PDA

View Full Version : Codexes - A bad thing?



Obake123
22-01-2012, 12:55
The library here in Perth had copies of the last Chaos Codex and the Codex for the Eye Of Terror Campaign.

I saw them on the shelf, felt a rush of nostalgea since I'd played a little 40K back in Rogue Trader days. It was the combination of interesting, well-written fluff, infinately customisable army lists and much improved models that dragged me back into the world of 40k. This was in the dying days of 4th ed. At the time, I thought that Codeses were awsome.

I no longer think this.

Since my two armies are Chaos marines and Tyranids, most readers will be able to guess what my problem with Codexes is.

In the space of just a few years, the quality of the fluff has dropped to a pathetic level. I want to experiment with Chaos Deamons, but paying 20 for a book that reads as though it was written by a high school kid, for high school kids, makes me shudder!

The complexity is gone. For berevity, I'll focus on two examples. The Aspiring Champion and the Carnifex. Champions had access tot he armoury, meaning that there was a slew of weapons, armour, deamonic gifts, malrs etc that you could bestow upon him. Now, he has literally half a dozen upgrades. He used to be a character in his own right. Now, he's a powerfist delivery system. The Carnifex.... I now get to pay far more points for a pre-selected monster with limited upgrades. Before it was like building a car from the ground up. Now I get to choose the colour and the engine.

Since the new updates of Codexes have to update the fluff as well, new Hive flees burst into being and are promptly wiped out. Chapter after chapter that no one has ever heard about suddenly go renegade. New units spring into being, often requiring existing units to be nerfed to make them usefull.

I'd like to see the fluff and the rules split. If I buy Codex: Tyranids, I want to be able to read well written, detailed fluff, withplently of artwork, maps etc. Rather like the Imperial Armour books. Keep the rules seperate. Hell, gather all the rules for the different races into one big book, so that I can actually read about what units and skills other armies have before I turn up to play them!

Give me one book I can chersih and one that needs updating every few years!

And please, please, please give me army lists that allow me to build armies with character!

Rant over, feel free to agree or disagree!:angel:

NixonAsADaemonPrince
22-01-2012, 13:03
I agree with you on every point, that would be in general excellent.

Hellebore
22-01-2012, 13:06
I've been advocating a split between the two for ages. I hate that outdated rules sort of kills fluff by association. All my early nice quality imperial armour books are half useless because the rules are no longer valid. Sure you can read the background but to me the book feels incomplete now it's full of deadspace rules. I'd much prefer books of background with narry a rule in sight and thus edition independent, and slim simple books of rules tha can be modified and updated without drama regularly.

Hellebore

Lord Damocles
22-01-2012, 13:34
I don't know that simply splitting rules and background would necessarily suddenly make the background 'better' though. Nor would it suddenly take us back to the supposedly better days of yore when every race (except Necrons) had a huge armoury and/or array of options to play with.


I certainly wouldn't mind rules and background being seperated to some extent, but I doubt that it would really do much other than meaning that you don't have to carry around rules if you want background, or background if you want rules.

The Death of Reason
22-01-2012, 13:40
I loved the glory days of RT. Each White Dwarf brought variations on fluff and new army lists to the game, while new models were introduced, later compiled into books, when enough articles had been written. There were no 'spezhul characters', but plenty of grim tales with a few heroics, but no need to make certain models stand out ruleswise, just because, they'd been given a name.

The current codexes are written with such fanboyism that you just give up on the fluff and go straight for the rules section.

metro_gnome
22-01-2012, 13:53
better yet... Black library for fluff... online .pdfs for r00lz... this is the 21st century...

