<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "What makes a good codex?"]]>

<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "What makes a good codex?"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/69.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net What makes a good codex?
Was reading posts on here slating the new CSM codex based on some apparent leaks. Then I watched the auspex tactics report on you tube and they think it’s pretty decent.

I assume all parties know more than me but they are are diametrically opposed….

So what is it that makes a good codex for you? Lore? New units? Room for creativity? Throwing your army to the top of the meta? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390561.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390561.page GMT What makes a good codex? OP units that are too far off the average.

Units should do their jobs. If a unit is fluffed for anti-tank work, geared for AV work, then it should kill tanks. You can have units that still work in ways they are not portrayed as. For examples, Eldar Howling Banshees were a fast mobile tarpit, despite being sold as blenders. But a unit should deliver what is says on the tin.

You should be able to field a force as depicted in the lore with the codex, without having to bend over too far backwards, contorting things to make it happen. I’m OK with having to spend a few CP for the detachments to make an all-bike list, but I should be able to. This is a major complaint against the new Chaos book, and many others touched by the “No Model, No Rules” BS. Why can’t HQs have certain warger? They use it in the fluff, and have access to it in prior editions.

It should not frivolously invalidate existing collections. This touches again on the NMNR issue, but also the byzantine datascrolls that only allow you to field units being build explicitly from the modern box. Is there an in-universe or game balance reason to limit things, and in the process making unit selection a flow chart hellmaze? No? Then just let us take 2 things from the special weapons list and call it a day.

It should be fun to play, and bring the flavor of the army to the table.

Rules should reinforce that. Things that feel game-y or break immersion should be kept at a bare minimum.

New units are fine, but they should have a reason to exsist besides just to sell new models, and fit in the lore and range.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390591.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390591.page GMT What makes a good codex?
2. Good external balance

3. Rules that play smoothly and are fun to use.

4. Fluffy i.e. your army plays in a way that reinforces the army's narrative. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390601.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390601.page GMT What makes a good codex? Conspiracy? No, but it's a pain in the rear to have to shelve an army I already wasn't playing because of bad rules, because of more bad rules.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390622.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390622.page GMT What makes a good codex? or any 2nd ed codex maybe, barring Space Wolves, lol.

Good balance, good number of options, nice pictures and lore. Paperback . . . ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390638.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390638.page GMT What makes a good codex?

Insectum7 wrote:
Good balance, good number of options, nice pictures and lore. Paperback . . .

AUD$30 rather than over AUD$80 would also be nice...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390689.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390689.page GMT What makes a good codex?

Gert wrote:
Not making armies completely invalid between editions. I don't mind if new things get added or model sizes are changed but the current changes to certain units have made an army I own that was playable from 6th onwards (likely beforehand as well) is now unusable unless I buy more stuff.
Conspiracy? No, but it's a pain in the rear to have to shelve an army I already wasn't playing because of bad rules, because of more bad rules.

Hmmm.....let's see:

Chaos Lord: "What!? A Jump Pack and lightning claws? Who do you think you are? A singular and "special" Black Legion character (Who apparently won't even share the secrets of Jump Pack/lightning claw operation with his fellow Black Legionaries. That's just selfish.

)? Get those off. Here's a plasma pistol. Shut up."

Sorcerer: "You too? Get that Jump Pack off. You'll hurt yourself. Everyone knows you can't do psychic stuff and fly around. It's dangerous. And get rid of that sword. Where's your staff?"

Multiple Legionaire, Havoc, and Raptor Aspiring Champions: "Now just where did you get all of those combi-weapons and lightning claws? Give them back to the loyalists that you obviously stole them from. We wouldn't want anyone thinking that the 8th Legion were a bunch of criminals and thieves, would we?"

Terminators: "Oh dear Khorne.

Just how do you expect us to pay for all of those combi-plasmas, combi-meltas, and chainfists? Don't you know we need all the money we can get in order to get the extra books required if we want to bring any Rubrics, Khorne Berzerkers, or Plague Marines into the warband? Those guys don't work cheap, y'know."

"Good grief. How has this warband strayed so far from the Codex Heretic Astartes? Why, everything is so Chaotic."

....................................................................................

Levity aside, Nevelon nailed it.

And @Insectum:

.

