Switch Theme:

So, can we expect all new codexes to lack the faction chronicles? :(  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in ca
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster



Ottawa

In the last two codexes I bought (Drukhari and Sisters of Battle), the fluff section no longer includes the little vignettes in chronological order. Is this expected to be the new normal? If so, this saddens me a lot, as that section contained some of the most interesting fluff and offered a very good bird's-eye view of the faction.

Cadians, Sisters of Battle (Argent Shroud), Drukhari (Obsidian Rose)

Read my Drukhari short stories: Chronicles of Commorragh 
   
Made in us
Mekboy on Kustom Deth Kopta






we would have to see in future releases, I personally enjoy reading codexes from cover to cover so would also be saddened by the loss. I did enjoy all the extra fluff parts in the 9th edition rulebook that came with indomidus (pretty sure its the same as the normal one, but covid happened so few games against more than a handful of people who also got indomidus)

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





-Guardsman- wrote:
In the last two codexes I bought (Drukhari and Sisters of Battle), the fluff section no longer includes the little vignettes in chronological order. Is this expected to be the new normal? If so, this saddens me a lot, as that section contained some of the most interesting fluff and offered a very good bird's-eye view of the faction.



this has been the case with all 9th edition codices. GW gutted the lore section of the 9th edition codices and it's a tragedy. the space marines codex managed to sneak in a bit of fluff for the various new units they got, but I know with sisters of battle there's NOTHING to fluff out their new stuff, it's a tragedy. :(

It's also a bit odd, the crusade rules finally put narrative 40k in an amazing space, only to rip out so much ot the narrative info :(

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/21 18:46:46


Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





UK

BrianDavion wrote:
GW gutted the lore section of the 9th edition codices and it's a tragedy. the space marines codex managed to sneak in a bit of fluff for the various new units they got, but I know with sisters of battle there's NOTHING to fluff out their new stuff, it's a tragedy.


Agreed. I posted this back in January...

 dreadblade wrote:
I was surprised that the SM codex didn't have descriptions and images for all the units this time. In the datasheets some of the photos are only a small part of the model too, so new players aren't going to know what some of the units look like!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/21 19:19:39


[1,800] Chaos Knights | [1,250] Thousand Sons | [1,000] Grey Knights | 40K editions: RT, 8, 9, 10 | https://www.flickr.com/photos/dreadblade/  
   
Made in ca
Gargantuan Gargant






That's shame tbh, I agree that the little history timeline was where a lot of good tidbits and new additions to the faction usually were, so it's disheartening to see them take out such an iconic part of codices. You'd think given the premium pricing and high turnover fo.r codices that they'd at least keep that in there
   
Made in us
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon





Italy

That's a shame, the lore bits are one of the most fun parts of a codex and a reason to hang onto them.

I know when 8th launched there was a lot of discussion whether GW should split a codex into a Lore / Painting book and essentially a data sheet book. Seems like we're moving towards the latter with each edition.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I was happy we got the backstory on Morvenn, and I was glad they kept the two page organizational overview.

I think they definitely should have included more fluff- the timeline pieces you mention would have been great; I also really miss the sector maps that show you which subfactions are where in the galaxy.

It doesn't help new players, but the old dex fluff is still valid for most armies- I have 4 SoB Dexes to read from, so I've got a fair number of resources to draw on; new players may have a harder time getting older stuff.

On the plus side: I have no pangs of conscience for downloading material which is unavailable for purchase. Sure, it is still copyright violation, but it isn't a violation that takes money away from artists or the company in general.
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





PenitentJake wrote:
I was happy we got the backstory on Morvenn, and I was glad they kept the two page organizational overview.

I think they definitely should have included more fluff- the timeline pieces you mention would have been great; I also really miss the sector maps that show you which subfactions are where in the galaxy.

It doesn't help new players, but the old dex fluff is still valid for most armies- I have 4 SoB Dexes to read from, so I've got a fair number of resources to draw on; new players may have a harder time getting older stuff.

