<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/31.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? 40K setting, the Imperium of Man has stagnated beyond belief regarding the construction of new technology - that's a given. However, as GW has to release new stuff in order to satiate the demand of fans, how do they incorporate the new releases in the wider fluff. Take an example; the new 'Centurions'. Is there an accompanying piece of fluff stating that it's a new design recently developed from such and such? Or is there another piece of fluff saying that it was recovered from an STC printout? Or are they relics of the Heresy Era?

Simply from prior releases, I can't imagine GW would simply say 'here's a new model', without at least giving a tiny bit thought to how to incorporate it into the accepted SM fluff.

So, can anybody tell me either where to find the fluff for the new Centurion release, or simply what the fluff is.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047440.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047440.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? STC discovered and then approved during the age of Apostasy some four or five thousand years before the present. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047508.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047508.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047528.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047528.page GMT Re:Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?
@Omegus - I actually quite like them, well 90% of them at least, there are a few features I'm not keen on.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047536.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047536.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?
 Omegus wrote:
I incorporate them into the existing fluff by pretending the fugly things don't exist.


Hahaha glad to see I'm not alone here. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047641.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047641.page GMT Re:Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? BUT they have such a massive collection of data there are entire worlds in there no-one can fully search/read/skim.
A valid form of "R&D" is to hit the history books for them.
It would be assumed they had better tech than can be hoped to create at their present state.

As pointed out, the most identifiable and easiest tech to put into practice is an STC and different ones turn up at different worlds that have been forgotten as well
(and the mechanicus cannot call an STC heretical tech).

I could look at Centurions and say: where do you think the Obliterators came from?
(If you hate them, just remove the middle plate and rear butt flap and they look a little more leggy,
go to this link if you have complaints: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/551364.page)

The new AA tank uses the Rhino chassis so it is "just" another variant.

The Stormraven is a bit of a nod of the head to a Thunderhawk and I have no answer for the Stormtalon...

Either copy the existing look of a model or incorporate part of it and you have a "valid" "new" tech.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047696.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047696.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047712.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047712.page GMT Re:Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?
 Warpig1815 wrote:
@Kain -I presume that it's in the codex then?

@Omegus - I actually quite like them, well 90% of them at least, there are a few features I'm not keen on.

Correctemundo.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047822.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6047822.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?
 Omegus wrote:
I incorporate them into the existing fluff by pretending the fugly things don't exist.


They are quite possibly the worst models GW have yet produced, ugly stupid and without purpose.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6094847.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6094847.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?
 Warpig1815 wrote:
The title probably isn't as specific as it could be, but the gist of what I'm getting at is that usually, in the 40K setting, the Imperium of Man has stagnated beyond belief regarding the construction of new technology - that's a given. However, as GW has to release new stuff in order to satiate the demand of fans, how do they incorporate the new releases in the wider fluff. Take an example; the new 'Centurions'. Is there an accompanying piece of fluff stating that it's a new design recently developed from such and such? Or is there another piece of fluff saying that it was recovered from an STC printout? Or are they relics of the Heresy Era?

Simply from prior releases, I can't imagine GW would simply say 'here's a new model', without at least giving a tiny bit thought to how to incorporate it into the accepted SM fluff.

So, can anybody tell me either where to find the fluff for the new Centurion release, or simply what the fluff is.


space marines chapters aren't all the same. They aren't all out of the box with the same gear. There are thousands of forgeworlds making thousands of different weapons for the thousand different chapters. Somewhere out there, centurians were being build for millenia but no one in England knew about it till now. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6095475.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6095475.page GMT Re:Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?
I incorporate them into the existing fluff by pretending the fugly things don't exist.


Brilliant, I love that a large number of people are doing this.

It has got to the point where me and my friends have such little faith in GW's ability to restrain and tastefully work new stuff into the old background that we basically have a blacklist in our gaming group of stuff we pretend doesn't exist. All new additions need to be approved by unanimous consensus! Centurions are out, as are the grey knights (not the chapter, just pretty much every release GW did for them). The space marine flyers are out too: space marines use thunderhawks, they rely on the Imperial navy for smaller craft, thats how it has always been. Of course I would be open to a change in this if it was done properly. FW have a pretty good knack of knowing what fits (assault ram for instance). The stormraven is ugly and stupid, and its armaments make no sense for a flyer (MM on the nose anyone?). The stormtalon is just silly. Those enclosed land speeders with assault cannons on the nose that FW do are a more plausible way they could have introduced a light support craft.

The fluff is great, thats why people get sick when it is diluted. I hate hearing how GW's new lump of plastic "was there all along".]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6096650.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6096650.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? GW releases new stuff and then pretends like it's always been there... ignoring the fact that it goes directly against previously established lore.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6097244.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6097244.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? GW release a new codex or set of models, the new Centurion models not only lack any fluff but are awful models as well.
I don't understand why Black library and FW put so much effort into background in thier books only for GW to then push stuff like this out


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and as for the question what are they for? Bearing in mind that Terminator armour is meant to be the peak of armour tech and the fluff points at it being able take unreal amounts of punishment why would you then need what looks like GoBot of the imperial arsenal? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6100858.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6100858.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6102750.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6102750.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?

Find those models repellant..............]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6102773.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6102773.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)? WH40K since 1989, I've gotten used to retcon. It doesn't bother much anymore. It's become a part of the hobby for me.
The minis'...meh. I could do without the upper leg plates and the groin guard.

I like the flyers. <ducks and runs for cover>]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6130593.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6130593.page GMT Fluff for new SM Release (Centurions etc.)?
 laginess wrote:
I agree that centurions were very badly implemented. The razorback, a cool tank with a reasonable purpose, is stated to be new but untrusted. Where as the storm raven, storm talon and centurions are newer but somehow much more trusted... That doesn't sit right with me, it has too many glaring oversights.



actually there's no info on the age of the storm talon. so it's possiable it dates abck to the great crusade for all we know
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6163483.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/552044/6163483.page GMT