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.

Before I was happy to leave 40k as a sort of hazy, basic understanding in the back of my mind. But some of the fluff that I've read, especially Horus Heresy and Chaos/Chaos Marine stuff, seems really cool.

Just wondering where's the best place to start in getting a solid understanding of the 40k setting? Don't need *all* of the details, just a nice, solid comprehension of the good bits of the fluff.

wh40k.lexicanium.com

warhammer40k.wikia.com

Covers a lot of stuff you may find in the RPG books as well.


For a Quick Fun Summary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MeVxKZBOfM

For a Serious Summary:
There is a good series called "Fluff for the Uninitiated."

Hope that helps.

-Dert

Refer to the direct GW publications such as the Codices for the most canonical information.

I would advise against any wiki such as Lexicanum or the 40K wikia for the simple reason that these are unreliable since they paraphrase information and often cite unreliably. This can result in false information or fan interpretation and speculation being mixed in with the GW information, with no way of separating the two unless you are familiar with the topic yourself.

Warhammer 40k wiki! Great source of information on pretty much everything 40k

Another vote for Lexicanum, a fan-made encyclopedia. Just like the wikipedia, but about w40k and wfb.

Google it.

True, sometimes it is unreliable (just like the wikipedia), but then again the background itself is unreliable too. There are many people out there that read something in a black library book or in a codex and assume it is the "established canon". There is no such thing. There is not "canonical information". We look at the 41st millennium through a glass of legends, propaganda and lies.

Lexicanum is big, free and well organized. You can jump from one subject to other, and spend hours reading about w40k.

Honestly, the best thing for what you're after is probably the rulebook (fluff section). Followed by the codices of whatever faction(s) you want to learn more about.

But what if you like Chaos? Grey Knights? The Inquisition?
The Sisters of Battle?

The current codices are... not good. The stuff you can find about these armies is truly amazing, but it is not there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Liber Sororitas.
The Liber Chaotica.
The Index Astartes.
This is not third edition. Good stuff is no longer in the codex.

And yet, it's a starting point. Which is what the OP asked for. Also, notice I said "codices", plural which isn't exclusive to 6th ed. If you're interested in a certain faction, there's nothing stopping you from shopping around for those 3rd and 4th ed army books.

But it costs you a lot of money. The game is already too expensive.

Lexicanum (and many other wikis) or forums are free, and have more (and better) content.

I've got the 3rd ed rulebook coming in the mail. I remember it from when I first played years ago and picked one up cheap.

My understanding of the codexes is that they just repackage the same old fluff in each edition. Will I actually find something different and worth reading (ie, not retconned!) in an older codex? If so, don't mind shelling out a little as I can usually get them pretty cheap

I would recommend picking up the background material organically. If what you want is a list of possibly dubious facts, take a wiki-walk through the Lexicanum. If you want to develop a feel for the actual universe from a human perspective, read (at least the first three books of) the Horus Heresy and then read Gaunt's Ghosts. While it's a lot of reading, every single one of those books is great, and you'll probably fall in love with them. The major fallback is that they don't deal with xenos much at all, and almost entirely focus on the human/SM struggle against Chaos. But if that's what you're interested in (and it seems like maybe you are), then that's where you should start.

The rulebook fluff is great. Codex fluff is great for going in-depth on a particular faction. Lexicanum and other online sources build really well on those two sources. And of course, there is the Black Library.

If you're keen on the Horus Heresy, see if you can find a copy of the previous edition CSM codex. It covers it in reasonable detail (albeit in a very Chaos-friendly manner). The current book does too, but it's more expensive to buy and much harder to borrow.

Lexicanum is fine. As long as you don't get embroiled in an argument using Lexicanum as your only source all will be well

True. But I think it is the same if you get embroiled in an argument using a novel or a codex as your only source.
The sources contradict each other. The background changes, brutally fast and without warning, with every release.

I agree with the 6E rulebook being an excellent place to start for a "solid understanding". It offers a good common ground upon which the rest of the franchise may build upon.

It is of note, however, that even this common ground is conflicting with some sources on various details, for example the Horus Heresy and its authors' idea regarding immortal Primarchs. Ultimately, "there is no canon", but a lot of inspiration we may adopt. I would suggest doing a big scoop around using different sources, and then focusing on those you like more - be it because you like their style and focus, or their consistency.
Personally, I am biased for GW's own material, as compared to the ever-changing novels, where every single author has their own idea on how stuff works, the amount of things that have changed in the Codices are comparatively small.

da001 wrote:True. But I think it is the same if you get embroiled in an argument using a novel or a codex as your only source.
The sources contradict each other. The background changes, brutally fast and without warning, with every release.