The Death of Reason
22-01-2012, 13:57
Nah, black library is just a bunch of horrible pulp novels. Warhammer works best as short stories :)

stroller
22-01-2012, 14:59
I disagree with the OP on a number of points. Back in the day when "my codex was the best" it was all great. Now something else is "better". It happens. There will come a point when this forum is full of rants about how out of date Grey Knights are, and that there's no point playing them because they are "auto lose". I still play nids. I still enjoy playing nids. I still win (sometimes) with nids. If you like the models & the fluff, stick with it. Sure Carnifexes are more expensive. Other models are cheaper, and there are (or were then) new options too. Going wider - I disagree with splitting fluff and rules. I want a new army - now I have to buy TWO books? Fluff AND rules matter to me: I like the balance (ie codex contents) as it is. If I wanted to improve codexes, I might suggest a double page spread for each unit - fluff on the left hand page, rules on the right. I'd like that, but GW would have to balance that against those who like all the rules together.

Give me one book I can chersih and one that needs updating every few years!
They're called novels....

Last but not least, I don't think my nids are characterless. Others have commented favourably on them on the table. You of course might disagree.

Ozorik
22-01-2012, 15:08
I would prefer to see a split between fluff books and rules (to an extent), although I would prefer ifBlack Library isn't involved though as the quality of writing there is pretty poor.

I would also like to see several armies combined; in campaign books for example or 'race' books (Imperium, Eldar etc).

The current system is too much of a cash cow for GW to change it though.

gLOBS
22-01-2012, 15:21
With the exception of well done fluff aka Imperial Armour books, I find the fluff I like most are the small blurbs over a wide area. I single line or paragraph in the rulebook or codex that give a brief glimpse. I loved going through old codexs and finding fragments of story on Inquisitor Angmar or Czevak. So much was seemingly said and done with so little words.

Today I enjoy reading the timelines posted in some books that lets your own imagination fly instead of being spoon fed and choking down some of the the horrific fluff as of late. I read older codexs and reread the newer ones and the amount of stuff left out is deplorable in the long story texts. But enough ranting now.

Scammel
22-01-2012, 15:32
I diagree that the reduction in choices for certain units marks a reduction in quality. The 3.5 Chaos dex had far too many options for it's own good and whilst they threw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, it needed a good deal of streamlining.

I actually prefer the codex system. Whilst a Ravening Hordes type format is almost certainly beneficial for balance, I doubt many players started playing 40k for the quality and balance of the gaming experience. Codexes bring fresh injections to the game every few months, threaten to force people to rethink their armies and bring new (if biased)events into the fluff.

gLOBS
22-01-2012, 15:36
New and fresh is nothing compared to a well balanced book that can stand toe to toe years later.

Scammel
22-01-2012, 15:41
From a purely gaming standpoint, probably. For maintaining interest? I disagree.

gLOBS
22-01-2012, 15:42
Over the years glitter and flash mean very little over substance. Alot of people enjoy stuff for a small amount of time but become quickly bored. Is this the fault of the person or of the activity they are doing?

Scammel
22-01-2012, 15:43
How may people in your area play SBG or WotR by the way? Or Spacehulk for that matter? SBG in particular is an extremely solid ruleset, but lack of rules support has seen it seriously fall in terms of popularity.

Zothos
22-01-2012, 15:43
Third edition codices were mostly rules and minimal fluff.

They sucked. (in my opinion, as well as many others)

Which is why they returned to the format we have now.

gLOBS
22-01-2012, 15:56
Not many people play LoTR rings here. Lots of people in my area play many strategy wargames. I own spacehulk and played just last week with friends. My group tends to play smaller scaled games of Mordhiem, Necromunda, Areonef and we have been working on making new terrain for Legends of the Old West. It is very refreshing to use a rules set that makes no money from models as all the hard work and effort go towards the rules and it shows.

Chem-Dog
22-01-2012, 16:18
Splitting rules and fluff happened already and was generally considered to be a horrible horrible thing. When 40K got revamped into what we call 3rd Edition (also known as "the beginning of the end" and "The woe of all time" ;)) we had pamphlets for Codexes in comparison to the fluff heavy books we had before that jump and have kinda come back to in more recent times, they told you the bare minimum you needed to know about your faction and then what rules they had with an army list attached.