Though I would also add: Just let the folks who wrote the Liber Hereticus write it. When I look at that book, and then compare it to the information on the 9th edition CSM codex, all that I can think is: Did the same company really produce both of these books? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390696.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390696.page GMT What makes a good codex? I mean text and rules of course, pictures are a nice bonus. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390799.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390799.page GMT What makes a good codex?

mrFickle wrote:

So what is it that makes a good codex for you? Lore? New units? Room for creativity? Throwing your army to the top of the meta?

Good internal balance, good external balance, not much bloat (aka useless rules that no one would use or countless units that are basically the same thing or do the same things).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390933.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11390933.page GMT What makes a good codex? - Units, characters, army rules and stratagems should synergize well with each other
- Keywords and abilities should be applied consistently
- None of the rules should be in direct contradiction with fluff
- The army, as a whole, should feel "right" when played on the table
- There should be no trap choices that should never be taken
- There are multiple archetypes you can build from your codex
- Interesting army-wide rule
- Cool things from previous codex(+PA) kept around/improved on
- Good internal balance
- All miniatures are still playable as they are

So basically a codex that fulfills 10/10 of these is as good as it gets for me. As you have noted, I did not put down external balance or powerful rules - I firmly believe that a well written codex can be adjusted in power to match others, a badly written codex will require a pile of band-aids to keep it afloat.

Examples:
DG 8.5/10
Orks 3/10

That's why I think DG have a good codex and orks do not.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11391986.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11391986.page GMT What makes a good codex? 40k was a story or a setting just so GW could go "yeah, Primaris are a thing now, but otherwise as you were" is kind of funny.

In terms of rules... I think its something to do with character. (Which you can argue I think is bleached out a bit in 9th - since the objectives encourage list building over pure fluff conception - or at least they do with me and I'm struggling to shake it).

So for example, despite being the most overpowered book for 9~ months, I didn't (and still don't) like the DE Codex. I mean I like that almost everything in it is powerful and it wasn't like say Necrons where a few months in it was clear half the book was obviously overcosted. Nothing was invalidated (at least as far as I remember) and various things I had became more viable. (Who for instance expected Cronos to be OP).

But there's something a bit soulless about it. And I think this is the point about archetypes. Everything in the Dark Eldar book starts to feel like everything else.

I.E. I think an Kabal force, a Wyche Cult force and a Covens force should feel different at a visceral level. And I feel they don't really. They all want to play this game of running round the board trading (kind of like most lists really). As a result whether you have a unit of Incubi, Bloodbrides, Grotesques or Ghuls and Sslyth changes the maths of any given situation but not the style. You have to really go extreme (i.e. all Wracks, all Venoms) to deviate from this.

Does a Black Heart list feel different to an Obsidian Rose? No I don't think so. You are just swapping through this buffet of buffs to find the mathematically superior one. (This imo is why custom traits are bad, but that's another topic).

And this is perhaps why I'm anti the Chaos salt. The "Dark Eldarification" of characters happened to DE 8(?) years ago. I got over it, I feel they will too. The issue is that I think in this new Chaos codex you have got a book where you can seemingly go for a lot of different options that do fundamentally play differently. A Black Legion of Iron Warriors list probably wants to run X, a Word Bearers or Creations of Bile list wants to run Y.

Competitive play will likely render it an illusion - it usually does - but it feels like there's more scope to make your dudes your dudes. Rather than everything feeling the same (unless, as said, you insist on spamming one unit).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392048.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392048.page GMT What makes a good codex?
doesn't that mean you'd have a single squad of SM terminators against what passes as 2k worth of GSC right now.

you'd also have to make all characters immortal]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392061.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392061.page GMT What makes a good codex?

mrFickle wrote:
People that are saying that the rules should reflect the fluff or lore or the army should play as per the fluff....

doesn't that mean you'd have a single squad of SM terminators against what passes as 2k worth of GSC right now.

you'd also have to make all characters immortal

There do need to be compromises for game play. We accept that.

But if the only viable ork build is elite squads shooting out of parked trucks that’s a failure as a codex. If the CSM codex doesn’t have any viable use for actual chaos space marines, that’s a failure.

Alternative builds are fine. You want to do a tyranid godzilla giant monster list, that’s great. But the codex should make swarms of gribbbly little guys with a few synapse nodes and one or two bigs bugs viable. That’s what the ”classic” nid army looks like in the fluff. Same with ork boys

You don’t need to be able to win tournaments with the standard build, but should have a reasonable chance for a fun game at the FLGS.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392073.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392073.page GMT What makes a good codex?