The problem with Lexicanum is that it still claims that there is a consistent setting and that eveything ties into each other, misleading the reader into believing in a sort of "fact" or "truth" that does not exist. That, and of course that the editors have a lot of personal influence on how an article ends up, especially when it comes to "sorting out" what to adopt and what to dismiss from various sources. Take the Deathwatch article, for example, which is currently contradicting itself by placing the DW under command of the Inquisition, yet at the same time sources most of its content from FFG's Deathwatch RPG, which features a different interpretation of this organisation that is not subservient to the Inquisition at all.

Lexicanum is a bit like "headcanon" where we as readers cherrypick bits and pieces from different sources and make them fit together the way we see it. Just that Lexicanum is, for some reason, a headcanon that is almost universally accepted as some form of "true" representation of the setting.

What this wiki is good at, however, is serving as a sort of index on where to read up on the things you find interesting. For even though the actual source does not always state what a Lexicanum article claims it says (as was the case with the supposed appearance of Miriael Sabathiel in Codex fluff, or a considerable mistake regarding the numbers of SoB), whenever a source is presented you will at least know where to read up on the original writing, unchanged by a wiki editor's personal interpretation or bias.

 Lynata wrote:

da001 wrote:True. But I think it is the same if you get embroiled in an argument using a novel or a codex as your only source.
The sources contradict each other. The background changes, brutally fast and without warning, with every release.

The problem with Lexicanum is that it still claims that there is a consistent setting and that eveything ties into each other, misleading the reader into believing in a sort of "fact" or "truth" that does not exist. That, and of course that the editors have a lot of personal influence on how an article ends up, especially when it comes to "sorting out" what to adopt and what to dismiss from various sources. Take the Deathwatch article, for example, which is currently contradicting itself by placing the DW under command of the Inquisition, yet at the same time sources most of its content from FFG's Deathwatch RPG, which features a different interpretation of this organisation that is not subservient to the Inquisition at all.

Lexicanum is a bit like "headcanon" where we as readers cherrypick bits and pieces from different sources and make them fit together the way we see it. Just that Lexicanum is, for some reason, a headcanon that is almost universally accepted as some form of "true" representation of the setting.

What this wiki is good at, however, is serving as a sort of index on where to read up on the things you find interesting. For even though the actual source does not always state what a Lexicanum article claims it says (as was the case with the supposed appearance of Miriael Sabathiel in Codex fluff, or a considerable mistake regarding the numbers of SoB), whenever a source is presented you will at least know where to read up on the original writing, unchanged by a wiki editor's personal interpretation or bias.

You are right: Lexicanum gives a false illusion of internal coherence, many articles have problems, the editors are unfathomable when accepting or discarding a source and serves mostly as a starting point.
But:
1) it is FREE. This can not be ignored in our hobby.
2) It has lots of information that can entertain a newcomer for hours or days, picking subjects at pleasure, turning him/her into a fanatic fluff addict, eager to enter the background forums and to explain to others the awesomeness of the setting, his/her mind no longer able to turn back to normality.

Also, I am assuming that the OP owns the Rulebook and has read the background section, since he has some knowledge of Chaos and the Heresy. Coming to think of it, it should be the first step. But then, before getting an expensive codex/novel, I think some hours reading stuff on a wiki (and in forums) will give him a solid understanding of the 40k setting.

You have a point, of course. Price consideration is often a big factor, especially nowadays, and especially for new fans. I guess I'm just a bit miffed that a lot of people will have their perception of the setting shaped by reading some mishmash on Lexicanum, rather than being able to have a "fresh" start and form their own opinion. That wiki features a lot of fluff from certain outsourced products that just make me want to flip tables. And often, the first impression will be the one that is most lasting...

I guess one could say it's a blessing and a curse?

Then again, this is the age of the internet, and just like it isn't too hard to find one of those wikis, it isn't too hard to find full copies of original material (even legally, such as looking at the many PDFs still hosted on GW's website, or using archive.org to surf their old stuff), or talk to the fans.
Just knowing that Lexicanum isn't the end-all-be-all is half the battle. I still like it as an index of sorts, so I certainly wouldn't want to see it gone entirely.

