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.

To me, I think ruleswise, 5th edition codexes were the best, because they were not just way thicker on the background compared to 3rd/(non-SM)4th, but the new content was also present in terms of new unit additions to the army, and to top it all off, they also had rules that made each army do some really unique stuff. Blood Angels for example with their flexible force org chart, allowing you to take DC dreads or Sanguinary Guard as troops and deepstrike Land Raiders. Grey Knights who had the Inquisition and the Assassins as part of their dex. Eldar who had Harlequins. IG who had some Forgeworld stuff like the Medusa and more unique characters than in their 6th ed codex. Same with Tyranids who had the Doom of Malantai and the Parasite of Mortrex way back in 5th before both disappeared in 6th.

The downside to 5th edition codexes was except for the miniature gallery, they were still black & white and still only available as softcovers, which of course kept them cheap, but...

That brings us to 6th edition codexes which to me was the next big leap in physical transformation because we went from softcover to hardback with relief lettering on the front, and after years and years worth of black & white art to colorized versions of the same art, breathing new life into them. At the same time, 6th edition codexes kept the layout/format of 5th ed in that each unit had almost an entire page dedicated to the lore, but they still managed to squeeze in the stats and special rules onto the same page, along with a piece of artwork for the unit, with the only things missing being the points cost and the options (and their points) that were then summarized in the final 15 or so pages. Of course, 6th edition removed a lot of the armywide flavor that made each 5th ed army interesting, and tried to make them comply with only the USRs found in the BRB.

7th edition was IMO a further downgrade to me, because the artwork for each unit got replaced by a big, almost half the page consuming photo of the miniature, as if it was an effort by GW to stress that THIS is the only official citadel mini that represents the unit. Also, the unit entry pages had barely any lore and were designed more like datasheets (which was also what they were called then), so the armylist part of the codex was basically a collection of dataslates, allowing for some supplementary ones to be printed in a campaign book and then made compatible with the faction they were made for. This put not just the faction lore, but also the individual unit lore now into the first part of the book, and creating armylists was a bit harder since 6th ed had a thin section just for list building at the final 1/4 of the book while the middle part was for your unit lore and special rules, but now the points cost was among all the dataslates, and hence you had to flick through the book a lot more than with the 6th ed codexes.

Overall, i'm talking from the perspective of a casual player, not a tourney player. I am well aware that 5th through 7th was the nightmare era of leafblower/flying circus/invisible deathstars/allies & formation shenanigans where early codexes were outclassed by later ones and where they, at best, got erratas and almost never to fix anything that was broken. But just from a casual reading, layout and I suppose ease of listbuilding (in terms of having fun just trying to build your army and think of ways to fill the agreed points cost) perspective.

I liked 5th edition codices too. Quality did vary and not all factions got one during the edition. There was a lot of power creep. Many older players consider 5th to have been the best overall edition in base rules, but also that it was let down by the inconsistent power levels across the books. Others point to weird over the top fluff material like wolf everything in the SW book and of course the tome of bloody blood blood for the BA. DE got a much needed refresh which was well received, but not everyone enjoyed the remake of the Necrons into undead Egyptians in space. And then there were the grey k'niggits.

Stuff I personally experienced? 8th. It feels like they skimp on it lately.

2nd will always get a call out for the art and lore. Not bad for rules and layout, but not the best.

From a game play POV 3rd was great. Light on fluff, but still some gems sprinkled in for flavor. But because they were so lean, easy to use at the table, and the price was low.

Every edition had codex creep. So it’s hard to judge eras. Internal vs external. For example, I think the 5th edition SM codex was a good book, and let you build a number of fun viable lists. But was left in the dust due to creep.

I want to like the concept of formations, amd the personalized structure it let each codex have, but if was so poorly implemented that 7th was just a toxic dumpster fire.

I only know 5th - 9th codex eras really, but early 7th holds a place in my heart.

Armies focused around my beloved FOC charts, the debut of my favorite factions in the adeptus mechanicus (all three codexes of them, bleh) and the release of factions and supplements that added to the fluff. Even if it got really bad towards the end, it was fun at the time.

I will say though that in terms of sheer faction customizability 9th edition is king in my experience. All the different chapter tactics, forge worlds and different homebrew options made it feel worth it to actually play as a custom chapter. It’s the kind of fluffy armies I would have killed for when I was playing 5th edition, honestly. I just wish the game system itself was better

I'd say as books to read, probably 2e. But I had the most fun in 3e-5e (which I consider sort of one continuous period because you had some of the same books in use for that stretch).

3.5 and early 4th of course

There was also the one Traitor Legions codex, I think at the end of 7th? that I found very impressive.

5e books introduced the concept of page numbers in unit entries and wargear sections so that you could actually find things, and were generally written in a way that was easy to use and consistent across the whole edition.
Plus substantial lore sections.

