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.

How do!

It’s another thread which likely doesn’t have a single answer. And it’s in the title. When do you reckon was the Golden Age of 40k’s background development.

A trite answer may be 2nd Ed, which took everything from Rogue Trader, and began rationalising it. Some of the weirder stuff fell by the wayside (Illuminati, Starchild etc), but the majority made it through. Indeed, Orks have only barely changed.

But I think it was later than that, as even during 2nd Ed stuff was still in flux. For instance, Orks getting physically larger and stronger the more fights they win was a 3rd Ed thing (maybe Gorka Morka?). But I’d argue, for The Imperium, we need to take a wee side step and look to [i]Inquisitor[/b] and Battlefleet Gothic

Between then, those games fleshed stuff out on the small and colossal scale. Inquisitor introduced Radical and Puritan, and stuff like Horusians, Monodominants, Thorians etc. BFG codified the size and scope of Imperial and Chaos Fleets, building on the 2nd Ed introduced “Chaos has riskier, less refund but generally more destructive weapons” by applying it to their ships as well, which for the most part are formerly Imperial ships, or at least Imperial Originating Designs and Patterns. We also started to see Abaddon as a Big Picture Kinda Guy, rather than just a charismatic loony leading strikes of of opportunity. And that includes 2003’s BFG Armada expansion book.

BFG also really explored the deliberate, post Heresy division of assets. Yes, Astartes had their own fleets, but clearly geared toward rapid planetary assaults, and intended to work best in other types of engagement with regular Naval support.

But how about you? I guess a litmus for the cutoff might be “what was the last significant addition you truly loved”.

I really thought that it was the RPGs that filled in so much of the story we love.

I know it's not 40k, but WHFR had more about the goings on in the world than the rest of the Rulebooks combined.

I feel that RPGs (and RPG-lite games, ie Necromunda and Inquisitor) really allowed a deep di e of the lore and attempted to make the universe a living breathing environment.

2nd through 3rd was peak IMHO.

The wild chaos of RT was being tamed and codified into a cohesive setting. Things were being fleshed out. And was when the gamers seemed to still be in charge, not the suits and marketing guys.

I would say there's a couple different eras that added a lot of really great stuff.

The first for me would've been around 2001-2002 with Necromunda/Inquisitor and GW just letting Dan Abnett go to town on just about anything he touched.

The second would be the era of FFG, around 2007. So much fantastic material was coming in through Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, Deathwatch, etc.

The third would be the Horus Heresy Black Books, 2011-2017. Alan Bligh (who along with John French, also contributed a sizable chunk to the second era) introduced one great concept after another, really turning the Heresy into a whole extra setting rather than just a backstory for 40k.

Th fungus spore reproduction cycle and ork embiggening as they fight were introduced in Gorka morka, so that's still 2nd Ed.

The only real faction retcons I can't think of that happens post 2nd Ed is the necrons. You could argue that those were themselves retconned from the earlier 3rd Ed retconns, because 2nd Ed left them completely mysterious so there wasn't a lot to retcon....

But if you took every piece of 40k publishing up to the day before 3rd Ed was released, I think you'd find 95% of 40k existed by that point.

Maybe not particular characters or events, but the structure and beats were all there. It didn't go through any revisions beyond that point.

 Nevelon wrote:
2nd through 3rd was peak IMHO.

The wild chaos of RT was being tamed and codified into a cohesive setting. Things were being fleshed out. And was when the gamers seemed to still be in charge, not the suits and marketing guys.

I'd second this. RT felt all over the place. 2nd ed felt much more 'thought through', like it had simmered to the point of being something
special. Then games like Necromunda and BFG appeared which kind of brought the setting more into the forefront on the gaming table for me than the green flocked tables with bunkers and boulders was achieving.

The Golden Age? During Rogue Trader, but not at the very beginning. The RT rulebook and Book of the Astronomican sounded like almost purely Rick Priestley's voice to me. It was really when 40K became a success and other voices added to the setting that the Golden Age happened:

Bryan Ansell with the three Project Ork books, which described the Orkish Clans, and Realm of Chaos - Slaves to Darkness, which introduced Chaos into the setting.

Jes Goodwin with the Craftworld Eldar update, including the Paths and the Aspect Warriors.