That's not what people mean when they say that. They mean that the army they play should reflect the ones we see in the background, for example, Chaos Space Marines (now Legionaries) should be a viable choice in a CSM army yet they haven't been since Cultists were introduced, likewise, the army should have a lot of build freedom but is more restricted than the Space Marine Codex (the dudes who literally have a set of rules to follow) in many instances.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392089.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392089.page GMT What makes a good codex? http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392094.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392094.page GMT What makes a good codex?

It doesn't mean that at all. What people really mean when they say that is armies should operate largely as they do in the fluff. Blood Angels should work best as a fast close combat army, Guard should have numerous infantry squads or lots of tanks (or both), Nurgle Daemons should grind you down slowly, Ork armies should contain actual Orks, and so on.

I agree with Tyel when they say a lot of sub-factions in particular are poorly defined, and that's a big problem with a lot of Codices today. It feels like GW are forcing themselves to have at least 6 major sub-factions in each Codex, whether they have sufficient good ideas to differentiate them or not. It leads to a lot of soulless Codices, IMO. Necrons are similar to Dark Eldar, in that the sub-faction you use is often decided after army selection, purely to buff the specific units you've taken. The sub-factions lack any real character of their own, except as a vehicle for adding buffs where you want them.

I wish GW would move back to a system that allows players to represent an army's archetypes, without being pigeon-holed by a specific sub-faction. It would also stop the continuing Flanderisation of armies if they decoupled the sub-faction's name form its rules. What can't Ultramarines be siege specialists? Why are the jungle fighters the premier artillery regiment? Why are only Word Bearers sufficiently zealous to get any benefit from it?

A good Codex for me has good internal balance and represents the fluff properly. I also appreciate books that aren't laden with special rules, which precludes basically every 9th edition Codex so far.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392114.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392114.page GMT What makes a good codex?

Tyel wrote:
I think if Codexes are to remain a thing much longer then they should probably spend some time working on the lore & painting side. The fact we had all this agonizing over whether 40k was a story or a setting just so GW could go "yeah, Primaris are a thing now, but otherwise as you were" is kind of funny.

In terms of rules... I think its something to do with character. (Which you can argue I think is bleached out a bit in 9th - since the objectives encourage list building over pure fluff conception - or at least they do with me and I'm struggling to shake it).

So for example, despite being the most overpowered book for 9~ months, I didn't (and still don't) like the DE Codex. I mean I like that almost everything in it is powerful and it wasn't like say Necrons where a few months in it was clear half the book was obviously overcosted. Nothing was invalidated (at least as far as I remember) and various things I had became more viable. (Who for instance expected Cronos to be OP).

But there's something a bit soulless about it. And I think this is the point about archetypes. Everything in the Dark Eldar book starts to feel like everything else.

I.E. I think an Kabal force, a Wyche Cult force and a Covens force should feel different at a visceral level. And I feel they don't really. They all want to play this game of running round the board trading (kind of like most lists really). As a result whether you have a unit of Incubi, Bloodbrides, Grotesques or Ghuls and Sslyth changes the maths of any given situation but not the style. You have to really go extreme (i.e. all Wracks, all Venoms) to deviate from this.

Does a Black Heart list feel different to an Obsidian Rose? No I don't think so. You are just swapping through this buffet of buffs to find the mathematically superior one. (This imo is why custom traits are bad, but that's another topic).

And this is perhaps why I'm anti the Chaos salt. The "Dark Eldarification" of characters happened to DE 8(?) years ago. I got over it, I feel they will too. The issue is that I think in this new Chaos codex you have got a book where you can seemingly go for a lot of different options that do fundamentally play differently. A Black Legion of Iron Warriors list probably wants to run X, a Word Bearers or Creations of Bile list wants to run Y.

Competitive play will likely render it an illusion - it usually does - but it feels like there's more scope to make your dudes your dudes. Rather than everything feeling the same (unless, as said, you insist on spamming one unit).

And a Night Lords list wants to run a lot of jump infantry! Led by a Chaos Lord with a Jump Pa........whoops. We can't do that anymore, can we? Yeah, this codex will absolutely murder "my dudes". You can be "anti Chaos salt" all you want. The salt will still remain, completely justified.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392143.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392143.page GMT What makes a good codex?

