme' tends to be very, very obviously tacked-on to a set of abstract mechanics.

Interesting points.

warspawned wrote: Would you call all literature or other written forms of the human imagination (such as mythology) 'fluff'?

No, but I don't consider 40k or the Black Library to be "literature". I like it and I read it but I consdier it Fluff or "pulp" and it goes in the pulp sci-fi section of my bookcases alongside Star Wars and Battletech novels. Not to be confused with literature like Tolkein, Calvino, O'Connor, etc. I realize it's a very wavy grey line to draw (where do Asimov and Heinlen go...) and a whole other conversation, but that's how I break it down.

warspawned wrote:I also see it as slightly derogatory to the hobby itself - without the 'fluff' behind the models, the models may not look as good as they do as their creation is often an 'organic' synergy between written, drawn and oral thought. Space Marines wouldn't be as cool as they are if the term didn't carry with it the fictional foundation it does. If Dracula had been half the book it was, the term/creature 'Vampire' may have been very different and nowhere near as captivating and enduring as it has been for the human imagination over the last century or so.

Very True. Background (whether provided or made up by the players) is essential for gaming as much as background is in Literature and film.

warspawned wrote:In short I find hobbyists who could care less for the 'fluff' to be slightly ignorant and bemusing.

Agreed, but I find that many (perhaps most) hobbyists don't take the fluff with them onto the game table. How often do you see games (especially competative ones) where the forces used really match up to the forces as described in the fluff? People talk alot about fluff, but when it's time to game, out come force lists that throw fluff out the window.

warspawned wrote:And it would be a pretty useless pillow if it didn't have the 'fluff', wouldn't it? Like a car without an engine.

Definitely agree. Even if it's a generic skrimsih game where the scenario is thrown together quickly and only I know the "backgorund" of my forces, I've little interest in gaming without some fluff.

'Lore' sounds as old-fashioned as 'fluff' sounds silly. If I'm writing in a professional tone I lean towards 'background' but I'd probably use lore if I was writing for something with a fantasy tone.

Fluff was originally used as a somewhat derogatory term, for people who used it to justify shoddily written rules and/or codex creep. The fact that Gav hated it only added to its use. Back in the day, multiple editions for both 40K and WHFB ago, armies had background that had almost no bearing or relationship to which units and options were considered "good" to take. Playing "fluffy" meant you built a craptastic army based on an army’s background, rather than taking optimal units (which were only chosen by power gamers)

Interestingly, "fluffer" is a bit of a double entendre, also being derogatory, for people who follow the fluff to closely, and object when their "fluffy" army sucks. (It’s kind of like calling a Tea Party member in the U.S. a "tea bagger," and it has similar connotations.)

I think the term has been used for so long, and there has been somewhat of a convergence in the rules sets and the various codices/army books, so that "playing fluffy" is not as prevalent a term any more, nor does it have the same past negative connotations. In many instances, the rules and options in army lists have caught up to the background somewhat, so that almost any combination can be deemed "fluffy." And too, the tournament mentality and the overall disuse of comp scoring (because it typically doesn't work across the board), has led people away somewhat from background-based lists. But more importantly, I see GW's ability to produce a broader range of miniatures, and to write broader and more all encompassing rules for specific armies that incorporates more of the fluff into the actual rules, as the two main impetuses for the convergence of the rules and the fluff.

I no longer view fluff as a pejorative. (Although "fluffer," well that's a different matter all together... )

Improved codex balance and 5th editions requirment for scoring units (nearly all of which are troops choices) makes much of the old comp requirments obsolete.

Many of the very strongest armies aren't horribly "fluffy" (missle spam wolves being a good example), but the background and gameplay have converged greatly.

If it was set in stone and unaltered, it'd be lore.
When a new $33 booklet completely changes the storyline on a bi/tri annual basis, it's malleable fluff.