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.

 

I happen to be one of the people that really likes the new layout of the 40k codices. However, flipping back and forth through the codex looking for a specific unit's special rules can be a bit of a hassle.

So it occured to me, the only thing missing from this new layout to make it perfect, in my opinion, would be to put reference page numbers in the army list in the back of the book.

So in the Howling Banshee entry in the army list it would say: "see page XX for more details on Howling Banshees". That way you'd know exactly what page to flip to for the Howling Banshee special rules.

Of course GW would have to not screw up the page numbers (like they did in several places in the Eldar codex), but I'm confident that after a couple of codices formatted like this they could get it right.

So whadd'ya think?

 

They could have just as easily made the pages closer together (i.e. on the same page) for rules and fluff.

I'm not sure if this will suffice, but the Summary page for Dark Angels has page references. So if you're in the middle of a game, but forget what the new Whirlwind missile does, the summary's got the page number for the Whirlwind. Is that the same thing you want, Yak?

Zoned

Posted By Hellfury on 04/17/2007 7:10 PM
They could have just as easily made the pages closer together (i.e. on the same page) for rules and fluff.

That's the common complaint and is exactly what the old layout was (although I guess the wargear was still generally located in a central place).

By putting all the rules/fluff and army list on the same page the army list itself is a bit more spread out.

What I like about the new format is that once you get the 'hang' of the army down (and you don't need to consult the special rules of the unit to see what they can do) I find that the condensed army list actually makes it easier to navigate and create an army.

 

Zoned:  Good catch. That's pretty close to what I'm talking about, but I certainly think if they can put those page numbers into the summary they could just as easily put them in the army list section as well.

Just because it's a little strange to have to flip back to the summary to find what page to go to in order to see some special rule.

I think they should just have the page number right next to the name in the army list.  Like:  LAND RAIDER (page XX).

 

Heh. I remember the "See page XX" errors in the old White Wolf sourcebooks.

I think it would be cool, but to tell the truth, I haven't really had problems with it.

I think I should have been more clear.

I love the new layout as well. By that i mean, I love an entire page dedicated to a single entry whereas before there may have been upto to three entries on a page, with minimal fluff.

I think they should dedicate an entire page (or two facing pages for harder ruled entries) for fluff and rules.

If it wasnt for flipping back in forth to see a rule, and then flipping for points, etc. I would have thought the format was perfection.

yeah I vote same page for points and rules.

This would be good. I'd also like points to appear in the "fluffy" version of each entry, so that, in effect, you have the "full" listing (fluff, rules, wargear, and points), and the "condensed" army list (the current back-of-the-book stuff). When you're still learning a codex, the flipping between "okay, what's that do?" and "okay, but what's it cost?" is annoying, and would be real simple to solve.

After finally having trying to create a list from the eldar codex (jeez its annoying):

 

Centralize the wargear descriptions.

Centralize the vehicle equipment options.

Centralize any special codex specific powers.

Put this right before the centralized weapon summary.

 

If you have to split it up, put all the fluff in the first section, in alphabetical order.

In the second section, list only costs, stats, and options (like eldar codex). The centralized descriptions would follow immediately after.

 

Advantages:

*keeps the new format strengths-ease of understanding options

*puts those options in one place to avoid constant flipping

*permits a larger slew of options per FOC *cough*dontscrewupchaos*cough

 

Interesting note I believe this is generally the format of the V4 Nid codex.

Posted By yakface on 04/17/2007 6:53 PM

 

I happen to be one of the people that really likes the new layout of the 40k codices. However, flipping back and forth through the codex looking for a specific unit's special rules can be a bit of a hassle.

So it occured to me, the only thing missing from this new layout to make it perfect, in my opinion, would be to put reference page numbers in the army list in the back of the book.

So in the Howling Banshee entry in the army list it would say: "see page XX for more details on Howling Banshees". That way you'd know exactly what page to flip to for the Howling Banshee special rules.

Of course GW would have to not screw up the page numbers (like they did in several places in the Eldar codex), but I'm confident that after a couple of codices formatted like this they could get it right.

So whadd'ya think?

 

I think the codex system is out of date, and by now, with all of the " Oh, we'll get it right THIS time, we promise...." mentality has made it beyond making it perfect. The trust needs to be gained, and confidence built in them.

My suggestion to make the material usable, the codex system should change to a three ring binder format, whith "Master packs" of information such as fluff, main army and unit choices, and material having to do with weaponry, vehicles and equipment that will remain the mainstay of the game are included, and other things such as new units, experimental rules, etc. that are added as a forethought, and the usual excuses to combat "codex creep" can be added or taken out, and either sold or made available PDF.