I prefer a fluff filled codex, something I can read through when I'm not writing out an army list. For this reason I always like to have the full monty when it comes to a rules book too but I do really value the smaller, stripped down, version you get in the starter box as it can slip into an army case with the codex nice and easily. I have thought for a while now that the same approach could be advantageous in a Codex, a larger version and a basics-only one.

Scaryscarymushroom
22-01-2012, 16:41
Yeah but those 3rd edition pamphlets were 1/2 the cost of books today.

I agree with the OP that quality has declined, but rather than call for changing the system I'll just play 3rd edition if I can ever get people to play it with me.

I loved the Armory system of old codices, and I loved that squad leaders were more than just addons for your squad.

The carnifex is a sad case. :( As are termagants, genestealers, and ripper swarms and warriors and the doom.of malantai.

The 3rd edition codex read like a choose your own adventure book, with nearly everything in it being able to take wings, stat boosts in all areas, disproportionate heavy weapon options, leaping, ect ect ect.

The 5th edition book reads like a novel: each entry is slightly more interesting and appealing than the last,and it doesn't really get good until you're nearly at the end.

yabbadabba
22-01-2012, 17:41
In the space of just a few years, the quality of the fluff has dropped to a pathetic level. I want to experiment with Chaos Deamons, but paying 20 for a book that reads as though it was written by a high school kid, for high school kids, makes me shudder! Well GWs core demographic is now 11-18 year olds, so in essence they are writing for children

The complexity is gone. For berevity, I'll focus on two examples. The Aspiring Champion and the Carnifex. Champions had access tot he armoury, meaning that there was a slew of weapons, armour, deamonic gifts, malrs etc that you could bestow upon him. Now, he has literally half a dozen upgrades. He used to be a character in his own right. Now, he's a powerfist delivery system. The Carnifex.... I now get to pay far more points for a pre-selected monster with limited upgrades. Before it was like building a car from the ground up. Now I get to choose the colour and the engine. That's because the direction and ethos of the game has changed; its no longer a battlefield roleplay game, its a wargame.

Since the new updates of Codexes have to update the fluff as well, new Hive flees burst into being and are promptly wiped out. Chapter after chapter that no one has ever heard about suddenly go renegade. New units spring into being, often requiring existing units to be nerfed to make them usefull. Got an example of the latter? The former is nothing more than window dressing, excessively minor updates that just add different directions for inspiration.

I'd like to see the fluff and the rules split. If I buy Codex: Tyranids, I want to be able to read well written, detailed fluff, withplently of artwork, maps etc. Rather like the Imperial Armour books. Keep the rules seperate. Hell, gather all the rules for the different races into one big book, so that I can actually read about what units and skills other armies have before I turn up to play them! Its been done before and was proven to be unpopular. Funnily enough, if I remember right, the Sales companies were worried what a 15 codex would do for sales, so took the offer of the 8 codex with no fluff - then regretted it. I can see a business case for a restricted, cut down beginners/tournament pack and then an expansive, all inclusive codex with campaign add ons, but aside from that the real issue with GW these days is their prices and sales strategies.

Give me one book I can chersih and one that needs updating every few years! Happens already, they are just not separate. GW fluff has never been of the highest quality but has been directed at the level the company was marleting too. This might explain why you no longer connect with some of it as you used to. I'd also counsel that nostalgia always has an impact, so beware those rose coloured glasses.

And please, please, please give me army lists that allow me to build armies with character!

Rant over, feel free to agree or disagree!:angel: Done.

My suggestion is that if you want to play 40K then you do one of three things; play the current game and suck it up. Play the current game and houserule etc. Play an earlier version that you did like, and houserule etc. Funnily enough GW advocates that for their own use, players houserule and make up as much background as they want to. Like most companies GW design their products to fulfill their needs; if that no longer matches your own then its either time to adapt or move on.

