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've browsed the new Necron codex, as well most of the previous ones to come out in 7th ed (save for SWs), and I have to say that there's a shocking change in quality.

I usually stay away from books attached to the hobby, relying on the web to keep me up to date, but I've always kept an eye on codex pieces. Perhaps because they're straight from the source, perhaps because I have little patience for "swirling melee" descriptions.

Except now I feel there's really little to the codices themselves. In the newest one here, I'm seeing a jarring amount of this trend I've noticed of late; there's no fluff per say, just some general facts repeated across multiple entries describing units. As far as Necrons go, I greatly enjoyed the 3rd ed for its pieces and artwork integration, telling stories from a multiple perspectives. And despite the claim that Matt Ward should never be regarded by his fluff, 5th ed was more than adequate at introducing a face-lift fluff shakeup to an old faction; that one too had various anecdotes to mull over, and a fully integrated scope of Necron history across the fluff and the unit entries.

7th ed here offers little to anything. Beastiary makes a *slight* comeback, but you'll notice nothing distinct is said from the blurb following the unit entry. The whole book comes off as repetitive. Furthermore, the artwork fares poorly in being integrated with what content there is. The War in Heaven is almost entirely lost on new comers introduced via this book. 5th ed did a wonderful job with the Biotranseference, here it's just mentioned. 3rd brought up analyses of Necron engagements; 7th mere states what units "arrogant" Overlord use to "blistering/shrieking/scything" effect.

Discuss your thoughts. Am I a victim of an all too subjective mindset, or do you see the quality of codices being likewise reduced? We live in a different age than that of merely 10 years ago, but that doesn't mean quality writing and art (and it's presentation) should take a hit.

i had the same feeling with the tyranid codices.
In 3rd edition there where all these cryptman and biology articles in the codex, the phases of an invasion in great detail... in the latest ones theres barely anything, and nothing new either (apart from a few lines of campaigns/new units)

I've only read the Space Wolves and Blood Angel Codeces so far, and the fluff on the BA seemed ok to me, though not even close to exceptional. Same with Wolves - nothing great, but not much to complain about, overall aside from Units themselves.

In the Black Library novels, consistency and quality are as wildly varying as the colors of a rainbow. Sometimes you'll find a great book, and others you'll find a book that just takes the fluff you love and anally rapes it (*cough* BAngels Omnibus *cough* *cough*).

Who needs fluff? Make it up yourself, forge that narrative! Harder, faster, forgier, narrativier!

One would think it's due to a great part because of the accelerated release schedule. Not an excuse mind you, I thought the fluff horrid for a number of years, but possibly a reason. We are in the era of copy-paste army books.

 agnosto wrote:
One would think it's due to a great part because of the accelerated release schedule. Not an excuse mind you, I thought the fluff horrid for a number of years, but possibly a reason. We are in the era of copy-paste army books.

This. I compared 7th ed BA to 5th ed and they're practically the same book with a few tweaks here and there.

Pretty much. In the latest Ork codex they left out quite a lot of flavourful in-text fluff boxes and details on things like Tuska the Daemon-Killa and funny descriptions on things like how Mad Dok Grotsnik was brought back to life through his grot orderlies. I was disappointed by the big chunk focusing on the separate units of a warband in the Red WAAAGH! given that it already had its own seperate expansion and fluff. At least the Orks got decent artwork for the clanz, I've flipped through some of the art for the Necrons codex and you can really tell they just phoned it in for a lot of it, many of them just seem to be poorly rendered sketches than proppa cinematic scenes.

In terms of production value it just seems to go cheaper and cheaper (but higher price and more print quality... which is questionable. A turd on highquality paper doesnt make it look any better).

Just like with boxart. Instead of having nice artwork for most of the boxes they kicked that in the bucket and just photographed the miniatures so they can do it cheaper

Agreed. I'm disappointed in the new necron codex. The format is great, things are easier to find, etc. however the fluff has serious holes that if you don't own the prior codex you'll be lost.

Sadly, I think a lot of this is due to the success of the Black Library novels.

To GW's (wrong, wrong, wrong) way of thinking, why give away the fluff when you can charge separately for it? Thus, the codexes feature minimal background, so that it can be sold to you in a novel.

This is, as usual, utterly wrong.

First, a interesting bit of background in a Codex piques the interest of a reader, leading them to seek out a book. The absence of background does nothing. The smell of baking cookies makes you want one. The smell of nothing doesn't make you even MORE hungry for a cookie.