On the plus side: I have no pangs of conscience for downloading material which is unavailable for purchase. Sure, it is still copyright violation, but it isn't a violation that takes money away from artists or the company in general.


yeah granted as a old hand whose a bit of a fluff bunny the sisters codex is a good example of the problem, Paragorn warsuits and Sarecists are wonderuful loooking units and I wanna use them, but at the same time there's no fluff that gives me CONTEXT for them

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




That is something I don't get either. They keep or rise the price for the books, cut the lore, and don't replace it with something important like rules, but instead there is just pages with painted models. I would get it if those were studio members or nice converted and painted player models and armies, but not it is just mroe of the same models we can see everywhere.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Karol wrote:
That is something I don't get either. They keep or rise the price for the books, cut the lore, and don't replace it with something important like rules, but instead there is just pages with painted models. I would get it if those were studio members or nice converted and painted player models and armies, but not it is just mroe of the same models we can see everywhere.


in theory it's nice to have, especially if you're looking for pics of models for things that aren't the "poster boys" armies (like knowing exactly how the order of the sacred rose paints their celestials) but I agree, I'd rather get the lore then the pictures of painted models.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




I don't mind the models pictures. If they were not the same art we see on their site or in any promo material.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Best we can do is en-mass let GW know about this direct. I know I was saddened to see now big unit lore and such in the Necron codex. Esp since it was my first Necron codex so I don't evne have the fluff to fall back on from previous ones.


I'd be ok with it IF GW then turned around and made a big dedicated fluff and art book for each faction. Ergo reduce the codex fluff a bit but still keep it; but then give us even more in its own compendium. However I don't think that will happen.

so yep everyone email GW and politely give them this feedback.

A Blog in Miniature

3D Printing, hobbying and model fun! 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Karol wrote:
I don't mind the models pictures. If they were not the same art we see on their site or in any promo material.


90% of the time it's because the armies in question are studio armies. But I mostly agree. It was actually refreshing to see the silver skulls used as the combat patrol example in the Marines codex. simply because we got to see something beyond "the same ultramarine army I've seen every edition so far"

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Well they need the extra page space to fit in 18 different layers of vaguely similar yet worded slightly differently special rules.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Well they need the extra page space to fit in 18 different layers of vaguely similar yet worded slightly differently special rules.


not really. those take up almost no extra room. Datasheets haven't gotten noticably bigger since 7th edition. I suspect this was a design decision made due to the size of the Marines codex.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




BrianDavion wrote:
Karol wrote:
I don't mind the models pictures. If they were not the same art we see on their site or in any promo material.


90% of the time it's because the armies in question are studio armies. But I mostly agree. It was actually refreshing to see the silver skulls used as the combat patrol example in the Marines codex. simply because we got to see something beyond "the same ultramarine army I've seen every edition so far"


I was thinking more about something like one eldar player at our store. he has a toltek inspired army. everything has jade inlays sculpted on his models and tanks. he has resculpted the faces and parts of the legs and arms of his models. I would like to see more stuff like this. And not, this are grey knights, they are all silver and stock out of the box. with few or no new model updates the picture section looks rather stale anyway. Comparing to the codex prior to the 8th ed one, the models were all the same. So maybe it is for new players, but what new players decide to go GK in 8th or 9th? They could use it for something more useful , like faction scenarios or even more rules for the crusade guys.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Karol wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
Karol wrote:
I don't mind the models pictures. If they were not the same art we see on their site or in any promo material.


90% of the time it's because the armies in question are studio armies. But I mostly agree. It was actually refreshing to see the silver skulls used as the combat patrol example in the Marines codex. simply because we got to see something beyond "the same ultramarine army I've seen every edition so far"


I was thinking more about something like one eldar player at our store. he has a toltek inspired army. everything has jade inlays sculpted on his models and tanks. he has resculpted the faces and parts of the legs and arms of his models. I would like to see more stuff like this. And not, this are grey knights, they are all silver and stock out of the box. with few or no new model updates the picture section looks rather stale anyway. Comparing to the codex prior to the 8th ed one, the models were all the same. So maybe it is for new players, but what new players decide to go GK in 8th or 9th? They could use it for something more useful , like faction scenarios or even more rules for the crusade guys.


grey knights is sadly a poor choice as the lore has them as a single chapter with all "silver armor" so there's only so many ways to do that.

so yeah there's only so much they can do with them that way.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in gb
Walking Dead Wraithlord






@ OP Sadly seems to be the trend..

Id personally happily pay for a collectors edition version with all the fluff and pictures and keep the rules stuff on an app thing.. But hey ho.. GW be GW.

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts


AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "


 Eonfuzz wrote:


I would much rather everyone have a half ass than no ass.


"A warrior does not seek fame and honour. They come to him as he humbly follows his path"  
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





BrianDavion wrote:

this has been the case with all 9th edition codices. GW gutted the lore section of the 9th edition codices and it's a tragedy. the space marines codex managed to sneak in a bit of fluff for the various new units they got, but I know with sisters of battle there's NOTHING to fluff out their new stuff, it's a tragedy. :(


I don't know. I'm still reading through my sisters' book, but the section talking about how war suits have their own names and machine(?) spirits that have to approve of t heir wearers by basically "knighting" them with their swords is pretty cool. That's some juicy stuff, and I don't remember a lot of unit entries in 6th, 7th, or 8th edition books giving much more content than that. Iirc, they usually gave one or two cool tidbits (similar to the warsuit thing I just mentioned), and then had another paragraph or two basically going, "These dudes guns go brrrt! Such fury. Much skill."

