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.

How do?

Yes, it’s a lesser spotted Grump from yours’ truly. And it’s about 9th Ed Codexes.

Basically? Where the background for units, both new and old? I mean, the majority of them have background already. So writing up some interesting stuff for the new is hardly a massive undertaking.

For my beloved Necrons, I’ve three new flavours of Destroyers I know little about. Ophydian, Skorpekh and Hexmark. All I get is a tiny blurb on their unit entry.

Frankly, it’s just not good enough. Yes, it’s better than 3rd Ed, the absolute nadir of Codex design ethos, as we do get background for the army and it’s politics etc. But...the units. You need to sell them both by model, rules and coolness of background.

It really does feel like an oversight or a misprint in the Necron Codex - but no, it’s a design decision, and one I cannot fathom.

Am likely to remain grumpy about this for some time.

I totally agree. We used to get an entire page of background and artwork for each unit. Now we get maybe a paragraph outlining what the unit does.

I was also a bit surprised to open my Blood Angels codex and see an entire two page spread had been dedicated to quite explicitly advertising the Combat Patrol box.

The pages talking about units was my favourite part of each codex. Just like roleplaying bestiaries, much better than useless time lines, etc...

A shame they have droped those.

Yea no bestiaries. I think the Crusade rules basically ate up those pages. :\

I don't have a 9th edition codex yet, as neither of my armies has one yet (and one never will, as it was sent to Legends), but I do have the Imperial Armour Compendium, and it follows this design philosophy. Just a short blurb for each unit, but in its case there aren't even any pictures of the models. Really gw? No pictures for any of these beautiful tanks, beasts, and walkers? It's a shame. I will say that the fluff writers did a pretty good job with the limited space they were given, though. Most of those blurbs do a good job of describing the units in question. However when I think of my beautiful old Imperial Armour books, there's just no comparison.

DG one follows this too, all of the Elite character blurbs are crammed into one and a half pages, when before each got a page to themselves.

Unit background has come and gone over the editions, no? I think 7th Edition Codizes were also pretty light on unit background, because they had to fit all the formations in that needed a page each.
I mean I agree in general, because rules today are only relevant for about 3 years before they get replaced, while the background stays forever and is the main reason to buy a Codex in the first place.
One could say it fits to the overall picture of 9th edition as a "tournament Edition". Everything is nicely balanced, but missions are extremely bland and all the same outside of crusade and background in the Codizes gets reduced because the tournament people ignore that anyway. (little bit of trolling on my part here)

Do people actually buy codexes for the lore though? At least repeat codexes.
The amount of lore in the books is declining. It's not even that you're getting less for your money - you're buying what you already had in the last codex, except you don't even get all of it.

It's like buying a new car in the same model as the last one, except this time you don't get the sun roof or radio. Chances are you didn't buy the car for the features then.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Do people actually buy codexes for the lore though? At least repeat codexes.
The amount of lore in the books is declining. It's not even that you're getting less for your money - you're buying what you already had in the last codex, except you don't even get all of it.

It's like buying a new car in the same model as the last one, except this time you don't get the sun roof or radio. Chances are you didn't buy the car for the features then.

Well I do. And because of that the 8th Edition Daemons Codex was bad, it had only one new page of background per god. I didn't buy the CSM Codex of 8th after seeing that (although that one actually had a little more fluff).

That’s a big question.

To me, the background is a quintessential part of the hobby. This is why last year, I spent time and a fair chunk of dough buying a complete set of Rogue Trader era books.

Modern stuff, I buy for both the rules and the background.

Yes. Most of the background is repeat - but only for those who aren’t new to the game/hobby.

I’m certain there’ll be those who buy purely for the rules. Of course there are. But how many and what percentage they make up? I’ve not a Scooby.

Yeah I've noticed this with the Space Marines and the Necrons books. It's very disappointing.

Kiro - not everyone is buying their 2nd or 3rd edition of the same codex. New players are going to miss out on so much.

The old (6th edition) CSM codex had fantastic stuff about the new Heldrake, talking about how they were originally Space Marine fighters that were mutated and corrupted by daemonic possession, and curled within the centre of it all was a withered husk of a pilot, whose screams of pain and anguish were broadcast from the vox unit as the cries of the monster it had become.

