Twenty year old advice from the Overfiend…

As part of developing the fluff (I’m reticent to use the more modern ‘lore’) behind my Imperial Guard regiment, I’ve been re-reading some old Chapter Approved tomes from the early Noughties.

Primarily I was looking up the old Armageddon Ork Hunter regiments, as that was a theme I was loosely drawing on for my veterans squad. I may even return to that squad and add in some subtle orky elements if I can get hold of the right bitz.

Anyway, I was reading the intro to the 3rd edition Chapter Approved 2002 (aka The Second Book of the Astronomicon) when I came across the following sentence by the Overfiend Andy Chambers:

Quite appropriate given the nature of the current (9th) edition I thought?

While competitive 40k is incredibly popular, and games between strangers tends to default to matched play games, my preference is for the ‘sandpit’!

6 thoughts on “Twenty year old advice from the Overfiend…

  1. Totally agree. I’d even go so far as to say that the absolute explosion of novels and lore over the last two decades has really sapped some of the magic of 40k, at least for me. I crave the days when fluff was a few spare paragraphs in the margins of a rulebook, dripping with imagery and heavy with mystery. As opposed to today, when even the smallest detail has a wiki entry.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Absolutely. I remember when the Horus Heresy was a mystery, wrapped in an enigma, with many conflicting stories of events. I just treat the published stuff as various forms of propaganda, rather than canon.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Delighted to see someone else with a distaste for “lore.” For so many years I thought “fluff” was dismissive, diminutive, with its connotations of little bunnies skipping through the fields until they’re FLATTENED BY THE STEEL TREADS OF THE COMPETITIVE JUGGERNAUT. I wished people would pay it a bit more respect. Flash forward ten years and suddenly it’s “lore”, taken extremely seriously and defended with terminal intensity like it’s some sort of sacred text.

    Not like that, chaps. That’s not what I meant at all.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. “Canon” is another symptom of the Sacred Text perspective, I think (although we can blame literary criticism, monarchical propaganda and a historically Christian society for that one).

        I do like how the better Black Library authors build that ambiguity and nuance into the world by having their characters embody this or that possible aspect of What It’s Really Like, but that seems to pass over a lot of heads still…

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s