Jervis and the other writers on Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine, which laid out the Horus Heresy in some detail (though obviously not in the detail that would eventually be created!).

This was the Golden Age, IMO.

To me, the Silver Age was that next really creatively fecund period when John Blanche concepted the art for and Gav Thorpe designed Inquisitor, and of course Dan Abnett's tie-in novel series, which did so much to show us the parts of the 40K universe that weren't on the battlefield. Blanche was really on a tear during this period, when his Mordheim illustrations gave the Empire its new visual identity.

I guess the Bronze Age would be pretty long, the development of the Horus Heresy setting, all the way from the Sabertooth card game through the end of the novel series, the really the first few of those books did so much to set the scene of the Heresy era and make it feel distinct from the 41st Millennium.

1st through 3rd ed 40k for me. The 3rd ed codex collections are just too good, and added some important factions. Dark Eldar, Tau and Necrons were introduced (more fleshed out in the case of Necrons), the Chaos 3.5 book is great for the Legions and a number of characters, the IG 3.5 has a great array of regiments listed and bring the Doctrine system providing tons of flavor. 3rd is also when Forge World started publishing material like Imperial Armor, which is also nice stuff. Battkefleet Gothic is covered during 3rd ed 40k too, and a lot of that is great. The Daemonhunters and Witchhunters books were also 3rd ed, and those are great. Deathwatch was also introduced in late 3rd iirc. 3rd ed is also the time when the art department really brought their A game, and while that's not written fluff, it might be at least equally imlortant.

The one caveat I would give is for Dark Eldat, and I think most fans would want to include their 5th ed book for fluff and worldbuilding. But that's a shining light in an era of Bloodstuffs GK baby carriers, Wolfy McWolfstuffs and every chapter aspiring to be Ultramarines, so part of a "golden era" it is not.

I'm trying to think of what was added in 4th. Orks got a new codex in late 4th but fluffwise they already have their great 1st and 2nd edition books. Similar with Eldar, their 4th ed book was fine but fluffwise their 2nd ed book was still the go-to source. Tyranids had a great book too but I'm not sure it did much fluffwise as well. Can't remember.

I agree with Insectum I think. The peak of 40K for me was right before Abaddon's 13th black crusade. Once they actually DID the crusade, I feel the background got steadily worse. Once the background was handed off to the younger generation of studio people I think it got a lot worse. There are still gems here and there, like the Dark Eldar and Ork codices, and the Imperial Armour books are all pretty great. But I think a lot of elements I dislike started to creep in after the 13th Black Crusade.

And I think the increasing reliance on novels for the background has been extremely detrimental to the setting. I enjoy the novels so I'm a hypocrite here but I think the shift to the background being delivered in novels has brought a shift to how it is perceived - an ongoing story with main characters instead of a setting that is a big place where you will not be missed.

To be fair, I much prefer novels that are smaller in scope - the closer to the big events the Heresy novels went, the more disappointing they became. Snapshots of the Legions during the Great Crusade - cool, though giant Primarchs will never not be stupid. But the detailing of background that should have remained ambiguous or mythical like Horus turning or the final battles of the siege of Terra were a big disappointment, especially because of Abnett not being reigned in and prevented from putting his special OCs everywhere and linking everything to his plots in Abnettverse 40K.

He did a lot for the setting with his early Gaunt's Ghosts novels but I begin to feel he's doing more harm than good by now.

I know my view is in the minority and if you weren't around before the novels were such a huge deal it'd be hard to understand why I feel the way I do. But the peak of 40K was before the mystery started to be mined out it, and the potential began to be realised in disappointing ways.

I got in around 3rd edition, before the 3.5 chaos codex.
That's where 40k peaked for me. Not at one particular moment, but let's say all the way up to 5th I would say.
At 3rd it was more or less modern 40k as a setting.

But it wasn't like today where everything is detailed and borderline written in stone.
It was much more wild and suggestive. The rulebook really drives that home to me.
The art was just unhinged. It was oozing with character. It made no attempt at depicting actual events or things.
You looked at any one tiny little image and it would convey emotionally [u]what 40k was.

It had a huge impact on me.
Then after that we starting fleshing out the factions and the lore more and more, making it much more tangible and grounded.
With new art to go with it that was still creative but also more technical for lack of a better word, but in a good way.
We have the perfect blend.

