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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good thinking, that also lets inquisitors as some of the whackier tech-adepts with a couple enginseers. That should be mighty fine!

I mean, you should be able to reverse engineer the AdMech rules from latter 6th/7th, right? It's the same rules base, after all.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good thinking, that also lets inquisitors as some of the whackier tech-adepts with a couple enginseers. That should be mighty fine!

The official ia2-update.pdf (2008) is worth digging out to bring the vehicles in-line with 5th edition rules. There were no major FAQ changes for the books.

To the best of my knowledge neither codex was updated alongside the other outdated books like the templars in the 2009 sweep, probably because the GK codex was on the horizon and the sisters were about to get Cruddaced.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:Interesting stuff. I always enjoy seeing the photos.

5th ed. was after my time, so I'm not sure how much it differed from 3rd, but it seems thin on terrain to my aged 2nd ed. eyes.

It's often hard to figure out how to place models without doing volley fire on turn 1, and something we do is use 'field works' if it's appropriate to the scenario. Basically, we have squad-sized fighting positions that players plop down during deployment. The assumption is that unless it is a meeting engagement, the troops would have dug in upon coming into contact. The start of the game represents orders arriving and the battle commencing. I've got a game coming up, so maybe I'll get some photos of what one of our boards looks like for contrast.

Wyzilla wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If my group picks up 3rd/4th, what do folks recommend for an Admech army? Almost looks more like they were playing in 2nd and got dropped till 7th

Sisters of Battle for Skitarii with Imperial Guard for allies should cover most of the bases. More suiting for how the Admech are supposed to function in terms of durability and firepower than the actual Admech army now too. Alternatively Space Marines but only using Scouts for infantry.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Good thinking, that also lets inquisitors as some of the whackier tech-adepts with a couple enginseers. That should be mighty fine!

I mean, you should be able to reverse engineer the AdMech rules from latter 6th/7th, right? It's the same rules base, after all.

.5th ed has hard cover saves so there is more than enough LOS blocking terrain and area cover terrain. there is also no 2nd ed camping version of overwatch.

As for admech, i use a 7th ed admech/skitarii army in our 5th ed games. it is a direct port into 5th as long as you use 5th ed core rules. IE converting special rules that did not exist into ones that did (USRs) IE dune strider becomes move through cover. otherwise they work just fine.

witch hunters 3rd ed codex works just fine. we are even able to run the new predator as something sisters would use-namely a relic predator with a melta cannon or a flamestorm cannon. it can even have a "pintle mount" heavy bolter to make the model more or less WYSIWYG.

remember also that both the witch hunter and demon hunter codex allow for some interesting allies options thanks to inquisition rules. the sisters can even bring inquisitorial land raiders as dedicated transports for some units.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
If my group picks up 3rd/4th, what do folks recommend for an Admech army? Almost looks more like they were playing in 2nd and got dropped till 7th

Sisters of Battle for Skitarii with Imperial Guard for allies should cover most of the bases. More suiting for how the Admech are supposed to function in terms of durability and firepower than the actual Admech army now too. Alternatively Space Marines but only using Scouts for infantry.

Good thinking, that also lets inquisitors as some of the whackier tech-adepts with a couple enginseers. That should be mighty fine!

If you are happy to use optional rules (and it is 3rd edition), Citadel Journal 32 includes rules for fielding Adeptus Mechanicus support weapons, with a techpriest leading servitor-crewed Tarantulas (these are mobile anti-grav platforms rather than the later static sentry guns), Rapiers with twin multilasers, Thudd guns, and Mole mortars. This could be combined with the later Rapier rules in Citadel Journal for an anti-tank version with a laser destroyer.

The Tarantula or Rapier is probably the closest 3rd edition option to Kataphron servitors.

 aphyon wrote:
.5th ed has hard cover saves so there is more than enough LOS blocking terrain and area cover terrain. there is also no 2nd ed camping version of overwatch.

Camping! Haven't heard that term in a while.

Our most recent game was a meeting engagement between scout elements, so between dive-bombing Swooping Hawks and bike squadrons careening across the board at 30" a turn it was pretty wild.

The next game will be in an urban environment, so a little more subtlety will be required.

I dusted off my old Word Bearer chaos list from 7th and found that although the Scrolls of Magnus are fun, removing it let me build something a little more MSU-ish.

