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.

lliu wrote:
Hey buddies, I just noticed that there is a lot of hate on the internet directed at Mat Ward. Is it because of the ultra marines, the Newcrons, or something else? Plus, it seems that he made a lot of stuff different, so could anyone explain? Anyone? All answers appreciated.

Compared to this GK codex, I am beginning to think he did a damn solid job with the previous one. Overpowered for 5th, certainly, yes, but just fine for 6th.

Kangodo wrote:
Because it's the internet and we all need someone to hate.
Ward has left GW, so people will find a new target for their grievances.

There's still the Crudd.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Because it's the internet and we all need someone to hate.
Ward has left GW, so people will find a new target for their grievances.

Quite true. There is not one thing that Mat Ward did that was not approved by someone else within GW. Being the credited figurehead on unpopular fluff and rules means being the designated scapegoat.

Supposedly not quite true. He apparently had little oversight with the 5E Space Marine book, and amongst his changes included the transport capacities of Land Raiders and Drop Pods to twelve from ten. According to his own words at UK GD 2009, he supposedly "got his knuckles wrapped for that", as they obviously didn't get noticed in time to change before the book was printed, and those transport capacity changes did not carry over to any other 5E marine book or the subsequent 6E SM codex.

Thus he was apparently not quite as well scrutinized as many would think.

If he was scrutinised at all. Tbh, I didn't find his balance issues much worse than the average codex writer, but that's not the main reason he's hated by neckbeards.

zeromaeus wrote:
For the most part, I just think people want to be angry at somebody. The dude wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't as abysmal as many would claim. I rather liked his approach to Necrons.

His fluff defined the word "abysmal."

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not "rules OR fluff", the fluff is sick of "mary sue" heroes who are always so perfect its sickening, the rules on the other hand are some of the most out of balance codcies in the game, both inner and outer balance-wise, and the two don't even match up at any way...

He's just BAD at writing sci-fi/space fantasy games, and when someone who is bad at his job is practically running the show of your hobby, you will naturally develop a level of distaste of him at least.

Seriously.

Phil Kelly has written more OP codex's for 40k, Ward has the best internal balance of any codex writer in 40k with mostly usable units, while Phil kelly writes things like Mutilators and Mandrakes and has autoincludes like Heldrakes, Grey hunters. Cruddance with his vendetta of 5th edition and his useless tyranids.

The real problem is that people just outright hate his fluff, his codex's have a strong external balance but nothing as badly OP as has been brought out by the others, and as aresult they demonize him to the point where most of the insults are taken out of context, misattributed, or just outright lies, or pretty much meme's forced by a board that no longer even hates him anymore.

IMHO, Ward wrote extremely gimmicky Codices which "encouraged" you to play a certain way. BA were so bad as soon as 6th ed dropped because they were written to abuse the 5th ed ruleset, similar to how GK units got much poorer as soon as 6th dropped (and similarly, Necrons were the opposite, mediocre in 5th but written to abuse 6th ed's ruleset).

And pretre in 5... 4... 3... 2... 1

 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not "rules OR fluff", the fluff is sick of "mary sue" heroes who are always so perfect its sickening, the rules on the other hand are some of the most out of balance codcies in the game, both inner and outer balance-wise, and the two don't even match up at any way...

He's just BAD at writing sci-fi/space fantasy games, and when someone who is bad at his job is practically running the show of your hobby, you will naturally develop a level of distaste of him at least.

Seriously.

Phil Kelly has written more OP codex's for 40k, Ward has the best internal balance of any codex writer in 40k with mostly usable units, while Phil kelly writes things like Mutilators and Mandrakes and has autoincludes like Heldrakes, Grey hunters. Cruddance with his vendetta of 5th edition and his useless tyranids.

The real problem is that people just outright hate his fluff, his codex's have a strong external balance but nothing as badly OP as has been brought out by the others, and as aresult they demonize him to the point where most of the insults are taken out of context, misattributed, or just outright lies, or pretty much meme's forced by a board that no longer even hates him anymore.

IMHO, Ward wrote extremely gimmicky Codices which "encouraged" you to play a certain way. BA were so bad as soon as 6th ed dropped because they were written to abuse the 5th ed ruleset, similar to how GK units got much poorer as soon as 6th dropped (and similarly, Necrons were the opposite, mediocre in 5th but written to abuse 6th ed's ruleset).

You mean the fact that GK played a good balance in 6th? GK was actually pretty good in 6th, as well as necrons and SM remained decent in 6th, the only poor codex that ended off worse was BA.

Heck, Necrons took the same place as Orks did back with Nob Bikerz abusing 5th edition's wound rule set.

Necrons. in 6th.
"Decent"

What you be smoking man? necrons were completely flying rodent gak OP in 6th. practically every competitive army was either necrons, or necrons with allies.

Major parts of their codex is STILL OP (MMS, annibarge, night scythe) and only held back by other OP stuff that showed up like the rerollable 2++ stars.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Necrons. in 6th.
"Decent"
What you be smoking man? necrons were completely flying rodent gak OP in 6th. practically every competitive army was either necrons, or necrons with allies.
Major parts of their codex is STILL OP (MMS, annibarge, night scythe) and only held back by other OP stuff that showed up like the rerollable 2++ stars.

Was that before or after Tau/Eldar?
Because according to ToF they were slightly above a 55%-win since last November.
Necrons are roughly around the same level as Codex: Space Marines with only Tau and Eldar between a 60-65% win.

Barges and Scythes are undercosted and not overpowered.
And MSS.. Sigh.. Learn to play maybe?

I like Necrons being OP.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Necrons. in 6th.
"Decent"

What you be smoking man? necrons were completely flying rodent gak OP in 6th. practically every competitive army was either necrons, or necrons with allies.

Major parts of their codex is STILL OP (MMS, annibarge, night scythe) and only held back by other OP stuff that showed up like the rerollable 2++ stars.

..What are you even? You mean besides daemons, gravstar, eldar, tau, and the fact that at best, Necron was 4th through sixth on the charts.

They were decent, but tournaments didn't have them dominating, and they dominated early 6th due to nobody knowing at the time how to deal with flyers.

Necrons generally dominated until Tau showed up, then got fully hosed by the Taudar/Eltau bro-fisting silliness. Daemons are a two gimmick wonder on the other hand, and both of those gimmicks got knocked down quite a bit by the new 7th ed rule set.

Overall though, Daemons outright require you to actively chose to be a combo-abusing donkey-cave. The Grimoire is a solid item on it's own, and is no more "over powered" than the likes of The Shield Eternal or Black Mace. People only rage about it when you:
a) Combine it alongside Fateweaver to remove almost all the inherent risk involved with the item, AND then...
b) Cast Forewarning on the unit/model you intend to Grimoire up, AND then...
c) Use it on a unit with the Daemon of Tzeentch rule.

Do all the above and it's pure broken monkey poo. However, you the player have made that choice to be a no-fun d-bag. It's not the item's fault, especially when you the player, have gone out of your way to ensure the combo works by piling on 6-9+ levels of Divination and then thrown it all into a massive Deathstar build.


On the other hand, the majority of Ward books are just filled with outright gimmicky drivel that is just flat out "whatever you can do I can do 10x better because... reasons"

Not to mention that what he's done to Orc & Goblin players and Daemon players in Fantasy is a complete and utter travesty.

Proper balance is when even under the assumption of players abusing the system as much as possible, nothing extraordinarly powerful shows up, and that no choice is inherently wrong (as in, a choice that is NEVER a good one, under any combination or circumstances)

If something is only making a problem when in a given combination, then a safeguard in the rules should prevent, or at least hold back said combination.


And taudar WAS one of the same "other op silly stuff" that held back the necron OP. no longer an army though. you do not achieve balance by throwing another OP choice against the first, unless you equally OP every single thing, and then there isn't an OP.

Any other answers?

Misogynistic fluff in the GK codex. GKs engaging in a Khornate ritual (ooh but they didn't know, oooh. Really you don't think that they would be wise to the machjnations of daemons and take steps to avoid doing anything even remotely like a Chaos ritual?)

Really do you have to kill the Sisters because you need MORE faith? Sisters have the most faith of anyone so wouldn't it be logical to make sure they stay alive in order to create the metaphysical effects of faith? Dead Sisters don't have faith.

What really drives the point home is what the sisters were fighting against when the GKs showed up.

I am all for a good joke but this is just purile humor.

He's said to have given a lot of attention to the armies he likes and neglected others.

xraytango wrote:
Misogynistic fluff in the GK codex. GKs engaging in a Khornate ritual (ooh but they didn't know, oooh. Really you don't think that they would be wise to the machjnations of daemons and take steps to avoid doing anything even remotely like a Chaos ritual?)

Really do you have to kill the Sisters because you need MORE faith? Sisters have the most faith of anyone so wouldn't it be logical to make sure they stay alive in order to create the metaphysical effects of faith? Dead Sisters don't have faith.

What really drives the point home is what the sisters were fighting against when the GKs showed up.

I am all for a good joke but this is just purile humor.

Misogynistic because the sisters died, really?

