Schools of Thought for Fluff

[Kol Saresk]

This is more of an acknowledgement to the fluff that has come and gone and my opinion on some of it. I will sit here and say right now that is it a very narrow selection simply because of somethings I have seen from a rather large group of people and I sort of feel the need to make these observations and make them known, just as everybody else does. If someone feels singled out, it is not intentional and I can say right here and now, the fact that I am making the comment means that you are far from being alone. I will be focusing on the pieces of fluff related to the Chaos forces that have undergone the most changes and I will be focusing specifically on two Legions. This is a pure fluff topic, not how to represent the fluff on the tabletop and not rules interpretation or anything else to do with the tabletop. Glean from this what you will. Some might see this as a pointless rant. Can't say you are wrong, but can't say you are right either. So here goes.

 

So pretty much anyone knows that I'm a huge Night Lords fan. If you haven;t seen my comments, looking at the profile pic and my (more limited than it was in the past)advertisement of the Night Lord forums. So let's start there. Looking at the Night Lords, the VIII Legion has had a rather colorful background. In 2nd Edition and Rogue Trader days, the Night Lords were servants of Khorne, to represent their history as butchers and slaughters, similar to World Eaters but of a different sort. Where the World Eaters were peerless warriors who rushed into battle, killed everything worth killing(as well as anything that was caught in the crossfire) and then moved on, the Night Lords were more..... subtle. They were patient. Where the World Eaters were Columbine, the Night Lords were Charles Manson. Their slaughters were no smaller than the World Eaters, but where the World Eaters achieved it through force of arms, the Night Lords would isolate the target planet, destroy its defenses and then slowly kill the planet and everything on it.

 

In 3.5, the Night Lords lost their Khorne alignment as well as their devotion to Chaos, but still use daemons. This is also where their history as "raiders" begins. Not only that, but they also became the Raptor Legion for nothing more than the 3.5 section said "The Night Lords make extensive use of Raptors. The normal 0-1 unit limitation in the main list does not apply." Now, to clarify, "extensive" means "wide; broad", so "extensive use" would mean "great use" of, as a Legion. Great use however is not the same as "having a lot of." Raptors are still supposed to be rare within the 40k universe as a whole, which is why they were organized into Cults that act as mercenaries. Nowhere does it say that Night Lords are "Raptor" happy. Just they make extensive use of them because of their status as "hit-and-run" raiders. Much in the same way I make extensive use of the Queen in chess to hunt down my opponent's Bishops, Knights, and Rooks while I have taken a habit of surprising people and getting checkmates with Pawns. It's not an easy thing to do and it doesn't always happen. Point is, that is an example of "extensive use". Although Lord of Night did try to affirm this belief of a Raptor Legion by saying that the Raptors had their roots in the Night Lords Legion and tried to point out that both the RT Night Lords and the 3.5 Night Lords could still exist in the fluff medium. This was alluded with Krieg Acerbus the Daemon Prince and the "Puritan" Zso Sahaal. However, the author seemed to make it a point in case that the "Puritans" were a dying breed and that there didn't seem to be that many of them in general and that the only reason Zso Sahaal was one was because he didn't experience the ten thousand years between Immediate Post-Heresy to "Modern" 40k. This shown in that Zso Sahaal controlled the largest warband and it was basically just as corrupt as any Word Bearer warband.

 

Now, the normal "limitations" regarding only the use of daemons that we see less and less of is gone and we can take Icons. Many take this as unfluffy because the Night Lords were never devoted to Chaos.(Please look at second paragraph.) Many 3.5 traditionalists viewed this as the "coming of the Dark Times" so to speak.(Judging by overall reactions, wording is my own as far as I know). Because of this and no way to make a Raptor Legion(outside of competitive lists and before the rise of the "Super" Codices[You know who you are]), the Night Lords fell out of favor because apparently the Raptors are the only way to make a hit-and-run list. Then came along A-D-B's Night Lords trilogy. Well-acclaimed and well-loved. Especially by me. I was jumping up and down with joy when I saw Soul Hunter in the "Coming Soon" section. ***Many people however, saw the two puritans that we see(Xarl and Talos) as a way of justifying the 3.5 mentality should still exist. Meanwhile, you have Uzas who seems to be a direct throwback to the RT days and is a combination of both beliefs in that he doesn't pray to Khorne, but he still demands the strength Khorne gives him and still gives Khorne his sacrifices on the battlefield. There were only two instances of it happening off the battlefield. The Exalted is in a similar boat. He wanted power. So he became a Daemonhost. And like Uzas, he was swallowed and consumed by the power until neither could crawl back out.