Earlier books scattered their rules and points costs to the four winds at times.

3rd and early 4th for me too, at least for army list coverage and options in equipping units.

When did they start doing one unit codexes? Was that 6th? That’s the low point of codexes IMHO.

 Nevelon wrote:
When did they start doing one unit codexes? Was that 6th? That’s the low point of codexes IMHO.

I see your one unit codex and raise you pay-to-win boxset only detachments - such as the skyhammer annihilation force that made your (deepstriking) devastators relentless and your assault marines able to charge from deepstrike, and super-pinning, and anti-overwatch, and full rerolls, and automatic enter from reserves on a turn of your choice ...

A.T. wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:
When did they start doing one unit codexes? Was that 6th? That’s the low point of codexes IMHO.

I see your one unit codex and raise you pay-to-win boxset only detachments - such as the skyhammer annihilation force that made your (deepstriking) devastators relentless and your assault marines able to charge from deepstrike, and super-pinning, and anti-overwatch, and full rerolls, and automatic enter from reserves on a turn of your choice ...

Those were horrid. I keep those mentally slotted as a problem with formations, not codexes. As the were PTW DLC, and not part of the books.

 Nevelon wrote:
2nd will always get a call out for the art and lore. Not bad for rules and layout, but not the best.
.

2nd edition. Great fluff and Art and nostalgia. I've got allot of Codices and those are almost the only ones I'll go back and look through.

Late 3rd and early 4th had the most interesting rules in my opinion. This was the era of wargear selection from often extensive armories, and I feel like the rules usually captured the feeling of the faction quite well.

Balance was questionable, but it seems that's the one thing that hasn't changed.

Late 4th and 5th started this trend I hated of splitting the unit rules pages and the actual army list, on top of ditching the armory system.

Depends on faction.
Some factions just had dexes in certain editions that were peak that faction.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
3.5 and early 4th of course

There was also the one Traitor Legions codex, I think at the end of 7th? that I found very impressive.

That book died far too fast.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Depends on faction.
Some factions just had dexes in certain editions that were peak that faction.

Also depends on the player. 4e Eldar were peak eldar for some at the time, 5e Eldar were trash by the same metrics. Same codex.

Similarly there were those who preferred the old daemonhunters even after the release of 5e GK.

Understandable really no?

3.5 chaos dex in 4th was peak CSM.

6-7th was peak mortal chaos with everything afterwards beeing very sucky.

Orks i am not even sure, 4th ed dex was quite liked overall.

If we're talking about the books themselves, and not necessarily the edition overall? 5th. The 5th edition Dark Eldar codex is probably my most satisfying codex purchase to date. Plus, I remember collecting codices as they came out that edition because they had lots of interesting lore and were cheaper than plastic.

Books around that time had plenty of lore. The black & white art had a charm that, while I don't want to trash talk the perfectly lovely modern art, I do miss. And generally, the flavor of most armies was on point. The SW codex made me want to run an army stuffed to the gills with heroes. The 'nid codex got me excited about fielding a bunch of creepy, customizable gribblies. The (infamously OP) GK codex made the army make sense, with each unit being able to shift between offense and defense buffing psychic powers backed up by teleporting characters. Dark Eldar got their kabal/cult/coven subfactions split up and acknowledged, but in a way that felt like fluffy recognition rather than a hoop you had to jump through. Plus they got the first and possibly best version of Power From Pain to date. And guard had their quirky multi-unit platoon shenanigans backed up by a bunch of fluffy HQs and Elites.

I'll complain about 5th edition nonstop, but the codices were satisfying. I'd love for them to go back to affordable paperbacks with black & white art.and lots of lore.

This is always going to be one of those things where there's enough redundancy book to book that nothing is ever quite as special as the first one you pick up that's entirely new.

Looking back, I instinctively want to say 3rd, but I also think that might be rose tinted glasses as that's the edition I started playing in. I like that it felt so free form and that you could basically just do and build whatever you wanted (At a casual level as that's all I played).

I feel like 5th was the edition that things really came together a lot for and felt like one of the best iteration of the tabletop wargaming aspect in terms of what a skirmish game could be. They also started getting more into the sub faction identities which I've always been a big fan of.

As for actual game balance and updates, I think we're in one of, if not the best places we've ever been. Yes there have been some issues, but it's nowhere near what it was in the past where things would go years or even longer without ever being addressed. My only real complaint about the current system is that it's very much focused on objective based gameplay and competitive balance and I do miss the more asymmetrical or alternative modes of editions past.

So overall, it's hard to say for me. Different editions had different parts of the game that were my favourite for different reasons. I have very fond memories of many editions for very different reasons.

I miss the 8th-style codexes because, in my experience, they were so stuffed to the gills compared to what came after. My SW 8th Codex and 9th supplement are day and night, though the 9th's art is better imo.

