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.

With the newest IG Tank out, and me without a codex, are there any interesting tidbits on the Rogal Dorn tank? I'm hoping it's more than "It's been around blasting xenos for thousands of years".

I have read the codex front and back. Unless I have missed something there really is not any lore in the book about the tank. It just exists....

wiserhipponinjas wrote:
I have read the codex front and back. Unless I have missed something there really is not any lore in the book about the tank. It just exists....

This was one of the few times I was hoping they'd decide to include a page-long fluff story about it's (re)discovery and adoption back into Imperial service.

I wonder if the background for it, when some gets released, will explain the gaping hole in the underside...

wiserhipponinjas wrote:
I have read the codex front and back. Unless I have missed something there really is not any lore in the book about the tank. It just exists....

Sadly this whole edition the unit pages have been cut from Codex. It's a huge shame and EVERYONE should politely email GW to complain about this.

I greatly enjoy the page or so per unit type of art and lore that they get; sadly GW cut them from the books this round and that means many new units don't get a page giving us a bit more background on them. It's something I really hope they bring back in the next round of codex.

There’s basically nothing on it. Even Lexicanums page on it is pretty much bare.

The Adeptus Capitalistus were concerned that the Macharius was generating insufficient profit margins for the Imperium and so they fortunately "found" the STC for a new tank with a similar role that could replace it. That's about it though, beyond some vague comments that it's really big and has some cool guns and you should totally buy one.

I haven't played a game of 40k since before pandemic lockdowns, so I haven't been buying codex's. If they are stripping content, why are they still charging an arm and a leg? May as well go back to pamphlet style soft covers like 4th edition, save consumers money, and still rake in more profit per book. I know I'd buy a softcover for $30 if it had some minimal fluff in the margins.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I haven't played a game of 40k since before pandemic lockdowns, so I haven't been buying codex's. If they are stripping content, why are they still charging an arm and a leg? May as well go back to pamphlet style soft covers like 4th edition, save consumers money, and still rake in more profit per book. I know I'd buy a softcover for $30 if it had some minimal fluff in the margins.

short answer is they've added a load of crunch into the space previously occupied by fluff, namely the expanded subfactions, stratagems, warlord traits, relics that every army now has, and all the crusade rules.

I mean, theirs nothing stopping them adding all that AND keeping the lore sections, but thats what they have done.

 cuda1179 wrote:
If they are stripping content, why are they still charging an arm and a leg?

There is actually quite a lot of new lore in the codex. Each main regiment type gets two pages of fluff and the codex addresses combined-arms regiments too (yes, they are a thing now). There are also fluff pieces about some of the major worlds (Armageddon, Catachan) having a toughie during the Great Rift. The Catachan one is really good too. The nu-Cadians get their own lore, and Ursula has a really wholesome story and I really hope we will get a novel about her where a certain part is better shown than two sentences.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If they are stripping content, why are they still charging an arm and a leg?

There is actually quite a lot of new lore in the codex. Each main regiment type gets two pages of fluff and the codex addresses combined-arms regiments too (yes, they are a thing now). There are also fluff pieces about some of the major worlds (Armageddon, Catachan) having a toughie during the Great Rift. The Catachan one is really good too. The nu-Cadians get their own lore, and Ursula has a really wholesome story and I really hope we will get a novel about her where a certain part is better shown than two sentences.

This has done more to make me consider buying the book than anything else. The rules changes have been very disappointing to me, so some actually new lore is promising.

The 8th ed codex offered basically nothing new.

 cuda1179 wrote:
If they are stripping content, why are they still charging an arm and a leg? May as well go back to pamphlet style soft covers like 4th edition, save consumers money, and still rake in more profit per book.

Comparing the SoB codexs the length is about the same but the rules content seems to be bulked out primarily by better formatting. It is a lot easier to read but does mean the lore section gets trimmed for the rules. It's OK for the units about in 8th Ed as you can always refer back to that book but anything introduced in 9th is bang out of luck. That leads to the odd situation where some of the more esoteric choices have more lore then something more core but released in 9th. It also means if you have a army you want primarily as a hobby project the 9th Ed codex's aren't all that useful (lack of flavour and less pictures), luckily 8th Ed codexs can be picked up for a fiver.

I think with what they are charging they could more than afford to put more fluff in. Failing that surely a page or two of stratagems could be sacrificed?

It is really great to hear that what's in there is good though. I've found GWs fluff writing these days to be quite excellent overall, with many critics simply confusing 'lore I don't like' and 'writing quality'.

Tallonian4th wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:
If they are stripping content, why are they still charging an arm and a leg? May as well go back to pamphlet style soft covers like 4th edition, save consumers money, and still rake in more profit per book.

Comparing the SoB codexs the length is about the same but the rules content seems to be bulked out primarily by better formatting. It is a lot easier to read but does mean the lore section gets trimmed for the rules. It's OK for the units about in 8th Ed as you can always refer back to that book but anything introduced in 9th is bang out of luck. That leads to the odd situation where some of the more esoteric choices have more lore then something more core but released in 9th. It also means if you have a army you want primarily as a hobby project the 9th Ed codex's aren't all that useful (lack of flavour and less pictures), luckily 8th Ed codexs can be picked up for a fiver.

I’m actually wondering with the Imperium Magazines, if they have contained any pieces of new fluff, since every new issue contains lore pages. It would actually incentivise me to perchance get a subscription.

i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

That would be scrapping the bottom of the barrel for humor. And just ring hollow. But who are we to go missing the low jokes?

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

This would be unfair because the lore actually exists, it just isn't much.

Seen speculation it’s something Terran regiments were greedily keeping to themselves.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

This would be unfair because the lore actually exists, it just isn't much.

There's, what, maybe two paragraphs in the 'dex, neither of which actually say anything significant?

 Dysartes wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

This would be unfair because the lore actually exists, it just isn't much.

There's, what, maybe two paragraphs in the 'dex, neither of which actually say anything significant?

...

well we reached the bottom of the bottomless pit then for lore.
Clearly it had to be sacrificed to keep C.S: Goto contained.


jokes asside, imagine if GW instead of creating this tank just decided to grant us a plastic malcador or macharius?

 Dysartes wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

This would be unfair because the lore actually exists, it just isn't much.

There's, what, maybe two paragraphs in the 'dex, neither of which actually say anything significant?

Just one, but it is still more than nothing. Very much unlike the tank's bottom.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

This would be unfair because the lore actually exists, it just isn't much.

There's, what, maybe two paragraphs in the 'dex, neither of which actually say anything significant?

Just one, but it is still more than nothing. Very much unlike the tank's bottom.

One by the datasheet, one on column 3 of page 32 (Armoured regiments).

 Dysartes wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
i am surprised no one joked about the lore for the rogal dorn, being as existant as the floorplate of it.

This would be unfair because the lore actually exists, it just isn't much.

There's, what, maybe two paragraphs in the 'dex, neither of which actually say anything significant?

Just one, but it is still more than nothing. Very much unlike the tank's bottom.

One by the datasheet, one on column 3 of page 32 (Armoured regiments).

I only count the one in the lore section, because I'm fairly sure the datasheet blurb is literally a copy-paste from there.