Jidmah wrote:
- The codex should follow a general theme
- Units, characters, army rules and stratagems should synergize well with each other
- Keywords and abilities should be applied consistently
- None of the rules should be in direct contradiction with fluff
- The army, as a whole, should feel "right" when played on the table
- There should be no trap choices that should never be taken
- There are multiple archetypes you can build from your codex
- Interesting army-wide rule
- Cool things from previous codex(+PA) kept around/improved on
- Good internal balance
- All miniatures are still playable as they are

So basically a codex that fulfills 10/10 of these is as good as it gets for me. As you have noted, I did not put down external balance or powerful rules - I firmly believe that a well written codex can be adjusted in power to match others, a badly written codex will require a pile of band-aids to keep it afloat.

Examples:
DG 8.5/10
Orks 3/10

That's why I think DG have a good codex and orks do not.

Started writing a post then saw this, which basically says the same thing I was going to.

This is why I consider the Tyranids and GSC books to be 'good' codexes, but some others that heavily impacted the meta on release were not. GSC had some of the best internal balance in 9E so far, while Tyranids was almost as good and mostly needed points corrections to address the external balance issues.

Meanwhile AdMech & Orks had heavy nerfs to some specific strong units or combos, and had little left to work with in the rest of their books once those were gone.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392149.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392149.page GMT What makes a good codex?

mrFickle wrote:
Was reading posts on here slating the new CSM codex based on some apparent leaks. Then I watched the auspex tactics report on you tube and they think it’s pretty decent.

One thing I wanted to say briefly was that there's been a lot of misconceptions regarding the 'discourse' on the new CSM codex.

I think a vast majority of people agree that competitive and power wise, the codex is pretty good. There's certainly some cases of what looks like 'redundant units' (i.e., poor internal balancing, which imo, is better than poor external balancing).

For example, I'm not sure why you'd taken Chosen over Terminators in most cases. There's a bit of weird wording - i.e., certain units can't take marks (core restrictions are imo a band-aid which has caused a lot of issues for the game) and in some cases it looks like units can't be legally fielded.

But there's largely an agreement the codex is mechanically strong and well suited for the games competitive and casual scene.

What a lot of people, myself included, are upset at is that a large number of options were arbitrarily curtailed without much rhyme or reason. Most people were not slating the codex because they thought it was weak - people were slating it because it restricts a lot of what they want to do and how easily they can use their existing collections. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392173.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392173.page GMT What makes a good codex? CSM codex, and all the new bits were still added wouldn’t the codex be totally OP and this screw the external balance? ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392187.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392187.page GMT What makes a good codex?

mrFickle wrote:
But if the restrictions hadn’t been added to the new CSM codex, and all the new bits were still added wouldn’t the codex be totally OP and this screw the external balance?

No? Are Chaos Chosen carrying combi-weapons really going to be 'totally OP'? Were Raptor Champions with lighting claws winning tournies around the country?

I don't understand how Chaos Terminators having three power fists tops or CSMs only being allowed one plasma gun per squad ensures the delicate balance of the game is maintained. Likewise, it's very hard to see how Chaos Lords no longer having jump packs (or combi weapons) for that matter maintains any kind of balance.

This is why I described the restrictions as arbitrary and inconsistent (ala, CSM squads can't have two plasma guns - but Raptors can? So much for GW 'fighting min-maxers!' as spiteful casuals like to claim). They do not seem to have anything to do with balance. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392188.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392188.page GMT What makes a good codex?

mrFickle wrote:
But if the restrictions hadn’t been added to the new CSM codex, and all the new bits were still added wouldn’t the codex be totally OP and this screw the external balance?

You can't be this naive...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392199.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392199.page GMT What makes a good codex?

mrFickle wrote:
But if the restrictions hadn’t been added to the new CSM codex, and all the new bits were still added wouldn’t the codex be totally OP and this screw the external balance?

Why should Codex: CSM be any more concerned with this mythical "External Balance" than other releases have been?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392233.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392233.page GMT What makes a good codex? GW butchered the CSM datasheets? We've got plenty of those, try to discuss that topic there.

I haven't had a chance to read the CSM codex yet, but just from the rumors I can tell it's going to struggle to reach more than 5 bullet points points of my list.

xttz wrote:
Started writing a post then saw this, which basically says the same thing I was going to.

This is why I consider the Tyranids and GSC books to be 'good' codexes, but some others that heavily impacted the meta on release were not. GSC had some of the best internal balance in 9E so far, while Tyranids was almost as good and mostly needed points corrections to address the external balance issues.

Meanwhile AdMech & Orks had heavy nerfs to some specific strong units or combos, and had little left to work with in the rest of their books once those were gone.