In answer to your title, no codexes are not bad things.

CaptainGallas
22-01-2012, 17:43
In the space of just a few years, the quality of the fluff has dropped to a pathetic level. I want to experiment with Chaos Deamons, but paying 20 for a book that reads as though it was written by a high school kid, for high school kids, makes me shudder!

I agree on the problem, but not on the sollution.
Bad fluff doesn't become good fluff just by putting it in a separate book.
The fluff needs to get better, and to (how do I say it, english is not my first language..) interact(?) more with the rules.

If you read the Ultramarine fluff, Marneus Calgar fight an Avatar and stop its sword with his gauntlet. In the rules, Marneus has an invul.save, so that makes sense.
That's an example of good interaction.

Now in the Blood Angels fluff, Mephiston comes back from the dead at least twice and Dante has ruled the Chapter for 1100 years, but none of them is an eternal warrior in the rules.
Bad interaction.

The Sanguinary guard have swords so ancient and holy and so deadly that they are almost unstopable, in the game it's a 2-handed master-crafted power weapon, with no bonus whatsoever for beeing 2-handed. If 1-handed, there would be an extra attack, and as half of the actual sanguinary guard minis holds the weapon with one hand, it's just silly.
Also, the Sanguinary guard are described as the uttermost elite of the Blood Angels, still, they have the same statline as ordinary veterans except for Ld10.
In the fluff they even storm the fortress of the supermighty Blood Thirster Ka'Banda togheter with the Grey Knights, and kills him, thats how great they should be.
Bad interaction.

The Blood Angels Rhinos are describes as incredibly durable, it says that half of the rhinos are over 5000 years old. Still, they are AV11 and they are often shot to pieces in the game.
Bad interaction.

In the Tyranid codex the Swarmlord is described as that he is to a Hive Tyrant what a Hive Tyrant is to a termagant. A Hive Tyrant have twice the S and T as a termagant.
A Swarmlord has the exact same S and T as an Hive Tyrant.
Bad interaction.

I'm sure many of the codices are full of these things.
It just seems like the Fluff is writing checks that the rules can't cash. That is a thing that bothers me.

(And then there are the pure stupid stuff, as the Blood Angel and Necron alliance..)

FarseerBeilTan
22-01-2012, 17:49
Before I buy a book these days, I look at either a friend who has it or have a look at it through other means ;) to see if its worth buying

Only then to buy it from a cheaper source. 20 is too much for a book of that stanards. My Architecture books are cheaper than codexs!

Ozorik
22-01-2012, 17:58
its no longer a battlefield roleplay game, its a wargame

The two are not mutually exclusive. 2nd ed was too much the former but that doesn't mean that wargames can't have a strong narrative.


Its been done before and was proven to be unpopular.

It wasn't done properly. All GW did was rip the fluff out of their Codexii (?) without providing an alternative.

yabbadabba
22-01-2012, 18:04
The two are not mutually exclusive. 2nd ed was too much the former but that doesn't mean that wargames can't have a strong narrative. Never said that. Its about mechanics, not narratives, indeed 40K has a stronger and broader narrative than in RT days as instead of a large number of races barely hinted at with a few strong themes, we have a much wider set of strong themes and through BL we have even more hinted at races with more background than previously.

It wasn't done properly. All GW did was rip the fluff out of their Codexii (?) without providing an alternative. And? That has nothing to do with the OPs request to seperate rules and fluff. And for the record, the fluff was to be built up through BL books, Inferno, WD and the comics. It was public and sales reaction to the codexes that changed the design.

What's up, you feeling picky today?

All Cing Eye
22-01-2012, 18:15
I am also an advocate of splitting the fluff from the rules.

Make the rules downloadable pdf's for each race.

Put all the fluff into nice hardcover, detailed, artbooks.