They are putting out some nice art today, but it's...boring? That's not the right word for it but it doesn't hit you in the same way.
For example, people are comparing the modern repentia to the sexy ones, but those were a footnote.
3ed witch hunters had arguably even more hardcore imagery for repentia.

For me, the new art is brutal sure, but the old sisters art made them out as much more unhinged.
Like to a point were it was no longer trying to be realistic and became something...more/else,
Any one image there told you everything you need to know about the faction. And it was like that with other art from the era as well.

So long story short, between 3rd and 5th or so. For me, 40k was better for being less defined.
It evoked emotions more so that trying to tell fleshed out stories.
Where entire lore passages were little more than a single quote somewhere and the rest was up to the reader.

On the art? Perhaps less evocative?

Certainly whilst I’ve nothing against the modern art work we get, it’s the pencil and ink black and white stuff which appeals the most.

Not to go too artsy but I would argue the modern work has pushed far more down the illustrative path than in the past.

Illustrations are like visual instruction manuals, there to convey information about the subject.

Older art had a bit more artsy ness to it, with unfinished edges, impressionistic background characters etc. then of course blanche was pure artist, his work entirely about evoking atmosphere and feeling rather than 1:1 illustrating a miniature.

Certainly the atmosphere and soul of 40k appears in my mind as blanche art.

The modern art is technically proficient but very literal, to ensure the new customer completely understands what the product is.

Yeah I’d agree with that.

Whilst strong images all, the early artworks were often more “zoomed in”, showing only part of what’s going on.

Modern stuff is busier, showing much more of the ongoing battle or scene.

I do have to question the prescription of my Rose Tinteds here of course. As a snivelling lirrul Grot when first exposed to Warhammer, it is of course the art of that early/earlier era that pulled me in. And now I’m in? The new stuff isn’t doing that job for me, because that job remains jobbed.

Something I will praise about all era of the art, is that it’s super rare for it to feature something that isn’t already a model, or can’t be recreated in models. Sure. Some need a fair amount of conversion, scratch build and kitbash to achieve. But even if my skills aren’t up to it, my mind can see what bits I’d pinch from where to have a crack at it. And for someone entirely new to the setting? That’s got to be important. To be able to reflect pretty much any visible artwork in their own army?

All those little snippets in the 3rd Big Black Book

Part of the fun in the olden days was trying to convert models to look like characters found in the art. That has basically gone with the current artistic approach.

Ill say that gap at the tail-end of 2nd all the way up to 3.5

Actually, I have to retract part of my statement.
I am going over the 3rd edition rulebook right now and I am surprised by how detailed some of the images are. They even have actual technical drawings.so I guess third had it all. Because the unhinged stuff is just as I remember it. Like doors that would be the size of skyscrapers, battlefields of 90% skulls and fire....so..many..skull. Literal mountains at times.

And I hear ya on the snippets. They're on every other page. There is almost no page without either art or some snippet of lore.

"For a space marine, the bolter is more than a weapon. It is an instrument of the glory of mankind, a messenger of death for its enemies, who's thunderous roar is a prayer to the gods of war" Just casually strewn in amongst rule paragraphs.

I think my favourite thing about the artwork and said snippets?

In the olden days of Rogue Trader and 2nd Ed? They absolutely were filler. A way to pad out a rule book or source book and so on.

Now, I’d argue any rulebook about a sci-fi or fantasy setting is going to need illustrations, to show the denizens and set the mood.

But when you’ve unashamedly gone for filler? Just…little bits of art, here and there. Doesn’t matter too much what it’s of exactly, provided it fills the blank and looks the part.

And that, Ladies, Gentlement, Those Undecided And Everyone Else not in those Categories?

That part of what makes GW books and background so compelling. Tiny, random glimpses.

From Cyber-Cherubs to Squigs to Snots to Pistols to I Dunno What That Is But By My Hairy Arse It Looks Cool to weird hairstyles to insignia to livery to A Cool Looking Corpse and all these teeny tiny individually largely insignificant little gubbins.

MON DIEU*! I’ve been an idiot.

Liber Chaotica. The perfection of distillation of everything Chaos. And so, so many tiny little details. The ultimate embodiment of the aforementioned GW style. Every page a work of art as much as literature.