So I'm not sure the signal-to-noise ratio is actually that bad compared to recent editions. The timelines from the 7th edition books were neat because they were basically an opportunity to toss out a bunch of plot hooks or lore nuggets in a compact space, but they also seem to have generally never been followed up on or fleshed out (unless they turned into full-fledged BL novels) meaning that those nuggets didn't really go anywhere. Like, "Oh, drukhari can make werewolves out of space wolf aspirants. That's neat."

Maybe I'm just forgetting a lot of details, but I don't feel like my 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition eldar codices have expanded much on the lore I learned from my 4th edition codex. And most of what has been in the last couple of books feels like the basic info you could get by reading a wiki article.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Wyldhunt wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

this has been the case with all 9th edition codices. GW gutted the lore section of the 9th edition codices and it's a tragedy. the space marines codex managed to sneak in a bit of fluff for the various new units they got, but I know with sisters of battle there's NOTHING to fluff out their new stuff, it's a tragedy. :(


I don't know. I'm still reading through my sisters' book, but the section talking about how war suits have their own names and machine(?) spirits that have to approve of t heir wearers by basically "knighting" them with their swords is pretty cool. That's some juicy stuff, and I don't remember a lot of unit entries in 6th, 7th, or 8th edition books giving much more content than that. Iirc, they usually gave one or two cool tidbits (similar to the warsuit thing I just mentioned), and then had another paragraph or two basically going, "These dudes guns go brrrt! Such fury. Much skill."

So I'm not sure the signal-to-noise ratio is actually that bad compared to recent editions. The timelines from the 7th edition books were neat because they were basically an opportunity to toss out a bunch of plot hooks or lore nuggets in a compact space, but they also seem to have generally never been followed up on or fleshed out (unless they turned into full-fledged BL novels) meaning that those nuggets didn't really go anywhere. Like, "Oh, drukhari can make werewolves out of space wolf aspirants. That's neat."

Maybe I'm just forgetting a lot of details, but I don't feel like my 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition eldar codices have expanded much on the lore I learned from my 4th edition codex. And most of what has been in the last couple of books feels like the basic info you could get by reading a wiki article.


what paghe is THAT on?

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in ie
Battleship Captain





Wyldhunt wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

this has been the case with all 9th edition codices. GW gutted the lore section of the 9th edition codices and it's a tragedy. the space marines codex managed to sneak in a bit of fluff for the various new units they got, but I know with sisters of battle there's NOTHING to fluff out their new stuff, it's a tragedy. :(



So I'm not sure the signal-to-noise ratio is actually that bad compared to recent editions. The timelines from the 7th edition books were neat because they were basically an opportunity to toss out a bunch of plot hooks or lore nuggets in a compact space, but they also seem to have generally never been followed up on or fleshed out (unless they turned into full-fledged BL novels) meaning that those nuggets didn't really go anywhere. Like, "Oh, drukhari can make werewolves out of space wolf aspirants. That's neat."

This kind of exemplifies one of my major issues I have with modern 40k. Why do these lore nuggets have to go anywhere? Why do they need to be resolved or followed up on? You said yourself they're plot hooks. They were there to inspire people to build upon them themselves or create narrative battles and campaigns or armies themed around them. 40k is supposed to be a SETTING. A sandbox for players to mess around in. Not a set, progressing plotline where all the mysteries are just there to be answered eventually. Its much more fun to speculate on a paragraph than it is to listen to the Black Library audiobook which answers everything and then its done.


 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





well they included lore nuggets and "SEE YOUR FACTION HAS HAD THIS NEW KIT WE PUT OUT ALL ALONG! THEY WHERE PART OF A DECISIVE BATTLE IN M38!"

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





BrianDavion wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:

this has been the case with all 9th edition codices. GW gutted the lore section of the 9th edition codices and it's a tragedy. the space marines codex managed to sneak in a bit of fluff for the various new units they got, but I know with sisters of battle there's NOTHING to fluff out their new stuff, it's a tragedy. :(


I don't know. I'm still reading through my sisters' book, but the section talking about how war suits have their own names and machine(?) spirits that have to approve of t heir wearers by basically "knighting" them with their swords is pretty cool. That's some juicy stuff, and I don't remember a lot of unit entries in 6th, 7th, or 8th edition books giving much more content than that. Iirc, they usually gave one or two cool tidbits (similar to the warsuit thing I just mentioned), and then had another paragraph or two basically going, "These dudes guns go brrrt! Such fury. Much skill."