Some of the bonuses to this approach:

1. You can update books more readily, and adjust units that were over/undercosted by codex updates (Space Marine Codex v1.01 as an example) that way units that suck (Pyrovore) can be made competitive, and GW might actually sell some of them.

2. They can write fluff books that feature races/factions/space marine chapters/imperial guard forces that don't deserve a whole codex ruleset on their own.

Spider-pope
22-01-2012, 18:28
I am also an advocate of splitting the fluff from the rules.

Make the rules downloadable pdf's for each race.

Put all the fluff into nice hardcover, detailed, artbooks.

Some of the bonuses to this approach:

1. You can update books more readily, and adjust units that were over/undercosted by codex updates (Space Marine Codex v1.01 as an example) that way units that suck (Pyrovore) can be made competitive, and GW might actually sell some of them.

2. They can write fluff books that feature races/factions/space marine chapters/imperial guard forces that don't deserve a whole codex ruleset on their own.

3. A major disadvantage would be the rampant piracy that would result from the rules being .PDF and the loss of sales from players who are not internet savvy. I know it's hard to believe for some people in this age of broadband, but there is still a sizable portion of the population who don't use the internet for everything.

And with .pdfs as the main source of rules, there really would be no disadvantage to piracy. I'm not naive enough to believe that it doesnt go on now, but at least with physical rulebooks its limited somewhat as to play in a GW store and Tournaments you still require the book, you can't just turn up with a few printed out pages.

I'm firmly against a split. I still remember going from the big, fluff packed tomes of 2nd edition to the utter garbage pamphlets of 3rd edition and i have no desire to see a repeat. A Codex should offer a player all they need to play an army in one book. They shouldn't be required to pay extra to find out their races motivations nor have to track down ancient copies of White Dwarf just to find out what the hell their army is about - which is exactly what Dark Eldar players had to do for years and still didn't get any real answers.

The complaints made in the opening post wouldnt be solved by a split. The background would still be written by the same people, it wouldnt suddenly change just because its in its own book. And the rules would still be written by the same developers.
The Chaos Codex suffers because it was written during a supposed change in direction, ala the Dark Angel book, of streamlining everything down that was promptly dropped. As a Dark Angel player, believe me when i say i can emphasize but splitting the fluff and rules wouldn't do anything to solve the issue.

Vipoid
22-01-2012, 18:38
In the Tyranid codex the Swarmlord is described as that he is to a Hive Tyrant what a Hive Tyrant is to a termagant. A Hive Tyrant have twice the S and T as a termagant.
A Swarmlord has the exact same S and T as an Hive Tyrant.
Bad interaction.

I'm sure many of the codices are full of these things.
It just seems like the Fluff is writing checks that the rules can't cash. That is a thing that bothers me.


This is what annoys me.

I don't want to see fluff and rules separated - if anything I want rules that actually mimic the fluff. If I buy Tyranids, I want to play an army that matches the fluff - not one that appears to have been desinged around completely different fluff (and for a diferent game...).

I know that isn't quite what you mean when you say you'd like rules and fluff separated, but this is the thing: Some designers apparently can't write rules that match the fluff of their army, despite the fluff being on the same page. I dread to think what would happen if the fluff was locked away in a completely different book. :eyebrows:

CaptainGallas
22-01-2012, 18:46
1. You can update books more readily, and adjust units that were over/undercosted by codex updates (Space Marine Codex v1.01 as an example) that way units that suck (Pyrovore) can be made competitive, and GW might actually sell some of them.


I like your idea of more updates to make such adjustments, but you don't need a new system to do so.
They already have the FAQ / Errata section, they could just be more active and add that function there, like updating the Pyrovore.

CaptainGallas
22-01-2012, 18:58
I know that isn't quite what you mean when you say you'd like rules and fluff separated, but this is the thing: Some designers apparently can't write rules that match the fluff of their army, despite the fluff being on the same page. I dread to think what would happen if the fluff was locked away in a completely different book. :eyebrows:

I totally agree, separating it would probably make it even worse.
To bring an army to life, there need to be a good interaction between the fluff, the rules and the models.

