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.

Hello,

Would anyone be so kind to recommend me any good introductory resources to learn about WH:40K universe please?
I'm completely new to Warhammer and I'm not sure where should I start...

Are there any good books (novels) / comics or PC games suitable for total beginners?

Thanks!

Lexicanum is a great wiki for WHFB/40K if you want to be able to read up about all the different factions, tech, events, etc.

In terms of books and so on - I personally like the Gaunt's Ghosts books, the Cain books and some of the older 40k books like "Eye of Terror" which has a good look at the realm of chaos and its relationship to the Imperium.

"Heroes of the Space Marines" is good for a new player , it gives you some insight in some chapters and a quick overview of the many fraction that go against the space marines.

Well that is quite a question - where to start?

I suppose it depends on what drew you to 40K in the first place. If it was aliens, then you may want to check out related books, but I'm not so confident in that area that there are many books on Xenos (Aliens) - somebody else would have to take up the baton on that subject.

However, if it's the Imperium/Humans that drew you in, then two excellent places to start would either be the 'Gaunts Ghosts' novel series - portraying the lives of average humans within an Imperial Guard regiment or, if you prefer the idea of Space Marines, then you really are spoilt for choice. Omnibuses are a good way to start as they combine several novels, all related to each other in one edition, a few examples could be:

The Grey Knights Omnibus
The Space Wolves Omnibus
The Blood Angels Omnibus
The Ultramarines Omnibus

Of course, as GarretAsh says, if you'd prefer to see a wider range, and not limit yourself to one Chapter of Space Marines, then 'Heroes of the Space Marines' is good anthology of short stories portraying a number of different Chapters. Similarly, the 'Space Marines Battles' series are a collection of novels, each focusing on a different chapter, but none going into too much detail.

The world, or rather the Galaxy, really is your oyster on this one. I'd also highly recommend having a read through Lexicanum - it's simply a wikipedia style encyclopedia about 40K, but it covers just about everything you may want to know. The first page has a series of links to most of the major races, making it easier for you to pick a one. Here's the link:

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page#.UdqLb_k3vTo

On the subject of PC Games, take a look at the Dawn of War Series. The Original Dawn of War is said to be great (I've never been on it myself), but Dawn of War II has better graphics and a more polished campaign. 40k games are quite limited at the moment, but it's said that SEGA is going to be producing a Total War style 40K game in the future, so keep an eye out for that!

Hope this helps!

Probably the 40k rulebook, it contains basic background on all the factions. Then i would also recommend the space marine battle novels as they are easy reading facing almost every faction in the 40k universe.

I agree with the idea of reading Lexicanum or The Rulebook: although the latter's far from cheap.
Lexicanum's a very thorough, accessible Wiki and you could lose hours reading through it. It can also guide you towards publications you may wish to read for the original and in-depth information.

This thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/507586.page) contains a wealth of 40K background links you could also explore. The redelf/ Index Astartes one would be particularly helpful if you're interested in Space Marines.

As for novels, I would have to disagree with the idea of reading the Omnibus', as I feel the four listed (Grey Knights, Ultramarines, Space Wolves and Blood Angels) are all fairly rubbish. The Gaunts Ghosts series is probably a good place to start, particularly for the warfare side. The Eisenhorn and Ravenor trilogy covers the general 40K/civilian environment nicely.
The novel Fifteen Hours covers the Imperial Guard very well. Helsreach, Battle of The Fang and Wrath of Iron cover the Space Marines very well. Storm of Iron, meanwhile, covers the Chaos Space Marines very well, as well as incorporating Space Marines and Imperial Guard; so could be a great place to start.
The Path series for the Dark Eldar is supposed to be very good too, although the Craftworld Eldar ones less so.

Hope that helps!

I agree with the 40k rulebook, if you are able to sneak a peek into it. Its writing is designed specifically to provide a starting point to get into the universe, and - unlike with the various novels or codices - treats each faction equally rather than allowing a separation into protagonist and antagonist to manipulate appearances.

Then, if you want to delve deeper into the material and read stories about the various factions, get one of the various short story anthologies (Dark Imperium, Tales from the Dark Millennium, Let the Galaxy Burn, ...) rather than one of the "big" novels or Marine books. This will allow you to attain a less "focused" perspective by being exposed both to much more factions (or even individuals standing aside of any faction) as well as multiple authors and their writing styles, for they may differ considerably and depending on your own personal preferences you will eventually develop tendencies towards or against some of them.

Lastly, keep in mind that all this material is not intended to provide you with a uniform, consistent experience. The more you read, the more you will notice various conflicts and contradictions between the sources - this is because the franchise is not intended to exist in a single vision, but rather as "thousands of overlapping interpretations", as GW designer Gav Thorpe once put it. Coincidentally, this is also why I advise caution with fan-edited wikis such as Lexicanum, whose articles tend to evoke the impression that it all fits together, when in fact they just represent how some few editors chose to interpret whatever material they read. The wikis are still a good place to check for sources, however, in case you ever want to hunt down the actual book an article claims to reference.