Second, many cool and interesting things in the background don't call out for a novel, or a novella, or whatever they are calling 4 pages of fiction at $5. Often a sidebar or a blurb is all that you need! We don't need a novel focusing on the epic battle where Wazzdakka zoomed off a cliff and through the void shields of a titan, only to crash into the cockpit and slaughter the crew. We just need a little story about how flying rodent gak insane he is!

Codex: Necrons 5th already was an utter mess of ape poo written by a 14 year old stuck in the body of a middle-aged "writer". The decline's been there for a long time.

As usual, I gladly point you to Codex: Necrons, the most perfect codex GW has ever published with an extremely strong connection between fluff and rules.

Who needs things like "Interesting narrative" or a "compelling lore reason to pick up this faction" when you have newer, awesomer, betterer rules!

 Sigvatr wrote:
Codex: Necrons 5th already was an utter mess of ape poo written by a 14 year old stuck in the body of a middle-aged "writer". The decline's been there for a long time.

As usual, I gladly point you to Codex: Necrons, the most perfect codex GW has ever published with an extremely strong connection between fluff and rules.

Wait, so Codex: Necrons is crap but Codex: Necrons is perfect..? I'm guessing you mean different editions?

Couldn't give a damn about what's in the codexes. Personally I'd hope they keep what's in them as vague and superficial as possible. Cuts back on all the people shouting "lore rape!" When a novel actually takes the effort to go into detail about something. If I want detailed lore, the codex is the last place I'd ever look.

I think that's what they're doing though, keeping detailed fluff for the novels. So fluffheads can buy the novels, and codexes can be filled with beautiful visuals while cutting fluff for space.

 GreaterGoodIreland wrote:
I think that's what they're doing though, keeping detailed fluff for the novels. So fluffheads can buy the novels, and codexes can be filled with beautiful visuals while cutting fluff for space.

In that case I'm quite happy with the way things are.

It is pretty sad. There is already so much fluff written, and GW can't even manage a decent cut and paste job to reuse any of it anymore.

I find a lot to disagree with here so far.

Most essentially, this:

If I want detailed lore, the codex is the last place I'd ever look.

When you have a faction rulebook (for any game: table or video), it's in good taste to include history, blurbs/anecdotes, and analyses of said faction. This is generally rule of thumb for publishing supplementary text (which codices are to the main rulebook). Even if you have one book- or smaller yet, one chapter- for all the factions in a game, this is on a developers to do list, and to do it well. GW used to write really great stuff in codices- as well as borrow passages from established writers that sum up some essential quality regarding their 40k faction of choice. This is sadly not really the case anymore, largely I suspect due to cut costs and an accelerated schedule.

But a codex should always try to give the most thorough overview of a faction. This is done for transitioning newcomers neatly into the background of the game (who aren't going to splurge on books regarding a game they just picked up), and for providing an up-to-date compendium on the faction's developments. If anything they're there to cherry pick the best writing out there and validate it by featuring it in the official print. Think: The book "All things Space Marine" or "Everything you need to know about Chaos".

By reducing this aspect of their rulebooks, they're weakening the culture of the game, that which sells further models. I remember when I got into 40k in 3rd ed. The Macragge booklet had a few intro paragraphs accompanied with beautiful images respective to that faction. I judged, does this fluff and art interest me more? Or does these two? What do I want to represent and explore?

I settled for CSM, picked up 3.5, and delved right into the fluff parts (before I knew the rules). There was an excerpt from Let the Galaxy Burn, I believe, that was just fantastic near the beginning. And everything that followed was up to par. I formed my special snowflake faction after judging all the contenders and weighing the history, and went from there. It was formative; codices are the last word on what makes your faction compelling.

Codex: Necrons 5th already was an utter mess of ape poo written by a 14 year old stuck in the body of a middle-aged "writer". The decline's been there for a long time.

As usual, I gladly point you to Codex: Necrons, the most perfect codex GW has ever published with an extremely strong connection between fluff and rules.

I'm not sure why you even bothered posting if that's all you had to say. Who are you kidding?

We are in the era of copy-paste army books.

Agree and disagree. In some cases, whoah, yeah they were lazy and just copypasta'd like true interns. However, even that's what preferable to the amount of cut content this latest codex received from 5th ed. It's their legacy they're crafting, make something of it! Don't just lobotomize the whole thing even if you disagree with the previous style. Ward, in this sense, did well (I NEVER thought I'd say that.)

Who needs fluff?

I have a game for you. It's called checkers.