For 1850 pts, it ends up being (approx, so some omissions):

A Chaos Lord of Tzeentch on Disc, w/ melee gear and Scripts of Erebus
A Palanquin Sorcerer of Nurgle w/ Malefic Tome
Two units of 5 CSM, w/ Melta, Combimelta, and Dozerblade/Dirgecaster Rhinos
Two units of Combiplasma Termicide
Two min-strength units of Bikes, with Mark of Slaanesh, and Powersword Champ
2 Helbrutes
2 units of 20 Cultists
3 solo Spawn of Chaos
3 Heralds of Tzeentch on Disc, w/ one Lesser Gift each

The end result looks...scrappy is the best word. The first turn normally involves summoning two units of Flesh Hounds or Screamers, depending on the opponent (or summoning Horrors for additional Warp Charge support). If I get Sacrifice or Possession on the Heralds, all the better.

 dreadblade wrote:
I'll be playing some 10th edition games at Warhammer World in a couple of weeks, but I've reserved copies of Rogue Trader and the Realm of Chaos books to pick up while I'm there. I'm super-excited to be getting a nostalgia overload (and of course the 1st edition army lists for GK and TSons).

I've been geeking-out on the Realm of Chaos books these last few days. Whilst the game is clearly not as well developed/balanced as 10th edition, these books are so much more interesting to read than current codexes. I was slightly nervous about revisiting them in case they weren't as good as I remembered, but I've not been disappointed.

There are always the takes saying "old editions were bad, you are just looking at them through rose tinted glasses" but the fact remains, some of the background books of 1st edition were clearly labours of love

Would love to see them do that for 2nd ed.

Reprint all those codexes and the rulebooks.

Those were imo still the best codexes ever produced. The black and white art is so much more atmospheric than the mass produced product illustrations we get these days.

 Hellebore wrote:
Would love to see them do that for 2nd ed.

Reprint all those codexes and the rulebooks.

Those were imo still the best codexes ever produced. The black and white art is so much more atmospheric than the mass produced product illustrations we get these days.

Personally, I prefer the 3rd ed stuff. Same style of black-and-white artwork*, but also crammed full of in-universe lore snippets from various denizens of the galaxy.

Take the last page before the inside cover of the 2nd Imperial Guard codex of 3rd. It has a bunch of missives and letters piled on (presumably) the desk of some high-ranking officer or official in the 3rd War for Armageddon. However, over half the letters are partially covered by letters on top of them. So they went to the effort of creating all these lore snippets even though you wouldn't be able to read much of it, just to create this cool atmosphere and sense of mystery.


*Often the very same images!

The 3rd Ed books were basically pamphlets. The Ork one didn't even have all the rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The 3rd Ed books were basically pamphlets. The Ork one didn't even have all the rules.

Initially, from a rules perspective and overall length, yes. But I think they had the best lore and visual presentation. The books also evolved during the edition to be much superior by 2002-2003.

 Haighus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The 3rd Ed books were basically pamphlets. The Ork one didn't even have all the rules.

Initially, from a rules perspective and overall length, yes. But I think they had the best lore and visual presentation. The books also evolved during the edition to be much superior by 2002-2003.

I agree that the in universe material was really evocative in those early 3rd ed codexes.

But that's all there was. They were 48 pages for a codex, or 24 for a supplement and it lost ~12 pages to photos, leaving 36 for everything else.

As soon as they started writing longer ones again, beginning with the tau codex, they went back to the 2nd ed style longer format, encyclopaedia bestiary and 3rd person narration. Most of the in universe stuff didn't come over.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The 3rd Ed books were basically pamphlets. The Ork one didn't even have all the rules.

Yes, I recall the crushing disappointment that was the 3rd ed. Space Marine Codex. Nothing like the depth and fluff of 2nd, which had neat little vignettes and even strategy guides for how to play them!

A 2nd ed. reprint with all the subsequent releases inserted I would definitely buy. Having the grav tanks in the Eldar Codex or Razorback rules for the marines would be great!

I've felt a little like that with the last two codex from GW. They've stripped out a lot of those unit lore pages that I was really starting to enjoy and I felt gave a depth of feeling to the army not just the faction. Plus they went into what those weapons and units were in the game, lore and on the tabletop; helping bringing it to life.

I still remember the little glossary of Imperial Guard slang terms in the 3.5 dex, and the Eldritch Horror poem in the Necron book..


When was the last time a lho stick was mentioned in the lore? Does anyone smoke in the 42nd millennium? Or is that so a thousand years ago?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The 3rd Ed books were basically pamphlets. The Ork one didn't even have all the rules.

The one exception being the Hunter Dexes.

I still look at the equipment lists in the witch Hunter dex when I'm campaign building.

