Welcome to Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum! Log in and join the community.

Talk:Codex

From Warhammer 40k - Lexicanum
Revision as of 16:23, 9 July 2019 by Ashendant (talk | contribs) (Mini Codices from White Dwarf)
Jump to: navigation, search

8th Edition

With the release of 8th Edition, this page needs some attention by...whoever's got the 8th Edition books, I suppose.

Servus Canonicus (talk) 08:31, 11 August 2018 (MDT)

Attention by what exactly? I've kept it updated to list the latest 8th Edition codex's Harriticus

German Editions

Sorry, forget to log in when I made this one. I translated the German one as best I could but I was just using a free translator so I may be off. I still need to get pictures of each editions codex. Swiss Knight

...or at least the english edition. Swiss Knight

'Codicies'

I don't recall an official quote, but I'm rather certain the standard plural of Codex is in fact simply 'Codexes'. I rarely ever see anyone use 'codicies' in type without being corrected for it. I am considering rectifying the entry soon with this in mind. --71.213.234.161 00:10, 27 April 2006 (CEST)

  • According to my dictionary it is 'Codices', although whether this is how GW spells it i'm not sure--Jonru 00:20, 27 April 2006 (CEST)

It seemed weird to me too. But i've never really seen it either way. Swiss Knight

Although it should be (in proper English) "codices", GW uses "codexes" or simply "Codex books". Similarly, "Carnifex" is pluralized as "Carnifexes" by GW (it should be Carnifices as well). --70.33.147.0 17:20, 11 August 2006 (CEST)

I guess since GW sells Codexes, "Category:Codices and Rulebooks" all other mentions of "Codices" need to be renamed. --Digganob 18:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

GW uses both codices and codexes. Codices is the proper use, however. --Melissia 05:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle Manual

I think the Battle Manual published in 1992 should be included. The intro says it was a "first attempt to redescribe all the weapons… since the original volume was published in 1987" - which clearly makes it a codex. The cover used the art later used in the 2nd edition "Wargear" rules manual, which reprinted much of the content in the same format and with the same ilustrations. I can supply a cover shot if you need one.

Please sign your comments with --~~~~. Battle and Vehicle Manual have their own articles (although incomplete - so don't hesitate ;)) here (including cover pics). They could be included in the gallery of the first edition, but they're no codices (as well as some other books published here, like Apocalypse). I think there should be an article for each edition with a gallery including all publications (like in the German Lexicanum) and this article reserved for all "real" codices (i.e. publications called so).--Genestealer, Magus 14:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

'Current list of codexes' & 'Yet to be released codexes'

Do we really need those two lists?
1. It's not that hard to find the most recent codex in the general list.
2. There's always a codex that has 'yet to be released'. --Digganob 22:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say keep the first one but change the second to Awaiting Release or something, make it a list of ones we know will be released rather than a guess-list.--Jonru 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

In yet to be released codexes there is the new blood angels codex comming in april. Here is the linkCodex Blood Angels

Dark Eldar

Well, they've been released. Someone who has the book needs to go make the fifth edition Dark Eldar codex page and link it here, then move the third edition book out of the current list of codices.

--Melissia 13:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mini Codices from White Dwarf

Shouldn't this page, and the Codices (List) include the mini-codices from this years White Dwarf.--Ashendant (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2019 (MDT)

Mini-Codices are not really separate products as such. So I guess it depends if one sees it from the product side or from the content side. And Mini-Codices in WD have been around since 3rd edition I think... --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2019 (MDT)
I'm asking because I remember that in the past the codex supplement were on this list. Also if we exclude mini-codices, by that logic, shouldn't we also exclude expansions?--Ashendant (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2019 (MDT)
Don't know who authorized to put Expansions in in the first place, why should they be considered a Codex? --Inquisitor S., Großmeister des Ordo Lexicanum (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2019 (MDT)
I don't know but it's probably old. The list likely taken from Codices (List)
And well I misremembered, the supplements, like Haemonculus Covens - A Codex: Dark Eldar Supplement were the ones that were on this list, not the White Dwarf mini-codices, which are called Index Astartes. IA haven't appeared in the White Dwarf for a big while.--Ashendant (talk) 16:39, 8 July 2019 (MDT)
I think everything is much simpler here. If the extension was published as a separate book, then there should be an article about it. The Index Astartes were first published as articles in the White Dwarf, but then reissued in the form of books, so there is an article about them. Accordingly, as long as mini-codices are not officially published as separate books, I consider it unnecessary to make articles about them. Links to them (as before on the Index Astartes) will look like this: White Dwarf June 2019, pg. XX, Codex Ynnari or something like that. As for why Expansions are included in the list of Codices, I think this was done because there was no separate article about Expansions. Therefore, people did not seem to "dare" to make a separate Category and article and simply put everything in a row in the Codices. Perhaps it must be created with appropriate Category etc.--Darkelf77 (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2019 (MDT)
I disagree on that statement about Index Astartes, because the Index Astartes article already includes those articles in the list at the bottom even if they weren't published in a volume.
That's what I think happened to expansions too.--Ashendant (talk) 10:23, 9 July 2019 (MDT)