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.

Recently I have seen the word “lore” being used in 40k discussions. It seems to have replaced the old term “fluff”. Lore makes it sound much more serious and permanent. And as we all know nothing is forever in GWs hands. Why has this happened?

I don’t like it, people seem to be taking the background much more seriously nowadays and it seems to be losing some of the fun we used to have. Names were silly and settings were puns on historical events. Fluff sounds more fun than lore.

Fluff has always been lore. It's just more established now that it's been going for 30 years and has a ton of novels.

I think of them as different still.

"The fluff" is the text in the latest codex that witters on about - for example - how the new Aggressor units were formed from the sternest marines with the biggest... er... grudges. And how their automantic boltstorm defragulators can churn out a hail of destruction from which there can be no escape yadda yadda yadda

"The lore" is 30 years of novels and background.

Granted, something that's fluff today could become lore tomorrow - but not all of it does.

Fluff becomes lore when it's repeated and reinforced by different writers in different publications.

Because the internet deemed it so. Can't go around using non-GW approved verbiage or you'll become a hobby pariah.

I have used lore since forever. I come from warcraft, and there we have always used "lore", "loremaster", etc...

 Galas wrote:
I have used lore since forever. I come from warcraft, and there we have always used "lore", "loremaster", etc...

That'll be why. People from a GW background would originally use, erm, background as the "proper" term which morphed into "fluff" as it padded out the setting.

Inthe spanish warhammer community we still use background (but in spanish, "trasfondo"). Nearly nobody uses lore, and no one uses fluff.

Lore, background, whatever are normal terms in use in 40K since it's invention, I would imagine.

"Fluff" is a tongue-in-cheek, mildly derogatory term that separates "fluff" and "crunch" with the latter implied/presumed to be more relevant and "fluff" being optionally ignorable in some games.

From there, it kinda took a life of it's own and became a "mainstream term" in the 40K community, but it's not something you'd ever actually see or read in official promotional material or the publications, etc.. There's no "fluff section" in the Codex, just a "background" or "lore section".

Just making a meta observation without any particular horse in the race.

But as the OP of the recent female primaris thread, could this post be a method to undermine the strongest 'lore / fluff' objection that many professed to have against female marines? If we frame the lore as fluff and silliness, we make the people who want to adhere to the current status quo have less solid a foundation?

secretForge wrote:
Just making a meta observation without any particular horse in the race.

But as the OP of the recent female primaris thread, could this post be a method to undermine the strongest 'lore / fluff' objection that many professed to have against female marines? If we frame the lore as fluff and silliness, we make the people who want to adhere to the current status quo have less solid a foundation?

No not at all. It’s a separate observation no mention of female anything’s here. I’m not like that. It’s just something I spotted I the last few weeks on threads in this site and others. On the advice of the MODS I’m letting that topic drop (for now).

I notice that most people who use lore as term state itnin a way that is undeniable and cannot be altered or open to intreptation. I think this is a problem, and one caused by the HH novels in particular. For ages that period was deliberately vague and ambiguous. Now people have all these set ideas and many things are actually known. It removes a lot of the mystery from the game and the stricter the “lore” the harder it is to use your own home brewed background. I think 40k was a game setting, the fluff/background was there to flesh out the game but also be a canvas onto which you could add.

The older fluff was written by the designers just playing their games. Piscina IV was a campaign played by Andy chambers and his mates. Chambers invented Ghazghkull and beamed him after thatcher. First war for Armageddon was an epic battle report in WD. It used to be very loose. Now we have “canon” and “lore” bandied around and people claim you can’t dissagree with it. I also used to like when stuff was written for different perspectives so you never had a reliable account, just each factions versions of it.

Not trying to start any rows just a discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ps. I hate the term meta. Dont even get me started on that.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Because the internet deemed it so. Can't go around using non-GW approved verbiage or you'll become a hobby pariah.

I remember back when my home area still had a GW store. A district manager walked in right as I said that I didn't like the fluff for something or other. Tried to chew me out over the use of fluff over "deep and engaging back story". He didn't take it well when I told him I didn't work for him, and I'd call it what ever I chose too. He tried to have me fired (I happened to be wearing a red polo shirt).

Fluff and lore are the same thing. Some people might want to think that lore gives something a permanency that is undeniable to all who behold, but the truth is that GW can change anything they want despite the rage of fans.

For example, look at Star Trek. We have the Klingons with the movie/TNG ones in Enterprise, Abramsverse ones, then TOS ones, and then the movie/TNG series ones all as part of canon. The movie/TNG ones have had so much background and exposure that they have an actual language that people speak and an iconic look that was easily a rival of SM or SW Stormtroopers. Yet the showrunners of Discovery decided they wanted to make the Klingons look even more alien, despite the decades of established popular Klingon looks, and put it smack dab in the middle of everything to making the evolution of the Klingons appearance even more convoluted. Since CBS owns it though, they can do whatever they want.