I settled for CSM, picked up 3.5, and delved right into the fluff parts (before I knew the rules).

Yes me too...
To "rely" on novels for fluss is a gamble... either the author is good and has sound ideas that respect the things written in the past. Or he is bad and/or just turns things on its head, stating ridiculous and contradictory things...

Well at least you Necron players got a workable codex.

The Chaos Space Marine codex had barely any fluff, terrible rules, and barely represents the faction. The only cool things we got were Warp Talons and Heldrakes and the tiny paragraph fluff snippets.

-still crossing fingers for Gav Thorpe to come back and make a CSM Codex-

 Wyzilla wrote:
-still crossing fingers for Gav Thorpe to come back and make a CSM Codex-

I dont think they are not able to do it... they just decided not to because of some stupid sharholder/marketing decision. Also Gav Thorpe gave us the 4th ed codex, which was a big let down compared to 3.5, not just in terms of rules.

 Victory wrote:
Think: The book "All things Space Marine" or "Everything you need to know about Chaos".

This has never been the case, especially not for CSM or we wouldn't have had 15+ years of Failbaddon jokes. It took until the Black Legion supplement to even start to reel in what was a colossal misunderstanding of the lore.

I settled for CSM, picked up 3.5, and delved right into the fluff parts (before I knew the rules). There was an excerpt from Let the Galaxy Burn, I believe, that was just fantastic near the beginning. And everything that followed was up to par. I formed my special snowflake faction after judging all the contenders and weighing the history, and went from there. It was formative; codices are the last word on what makes your faction compelling.

While I'm sure that's all well and good, as someone who came in during 5th edition, the codexes will never be of value to me beyond the most basic and least interesting of lore. A paragraph description of an event will never been as engaging as a novel, or a historical write-up ie. Forgeworld. My love of 40k, as well as most of the people around me, came from Dawn of War. It came from the Horus Heresy novels. It came from the RPGs. It came from ADB, Abnett, Haley, Wright, Sanders, and Bligh. It most certainly did not come from four pages in a codex.

 Keep wrote:
To "rely" on novels for fluss is a gamble... either the author is good and has sound ideas that respect the things written in the past. Or he is bad and/or just turns things on its head, stating ridiculous and contradictory things...

Which is why you read reviews and learn the writing styles of authors.

jareddm wrote:
This has never been the case

While I'm sure that's all well and good, as someone who came in during 5th edition

Firstly, this is quite the statement. Secondly, you're revealing that said statement is only backed by partial understanding. I'll lay this to rest however; I'm not nitpicking for funnsies or spite.

More relevantly, next:

My love of 40k, as well as most of the people around me, came from Dawn of War. It came from the Horus Heresy novels. It came from the RPGs. It came from ADB, Abnett, Haley, Wright, Sanders, and Bligh. It most certainly did not come from four pages in a codex.

Now this I respect, and get where you're coming from. You approached 40k from a roundabout way through the games and books. You went for published fluff rather than the table game after DOW, then got into the game (I'm guessing). For those who didn't enter 40k via (the well fleshed out and fantastic) DOW, the codices are very often their first in depth primer. The books are picked up once that initial source is cleaned through, and people go off to search for relevant novels featuring their favorite race.

When I approach a subject I'm moderately interested in, I don't jump to the scientific periodicals. I start with basic materials first. A wiki page, a NYTimes article, and develop further until I can appreciate the language of an in-depth publication. Sometimes I jump the gun and delve right in, but that doesn't mean I can't see the purpose for others. And very often, the most in-depth of articles are pay only, and I can't justify the buy in to satisfy my knowledge. Same stands for a setting like 40k. Codices are an all-in-one buy in. You (generally) specialize later.

My point (in my writing to you) is to ascertain whether you can appreciate my previously stated purpose of codices. Can you empathize with people who approached the hobby differently than you? If you were given, say, a commonly appreciated gold-standard codex, would you be able to appreciate it? You belittle them, but I'm not sure if you entirely know their quality and purpose.

 Victory wrote:

jareddm wrote:
This has never been the case

While I'm sure that's all well and good, as someone who came in during 5th edition

Firstly, this is quite the statement. Secondly, you're revealing that said statement is only backed by partial understanding. I'll lay this to rest however; I'm not nitpicking for funnsies or spite.

The internet allows us access to things we might not have normally had. I have read essentially every codex going back to Realms of Chaos. But you're right, it was worded poorly and I apologize.