 Lynata wrote:
For even though the actual source does not always state what a Lexicanum article claims it says (as was the case with the supposed appearance of Miriael Sabathiel in Codex fluff,

It's the 40K wiki that says that about Miriael, not the Lexicanum. The Lexicanum hardly mentions her, from what I've seen.

Troike wrote:It's the 40K wiki that says that about Miriael, not the Lexicanum. The Lexicanum hardly mentions her, from what I've seen.

That's because Lexicanum editors also frequent dakka, and I've mentioned that mistake in the past.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Talk:Adepta_Sororitas#Miriael_Sabathiel

 Troike wrote:

 Lynata wrote:
For even though the actual source does not always state what a Lexicanum article claims it says (as was the case with the supposed appearance of Miriael Sabathiel in Codex fluff,

It's the 40K wiki that says that about Miriael, not the Lexicanum. The Lexicanum hardly mentions her, from what I've seen.

Which is in itself a problem. The main Adepta Sororitas page should include a reference to the only sister to ever fall to chaos, thus stressing the nearly absolute resistance to corruption in the Sisterhood, which is in itself a defining trait for them and a mystery for the players to wonder.

Given that Lexicanum accepts Black Library books as canon, this makes no sense. It is a fail, but I will still recommend the site.

 Lynata wrote:

Troike wrote:It's the 40K wiki that says that about Miriael, not the Lexicanum. The Lexicanum hardly mentions her, from what I've seen.

That's because Lexicanum editors also frequent dakka, and I've mentioned that mistake in the past.

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Talk:Adepta_Sororitas#Miriael_Sabathiel

Ah, interesting.

Which is in itself a problem. The main Adepta Sororitas page should include a reference to the only sister to ever fall to chaos, thus stressing the nearly absolute resistance to corruption in the Sisterhood, which is in itself a defining trait for them and a mystery for the players to wonder.

Miriael isn't a studio character, though. She makes her one-and-only appearance in a CCG produced by a 3rd party company. By studio products, there are exactly zero Sisters who have ever willingly turned to Chaos.

But Lexicanum accepts stuff from Black Library books. Miriael features in The Invitation, by Dan Abnett.

Then you have the contradiction that there are some Black Library books that say Miriael is special because she's the only one who got corrupted - and other books that literally throw Chaos Sisters at you - and GW fluff stating they are "utterly incorruptible" (yes, exact wording)...

You can't just rubber-stamp everything and expect it to be consistent when the authors have no interest in writing it that way; if one were to be anal about it, more than every 2nd article on Lexicanum would need to have a "Canon Conflicts" section just because almost always something will be contradicted elsewhere. And even where Black Library, FFG or Forge World simply fills "gaps" left by the core studio, you obviously can't say whether this is actually an intended portrayal, yet this is what the wiki suggests.

That's the big problem with 40k - fans not using the material as it was intended to be used.

"The flaw is in how people try to apply other licenses' attitudes to canon, then blame 40K for not making sense. Well, no, of course not. That's like assuming a tree is a banana tree, then saying it's wrong for having apples in its branches. The tree's fine. The expectation is what was wrong."
- Aaron Dembski-Bowden

 da001 wrote:
But Lexicanum accepts stuff from Black Library books. Miriael features in The Invitation, by Dan Abnett.

I don't care what Lexicanum does or does not accept, or what Mr. Abnett does or does not write. I like his books well enough, but even he will tell you that he writes from the perspective of his envisioning of the 40K universe, which he calls the "Daniverse", and is just his view on it.

canon, arguments, souces

Lol not gonna go near any of this. Did my dash with this type of thing a few years back, never ever gonna use the word 'canon' in a serious manner again

Will read whats been suggested and form my own personal interpretation based on what I like or prefer from the background. Then just leave it at that.

Is there a good novel for Orks by any chance?

mandatory recommendation: Deff Skwadron

I've posted a short excerpt in this thread.

I also started by watching the "fluff for the uninitiated" series on YouTube and I really enjoyed it. Great material to listen to while painting!

 da001 wrote:
But it costs you a lot of money.

Welcome to Warhammer.

 Anfauglir wrote:

 da001 wrote:
But it costs you a lot of money.

Welcome to Warhammer.

Thank you!
On the other side: you can get lots of information from the web... for free!. And I am not even talking about illegal options here.
So welcome to the Internet!

You might also like to try the "Warhammer 40k, fluff for the uninitiated." videos on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Fraxxxi?feature=watch