If GW wants to say "Surprise, there really was 30 Primarchs and now a new 9 legions are showing up with a vengeance as an all new faction", they can.

Skaorn wrote:


If GW wants to say "Surprise, there really was 30 Primarchs and now a new 9 legions are showing up with a vengeance as an all new faction", they can.

They totally can. Doesn't mean its a good idea though.
But yes, fluff and lore is the same when it comes down to it. Lore is just the serious sounding version, for when they want to make Wh40k's background as complex and in-depth as LOTR.

Andykp wrote:
Recently I have seen the word “lore” being used in 40k discussions. It seems to have replaced the old term “fluff”. Lore makes it sound much more serious and permanent. And as we all know nothing is forever in GWs hands. Why has this happened?

I don’t like it, people seem to be taking the background much more seriously nowadays and it seems to be losing some of the fun we used to have. Names were silly and settings were puns on historical events. Fluff sounds more fun than lore.

Lore started to exist roughly three minutes after the first copy of Rogue Trooper was sold. It's just a term people use when they want to give the impression that the various narrative bits are hidden, immutable, and known only to great scholars like themselves who have mastered the power of the Google (or back in the day, the esoteric art of reading). Fluff is the term used by people who are okay with whatever GW writes so long as no one complains about their custom built Ork Drag Queen army. It's really just a pair of words used to influence the listener on how serious they should take the narrative bits in question.

Luckily, I'm pretty certain that 99% of the GW staff falls on the 'I just googled tiny wigs for orks' side of the spectrum. No one takes the narrative less seriously than GW, which is probably how they've managed to stay in business so long.

Lore and fluff are the same thing for me. I associate them together because people seem to always go for "fluff vs crunch", so what I already called lore I also called fluff.

And yes Charger, you're absolutely right. The majority of GW staff are far more "fluffy" than crunchy, but even so, they still don't take it THAT seriously.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Skaorn wrote:


If GW wants to say "Surprise, there really was 30 Primarchs and now a new 9 legions are showing up with a vengeance as an all new faction", they can.

They totally can. Doesn't mean its a good idea though.
But yes, fluff and lore is the same when it comes down to it. Lore is just the serious sounding version, for when they want to make Wh40k's background as complex and in-depth as LOTR.

That was my point. But whether you or I feel that it was a good change or not only matters if it hits them in the wallet. New Klingons don't seem to be that popular with older ST fans. Primaris lore doesn't seem all that popular with a lot of 40k fans. Both CBS and GW seem to be doing fine selling their product at the moment though.

It changed in 2006

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/9322.page#26643

At least according to the forum search tools that's the first time I've seen lore used to mean "background material."

Though, I agree with the OP, I've never really heard the term used that way in 40k until coming back to the hobby this year. Up until my last departure in 2016, it was always "fluff" including blog posts from GW.

Glad to see on here then that, to most the people replying, it’s just a way to make it sound more serious. I can understand it with LOTR and Star Wars as they are the creations of one person and both had very detailed backstories, Tolkien especially. That is more like lore to me. Thencurrent style at GW is going well is think. They are laughing at them selves and at their own fluff. The regimental standard is a good example. But when they put their minds to it they can still write compelling background stuff. I wasn’t sold on the mortal realms in AOS until i read all the short stories in malign portents. It really gave it some flesh and character for me. Made it less abstract. I hope they adopt a similar approach with 40k after they have finished with the codexs. .

As someone who played a ton of games and read a lot of books prior to ever touching the Warhammer universe, I never heard the term "fluff." It has always been "lore" to me.

Maybe it's because this is a British game, and after using the loo and hopping on a trolley, those cheeky blighters decided to say fluff.

Andykp wrote:

The older fluff was written by the designers just playing their games.

Designers who supposedly really hated the term 'fluff' being applied to the background. I vaguely recall at least one of them (Gav or Andy, I think) complaining about it in an interview once, as he felt that it trivialised the work they put into developing the background. It was largely either ignored or laughed at, and people carried on calling it fluff...

 Marmatag wrote:
As someone who played a ton of games and read a lot of books prior to ever touching the Warhammer universe, I never heard the term "fluff." It has always been "lore" to me.

Maybe it's because this is a British game, and after using the loo and hopping on a trolley, those cheeky blighters decided to say fluff.

Happen we did mate.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Andykp wrote:

The older fluff was written by the designers just playing their games.

Designers who supposedly really hated the term 'fluff' being applied to the background. I vaguely recall at least one of them (Gav or Andy, I think) complaining about it in an interview once, as he felt that it trivialised the work they put into developing the background. It was largely either ignored or laughed at, and people carried on calling it fluff...

Ha. Bless them. All that work playing games and writing stories. Poor sods.