I know this thread is about the actual content of the codexes, but I miss softback codexes.

Nothing I have no experience with pre-3rd edition, I'd probably say the 3.5 dex era or 5th edition. 4th had some excellent codices like Orks, but the organization was atrocious - certain wargear was in the unit descriptions, not the wargear section, and same with some special rules and such, so you would need to flip through the entire book just to see what one thing does. It was absurd to the point that the wargear section HAD several items listed there, but then just said 'see page X'. I just glanced at the 4th Ork dex and on just a single page of the wargear section, FOURTEEN items say "see page X".

So yeah, 3.5 for the content and variable options, 5th for the organization. Special note goes to customization allowed in a lot of the Forge World books/lists as well like Corsairs and whatever they called Lost and the Damned.

There's no right answer, being a very personal opinion and completely subjective.

But

Personally, I have to go with late 3rd/4th edition too. This gave us the most characterful Chaos codex, but also brand spanking new armies like Tau, Necrons*, Demonhunters and Witchhunters. Plus we had add-on codices like Craftworld Eldar, Eye of Terror, and Armageddon with their peak-fluff mini lists. As 3rd and 4th went on, we got custom Marine Chapters, IG Regiments, and Hive Fleets (and others).

You can't really beat that time period for creative output, even if it didn't have the best balance.


*New for a codex, at least.

2nd ed created the format and set the standard.

I only like codexes that look like 2nd ed ones, so 3rd ed was dead to me when it came out.

late 4 to 5th had the reversion to 2nd ed style codexes so they were good. 6th onward was all glitz and little substance. They just relied on graphics over content.

Having more variety in the armies in later editions was fine, but the books weren't great.

It depends on what your after-if you want thematic play your looking heavily at the 3.5/4th ed codexes and a few 5th ed. everything past that really started pushing the power creep that started mid 5th. Much of this comes from the original game design team that created the universe mostly leaving the company and the sales department finally winning the battle. sure they came out with come really cool models in later editions, but the design ethos changed. with the older codexes you really got the feel every army sub faction played differently even if they were the same faction (space marines, imperial guard, eldar, orcs etc..) you also got rewarded for playing the army according to the lore.

that is why aside from a few 5th ed codexes many of the players in our oldhammer group use 3rd-4th ed codexes in our 5th ed games.

These are the preferred codexes our group usually uses(i also have the index astartes collections and all the forge world imperial armor books not pictured)- you will notice most are in fact 3rd or 4th.

 aphyon wrote:
It depends on what your after-if you want thematic play your looking heavily at the 3.5/4th ed codexes and a few 5th ed.

To be fair it does depend what rules you were playing under - books like 3.5 chaos and 4e eldar were the 5e grey knights and 6e taudar of their era - but 3e and 4e both reigned it in somewhat towards the end whereas the end of 5e into 6e just put the pedal to the floor.

Credit to 3rd for being the only edition of the first three not being 50% space marine though :p

 aphyon wrote:
These are the preferred codexes our group usually uses(i also have the index astartes collections and all the forge world imperial armor books not pictured)- you will notice most are in fact 3rd or 4th.

Spoiler:

How does your group use 7th ed deathwatch in a 5th edition game? I thought it was more difficult to make a codex backwards compatible than forwards.

 Sir Arun wrote:
How does your group use 7th ed deathwatch in a 5th edition game? I thought it was more difficult to make a codex backwards compatible than forwards.

3rd through to 7th are fundamentally the same rules when it comes to unit and weapon characteristics.
Psykers changed somewhat and a few USRs mean different things in different editions but otherwise a 7e unit looks much the same as a 3e unit.

The core edition rulebooks are where the real changes happen,

 Sir Arun wrote:

 aphyon wrote:
These are the preferred codexes our group usually uses(i also have the index astartes collections and all the forge world imperial armor books not pictured)- you will notice most are in fact 3rd or 4th.

Spoiler:

How does your group use 7th ed deathwatch in a 5th edition game? I thought it was more difficult to make a codex backwards compatible than forwards.

It is actually super easy-

use the points and gear from the new codex within the confines of 5th ed core rules. if there is a rule that doesn't exist in 5th use the equivalent USR it represents or just flat out ignore it of there is no corresponding USR. the example of desert strider as i mentioned above is supposed to represent the skitarii's ability to move over rough terrain, but it gives extra movement that is not compatible with 5th ed movement rules(every movement type is in 6" increments) . the equivalent rule is move through cover. so that is used in stead. As for Death Watch specifically we just use them within the framework of a stand alone force or as an inquisitorial allied force within the special allies rules set out in the demon hunter/witch hunter codexes.

As AT pointed out mechanically it is the same game from 3rd-7th. once you have settled on which core rule set you use it is pretty straight forward.