Agree, GSC is an awesome codex. If I didn't dislike the models so much, I'd be tempted to start them just because of their rules. Even playing against them feels awesome.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392329.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392329.page GMT What makes a good codex? GK codex. Not fun to play for me. Bad. PA good to play, unfun for me. 9th bad again. The LL book they have now, fun to play, so good.

Now it is of course better to have more options and more builds. But as long as the one build I like is fun to play, I consider the books good.

And God help the people that get a internaly balanced codex from GW. specialy durning edition transition. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392380.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392380.page GMT What makes a good codex? - No typos
- No day 1 FAQs
- Obviously not complete balance but not making several units worthless or over shadowed by others
- Bringing back a whole lot of lore in the books that I'm noticing is slowly decreasing lately...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392403.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392403.page GMT What makes a good codex?
Correct

Nothing else. No FAQ 2 weeks later because they didn't read it properly before printing thousands of them. no balance changes later because they didn't give it any forethought. Just correct at time of printing and stays correct.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392612.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392612.page GMT What makes a good codex?
1) Lore that recaps the past and presents new information.
This can be in the form of new maps showing territories; new details on the factions past or such; or even new advances in the recent story showing how things have changed.

Ergo present the lore that grounds the faction and which advances and presents new information; thus giving content for new and current fans.

2) Unit lore profiles. I've loved these and have been REALLY sad that they've been cut from current codex. To me this is part of deepening the lore and its a great thing to have a page or so per unit or unit type which gives more fluff, detail and imagination to the units. It's also a great way to get existing content for new fans and new content (new models) for existing fans.

3) Maps, artwork, no double page spreads. Yep all the juicy visual stuff!

4) A colour paint segment that covers some basic art themes and presents some alternate colour schemes as well as core faction ones.
A full show of every model in the current range painted

5) Rules.
Ideally rules should have:
a) Good internal balance so that there are meaningful choices and different ways to play the army

b) Good external balance so that the army isn't stomped all over nor stomping all over - both are unfun.

c) A logical structure that presents as much information as possible in as few page flips as possible. For example print the point costs on the unit cards; put weapon profiles on the unit card, put powers/abilities on the unit card. Even if this information is repeated later in a summary page/table, it is important to have it on the unit page as much as possible. This creates the potential to have fewer page flips and makes the act of building and making choices much easier. Summary pages should be reinforcing this by giving overall summaries of segments of that data - eg a single collected points list.
The idea here is to reduce page flipping and reduce the mental overhead people have to use to put together an armed force.

For me a codex is more than just rules. It's a one stop book that presents the faction as a story, as a lore, as artwork and as game pieces. There's on one of those elements which is superior to the other; they each compliment one another in different values for different customers. Furthermore for those totally fresh to a new army or the game itself, they present a fantastic single all encompassing resource and I would loath to see that change.

FAQ/Errata/ I expect FAQ/Errata to appear within the first month. This reflects adjustments made after the book went to print (remember there are months between a book being finished and being sold where you can't change the content); and also FAQ elements where customers might well just start identifying areas they need more clarity on.
Yes a perfect publication that is perfect in every way is a nice thing, but its never achieved in the history of humanity. So lets be realistic and say that instead of expecting perfection, we expect good solid quality and then good prompt updates to resolve issues that are identified and which will arise. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392618.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11392618.page GMT What makes a good codex? CSM codex - the best codex ever.
Great stuff. Lots of opportunities to build an army.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11395061.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11395061.page GMT What makes a good codex?

mrFickle wrote:
So what is it that makes a good codex for you?

It's simple.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11395075.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11395075.page GMT What makes a good codex? GWs policy is forgotten after 3 years, but the fluff parts get reread every few years.

Game wize? Useful Design, reference page, summary, no gallery inside the rules section please, rules on the datasheet (remember past editions where there were some rules on the datasheet, some rules in the rulebook and some rules on the unit page in the fluff section, hurray). Interesting unit options that inspire me to play units differently every time or to create a themed list. Subfaction rules are nice, too, doesn't matter if 3rd or 9th edition, but the absence of them is a reason I don't want to return to 5th edition.
Narrative stuff like Crusade is good to have as well. The Black Legion Codex in 6th had special rules for planetary Empires IIRC. Stuff like that is cool to keep you in the game, especially nowadays where the missions all look the same.
I'm not sure if GW ever did this in 40K outside of supplements but I'd like to see 3-6 historical battles / scenarios for the faction in the codex. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11395125.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/805791/11395125.page GMT