When I approach a subject I'm moderately interested in, I don't jump to the scientific periodicals. I start with basic materials first. A wiki page, a NYTimes article, and develop further until I can appreciate the language of an in-depth publication. Sometimes I jump the gun and delve right in, but that doesn't mean I can't see the purpose for others. And very often, the most in-depth of articles are pay only, and I can't justify the buy in to satisfy my knowledge. Same stands for a setting like 40k. Codices are an all-in-one buy in. You (generally) specialize later.

I will also add that while experiencing DoW, the lexicanum was never far from my screen. While many cry out the issues with the various 40k wikis, the general information (which isn't that what a codex's purpose is as well?) is valid enough.

My point (in my writing to you) is to ascertain whether you can appreciate my previously stated purpose of codices. Can you empathize with people who approached the hobby differently than you? If you were given, say, a commonly appreciated gold-standard codex, would you be able to appreciate it? You belittle them, but I'm not sure if you entirely know their quality and purpose.

I do, and I never meant to belittle those who appreciated them, but I also have no belief that GW will return to a style of printing particularly in-depth and lore heavy codexes. It's difficult for me dealing with the community when many will condemn an entire novel for not matching up with what was occasionally, nothing more than a single sentence from a codex. As for a gold-standard codex, I have several of them. For me, they're the Forgeworld Horus Heresy books. Obviously they're not cheap, but they're certainly what I would consider the kind of detail and interesting lore that gets me excited about 40k. Even if they are also rulebooks

All i can tell is that 7-th ork fluff ain't orky enough compared to the awesomeness of 4-th ed codex. There are only just a few cool parts in there.

There has been a pretty steady degredation in codex fluff over the years- most notable in the lack of short stories/anecdotes.

But man, the Newcron codex is imo the lowest we've come for a codex that isn't obviously a glorified supplement aka Imperial Knights or Scions. I have the e-book, and there's typos everywhere. Also the fluff in general is written in such an uninspired way it's sleep-inducing. Zero imagination, zero creativity- it's just namedropping. "Nemesor Zandrekh assaults the Imperial fortress-world of Xibtar IV. Protected by a nigh-indestructable wall of glittering adamantium, the planet's capital city resists Zandreck's assault for weeks until he employs a Destroyer Cult (tm). Wielding heavy weapons of fearsome power, the Destroyers (tm) reduce the mighty walls to dust within days- and Xibtar is soon one more planet under Zandreck's control."

That's just some gak I made up on the spot- took about three minutes to think up and type out. That's about the quality of what we get across the entire codex. Extremely lazy.


Edit- It's all the more jarring considering how decent the new Dark Eldar fluff was. Added two very interesting new plot developments for the Deldar (civil war between Vecht and Malys for control of Commoragh and the impending Daemonic incursion of Commoragh), and also had quite a few short stories, the most flavorful one being the Lelith Hesperax one.

 Keep wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
-still crossing fingers for Gav Thorpe to come back and make a CSM Codex-

I dont think they are not able to do it... they just decided not to because of some stupid sharholder/marketing decision. Also Gav Thorpe gave us the 4th ed codex, which was a big let down compared to 3.5, not just in terms of rules.

I'd still take Gav over Phil Kelly. (Also to be fair to Gav, it's kinda hard to live up to 3.5ed)

Kelly has something like a 50/50 chance to either make your army overpowered STRONK! or utterly nerf the hell out of it/leave it as-is in a new edition.

First of all, I recall some guy complaining that the new Necron Dex was bad because it lack flavor. My god! I wish GW would suck the flavor out of CSM and make them powerful like the new Necrons!
CSM needs to borrow so much from IA13 to be playable. You guys complaining about your Necrons being flavorless is like a bunch of obese tourist eating a big fat chicken and complaining muttering to yourselves that the chicken is a bit dry and taste bland while a bunch homeless starving children wait on their hands and knees for your scraps.

second of all, I think they should cut all the fluff and replace it strategies and tactics for beginners and give clues to the intended synergies to the reader. Maybe even provide raw statistical outcomes. Provide a picture of the model of the unit not some artist illustration. Cut the Codex down to just 20pages or less and charge $5. I want a small rule book for a, "Beer and Pretzel" game, not a DnD rule book.

I'm glad you're not in charge of designing codices then, personally. 40K is a gak game as far as actual mechanics go imo- the fluff and the setting are the only things that make it worth playing.

I doubt much will come close to Tempestus Scions unironic Einsatzgruppen propaganda pamphlet-I-mean-codex supplement.