Oh look, the 3rd Ed ones certainly got better as time went on, and thicker with more details (it started with Chaos 3.5, IIRC, and carried into Eye of Terror, Guard 3.5, and so on), but those initial ones were so bare bones. The Craftworld Eldar one has rules for all the Craftworlds, but is as thin as Imperium Magazine!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh look, the 3rd Ed ones certainly got better as time went on, and thicker with more details (it started with Chaos 3.5, IIRC, and carried into Eye of Terror, Guard 3.5, and so on), but those initial ones were so bare bones. The Craftworld Eldar one has rules for all the Craftworlds, but is as thin as Imperium Magazine!

The Dark eldar one bothered me beyond all reason. Here's a brand new faction that they just made up and its... a handful of pages of background. Lots of pics and unit entries and a few fluff snippets, but mostly just 'rar, we is murder elfs'

And no special wargear either. Had to get an updated pamphlet for that...

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

When was the last time a lho stick was mentioned in the lore? Does anyone smoke in the 42nd millennium? Or is that so a thousand years ago?

Lho sticks are in Necromunda. If the leader has one, and the followers *fail* an intelligence test it makes the leaders seem more cool.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh look, the 3rd Ed ones certainly got better as time went on, and thicker with more details (it started with Chaos 3.5, IIRC, and carried into Eye of Terror, Guard 3.5, and so on), but those initial ones were so bare bones. The Craftworld Eldar one has rules for all the Craftworlds, but is as thin as Imperium Magazine!

Well, tbf, the craftworld dex for 3rd was just a supplement, added on to the main eldar dex.

 the_scotsman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh look, the 3rd Ed ones certainly got better as time went on, and thicker with more details (it started with Chaos 3.5, IIRC, and carried into Eye of Terror, Guard 3.5, and so on), but those initial ones were so bare bones. The Craftworld Eldar one has rules for all the Craftworlds, but is as thin as Imperium Magazine!

Well, tbf, the craftworld dex for 3rd was just a supplement, added on to the main eldar dex.

Yes, it provided as much rules content and variety from the core list as the Chapter Approved article in WD290 for Ork clans. I suspect if they'd released the latter earlier in the edition it would have been as a codex ala Codex: Craftworlds.

However, even the pamphlet-codices are jammed full of lore snippets that are frequently still core to modern lore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:

 Haighus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The 3rd Ed books were basically pamphlets. The Ork one didn't even have all the rules.

Initially, from a rules perspective and overall length, yes. But I think they had the best lore and visual presentation. The books also evolved during the edition to be much superior by 2002-2003.

I agree that the in universe material was really evocative in those early 3rd ed codexes.

But that's all there was. They were 48 pages for a codex, or 24 for a supplement and it lost ~12 pages to photos, leaving 36 for everything else.

As soon as they started writing longer ones again, beginning with the tau codex, they went back to the 2nd ed style longer format, encyclopaedia bestiary and 3rd person narration. Most of the in universe stuff didn't come over.

I partially agree. They added 3rd person narration, but kept a similar number of quotes and reports and in-universe stuff (the books being longer to accommodate both). In addition, the narration was not as "omniscient" as later editions (more akin to the style FW used in the HH black books, sort of as if written by an Imperial historian). For example, in the second IG codex of 3rd, there is a bit where they talk about "Hylgar's Hellraisers", and how the information must be incorrect because it contains units not seen since the early days of the Imperium. There are unknowns and postulations in a way we do not see in the much more authoritative modern narration.

The structure of the army lists was largely consistent too, with a small lore vignette adjacent to the unit entry and a separate armoury section. The arrangement of the sections did change (the armoury moved from the end of the book to just prior to the army list).

If I want to read a damn novel, I'll buy a damn novel.



I loved the layout of the 3rd Ed. codexes and would love it if they offered a slimmed down "rules only" option for every edition.

 Just Tony wrote:
If I want to read a damn novel, I'll buy a damn novel.



I loved the layout of the 3rd Ed. codexes and would love it if they offered a slimmed down "rules only" option for every edition.

See I don't want to see that because if there's one thing I've noticed its that fluff/art and other elements very easily get passed over as purchases for "more models". What can happen when you split rules and lore is that your die-hard fans are fine ;but your casual players suddenly lose a lore connection entirely. That is a huge thing to lose because how many of us come back for lore or because we like the theme of an army; not just the models. Even the light content in codex's defines an army for many and grounds them in the setting - its the hook that might draw them in further than just models and rules.