I assume the 9th edition codex, when it comes out, won't say much more than "dragon dinobot LOL"

Is the lore stuff even that imporant, when GW constatnly changes stuff. They change old lore, retcone new lore, do time jumps, then pull them back. Half the stuff in 8th ed books, probably doesn't make sense, when 9th ed lore is considered.

Karol wrote:
Is the lore stuff even that imporant, when GW constatnly changes stuff. They change old lore, retcone new lore, do time jumps, then pull them back. Half the stuff in 8th ed books, probably doesn't make sense, when 9th ed lore is considered.

Well.....yes. One only need look at Dakka’s own Background sub-forum.

It will of course vary from hobbyist to hobbyist. Some may not care for it at all. Some use it to create “historically accurate” armies/collections, and everything in between.

I guess my argument would be that it’s inclusion doesn’t change what someone not fussed for it gets out of a Codex. But it’s exclusion does affect those who like it to at least partially inform choices.

Rough example? I’m building a list, and can’t choose between units A and B. There, the background for me is the tie breaker. Which unit do I think is simply cooler.

Karol wrote:
Is the lore stuff even that imporant, when GW constatnly changes stuff. They change old lore, retcone new lore, do time jumps, then pull them back. Half the stuff in 8th ed books, probably doesn't make sense, when 9th ed lore is considered.

Well, part of 40K lore is that everything is part of the lore, even things that get retconned some Rogue Trader aspects and Necrons might be the exception, but other than that there's hardly outdated lore, funnily enough you can find hints for the whole ynnead story in very old Eldar Codex when nobody at GW probably thought they'd ever do anything with these blurbs.

Haven't noticed it much with the new ones but yes I agree, the lore/fluff is an important part of the book. I'd much rather it be full of stories and unit descriptions than generic photos of the models that someone spent 5 minutes setting up.

I don't mind. Most of the lore you can find inside each Codex is almost a basic reprint of what has been already said in a previous Codex.

I'd rather want GW to print a separate true lore/painting dedicated book and filled with new art, very detailled lore and extensive showcase of miniatures and battlegrounds and painting techniques for each army.

I would buy that in a heartbeat.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Karol wrote:
Is the lore stuff even that imporant, when GW constatnly changes stuff. They change old lore, retcone new lore, do time jumps, then pull them back. Half the stuff in 8th ed books, probably doesn't make sense, when 9th ed lore is considered.

Well.....yes. One only need look at Dakka’s own Background sub-forum.

It will of course vary from hobbyist to hobbyist. Some may not care for it at all. Some use it to create “historically accurate” armies/collections, and everything in between.

I guess my argument would be that it’s inclusion doesn’t change what someone not fussed for it gets out of a Codex. But it’s exclusion does affect those who like it to at least partially inform choices.

Rough example? I’m building a list, and can’t choose between units A and B. There, the background for me is the tie breaker. Which unit do I think is simply cooler.

Exactly. Including the lore doesn't hurt those that only want the rules, but omitting it does hurt those that want the lore as well. I don't avoid including daemonic and mutated units in my Night Lords because of the rules I do it because of the lore. The lore of a unit is just as important to me as its rules and looks when I decide if I want to add it to my army. That's not important to some, but it is for many of us.

The reason a lot of people play 40k is the background. And those older codexes and supplements were overflowing with it. Having less of that takes away much of the point of 40k.

i'd personally enjoy if codexes didnt have the lore included in them. Make then smaller books that are easier to carry with only the rules part and very short descriptions.
Then release a standalone lore book that goes into details for every unit/subfaction/etc.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Do people actually buy codexes for the lore though? At least repeat codexes.
The amount of lore in the books is declining. It's not even that you're getting less for your money - you're buying what you already had in the last codex, except you don't even get all of it.

It's like buying a new car in the same model as the last one, except this time you don't get the sun roof or radio. Chances are you didn't buy the car for the features then.

No, but as a kid it was definitely how I formed my decisions on how much I liked various units. It isn't very valuable to me now, but I do feel a little sad for the kid in me.

Stop buying them.

Complain to GW. Repeatedly.