A long time ago, there was a time when we bought hard backed codici, and White Dwarf was an enhancement
We could actually use the material, and were not at all disappointed with extras such as how to build a gobsmasha, or the tiles were included for a particular mission for Space Hulk, or we could get a little something extra that actually made the prices seem to be worth the buy.

After second edition, I was a little put off when we continued to have to go back to the drawing board, and continue to have miniatures put to pasture. As of this time, the codex's are only another reason to get mad at the failings of fools.

I am an optomist, though, and with the latest epiphany by Jevis Johnson that they had better fix the battle or lose the war, I can only hope that taking matters into his own hands may get GW back on track.

 

Gods no. I still remember the AD&D Monstrous Manual; I wouldn't go through that again for anyone.

I still think that the Guard 3.0 codex is still the best in terms of layout, art, fluff, and rules that GW has produced.  If only they could have repeated that layout for other books.

the 3.5 Guard codex is a comparative abomination, and I shudder to think what the 4.0 codex will look like.

Posted By Janthkin on 04/18/2007 8:36 AM

My suggestion to make the material usable, the codex system should change to a three ring binder format, whith "Master packs" of information...

Gods no. I still remember the AD&D Monstrous Manual; I wouldn't go through that again for anyone.

You're thinking of the 2nd edition Monstrous Compendium.

Yeah, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but actually kind of sucked.

Add some nudie girls and the layout would be perfect.

Full-size mandatory platoons, at 8 pts/model, with heavy weapons limited to command sections and/or heavy weapons squads, at Devestator+50% prices, of course.

It was a trap! Your nerdiness is reviled, much like the Pan Fo!

I agree that the Codex format has pretty much run its course, but I'm not sure what the alternative would be. I really did like the 3rd ed. WH model, where most of the fluff was in the front, and most of the rules were in the back, with the quick-reference chart in the way back (yes, it was riddled with errors, but the principle stands). That and the 4.0 Tau Empire codex were pretty much my favorite formats per se.

I'm curious as to why the codex format has "run its course". What does that mean, that the concept of the codex is outdated and should be replaced with something else?

I would disagree overall. The codex is a fine format for presenting army specific rules to the player and can (and will be) in use for a long time to come.

For an experienced player like myself who regularly checks the internet I would certainly like a system with constant updates. But I know for a fact there are plenty of players who play occasionally who like only having to own the core rules and a copy of their particular codex without having to worry about constant updates and changes to what they buy.


As far as the actualy layout of the codex is concerned, as I said before, I like the look and feel of the latest codices. Although the occasional flipping back and forth can be a pain (which would be minimized by the inclusion of page numbers in the army list, as I've mentioned already), in general, I've found having an abbreviated army list in the back of the book makes making an army easier as you can see more units per page than before.

I guess release schedule and timeliness are big reasons the codex feels outdated. The Codex came out as a way of freshening army lists that were already available in the main game. This was true until 4th edition, which left built-in lists out for a number of reasons (desire not to nullify existing army lists being one). The advantages to the book lists were a) your list was already updated for the new edition and b) the army lists were balanced with each other, having been developed simultaneously. Sure, codex 'creep' would arrive as the various books would be released on a (slow) schedule, but it would take a while to get to that point. Most of the 3rd ed. codecii were released very quickly, at least compared to 3.5-4.X edition's laconic schedule.

I'd love to see a return to the idea of the codex as army expansion rather than army redux. Have ALL the armies' core rules printed in the main rulebook (or a companion book, with appropriate fluff and a reprint of the USR), and release each army's codex as expanded rules (wargear, special characters, doctrines, units, variant lists) and fluff to help keep the armies going. And have said 'dexes and army lists available for download on the internet (yes, I'd even be in favor of an online subscription or some kind of fee to download the .pdf, though it should be discounted for lack of printing costs).

Yes, this is a pretty radical notion (more akin to, say, D&D's various Compendiums or the "Complete" series of books, perhaps with an eye toward Privateer's rulebook system and a smattering of what Two-Hour Wargames and their smaller ilk do) and it would force GW to make some unpleasant choices; cutting certain units from the 'core' of each army (at least temporarily) rather than keep certain units in the 'dexes, for example. But that would give more clarity to the game and provide different options for players. Each codex would have to be designed alongside each other at least somewhat, but balance becomes less of an issue (as codexes are now not meant to be balanced; that's what the main army list/rulebook is for), as does the release schedule.

For example: with this system, casual players might be happy with just the main rulebook; 'dexes become a tool for thematic play--using a special character or atypical units. Likewise, tournament organizers could declare a tournament to be 'main rulebook' only, or 'expanded' rules available. The game designers could even declare that official tournaments only use the 'main rulebook', as they're balanced with each other, while codexes could be applied specifically to summer campaigns, leagues etc.

