<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Space Wolf Army - Lore"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/31.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Space Wolf Army - Lore SW army. It is my understanding that all space wolves belong to one of the 13 (12) Great Companies. So if I am correct, a player who wants to adhere to the lore is forced to represent one of those Companies with his army. So that means that his army's commander must be the Wolf Lord that is named for the specific Company and so on. So there isn't much freedom to create your own lore, named Wolf Lords and such. Or if you did, you would have to create a sub-faction, correct?

To make my point clearer, my Chaos Marines army represents the 7th Company of the Night Lords. As far as I know, the 7th isn't named and specified anywhere in the lore so that gives me the freedom to do what I want with it. For all we know, their armour is pink and they are all called Billy Bob. The same doesn't apply for the Wolves though, since all their Great Companies seem to be named and specified, right?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523479.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523479.page GMT Re:Space Wolf Army - Lore http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523523.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523523.page GMT Space Wolf Army - Lore http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523545.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523545.page GMT Space Wolf Army - Lore http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523718.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8523718.page GMT Space Wolf Army - Lore
 SpaceMushroom wrote:
. It is my understanding that all space wolves belong to one of the 13 (12) Great Companies. So if I am correct, a player who wants to adhere to the lore is forced to represent one of those Companies with his army. So that means that his army's commander must be the Wolf Lord that is named for the specific Company and so on. So there isn't much freedom to create your own lore, named Wolf Lords and such. Or if you did, you would have to create a sub-faction, correct?



You actually have a few background-friendly* options (as well as the "I don't give a feth--my Company is led by Wolf Lord Hugh Jackman").

There's no particular reason that your Great Company has to be situated at the tail end of the 41st Millennium. You could easily create a Great Company from a few decades, centuries, or even thousands of years, in the past. GW has had an unfortunate tendency in the last few years to focus with laserlike intensity on M41.999. They are finally getting away from it with the Beast Arises and things like Deathwatch Overkill. FFG was wonderful in this regard, as they set most of their stuff before all the mishaps of late M41 (happy Crimson Fists, loyal Astral Claws, etc.).

Elements of Great Companies (and, evidently, entire Companies) have parted ways with the Great Wolf before. These are not traitors, but Space Wolves who have decided to remain in pursuit of a foe, or went off on a Hunt, or were Oathsworn to some other objective. Their parting may have been acrimonious, or agreeable, but it's accepted among the Russ that the Great Wolf commands those who inhabit the Fang, but that individual Wolf Lords (and individual packs) can choose to part ways with the Great Wolf.



*I just personally hate the world 'lore' in this context. It always strikes me as insufferably self-important (which is why I like 'fluff', which is self-deprecating). It also is kind of inaccurate, as 'lore' is usually regarded as inaccurate, as it consists of what is rumored and believed about something, and not necessarily what is known to be true. In the 'lore', Space Wolves might be said to all be werewolves, or superhuman vikings who subsist on mead and mutton, or apostate berserker heathen. Not claiming that any of this is your use of the word 'lore', but a long aside on why I don't use it.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8525090.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8525090.page GMT Space Wolf Army - Lore
*I just personally hate the world 'lore' in this context. It always strikes me as insufferably self-important (which is why I like 'fluff', which is self-deprecating). It also is kind of inaccurate, as 'lore' is usually regarded as inaccurate, as it consists of what is rumored and believed about something, and not necessarily what is known to be true. In the 'lore', Space Wolves might be said to all be werewolves, or superhuman vikings who subsist on mead and mutton, or apostate berserker heathen. Not claiming that any of this is your use of the word 'lore', but a long aside on why I don't use it.


All 40k canon is "lore". Nothing is known to be absolutely true, everything is "believed to be".

Some comments in that vein by GW/BL authors:

Marc Gascoigne wrote:

“I think the real problem for me, and I speak for no other, is that the topic as a “big question” doesn’t matter. It’s all as true as everything else, and all just as false/half-remembered/sort-of-true. The answer you are seeking is “Yes and no” or perhaps “Sometimes”. And for me, that’s the end of it.

Now, ask us some specifics, eg can Black Templars spit acid and we can answer that one, and many others. But again note thet answer may well be “sometimes” or “it varies” or “depends”.

But is it all true? Yes and no. Even though some of it is plainly contradictory? Yes and no. Do we deliberately contradict, retell with differences? Yes we do. Is the newer the stuff the truer it is? Yes and no. In some cases is it true that the older stuff is the truest? Yes and no. Maybe and sometimes. Depends and it varies.

It’s a decaying universe without GPS and galaxy-wide communication, where precious facts are clung to long after they have been changed out of all recognition. Read A Canticle for Liebowitz by Walter M Miller, about monks toiling to hold onto facts in the aftermath of a nucelar war; that nails it for me.

Sorry, too much splurge here. Not meant to sound stroppy.

To attempt answer the initial question: What is GW’s definition of canon? Perhaps we don’t have one. Sometimes and maybe. Or perhaps we do and I’m not telling you.”


Gav Thorpe wrote:
“With Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000, the notion of canon is a fallacy. … Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 exist as tens of thousands of overlapping realities in the imaginations of games developers, writers, readers and gamers. None of those interpretations is wrong.”


Andy Hoare wrote:
“It all stems from the assumption that there’s a binding contract between author and reader to adhere to some nonexistent subjective construct or ‘true’ representation of the setting. There is no such contract, and no such objective truth.”


Aaron Dembski-Bowden wrote:
“There is no canon. There’s a variety of sources, many of which conflict, but every single one is a lens through which we can see the 40K setting.”




]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8525114.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/683819/8525114.page GMT