People complain about balance, or rubbish recycled background, or typos, or whatever else, and then they buy whatever the next product GW puts out is.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Do people actually buy codexes for the lore though? At least repeat codexes.
The amount of lore in the books is declining. It's not even that you're getting less for your money - you're buying what you already had in the last codex, except you don't even get all of it.

It's like buying a new car in the same model as the last one, except this time you don't get the sun roof or radio. Chances are you didn't buy the car for the features then.

Yes. My 8e CWE codex is filled with art and fluff.
Most of its rules and pts are long since irrelevant.. But it is a lovely book. And I do just re-read some unit entries on occasion.
Also, why else bother buying a codex? It will be incorrect on day 1 and need an FAQ 100% of the time..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Stop buying them.

Complain to GW. Repeatedly.

People complain about balance, or rubbish recycled background, or typos, or whatever else, and then they buy whatever the next product GW puts out is.

Also this..

I wouldn't buy codexes explicitly for their lore - but it does seem like something that you should get as part of the package and seems to have fallen almost completely off a cliff.

I imagine this is because GW are in a state of flux on the lore at the moment (We're jumping 100 years into the future! Did we say 100, we meant... ten? Uh... check this.)

But yeah. It shouldn't really be difficult to give a bit more detail.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i'd personally enjoy if codexes didnt have the lore included in them. Make then smaller books that are easier to carry with only the rules part and very short descriptions.
Then release a standalone lore book that goes into details for every unit/subfaction/etc.

I could live with this.
Alternatively have a rules + datasheet only book and a "collectors edition" codex with all the fluff and art.

However you know GW would charge £30 for the basic verison and then like £100 for the collectors so perhaps lets not give them ideas..

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:


Rough example? I’m building a list, and can’t choose between units A and B. There, the background for me is the tie breaker. Which unit do I think is simply cooler.

That explains stuff. To be honest didn't even knew there was a lore subforum here. I do like the old books more. The 8th ed codex, even rules aside, isn't as fun to read as the older books, has an oddly lower number of units and options too. And without them the lore from the newest book is gone. And the PA books, as good as it was and is rules wise, had someone some of the oddest lore I ever read. As if GW just wanted to make all the GK, 1ksons and DA players unhappy at the same time.


The new DA books seems fine though. All the characterful DW and RW options are there, plus the explanation how primaris made their way in to them. Which did become problematic without the 200y time jump. Because I imagine that after 200 years of non stop crusade, there were no non primaris marines left alive, so the RW&DW had to be primaris, kind of a harder to imagine legions of primaris DW/RW 2-3 years after cawl poping them out of the freezer.

A Grumble you say?

What's extra disappointing about the 9th Necron Codex compared to 8th is how little space the other Dynasties are given. In the 8th Codex you got full pages for each of the main ones, as well as lots of visual references for Ankh designs and also information about unit markings so you could differentiate between squads on the battlefield.

Now, only Szarekhan and Sautekh get full page entries and you have 0 visual aid or reference or even details about stuff like the above.

In terms of the actual overall structure of the books and way the rules are laid out it is much better than 8th, but the gutting of the lore is really disappointing. There's no timeline and no quotes either. Some of the most enjoyable and interesting stuff in the CWE and Necron dexes in 8th were all the quotes sprinkled about; those are now gone.

Welcome to 9th edition tournament-hammer. Lore and narrative have no place here.

 oni wrote:
Welcome to 9th edition tournament-hammer. Lore and narrative have no place here.

That's really funny, since those sections were set on fire to make room for the Crusade rules.

Voss wrote:

 oni wrote:
Welcome to 9th edition tournament-hammer. Lore and narrative have no place here.

That's really funny, since those sections were set on fire to make room for the Crusade rules.

Which is a system that allows casual and competitive gamers to spice up their games with narrative "flavor" without actually being narrative. (i.e. still catering towards non-narrative players).

Progression is not the same thing as narrative. Crusade has rules for progression, not for narrative. It doesn't have anything Narrative players weren't already doing, and it doesn't provide Narrative players with additional tools to do more.

Voss wrote:

 oni wrote:
Welcome to 9th edition tournament-hammer. Lore and narrative have no place here.

That's really funny, since those sections were set on fire to make room for the Crusade rules.

"Can the lore so we can write more rules!" seems to be a strange way of approaching the book for people who supposedly care about the lore/narrative, no matter what those rules are.