As for the Swarmlord, with that fluff the Swarmlords statline should make a Blood Thirster pee his brazen pants and there should be an awesome model in Trygonsize.
Now there is powerful fluff, with rules not nearly making it justice, and no model at all available. Facepalm.

I think they need to work even closer, not separating, to make them better books.

All Cing Eye
22-01-2012, 20:21
Just to clarify, I don't think the core rules should be a pdf. They should be in a kickass colour hardcover book, with lots of art.

Just the rules for each individual army should be in an updateable pdf.

nedius
22-01-2012, 22:11
Just to comment on the demographic being 11-18, most of those over the age of 15 would begin to find that current fluff is a bit too 'fan-boy-ish'. I ran a warhammer club at a primary school. The 9-11 yr olds read and enjoyed the fluff. If I were writing for 16yr olds, I'd be somewhat mbarased to submit some of the fluff they use.

It doesn't need to be "And this unit is so super-uber-awsome that even avatas, bloodthirsters and swarmlords flee at the very mention of it's name, and even the god Khorne himself has yet to come out from hiding behind his throne after having his brazen buttocks handed to him by this unit." It should be brutal not 'kick-ass', dark not 'cool'. Then that very demographic will lap it up - Most of them love feeling that they're enjoying something a bit more adult.

As such, I think the problem with the current fluff is that it is aiming too young - something that the parents of children younger than their supposed demographic are happy with.

Deadnight
22-01-2012, 23:02
I no longer think this.

Since my two armies are Chaos marines and Tyranids, most readers will be able to guess what my problem with Codexes is.


codex:chaos was the most broken codex of 4th ed. now its not. theres your issue. :)

tyranids? meh.



In the space of just a few years, the quality of the fluff has dropped to a pathetic level. I want to experiment with Chaos Deamons, but paying 20 for a book that reads as though it was written by a high school kid, for high school kids, makes me shudder!

there is examples of horribly written crap going back through to third ed. draigo et al are hardly new symptoms. at least we get fluff. when i started space wolves and tau in third, my fluff for each unit entry was about thirty worlds written beside the entry in the respective FOC section of the army roster. you'd be lucky to get a paragraph on a battle somewhere. Now? huge fluff. reams of fluff.



The complexity is gone. For berevity, I'll focus on two examples. The Aspiring Champion and the Carnifex. Champions had access tot he armoury, meaning that there was a slew of weapons, armour, deamonic gifts, malrs etc that you could bestow upon him. Now, he has literally half a dozen upgrades. He used to be a character in his own right. Now, he's a powerfist delivery system. The Carnifex.... I now get to pay far more points for a pre-selected monster with limited upgrades. Before it was like building a car from the ground up. Now I get to choose the colour and the engine.


i never saw asp champions as anything else other than champ+powerfist (and occassionaly daemonic visage). all that character you spoke of merely translated to a handful of utterly broken combos that ruined 4th ed.

carnifex? yeah, no arguments here. poor guy sucks.



Since the new updates of Codexes have to update the fluff as well, new Hive flees burst into being and are promptly wiped out. Chapter after chapter that no one has ever heard about suddenly go renegade. New units spring into being, often requiring existing units to be nerfed to make them usefull.


would you rather the fluff you've previously read in the last codex was simply copy/pasted?



I'd like to see the fluff and the rules split. If I buy Codex: Tyranids, I want to be able to read well written, detailed fluff, withplently of artwork, maps etc. Rather like the Imperial Armour books. Keep the rules seperate. Hell, gather all the rules for the different races into one big book, so that I can actually read about what units and skills other armies have before I turn up to play them!


like the original 3rd ed rulebook? heh, aint happening. that thing was terrible. im all up for better fluff, but you have to remember stuff: fluff is not written for you, or your sensibilities. its their design philosophy. they're trying to emulate privateer press' warcasters and have the focus on herohammer turned up to 11. thats the style they want now. overblown, over the top characters. thats what the game is now. Aye, you might have an IA sized book, but it will still be herohammer because thats what GW wants to sell.