I think the best approach would be if GW went back to 3rd or 4th ed style codex in information layout (seriously at some point GW either gave up/lost the skill or don't care because several recent editions are sheer nightmares for rules layout); and then produced 1 product of a codex for rules and a codex for fluff in separate books but always bundled together.

Or perhaps 3 books. 1 combined codex (Cheaper) and then a split which has both rules and fluff in two separate publications but always combined sale.

That way you can have the choice of everything in one; or your rules only book that you only need for games and a lore book. Plus by only selling them together you keep that same hook that the codex right now (and always have been) which is a fantastic lure for the lore and details.






~I know GW sells the big rulebook with a rules only version onw (sometimes even ringbinding it!) however the core rulebook is almost a little different because
a) it is so massive
b) it also gets massive discounts early in the sales period with the starter sets and such. So it gets thrust onto the market very aggressively. Codex could do the same if GW did a big discount box with basically a free codex every edition, but I feel like it wouldn't work quite the same

Esp because everyone needs the core, but not everyone needs an army codex for every force. So you could quickly end up with some being overly abundant and others being very hard to source

The codexes should just be books full of background, organisational detail, unit markings and colour schemes etc.
Then they wouldn't need to be replaced every three years (if you're lucky).

The rules should be free PDFs. Then they can be easily updated if necessary.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The codexes should just be books full of background, organisational detail, unit markings and colour schemes etc.
Then they wouldn't need to be replaced every three years (if you're lucky).

The rules should be free PDFs. Then they can be easily updated if necessary.

If anything this should be reversed.
Because GW will never sell enough of the type of Codex you envision to make it worth producing even 1 of them, let alone 20some.

The RULES though.... Those they know will sell.

ccs wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
The codexes should just be books full of background, organisational detail, unit markings and colour schemes etc.
Then they wouldn't need to be replaced every three years (if you're lucky).

The rules should be free PDFs. Then they can be easily updated if necessary.

If anything this should be reversed.
Because GW will never sell enough of the type of Codex you envision to make it worth producing even 1 of them, let alone 20some.

The RULES though.... Those they know will sell.

And this is why the two should always go together as a sold product.

People focus on the game side as a priority purchase; whilst everything else is optional. Cut out the fluff and art from the rules - separate them - and it will work in the short term. Long term what will happen is new players will potentially have less and less interest in lore and art and side products. Furthermore you lose the connection so there might be less of a pull to draw them back once they take a step outside of the hobby (for whatever reason).

Cutting out lore and just having rules focuses on one type of customer; whilst having both hits far more customers over a broader spectrum. That helps encourage sales of that particular product and it helps generate interest and hype. Plus its a great way for GW to soft introduce a lot of people to their lore which might turn into BL book purchases and such.



There's a reason you see every other game that starts taking itself seriously start also producing lore and rule books and bundling bits of lore into the rules. The two are inseparable when the game you play is partly based on the story and imagination of the setting not just the raw tactical nuts and bolts of the game.

 Overread wrote:
There's a reason you see every other game that starts taking itself seriously start also producing lore and rule books and bundling bits of lore into the rules. The two are inseparable when the game you play is partly based on the story and imagination of the setting not just the raw tactical nuts and bolts of the game.

One of the most epic wargames ever was West End Games' Imperium Romanum II. Yeah, boring, whatever, but each rule was prefaced by a relevant quote from an ancient historian. Suetonius, Livy, Tacitus - it was brilliant.

GW is coasting on the genius of its first 20 years. They put the lore in the codex and then showed you how it was reflected in the rules. It was intuitive and immersive.

GW has been able to skimp on that because 40k was so wildly successful as to become somewhat mainstream. There are memes and pop culture references. Heck, Chronicles of Riddick was a love-letter to the Chaos Marines.

I admit that even though I have not bought a single GW novel, I have been known to curl up with the 2nd ed. codexes just to re-read the background material.

 Overread wrote:
And this is why the two should always go together as a sold product.

Yeah I'm totally with Overread on this. I think a separate rulebook would certainly sell, but a fluff book on its own would sell a fraction of what the rules would.

I wish that we had bigger fluff sections. They've gotten thinner and thinner over the years (well, since the 3rd Ed pamphlets were done away with, that is). I think it was Orks 6th where there was a shift to pages of full photos for units, and their rules, and next to no fluff. Even now, each unit gets a tiny paragraph on its dataslate. The lists of units and what each one was and how they fit into the universe are long gone. Ditto going over the equipment/wargear of factions.