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'm not really planning on buying any new 40k stuff any time soon, but from the review I'd say I definitely like the look of the layout in the new Ork codex. I always hated how everything was split up and I had to thumb back and forth for each separate model. I'm not sure how I feel about the artwork being replaced, but I certainly could live with it.

That being said, I still would prefer the 5th edition style wargear selection, where all the options for a given unit are on the page. It also makes more sense to me as certain pieces of wargear should cost more for certain units.

Shiny photos of models aside, I must say the artwork that is new to the art work is somewhat.....uninspired. It looks generic as if it could be grabbed from any miniatures company or video game, or stock artwork on some £2 app. It just doesn't have any soul. You only have to look at the Daemons book to see that GW is capable of some pretty inspiring and unique illustrations, but all of the new artwork just lacks any of these things. They look like orcs. Not orks.

 easysauce wrote:
well, my IG codex has no art, AT ALL, by the rules pages that actually have pts values on them....

but if they did orks like they did IG, people would complain its too bland...

I dont know what you are talking about. Codex Eldar, Tau, Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Daemons, Dark Angels, Tyranids and Imperial Guard all follow the same structuring and layout.

Codex Space Marines is a special snowflake with a much larger background section, but otherwise also roughly the same; codex Imperial Knights rather follows the supplement layout, as do the others like Farsight Enclaves, Clan Raukaan, Iyanden, Sentinels of Terra, Crimson Slaughter, Legion of the Damned and MT.

 easysauce wrote:
but if they did orks like they did IG, people would complain its too bland...

I don't have my IG codex in front of me to check whether or not it has images in the army list section, but do yo really think people would complain about it if the few pages that make up the army list section didn't have any art work? I don't really think people would complain about that, maybe a few odd outliers, but I doubt many at all. As long as the rest of the codex is chock full of orky pictures, and I'm sure GW would do their standard thing of using faction specific page borders/dividers which adds character.

I think people are too eager to jump on the "can't please everyone" train. Sure, I'm sure they'll never do anything that pleases everyone, but there's a feth ton of stuff they could do to please a larger portion of people. After all, this poll is currently 3:1 in favour of artwork (I actually think it would be even more if the question were worded better, since the poll answers are actually about the artwork more than the layout and some people may prefer the layout but not the lack of artwork).

To me this just looks kinda tacky. The artwork is not only cooler, it's also classier. I used to feel like I wasn't just paying for the rules, but rather for the illustrations and fluff as well. Why would I want a picture of the miniatures? I can just go to the photo gallery section, or I could just cut the front off of a box and keep that. It's a shame if they've decided to go this way.

I found all the artwork i wanted, in the first half of the book....

lots of fluff and artwork in the fluff and artwork section of the book...

the rules sections has all the rules and pts, and on top of it, pics of the models the rules are for...

compared to say, IG, where its fluff+ artwork in the fluff art section, and 0 pictures, of anything, in the rules part.

sorry, but why are people QQ'ing about this?

Not sure about other people, but I really dislike how 1/5 of a page is rules making it harder and more time consuming to compare units and check on things in game. The pictures of models rather than artwork is just another "GW is silly" thing to me.

If I wanted to look at pictures of the models I have the entire internet for that. It's the same reason I don't buy Warhammer Visions. I really don't get why GW can't understand this.

 easysauce wrote:
I found all the artwork i wanted, in the first half of the book....

lots of fluff and artwork in the fluff and artwork section of the book...

the rules sections has all the rules and pts, and on top of it, pics of the models the rules are for...

compared to say, IG, where its fluff+ artwork in the fluff art section, and 0 pictures, of anything, in the rules part.

sorry, but why are people QQ'ing about this?

Because there is more art in the IG, because the bestiary part with the rules had art for each unit. The army list didn't but no one is complaining that the army list was too bland, it's just a list of the models and points. I'd rather have art with my units because there's already a photo gallery in the middle of the bloody book and all the photos/360 views I could ever ask for on the website.

I wouldnt mind if GW did this replacing art with photos thing from the next cycle of codices on, but I had hoped they would complete this cycle with the color transition of the artworks from the last cycle for the remaining armies that hadnt been updated.