Get hold of some of the old stuff from 2nd ed. Even Rogue Trader, it evokes a different universe but there's none cooler.

If you can find it somewhere cheap, I recommend the Dawn of War PC games, since they'll give you a look at the aesthetic of all the factions, along with a snapshot into their cultures. From there, check out the Lexicanium wiki to find a faction that interests you.

Then find a gaming store (not a GW store) that has regular game nights, find an enthusiastic group of players, and pick their brains. The reason I advise against a GW store is that the people you want to talk to are the players who know the game and are passionate about it, rather than the staff who are only invested in selling you as much stuff as is humanly possible.

But the big parts are constant. Check out Dawn of War, and the wiki. Find a faction you like, and go from there. The Dark Eldar paths books are pretty good, the Craftworld Eldar paths books are mediocre, and all the Space Marine and IG stuff is very inconsistent in its quality.

@Lynata - As a fairly active editor of Lexicanum myself, whilst I'm not disputing the "thousands of overlapping interpretations" aspect of 40K, I have to say that in most cases, at least in all the articles I've edited, we tend to make a note, or a 'trivia' to denote where a canon conflict or a separate interpretation occurs. Also, although you say 'fan-edited', which smacks of a disdainful tone (Though I do apologise profusely if this isn't the case), you have to bear in mind that Lexicanum's editors are bound by a strict code:

1. Only canon material is added - Whether you agree it's canon or not, Black Library and Forgeworld publications are sanctioned by GW, and as an extention of GW, their information is at least bound to a direction that GW wishes the subject to take. Therefore it is not as subject to the personal whims of a basic fan.

2. All articles are cited - It's a pretty monumental task trying to keep track of all the information, so any and all information is 'guilty until proven innocent' ie. if it isn't cited, a 'citation needed' tag is placed next to the information, or the information is outright deleted until such a time as it can be clarified and a reference given. This helps readers to find the exact source of the information, and then read into it what they personally interpret of it.

3. Fanfic or Fanart is explicitly banned - it's literally deleted upon sight as it isn't official GW affiliated material.

4. This is probably the most important point, but the articles are rigorously sanctioned so that the wording is deliberately ambigious. Basically, if I use the example of Prospero Burns and Thousand Suns, the facts that are consistent through both conflicting volumes are written in such a way as they do not bias either side, and those facts which are specifically biased are noted as such in the aforementioned canon conflict 'trivia/notes' section. If you want an example check out this article:

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Pellas_Mir%27san#.Udx2qPk3vTo

Now I can't vouch for the 40k Wikia, as I don't edit that, but I can at least say that Lexicanum does try to be as thorough as it can regarding the information we put up.

Dan Abnett's Einhorn trilogy (Xenos, Heredicus, Mallus) is probably the best 40k work the Black Library has done and stands up to multiple readings.

So I'd start there.

The first 3 books of the Horus Heresy series.

Also, the Dawn of War games would actually be a great way to learn the universe as well.

Warpig1815 wrote:As a fairly active editor of Lexicanum myself, whilst I'm not disputing the "thousands of overlapping interpretations" aspect of 40K, I have to say that in most cases, at least in all the articles I've edited, we tend to make a note, or a 'trivia' to denote where a canon conflict or a separate interpretation occurs. Also, although you say 'fan-edited', which smacks of a disdainful tone (Though I do apologise profusely if this isn't the case), you have to bear in mind that Lexicanum's editors are bound by a strict code:

1. Only canon material is added - Whether you agree it's canon or not, Black Library and Forgeworld publications are sanctioned by GW, and as an extention of GW, their information is at least bound to a direction that GW wishes the subject to take. Therefore it is not as subject to the personal whims of a basic fan.
2. All articles are cited - It's a pretty monumental task trying to keep track of all the information, so any and all information is 'guilty until proven innocent' ie. if it isn't cited, a 'citation needed' tag is placed next to the information, or the information is outright deleted until such a time as it can be clarified and a reference given. This helps readers to find the exact source of the information, and then read into it what they personally interpret of it.
3. Fanfic or Fanart is explicitly banned - it's literally deleted upon sight as it isn't official GW affiliated material.
4. This is probably the most important point, but the articles are rigorously sanctioned so that the wording is deliberately ambigious. Basically, if I use the example of Prospero Burns and Thousand Suns, the facts that are consistent through both conflicting volumes are written in such a way as they do not bias either side, and those facts which are specifically biased are noted as such in the aforementioned canon conflict 'trivia/notes' section. If you want an example check out this article:

I understand that you people are putting a tremendous amount of work in the wiki, which is why I also understand such reactions to the sort of criticism I am dishing out. At the end of the day, however, you won't be able to convince me that Lexicanum's current approach isn't at the very least controversial:

The material is not meant to tie into each other, yet you are forcing it into single articles by way of personal interpretation of how it might fit, for example where you see a conflict, or how it can be resolved. I don't actually have a better solution, for the ideal way to represent the material would be to have different sections for each and every source rather than unifying them, but needless to say this would be even more arduous and, in time, would get very clunky. The biggest problem I see is that fans just go to Lexicanum and soak up the information, not bothering to question its validity, and not understanding that whatever is written there is just one possible perspective. Whilst you yourself say that you are not disputing the "overlapping interpretations" bit, Lexicanum certainly does not try to drive this rather critical point home, and instead prefers to continue propagating the "lie of canon". One of the biggest issues this community is plagued by, as can be seen by numerous fruitless discussions about the various contradictions, and new fans just adopting it because that is how they are erroneously told it works.

To address the points you raised directly, I have in the past noticed both incorrect citations (referencing information which simply did not exist, such as a supposed mention of Miriael Sabathiel in the 3E WH Codex) as well as a distinctive lack of ambiguity in many articles - which is probably impossible to avoid when you are so committed to listing every detail. If you would truly include each and every source that exists, and notice as well as respect the various contradictions, then about every second article would have a "canon conflict" section, as I have seen to exist in a few. The problem is perhaps both that you are, as of yet, still not tapping every official source of fluff in existence, and that many of your people are still dedicated to presenting a uniform and consistent vision of the 41st millennium when it does not actually exist.

I also notice that Lexicanum still deals in "retcons". What exactly is your internal policy for this, how do you decide which source overrides another, or if there is a way to merge them ("it's a big galaxy" cop-out)? Do you base this decision on age, origin, or content? That is where I see indidivual interpretations of the various editors muddling the content, and the vast majority of readers just goes there and swallows the articles as they are presented, never fact-checking if one book actually says what the article claims, or if there isn't another source that tells a different story.
An example, how do you resolve the obvious conflict between GW's Deathwatch fluff and that of FFG? You are currently referencing fluff from both origins in the article, yet simply ignore that in one source, the Deathwatch is an integral part of the Inquisition, whereas in another it stands completely apart and is merely allied - with huge differences in terms of deployment, leadership, and available equipment. Meanwhile, the Lexicanum article just ignores these blatant contradictions and presents some info from this source and some info from another ... seemingly dependent only on how the last editor chose to "mix it".

Apologies for leading the topic slightly astray, but I feel this should be debated, as it is a fairly important topic.

Personally, considering the OP is only looking to get started with the background, I don't think they need the talk on canonicity just yet; which you just acknowledged yourself is leading the thread somewhat off topic.

I think it would be better to actually get into the universe somewhat first, before worrying about canon.

I have to say Lexicanum is a lot better than it was. Most of the articles are good, and has references to materials (so you can distinguish between different types of publication as well), and generally marks things that may need looking at (citation needed?).

For someone starting out, it gives the right sort of info.

WD127 and the Eldar codices are really important for knowing why the Galaxy looks like it does, with the eye of terror and ties to chaos and the Imperium.

I've started with first Dawn of War and Ragnar and Eisenhorn books. As a result, my knowledge of 40k universe was rather scrappy until I've read the rulebook, codices and the Fluff Bible which was very popular among Russian 40k fans.

If someone wants an introduction to the setting, I generally think novels are not the way to go as they tend to put a lot of the author's idiosyncrasies over it, even if they are a good read otherwise.

I would recommend novels on merits of being a good read and fun story, but not as a guide to the nature of the 40k universe.

Although there is still some 'author flavour' in rulebooks, they are written out to be technical guides or information brochures rather than a story, so are more useful in that regard.

Alright, maybe the Lexicanum bit is something for its own thread, then, or even just a PM. I just thought I should elaborate on my criticism since I was "called out" on it.

And I agree with Daba as far as novels are concerned. As George Mann once said, Black Library exists "to tell good stories", that's it - and some of these stories may portray the background in at least a controversial manner (Cain), where personally I'd say it's just beneficial to know the studio's own vision first before you delve into the ideas of individual freelance authors.
Even though GW's own writings are by no means "more important" or "more true" than other material, they often seem to be more established amongst the community, and thus are somewhat more present in the various discussions on forums such as dakka. Almost every gamer has read the rulebook, but how many have read novel X? As such, I'd regard this as the "common basis", and any other sources of fluff as optional equal alternatives.

@Lynata - I certainly didn't want to 'call you out' as you put it, not maliciously, I just thought that a little of the opposing view may be appreciated in the overall context. I can't claim to be a longstanding editor, I'm fairly recent to the game, but, personally, I'm regard myself as thorough about the info I put up, and their relevant citations. I would be more than happy to continue this by way of PM if you want to, should the OP and other contributors wish for the thread to remain on-topic.