Give me one book I can chersih and one that needs updating every few years!

And please, please, please give me army lists that allow me to build armies with character!



read:give me a codex with lots of over the top, broken options. :) (sorry, couldnt resist. i have no sympathy for people lamenting the demise of the old chaos codex. tyanids? different story)

GrimZAG
22-01-2012, 23:25
Fluff is there to be "awesome".

Rules must be game balanced.

I agree that there could be better representation between the two but I'd prefer to play a balanced game even if it means that it doesn't line up with the fluff.

AlphariusOmegon20
23-01-2012, 04:25
The library here in Perth had copies of the last Chaos Codex and the Codex for the Eye Of Terror Campaign.

I saw them on the shelf, felt a rush of nostalgea since I'd played a little 40K back in Rogue Trader days. It was the combination of interesting, well-written fluff, infinately customisable army lists and much improved models that dragged me back into the world of 40k. This was in the dying days of 4th ed. At the time, I thought that Codeses were awsome.

I no longer think this.

Since my two armies are Chaos marines and Tyranids, most readers will be able to guess what my problem with Codexes is.

In the space of just a few years, the quality of the fluff has dropped to a pathetic level. I want to experiment with Chaos Deamons, but paying 20 for a book that reads as though it was written by a high school kid, for high school kids, makes me shudder!

The complexity is gone. For berevity, I'll focus on two examples. The Aspiring Champion and the Carnifex. Champions had access tot he armoury, meaning that there was a slew of weapons, armour, deamonic gifts, malrs etc that you could bestow upon him. Now, he has literally half a dozen upgrades. He used to be a character in his own right. Now, he's a powerfist delivery system. The Carnifex.... I now get to pay far more points for a pre-selected monster with limited upgrades. Before it was like building a car from the ground up. Now I get to choose the colour and the engine.

Since the new updates of Codexes have to update the fluff as well, new Hive flees burst into being and are promptly wiped out. Chapter after chapter that no one has ever heard about suddenly go renegade. New units spring into being, often requiring existing units to be nerfed to make them usefull.

I'd like to see the fluff and the rules split. If I buy Codex: Tyranids, I want to be able to read well written, detailed fluff, withplently of artwork, maps etc. Rather like the Imperial Armour books. Keep the rules seperate. Hell, gather all the rules for the different races into one big book, so that I can actually read about what units and skills other armies have before I turn up to play them!

Give me one book I can chersih and one that needs updating every few years!

And please, please, please give me army lists that allow me to build armies with character!

Rant over, feel free to agree or disagree!:angel:

Your problem isn't with the "codex" concept. It's with who wrote those particular ones, Namely Gav Thorpe/Allessio Cavatore and Robin Cruddace. The rest of the codexes are fine for the most part.

madprophet
23-01-2012, 05:11
Why not just include a unit card in each box of minis - go back to percentages like they did in 2nd edition, then publish awesome fluff/campaign books like forgeworld's Imperial Armour series (but all fluff - no crunch) and publish the rules in the Big Black Book format and the little pamphlet format in the starter set.

The already have virtual unit cards on their website, so why not go all the way and do it 2nd edition style. Publish updated army lists and fluff in WD (which would get me to resubscribe) and expand the game setting that way.

Project2501
23-01-2012, 05:22
I don't know that simply splitting rules and background would necessarily suddenly make the background 'better' though. Nor would it suddenly take us back to the supposedly better days of yore when every race (except Necrons) had a huge armoury and/or array of options to play with.


I certainly wouldn't mind rules and background being seperated to some extent, but I doubt that it would really do much other than meaning that you don't have to carry around rules if you want background, or background if you want rules.

Well said, and agreed.