So I'm not sure the signal-to-noise ratio is actually that bad compared to recent editions. The timelines from the 7th edition books were neat because they were basically an opportunity to toss out a bunch of plot hooks or lore nuggets in a compact space, but they also seem to have generally never been followed up on or fleshed out (unless they turned into full-fledged BL novels) meaning that those nuggets didn't really go anywhere. Like, "Oh, drukhari can make werewolves out of space wolf aspirants. That's neat."

Maybe I'm just forgetting a lot of details, but I don't feel like my 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th edition eldar codices have expanded much on the lore I learned from my 4th edition codex. And most of what has been in the last couple of books feels like the basic info you could get by reading a wiki article.


what paghe is THAT on?

Page 23 in the "The Blade of Faith" box.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




BrianDavion 799215 11155058 wrote:

grey knights is sadly a poor choice as the lore has them as a single chapter with all "silver armor" so there's only so many ways to do that.

so yeah there's only so much they can do with them that way.


It is not a question of colour. Any army show by GW looks the same. Only stuff in the box, never any conversions. This are blade guard that are ultramarines, they are blune. Those tyranids are that one fleet we paint everything etc. If GW wants to convince people that the hobby part is important, besides by rules penalisation, then they should show cool armies made by people playing the game in the codex. Sometimes when I look at the art for w40k, I get this odd feeling that someone had a studion model in hand or a picture of them, and then was told to do art for them.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Sim-Life wrote:

This kind of exemplifies one of my major issues I have with modern 40k. Why do these lore nuggets have to go anywhere? Why do they need to be resolved or followed up on? You said yourself they're plot hooks. They were there to inspire people to build upon them themselves or create narrative battles and campaigns or armies themed around them. 40k is supposed to be a SETTING. A sandbox for players to mess around in. Not a set, progressing plotline where all the mysteries are just there to be answered eventually. Its much more fun to speculate on a paragraph than it is to listen to the Black Library audiobook which answers everything and then its done.

That's fair. It's just that some of those nuggets (gotta stop saying "nuggets") were cool ideas that potentially had a lot of of impact on the setting but then just seemed to never get the greenlight to become relevant again. Like, I play Iybraesil, and I was lucky enough to have one of the little timeline boxes talk about how my craftworld sent some banshee exarchs to try and get Jain Zar to cool her relationship with the ynnari but came back from the experience with their minds blown.

That's some potentially cool fluff, but as an Iybraesil player, I'm not sure what to do with it. I get that I have the freedom to decide that Iybraesil is now much more ynnari friendly than before, but I also have the freedom to decide that this is evidence Iybraesil is especially anti-ynnari with the exception of a handful of exarchs. Iybraesil's stance on the ynnari is left about as unclear as it was before that bit of fluff was written. Now if they'd used that an an opportunity to make Jain Zar an exception to the "no named character allowed in Ynnari detachments" rule, that would be a cool way to show how political stances are shifting among the asuryani. Or if they'd taken things a step further and clearly decided that Iybraesil's banshees (and therefore the core of their millitary) is strongly in support of the ynnari now, I'd have a decisive bit of fluff to add to my craftworld's story.

As-is, it's (intentionally?) left so vague that it almost doesn't add anything. It's just, "Like other craftworlds, some people from Iybraesil don't care for the ynnari while others do."

Or, maybe a better example, one of the necron 'dexes (5th edition?) mentioned that tomb world whose AI basically went all Skynet and took over the world's defenses. It's cool to know that that's a thing that can happen. It would be cool to have an option to nod to that on the tabletop.

I don't know. I'm rambling, and you make good points. I have a desire to engage with some of those nuggets of lore, but it would be nice to have more ways to do that than write fanfic and custom missions. (Although both of those can be fun and rewarding in their own ways.)


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I honestly think the main reason is because they want to put that stuff in another $50 book that you have to buy instead. They certainly don't want to give you free hooks for Crusade, that's definitely "another $50 book" material.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 799215 11155058 wrote:

grey knights is sadly a poor choice as the lore has them as a single chapter with all "silver armor" so there's only so many ways to do that.

so yeah there's only so much they can do with them that way.


It is not a question of colour. Any army show by GW looks the same. Only stuff in the box, never any conversions. This are blade guard that are ultramarines, they are blune. Those tyranids are that one fleet we paint everything etc. If GW wants to convince people that the hobby part is important, besides by rules penalisation, then they should show cool armies made by people playing the game in the codex. Sometimes when I look at the art for w40k, I get this odd feeling that someone had a studion model in hand or a picture of them, and then was told to do art for them.