 

Cyrion is an example of one who did not ask for power from the warp, was given it anyways, and decided to go ahead and use it and become corrupted by it. An example to show that even if the Legion doesn't want to, it is still becoming corrupted, not because of warp exposure as the Warband only had about three hundred years worth of exposure versus the ten thousand(or other relative number) of the other Legions and Warbands, but because of their deeds and the reflection of those deeds created in the warp, essentially they were still giving the Chaos Gods their due by enacting their will and using their powers(use of daemons) and as such were still "blessed" despite the lack of devotion. More evidence of the Legion's corruption is shown in meeting of the Legion as whole in the end of Void Hunter. The lack of "Puritans" again shows their lack of existence and the extent of the corruption in the Legion. In a way, it was the final nail in the coffin of the "Puritan" thought. Doesn't mean that it's dead, just that the thought is no longer being carried by GW in its view of the Night Lords. As evidenced in the new Codex. Also, the fact that there was the presence of 300 Bleeding Eyes Raptors as well as the unnumbered presence of Raptor Cults at the meeting could give rise to the Raptor Legion belief, except for two things. The Raptor mentality of Self First, Cult Second and Legion Third in terms of loyalty. The second is that Lucoryphus seems to make a distinction between the cults and the Legions when he comments on Malek's remark of the First Company rarely meeting because the meetings degenerate in brawls. My perception of this is that the Raptor Cults and the Night Lords Legion have similar mindsets, but the two are not as intertwined as some would have it. I would also like to point out that in a Legion of thousands, a few hundred aren't exactly a lot, especially when numbered in an overall faction that numbers in the billions. Well, only millions if you just count the Space Marines.

 

As a result of this, most people have decided to simply give up on 40k because it does not match their view of the Night Lords and have fallen back on the Heresy Night Lords, using the excuse "I can then make a fluffy list." Well, that's true. You can make a Heresy army no because in reality you have the mindset of the Heresy-era Night Lords. Just as their is a difference between the rest of the Heresy-era and 40k-era Legions, there is a difference between the 30k Night Lords and the 40k Night Lords. However, I wonder what people would do if Forgeworld dropped the Raptor Legion idea and made the Night Lords a stealth army? Just a thought. Anyway, basically the fluff has changed and people have rejected it saying "It's not fluffy" when in reality, their idea of "fluffy" wouldn't have been fluffy in the NL's first incarnation as Khorne-aligned. A bit of a pickle if you ask me.

 

Okay, I said I would do two Legions, here is the second. It's one everyone knows and loves. That's right, the Legion with the most convoluted background in existence. not to say it's bad, just that it's easy to get confused and lost. In RT days, they were aligned to Tzeentch. Very fitting. In 3.5, like the Night Lords before them, they lost their alignment. And just like the Night Lords, they still retained much of their character. They still fight the Long War, as in they take years to plan a battle to perfection, preparing for every outcome and then carry it out in a seamless stream of cause-and-effect, always achieving their objective unless a random, unknown variable makes itself known. Sometimes, the plan is interrupted and that usually leads to some of the actual defeats suffered by the Alpha Legion. Their Tzeentch-alignment was also carried on through the fact they still suffered from mutation, despite the purity of their gene-seed. Many people have come to the conclusion that because the Alpha Legion are "backseat fighters" until they make their presence known, they obviously have to have Infiltrate and be a stealth army. Like anything else, there is more than one line of thought. For example, Ghorstangrad. At first, due to a lack of timeline it was generally assumed that this happened at a somewhat fast pace. I know Excessus was one of those who pointed out the logical fact that it took centuries for the Alpha Legion to make Ghorstangrad happen, and he was right. Not only that, Ghorstangrad was also a battle in which the Alpha Legion stuck a bull's eye on their rear and went "Look at me! Hey! I'm over here!". They showed their faces, and did it in force. The closest thing to a stealth tactic that they used was the brainwashing tactics that they used to turn the Chapter forces against themselves. And technically, that's not even a stealth tactic, it's a form of psychological warfare. So yes, the Alpha Legion does use stealth, but only when they are setting up the foundations for an operation. in the operation itself, they seem to have a penchant of making themselves known and in a very noticeable way. Or rather, the 40k Alpha Legion does. Basically, the Stealth Legion that the overwhelming fanbase wants and sees, seems to be the basis for the Heresy-era AL while a new school of thought is the generality of the 40k AL. Again, not saying either is wrong and that neither can coexist with the other, just that as a generality, each generality seems to be focused into a specific time period. In a way, the Alpha Legion has become a true terrorist group split into cells that set up ground work and foundations for future operations and then make themselves known while the Night Lords are pirates, attacking ruthlessly, taking what they want, killing who they want, leaving signatures behind so everyone knows to fear them and in some cases, claiming an isolated location as a base to act from.

 

Basically, my interpretation, opinion and perception of the fluff is this: The fluff has undergone many "changes" from the Rogue Traders day. These changes have given birth to many different schools of thought. None of these are wrong, unless they are Mary Sue, but that is a different topic. However, the problem is that many of these schools of thought choose not to like newer fluff because it's different, even though their view of fluff has a very good chance of being different from the original topic's fluff. That's where my pet peeve comes from. Some of these thoughts have the gall to say "The newcomers don't understand the fluff. This is how the Legion is supposed to be because this is how I say it." And there's the overwhelming chance that the newcomers might actually have the right idea about the Legion, and what it has become, simply because they are not influenced by the fact of past fluff. While ironically some of the older generations seem to have forgotten just what some of the past fluff was and how it contradicts their narrow view. The reality is that all of these views can coexist with each other. They are all right. Some, would be better placed if put in different eras, but they don't have to be. What I am saying is that the fluff has come a long way and will most likely go further. Staying in one specific part of it isn't wrong, until you start telling others they are wrong for being in a different part of it when. But what the fluff is, is different from what the fluff was and to say that the "was" is the only right way is the wrong way to go.

 

Please let me know if certain parts of it are confusing, I will do my best to clarify them. I'm not so good with words so this is a possibility.

 

Footnote(s)

***What follows next is solely my opinion, has no reflection on the author's point of view as I do not know it, and is not to be treated as fact.

[Payce]

I've elaborated on this elsewhere (the thread about how to "properly" play Legions, I believe), but I'll repeat some of it and possibly elaborate a bit in reply to your post here.

 

The first, and most important thing, to remember, is that we're CHAOS. We don't play by the rules, we don't adhere to certain basic principles, we sure as frak don't AGREE with each other. The nature of Chaos in itself is to tear down structure both without, and within. One warband believes something; another believes something else. Sometimes they clash, more often than not, they clash violently. You appear to try and form a "linear" understanding of the Night Lords in the current setting, when in fact what started out linear during the Great Crusade is now as fragmented as the lightning markings on their armour.

 

The comparison between Lord of the Night and the ADB novels is actually fairly interesting, in that they both present a legion that won't unify, sometimes not even on a warband-sized level, in the case of First Claw, not even on a squad level. They'll fight with and for each other out of convenience, but agree? Never. The inherent fragmentation within the fluff itself tells us that there is no "one way" of percieving the legion; all he relevant fluff pieces work to compose a wider whole of who the legion, with all its contents, really are. I don't see Void Stalker as an attempt to "kill off" the puritan Night Lords; rather, I see it as the puritans being the losing part in this particular instance. And to be fair, it's not like the daemonic side works out so well for them either, is it?

 

The reality of GW lore is that there are more questions than answers. It's like a never-ending series of Lost in future space, where you THINK you find one answer and five new questions are thrown at you. Who are the good guys? Who are the bad guys? Who believes what? Who fights who? Who will win? What will happen when the millennium turns over? The only real aswer, the way is see it, is "what you make of it". Some say Tau are the good guys; other say Ultramarines are. Some think Tau are aggressive expansionists and colonial slavers; some think the Ultramarines are borderline, sub-empirical traitors to the foundation of the Imperium. All of them can post fluff to back up their claim.

 

You seem to be looking for a "two lines under the answer"-approach to what the legions in the 41st really are, and where GW wants to take them. I think that GW, more than anything, actively DON'T want to define them any more than they already do. You ahve your Raptor peevee; I feel the same about Iron Warriors being percieved as "shooty". I know Alpha Legion-players who genuinely hate the idea of them being "sneaky", because, as you aptly point out they aren't necessarily "sneaky" - they are just as much masters of psychololgical warfare and meticulous planning.

 

The short version is that the current legions is whatever you want them to be. Whichever direction you choose for your own warband, or Grand Company, or renegade cult, there is fluff to support you. Don't try to unify all the existing fluff into one mould - trust me, as an Iron Warriors nutbag, I can tell from experience that it won't work. Our fluff is ALL OVER THE PLACE. You just gotta pick the snippets you like, and streamline them. THAT's what will define the legion as a whole - warbands, Grand Companies and renegade cults, independently developed, with and through Chaos.

[darknightdrako]

^^^ What Payce said. :P

[the jeske]

well there is one thing not to like the mechanics of a raptor legion [people forget that one could have played 4 bikes back then too only those outside of demon bombs sucked]. But there is stuff in the fluff that is important . G-man wrote the codex. Perturbo was the dude writing stuff about sieges and counter sieges [to a point where its even in the codex astarters]. Konrad was the first guy that had the idea to use something more then jump pack dudes as support to legion armies . Remember durning the heresy the legions had a vastly different type of war making. It was like WWI only with waves of marines . There were jump troops , terminators or bikers , hell even jet bikers , but those were single squads . legions used them like tanks or aircraft were used in WWI. Then came dudes who started thinking "what will happen if I used 1000 jump pack marines with those new superior jump packs we just found" or "let us use terminators outside of small support squads and use them en mass" . Technicly those types of thinking paterns should not have happened . Almost all primarchs saw their father as perfect and all saw him as vastly superior to themselfs . And the legions were his . To change something in their structure or modus operandi should not have happened pre heresy , but it did and that is why the early w40k fluff[meaning 30k not RT] is so good.

 

Of course sometimes it is just plain luck . EC find golden age sonic weapons and start using them just because they were lucky enough to find them . WE implant their marines , because angron was crazy to begin with etc.

[Vesper]

When you write "3.5 traditionalists", I read "Vesper and co".

 

For the record, the actual fluff of the legions dates from 3rd ed 1st codex.

It was basically the Gavdex. People said it was crap, GW reacted by making the Index Astartes serie, and that's at this point the legions were expended / were given meaningful new traits. So 3.5 was just built on that base, it's not the starting point.

[Payce]

It was basically the Gavdex. People said it was crap, GW reacted by making the Index Astartes serie, and that's at this point the legions were expended / were given meaningful new traits. So 3.5 was just built on that base, it's not the starting point.

To be fair, most of the IA articles predates even the 3.5-dex and are supplements to the 3.0-dex. They are in no way a reaction to the Gav-dex.

[Lay]

In 3.5, the Night Lords lost their Khorne alignment as well as their devotion to Chaos, but still use daemons. This is also where their history as "raiders" begins. Not only that, but they also became the Raptor Legion for nothing more than the 3.5 section said "The Night Lords make extensive use of Raptors.

I'm pretty sure the Khorne alignment was RT only and wasn't really explored.

The NL (as well as the other undivided Legions) were (re)defined in 2nd edition and their core concepts haven't changed much since then. Imo, further publications have mostly built upon the 2nd edition fluff, rather then altering it.

 

Not only that, but they also became the Raptor Legion for nothing more than the 3.5 section said "The Night Lords make extensive use of Raptors.

Blame the Index Astartes article for that. It stated that "Many of the Night Lords favor the mobility and speed lent to them by jump packs". 3.5 just reused this fluff.

 

Their Tzeentch-alignment was also carried on through the fact they still suffered from mutation, despite the purity of their gene-seed. Many people have come to the conclusion that because the Alpha Legion are "backseat fighters" until they make their presence known, they obviously have to have Infiltrate and be a stealth army.

You have a point about them being regarded as "backseat fighters". However, the stealth and scheming fluff isn't a leftover from RT, since their alignment wasn't brought up back then.

In 2nd edition, the AL was described as being both sneaky and obsessed with proving their worth. They would go out of their way to fight loyalist SM and use combat to test their skills and prove their superiority. In the HH novels the AL's motives are portrayed as one big mystery, so we aren't told if there's an incentive for them to go out and fight in situations where they could rely on manipulation from afar.

[Vesper]

It was basically the Gavdex. People said it was crap, GW reacted by making the Index Astartes serie, and that's at this point the legions were expended / were given meaningful new traits. So 3.5 was just built on that base, it's not the starting point.

To be fair, most of the IA articles predates even the 3.5-dex and are supplements to the 3.0-dex. They are in no way a reaction to the Gav-dex.

 

Yeah, that's what I said.

Said that the 3rd ed 1st Chaos codex was basically the pre-Gavdex. May have said it in a pretty poor way, so, my bad.

[the jeske]

yes . JJ chaos dex , which a lot of chaos player forget [or try forgeting in my case] , was almost identical with the gav dex . And as ves said , it sold bad , people didnt like it after the chambers chaos dex fresh in their memory . So they started doing IA to give it more anything . JJ era chaos dex was a very sad time for csm .

 

 

I'm pretty sure the Khorne alignment was RT only and wasn't really explored.

well it is tricky aside for the cult legions non of the other legions was god dedicted . We say that NL in RT era were khorn because of a pic with a half winged skull /half khorn shoulder pad and because it was on the same page with khorn WE.

It is the same with AL and tzeench .

[Payce]

It was basically the Gavdex. People said it was crap, GW reacted by making the Index Astartes serie, and that's at this point the legions were expended / were given meaningful new traits. So 3.5 was just built on that base, it's not the starting point.

To be fair, most of the IA articles predates even the 3.5-dex and are supplements to the 3.0-dex. They are in no way a reaction to the Gav-dex.

 

Yeah, that's what I said.

Said that the 3rd ed 1st Chaos codex was basically the pre-Gavdex. May have said it in a pretty poor way, so, my bad.

Ah, yeah, I see it now, I completely misread you. My mistake as well :(

[Kol Saresk]

The short version is that the current legions is whatever you want them to be. Whichever direction you choose for your own warband, or Grand Company, or renegade cult, there is fluff to support you. Don't try to unify all the existing fluff into one mould - trust me, as an Iron Warriors nutbag, I can tell from experience that it won't work. Our fluff is ALL OVER THE PLACE. You just gotta pick the snippets you like, and streamline them. THAT's what will define the legion as a whole - warbands, Grand Companies and renegade cults, independently developed, with and through Chaos.

 

Well I said I would be misunderstood, and here's the first part. What you just said, is what I just said. But like I also said, I think mine was just a bit more confusing. The entirety of the message was basically for those who sit on a specific brand of fluff, a specific school of thought, their opinion of what the fluff is, and then tell everyone else who has a different opinion that is also supported by the fluff that they are wrong.

 

When you write "3.5 traditionalists", I read "Vesper and co".

 

For the record, the actual fluff of the legions dates from 3rd ed 1st codex.

It was basically the Gavdex. People said it was crap, GW reacted by making the Index Astartes serie, and that's at this point the legions were expended / were given meaningful new traits. So 3.5 was just built on that base, it's not the starting point.

 

Well if it helps, I wasn't thinking of you when I wrote it. Sorry.

 

I wasn't trying to say that 3.5 was where it all happened, just that seems to be the centering point for the people I am targeting. You are not one of these people. Your beef is with the rules and army lists. I'm just going after the fluff.

 

To be fair though, I don't think I've seen anything in the IA Night Lords article about Jump Packs and Raptors. Hit and run tactics, the fact that they like to stage their battlegrounds with a series of coordinated preemptive strikes so the fighting is easier on them and that they like to slaughter everything in sight, yes. It's not that I don't see where it could have came from, just that so many people sit there and tell everyone else they are wrong for that belief when in reality, both are right.

 

I'm pretty sure the Khorne alignment was RT only and wasn't really explored.

The NL (as well as the other undivided Legions) were (re)defined in 2nd edition and their core concepts haven't changed much since then. Imo, further publications have mostly built upon the 2nd edition fluff, rather then altering it.

 

There is every chance you are right. It was before my time. Almost nothing of the RT and 2nd edition days exist except in the fluff that was ironically published by BL that so many people hate at that time. And the oldest BL stories I can find that have any relation, is the Let the Galaxy Burn anthology.

 

Blame the Index Astartes article for that. It stated that "Many of the Night Lords favor the mobility and speed lent to them by jump packs". 3.5 just reused this fluff.

 

Blaming the IA article would seem like the easy thing to do, except I lost count of how many times I have gone over the IA article and I can't say I've ever seen this. Could you point me to the section it is in?

 

You have a point about them being regarded as "backseat fighters". However, the stealth and scheming fluff isn't a leftover from RT, since their alignment wasn't brought up back then.

It's not necessarily a "leftover" so much as a homage of sorts. Tzeentch is the master of plots and the one god that absolutely loves mutation. The Alpha Legion have some of the most convoluted plans in history and not only mutate despite the purity of their gene-seed, but also use the mere presence of the mutation as a weapon.

 

In 2nd edition, the AL was described as being both sneaky and obsessed with proving their worth. They would go out of their way to fight loyalist SM and use combat to test their skills and prove their superiority. In the HH novels the AL's motives are portrayed as one big mystery, so we aren't told if there's an incentive for them to go out and fight in situations where they could rely on manipulation from afar.

Basically, the Stealth Legion that the overwhelming fanbase wants and sees, seems to be the basis for the Heresy-era AL while a new school of thought is the generality of the 40k AL. Again, not saying either is wrong and that neither can coexist with the other, just that as a generality, each generality seems to be focused into a specific time period.

 

Some have brought up that where I put 3.5 as the start of changes, the changes actually lie in 2nd Edition. I am sorry for that, my knowledge is rather limited as it seems almost impossible to get my hands on RT fluff, 2nd Edition and 3.0 Edition. 3.5 was merely where I was first aware of the changes and actually, I did not even know that the IA articles predated 3.5. That was a handy nugget of info. Thank you for responses and thoughts.

[Lay]

Could you point me to the section it is in?

It's at the very bottom of the special rules page. Too be fair though, it's talking about jet packs, not Raptors. I'd say "Lord of the Night" and the current Codex do a much better job explaining the link between Raptors and NL.

[Kol Saresk]

Except Lord of Night only says that Zso Sahaal is the one who trained the Heresy-era Assault Marines(who became Raptors) and the current Codex says nothing on the relationship. Just that they are of a similar mindset.

[Kol Saresk]

Double Post.

 

Lay, I will give you the Jump Packs part. But since the Raptors' bit in the Index Astartes says that they are organized into Cults that exist separate and apart from the Legions, I don't think it's fair to say that every Night Lord with a Jump Pack is a Raptor.

[the jeske]

the problem is the cult part in their imo . why they stoped being NL and became raptors was explained nice . A separate organisation with a very elite feel . Its like special/separate units in any organisation . It would be ultra hard for a NL pre heresy member to be in a jump unit and not feel/act like a raptor [its like a non lobotomised WE is technicly possible too only how many of them are post istvana and how many of them went chaos ?] . Once your member of an organistation you will always be separate from everyone else . his brothers would view him as a raptor , his raptor brothers would think that he is one based on their history etc. And the chance of a lone marine or a squad of non raptor/jump infantry marine suriving in the warp for 10k years is rather slim.

+ dont forget that raptors were different from other legions jump marines . not only did they have a longer history of fighting in units , but it was also the NL who had the better jump packs , a lot of tactics they used were impossible to use with the post golden age jump packs other legions had. loyalist wouldnt even had jump pack marines if it wasnt some random ad mecha finding old prints on a back water planet .

[Sanctimonius]

Have to say I don't remember any Night Lord/Khorne link from back in the day, and I've read most of the fluff since second. Still, might be misremembering :D

 

I think people here have touched on a good point, and one that ADB seems to have made on a number of occasions. You can pick and choose whatever fluff you like to backup your army, and it is all good (unless it directly contradicts everything, no nurgle 1k sons etc), because the legions no longer exist as an entity. They don't follow a monolithic command structure and aren't influenced by the same things anymore. Each part of the old legions has fragmented and forged their own path for themselves, led by the most charismatic/strongest/most cunning of their number. Each warband would be characterised not only by the people who led them but also the things that happened to them - 10k years is a long time to evolve as a chaos marine...

 

You want Alpha Legion which are small in number and rely on IG or cultists to do their dying for you? You can. You want an army of Iron Warriors that take as many vehicles and siegecraft as possible? Knock yourself out. A Night Lord army that relies on raptors? Or heavily mutated? Or trying to remain 'pure'? The fluff is there, now you can add to it.

 

The point is, there isn't really a wrong answer, as Kol said, and to insist your interpretation is the only one is cute, but nothing more.

[Phoros]

I believe that the "changing of fluff" is a good thing - the Night Lords shouldn't be the Raptor Legion, the Word Bearers shouldn't be the Daemon Legion, the Alpha Legion shouldn't be the Infiltrate Legion. There's a lot more potential in them being "raider Legion", "religious Legion" and "terrorist Legion".