And before you say "they wouldn't go for that because they wouldn't make money", now you've got people buying TWO books, if not more (remember, this is what a lot of RPGs do with their supplements, and they put plenty of books out), and getting it to people via the internet, saving print costs. Sure, they're charging $25 instead of $30, but it's still high profit.

I don't see them going for any of these kinds of changes, as it would require a totally new edition (or a redux of 4th) and a VERY different model of what GW games look like, but it would be a more interesting direction and might get me back into 40k. Just my 2 cents.

I don't see that happening, but it's an interesting idea.

One variation to theme the supplement books by theme rather than army. So "Warhammer 40,000: Fast Attack" would contain additional fast attack type options for every army. "WFB Winds of Magic" could contain arcane themed magic items, expanded spell lists and the like for WFB.

That way instead of each player only needing to buy the books for the armies they play, they'd need to buy every book produced to have the 'complete' rules and points for every unit available to their faction.

I'd like the pages to be soft and cottony like Cottonelle. You have to tear out the pages and crumple them up so they don't hurt so much. Seems that's all they're good for once they're released because of errors/typos/broke stuff.

Is the Ravening Hordes idea still viable with the large amount of armies that
they have? Say, do army lists with models for new editions of the game, and
then publish army books that have the customizable information?

Or is the game simply beyond that?

Posted By Janthkin on 04/18/2007 4:23 PM
Full-size mandatory platoons, at 8 pts/model, with heavy weapons limited to command sections and/or heavy weapons squads, at Devestator+50% prices, of course.

But they all get laspistols FOR FREE!!!

Posted By Abadabadoobaddon on 04/18/2007 11:11 PM

Posted By Janthkin on 04/18/2007 4:23 PM
Full-size mandatory platoons, at 8 pts/model, with heavy weapons limited to command sections and/or heavy weapons squads, at Devestator+50% prices, of course.

But they all get laspistols FOR FREE!!!

Don't forget the awesomely useful FREE krak grenades tooo!!!!

Thank God the only real interest I have in current 40K Codices is to see what good ideas we can steal for our own rules (and those ideas are few and far between).

I like the layout of the Marine and Tau Codies. They were easy to use, very easy. Why the DA's and Eldar couldn't be like that I do not know...

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/19/2007 1:39 AM
Thank God the only real interest I have in current 40K Codices is to see what good ideas we can steal for our own rules (and those ideas are few and far between).

I like the layout of the Marine and Tau Codies. They were easy to use, very easy. Why the DA's and Eldar couldn't be like that I do not know...

BYE

The big ditto there HBMC.  I liked the V4 Nid, Tau, and marine codices. They were generally easy to understand and utilize. The problems with the marine codices are not in format, but in the fact the bugger clearly wasn't playtested to any great extent.  Tried playing my first eldar game last night, and working through the eldar codex to find rules was frustrating in the extreme. I've never had it before where three experienced players, each who have read the codex, couldn't find simple wargear rules easily. If their idea was to make it more user friendly they failed in the extreme.

You know the Fantasy army books have been organized this way for years. It really is pretty easy to use.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

Posted By Ozymandias on 04/19/2007 9:28 PM
You know the Fantasy army books have been organized this way for years. It really is pretty easy to use.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

The games are significantly different. The unit options for most Fantasy units are much simpler (i.e.: do you want a command, or not?).

Also, every fantasy book includes a large wargear section (magic items) with at least as complex restrictions as the more complicated 40K armories.

The Dwarfs book contains the Runic Item rules which are certainly more complex than 40K Chaos wargear.


The Fantasy books recognize that players tend to be literate, and they don't dumb down magic item selection to just a list of options next to the entry (except for special characters like Karl Franz).

I would like it if the summary page was always at the end of the book (and if the stats listed on the page were correct). With most of the books the summary page is at the end of the army list, before the color section, so it is difficult to find if you need to reference it in the middle of the game. If the summary was always on the last page then you could find it with no problems.

I finally bought the eldar dex and while the format is a bit wierd, it's not as bad once I really thought about it. Compare it to the tyranid dex, which has been my fav of 4ed so far. Everyone complains about the eldar dex having the rules for a unit on one page and the costs on another but the same is pretty much true in the nid dex, where the weapons and biomorph rules are seperate from the units stats and point costs. It takes a bit to get sued to but in the end you just remember what X does and what it costs.

All in all though I think they waste some pages with the new layout, as they could have consolidated that info onto the same page (ie wouldn't have taken much more room to add stats line and point costs onto the rules and fluff page, even reducing the font and what not). Consolidating all the info of a unit into one place would be the ideal layout, with a good summary page at the end of the book (to include a page index like what yakface proposed).