It's not much but the 7th edition (or was it 6th?) had conversions in it. Basically purifiers and rhinos, they used Chaos trophy racks + daemon bits to give them skulls on their backpacks. It blew my mind when I first saw them because of how stock Grey Knights always were

Spoiler:


There's a couple of squads like that. But you're right, they don't get super creative in showing us off.

I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://anchor.fm/makethatgame

And I also stream tabletop painting/playing Mon&Thurs 8PM EST
https://twitch.tv/tableitgaming
And make YouTube videos for that sometimes!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





 Overread wrote:
Best we can do is en-mass let GW know about this direct. I know I was saddened to see now big unit lore and such in the Necron codex. Esp since it was my first Necron codex so I don't evne have the fluff to fall back on from previous ones.


I'd be ok with it IF GW then turned around and made a big dedicated fluff and art book for each faction. Ergo reduce the codex fluff a bit but still keep it; but then give us even more in its own compendium. However I don't think that will happen.

so yep everyone email GW and politely give them this feedback.

Selfishly, I'd kind of be okay with there being even less fluff in the codex if it meant a price reduction. Fluff is one of the main things I love about the hobby, but its been a while since I felt like the amount of fluff in a codex was worth how few rules I got for the price of the book; even before 9th edition. Pretty much any new lore I get to enjoy comes from campaign books and BL novels rather than the codex. At this point, I might prefer a $5 or $10 pdf that contains only the game rules so I can more affordably play all of my armies, and then I'd continue to get my lore fix from non-codex sources.

Admittedly, that's not ideal for new players, but also you can get most of the lore from the 8th edition eldar codex out of a couple wiki articles.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in ca
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion





Rihgu wrote:
Karol wrote:
BrianDavion 799215 11155058 wrote:

grey knights is sadly a poor choice as the lore has them as a single chapter with all "silver armor" so there's only so many ways to do that.

so yeah there's only so much they can do with them that way.


It is not a question of colour. Any army show by GW looks the same. Only stuff in the box, never any conversions. This are blade guard that are ultramarines, they are blune. Those tyranids are that one fleet we paint everything etc. If GW wants to convince people that the hobby part is important, besides by rules penalisation, then they should show cool armies made by people playing the game in the codex. Sometimes when I look at the art for w40k, I get this odd feeling that someone had a studion model in hand or a picture of them, and then was told to do art for them.


It's not much but the 7th edition (or was it 6th?) had conversions in it. Basically purifiers and rhinos, they used Chaos trophy racks + daemon bits to give them skulls on their backpacks. It blew my mind when I first saw them because of how stock Grey Knights always were

Spoiler:


There's a couple of squads like that. But you're right, they don't get super creative in showing us off.


it was 7th. they also used some forge world bits on land raiders etc.

Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two 
   
Made in us
Hacking Interventor





So lemme see if I understand this:

Codexes cost $50. They provide three major categories of things:

A) Fluff and backstory;
B) Artwork and model showcases;
C) Rules.

C) is already an ephemeral proposition unbefitting a big hardcover book because given the patch cycle of the game, those rules will be wrong - whether that's in a month due to errata, a year due to in-edition changes or 2-3 years because a new codex came out. Am I hearing correctly that now not only did they raise the price for 9th edition codexes, but in the process they're cutting back on A)?

Wyldhunt wrote:
Selfishly, I'd kind of be okay with there being even less fluff in the codex if it meant a price reduction. Fluff is one of the main things I love about the hobby, but its been a while since I felt like the amount of fluff in a codex was worth how few rules I got for the price of the book; even before 9th edition. Pretty much any new lore I get to enjoy comes from campaign books and BL novels rather than the codex. At this point, I might prefer a $5 or $10 pdf that contains only the game rules so I can more affordably play all of my armies, and then I'd continue to get my lore fix from non-codex sources.


That'd be great and the model I'd prefer they switch to; It'd render the game more financially accessible and, y'know, updatable from a central redownloadable PDF when the erratas happen, so at least you get C) until your codex gets entirely replaced, and I'd be more okay with the impermanence of the data for $10. I know there's ostensibly financial reasons they don't switch away from this archaic hardback model, but it seems at this point like they're just trying to see how little they can provide and still get people to buy the goddamn things.

"All you 40k people out there have managed to more or less do something that I did some time ago, and some of my friends did before me, and some of their friends did before them: When you saw the water getting gakky, you decided to, well, get out of the pool, rather than say 'I guess this is water now.'"

-Tex Talks Battletech on GW 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: