Not to be a dissident, or anything, but isn't it odd that in every WD article I read thei're always ranting about how people should look at the history section of the codices (is that right?). How can we do that if it's all butchered into a couple of pages in the rule book. Now i've been playing long enough to be able to quote most of the scourcebooks, but for new guys, there is no depth to the game anymore. That is exactly why I stopped playing battletech. It get's boring just thrashing some random opponent after a while. I don't even like playing 40K all that much. I just like adding layers to my company's history, and then painting them up. The most fun I've ever had was at the arena battles at dexcon 96, remember the Horus heresy battle? It wasn't about who won. (although I think it was obvious when two guys pulled out their Blood Angels CHAPTER!)I had a great ime being there, comparing paint jobs and tactics. That is what the game is about. It's really hard to have any depth to that without a detailed history.(posted 9175 days ago)To all you GW workers out there, now I'm a big Shadowrun fan. Part of that reason is the detailed and beleivable world that they created for their game. They do that with their novels. come on, I know you're saying to yourself, "but Shadowrun novels are crap" yes, as novels go, thei're crap, but each one adds a layer of knowledge and then another of mystery to the game. Think of all the possibilties within our great universes, be it 40K, or fantasy, hey even necromunda. I'm sure there's a whole ammo crate of writers who would love to have a krak at a manuscript. (points to himself) Hey, If you're not putting it in the codices, you have to put it somewhere!