 Yonan wrote:
Not sure about other people, but I really dislike how 1/5 of a page is rules making it harder and more time consuming to compare units and check on things in game. The pictures of models rather than artwork is just another "GW is silly" thing to me.

Yea...back in the day, the unit's profile was what made it unique, and even the most specialized units only had one or two special rules. Made gameplay go a lot faster.

I think it's an improvement for layout, but the model pictures look a little bit cheep and rushed.
Maybe by 8th they will have got it up to the standard, but will realy see once a codex comes out I will buy.

Really dislike the new layout of the books, one of my favorite things about the 6th edition books was the lovely full colored art that really brought the setting to life.

Am I the only one that didn't care at all about the art? I couldn't describe a single illustration in the SW codex and I've flipped through it hundreds of times. I don't buy a codex for illustrations or fluff, I buy it for the rules to play my army and the pictures of the models for painting ideas. Bigger pictures means it's easier for me to see how they achieved certain effects in the painting process and replicate them or use them as inspiration myself. I also completely skipped the fluff section (wolf wolf wolfity wolf. Wolfy wolf? Wolf!) From talking to 4 or 5 local ork players, they seem to be flipping back and forth less than they did with the old layout. I can't wait to see what my new codex looks like. The SW codex has always seemed a little thin for me compared to C:SM

I don't mind the artwork being replaced all that much to be honest. When it comes to getting a codex, the reason I buy it is because of the fluff and the rules, so I could care less about the unit entries having art or pictures. I will say it sucks that the deffkopta and warbuggy entries have the old models. They really should've released updated models just for that reason, those units look out of place next to the more 'modern' orks.

The layout itself is nice. I still wish they would've kept the 5th edition idea of having all options a unit has on one page, rather than putting some of them before the dataslates. Most of the rules and stuff being moved to the reference is good though, it should make looking things up a lot easier.

I think they still have a lot they could improve regarding the new layout, but I'm liking it so far.

I think the layout is a giant step in the right direction. Although the pictures are a bit large and I'm not a fan of the italics.

I did NOT like the previous editions where you read about the unit then had to flip over to see point costs, then flip back to read that units special rules, then flip to the end to read the book for the units wargear. Then flip through several pages because you weren't sure where a certain rule was even located because the details are on a page specific to a completely unrelated unit. That was just stupid.

What I'd rather see:

0. Table of Contents. Note that the units should appear in the following order regardless of section: HQ, Elite, Troop, Fast Attack, Heavy and they should be in alphabetical order within that section.

1. Introduction and History of the Race. Including a subsection for each specific "warband" or division within the race.

2. Model pictures, including callouts listing specific paints necessary for the shown schemes. Big pictures go here. I am not a fan buying paint "guides" that just list the paints you should buy and think they should be rolled in.

3. Unit specific histories. One page per unit with a picture (not shown in the previous section) that takes no more than 1/4 of the page. The other 3/4 should be text that covers specific details and or historical facts about the unit. It would be nice if the "facts" showed how the unit is expected to be used on the table top. In other words, don't give a story about an elite unit wiping out a marine squad or appearing out of nowhere to assault a Tau gunline if that simply isn't possible (or even probable) within the game mechanics.

4. Army wide details. Including detachment organization, all special rules used by any units in the army, psychic powers, warlord traits, wargear, etc. Should be laid out in a "reference" type way that is easy to look up what a specific gun does. For example list all of the weapons with their AP/S/etc AND the weapon cost in a grid style, then on subsequent pages give additional details for those weapons.

5. Unit break down. Unit name, costs, options, and description of unit specific rules. Note that the unit specific rules should also be repeated in the Army wide details for completion. Each page should be able to fit between 2 and 4 units. The only pages I should have to flip to would be for wargear or common special rules.

This should eliminate the need for a reference section at the end and would absolutely make it easier to locate info.

Jeez what the hell is GW thinking with all these model pictures. I mean, the rulebook, warhammer visions, and now the damn codex's? When I was younger sure I like looking at the "cool pictures" but now, especially with the GW website, they are fairly uninteresting.

Furthermore, back in 5th edition I bought every codex, in 6th edition (With the 50 ish dollar books), I only bought the books I was particularly interested in. Now with these changes, it looks like I will only buying codexes I need to play.