*Sorry, been watching a lot of Poirot.

I mean...yea. It brings it to life. it's not a story like it has pretty much become now. It's just a setting. And the artists and writers could just go nuts.

Out boxes of flavour text and flying rodent gak insane quotes were IMO the most effective way GW had to distil down the atmosphere and flavour of the setting and quickly inject it into the reader.

One quote from some mysterious named individual about something they consider normal and necessary but from our perspective is laughably ridiculous, did more to sell how crazy the imperium is than any number of battlefield fight scenes IMO.

The new Emperor's Children codex has a fair amount of snippets to the side of the pages, mostly on the various messed up drugs and procedures that the EC use to either enhance themselves or just to experience a new sensation.

Thinking on the eras?

By the time we get to 3rd, GW is more or less settled on “what is the 41st Millenium”. They’ve sifted through the wild ideas of Rogue Trader, with a lot of that done during 2nd Ed.

And once all settled there? It started to ask “now, how do we want to expand it”. Hence lots of weird things like Liber Chaotica, Inquisitor, BFG. All exploring relatively niche areas, but still feeding into the whole of the thing.

The two Xenology books work here as well. Both are entirely in-universe references, based on super limited information. They give us background nuts a cool insight, but don’t set anything down in stone, as with our near god like access to knowledge, we can readily spot wildly incorrect information.

 JamesY wrote:
Part of the fun in the olden days was trying to convert models to look like characters found in the art. That has basically gone with the current artistic approach.

This was a big part of the hobby for me. I converted Custodes from Chaos Warriors, High Elves and space Marine parts back in the day, as well as from other WHFB kits, and it was the kind of challenge that kept me engaged. I also did a lot of Eldar and IG conversions that are now obsolete. Now there are models for all those old interesting background unit, and no new obscurities to replace them. What you see is what you get, and what you get is what you saw. That’s a whole limb of the hobby that’s atrophied away.

There’s still little except budget preventing such conversions though.

Removing the need is not the same as removing the purpose.

It wasn’t a need. That was the whole point. People were converting unusual, unplayable characters or units to have something rare and exceptional.

And there’s still nothing preventing or discouraging the same.

In prior editions there was more wiggle room for “how do I get this guy to the table” More range in gear options. Sure, you might have to bend things a little, but there were enough options to make it only a small stretch.

These days the farther you are from the newest in print models, the harder it is to get rules that fit. Granted, you are far less likely to see things in the illustrations that don’t match.

You can still do cosmetic kitbashes, as long as the wargear lines up. I still do that myself. But if you want to keep WYSWYG on the tabletop, you need to be more careful.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
And there’s still nothing preventing or discouraging the same.

You're ignoring the point that a majority of the artwork now is almost literally of the existing models.

Whilst that does mean less inspiration for conversions, it’s still not actively preventing or discouraging.

The 3rd edition rulebook is still, by far, my absolute favourite because of all the crazy artwork, little boxes of flavour text stories/quotes, etc. Biased maybe because that's when I started 40k, but that book is 100% what got my 14 year old self so obsessed with this universe.

I know the 3rd ed codexes get stick for being so thin, but I equally rate them for the artwork and flavour text too. Thin but dripping with flavour IMO. So it's definitely that 3rd to 4th ed period for me, the rulebook, the codexes and that era when BL did such cool background books that were largely written in an in-universe style (Xenology and Liber Chaotica as already mentioned were standouts, but there were a bunch of others like one on Armageddon, Tactica Imperialis, plus the Imperial Infantrys Primer of course!).

Also, hasn't mentioned yet I think - the Index Astartes series from that era. Originally in WD and then published in a couple of anthologies. The first real codification of the Heresy and the Legions in depth (I think?). Struck a good balance of expanding the depth of the legions whilst still leaving a bunch of details ambiguous or uncertain. Some of which of course would be retconed when the BL HH series came around...

I think there is this unfortunate challenge that people always want more lore, but in reality sometimes less is more. Personally, I'd much rather have a codex with in-universe (and therefore unreliable) sources and flavour quotes, etc (ala 3rd ed) that give the flavour of the universe, than the reams of omniscient narrator tone of 'historical' lore that gives you tons of "detail" on faction hero x beating up other faction monster y that seems to be what the modern codex lore consists of.