Also blood rituals were often used by SM and GK long before Ward wrote that section, this is the same group that killed entire regiments if people found out about them or daemons, purifying themselves with the blood of martyr's so that they can avoid the effects of the blood plague that would affect their flesh.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Its not "rules OR fluff", the fluff is sick of "mary sue" heroes who are always so perfect its sickening, the rules on the other hand are some of the most out of balance codcies in the game, both inner and outer balance-wise, and the two don't even match up at any way...

He's just BAD at writing sci-fi/space fantasy games, and when someone who is bad at his job is practically running the show of your hobby, you will naturally develop a level of distaste of him at least.

Seriously.

Phil Kelly has written more OP codex's for 40k, Ward has the best internal balance of any codex writer in 40k with mostly usable units, while Phil kelly writes things like Mutilators and Mandrakes and has autoincludes like Heldrakes, Grey hunters. Cruddance with his vendetta of 5th edition and his useless tyranids.

This. While I haven't forgiven Mat Ward for destroying 7th ed WFB with the hideously OP Daemons of Chaos army book, he's done some great work since.

Mat Wards biggest flaw was leaving us here with Cruddance.

lliu wrote:
the Newcrons

This. His rules are actually ok-ish. He, however, terribly, terribly fails at writing fluff. Matt Ward's fluff basically boils down to a 14 year old on acid who just read a few fantasy books and wants to write a story on his own. His poor understanding of writing really shined through the Newcron codex. The TruCron codex was one of the best codices ever published by GW: fluff and rules were strongly tied together, resulting in the epitome of a good codex. Firing him was the best decision GW has taken for a long time and seeing that someone who downright sucks at writing now wants to be an author is...amsuing, to say the least.

Nonsense, the old Necrons had terrible fluff and the new fluff is better in every single possible way.
It's a shame to see him go, considering the writers we are left with.

Kangodo wrote:
Nonsense, the old Necrons had terrible fluff and the new fluff is better in every single possible way.
It's a shame to see him go, considering the writers we are left with.

My main point wasn't about the quality of the fluff - whether you prefer TruCron or newcron is up to you.

The TruCron codex, however, was much better written because the rules tied up closely with the fluff behind it.

Praise our lord and savior Mat Ward!

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Nonsense, the old Necrons had terrible fluff and the new fluff is better in every single possible way.
It's a shame to see him go, considering the writers we are left with.

My main point wasn't about the quality of the fluff - whether you prefer TruCron or newcron is up to you.

The TruCron codex, however, was much better written because the rules tied up closely with the fluff behind it.

Ctan that could first turn charge, consolidate from one combat into another allowing them to wipe an entire infantry army on turn 1
Ignoring invuln saves
Giant poop boxes that could only be reliably killed by Tau
A magically make my army disappear rule that crippled them from the next edition forward

I don't remember any of these rules being good.

omerakk wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Nonsense, the old Necrons had terrible fluff and the new fluff is better in every single possible way.
It's a shame to see him go, considering the writers we are left with.

My main point wasn't about the quality of the fluff - whether you prefer TruCron or newcron is up to you.

The TruCron codex, however, was much better written because the rules tied up closely with the fluff behind it.

Ctan that could first turn charge, consolidate from one combat into another allowing them to wipe an entire infantry army on turn 1
Ignoring invuln saves
Giant poop boxes that could only be reliably killed by Tau
A magically make my army disappear rule that crippled them from the next edition forward

I don't remember any of these rules being good.

Read my post. Precisely. I specifically praised the tight bond between fluff and rules.

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Kangodo wrote:
Nonsense, the old Necrons had terrible fluff and the new fluff is better in every single possible way.
It's a shame to see him go, considering the writers we are left with.

My main point wasn't about the quality of the fluff - whether you prefer TruCron or newcron is up to you.

The TruCron codex, however, was much better written because the rules tied up closely with the fluff behind it.

Ctan that could first turn charge, consolidate from one combat into another allowing them to wipe an entire infantry army on turn 1
Ignoring invuln saves
Giant poop boxes that could only be reliably killed by Tau
A magically make my army disappear rule that crippled them from the next edition forward

I don't remember any of these rules being good.

Read my post. Precisely. I specifically praised the tight bond between fluff and rules.

Yes, you praised a tight bond that was bad for the game in your example of how the codex was "better written"

omerakk wrote:


Yes, you praised a tight bond that was bad for the game in your example of how the codex was "better written"

Again, no. The tight bond was not responsible for the impact on the game. The rules were. Phase Out, for example, has gutted Necron post-3rd, but fit perfectly to the fluff.

 Sigvatr wrote:

omerakk wrote:


Yes, you praised a tight bond that was bad for the game in your example of how the codex was "better written"

Again, no.The tight bond was not responsible for the impact on the game. The rules were.

That makes no sense.
The reason the rules impacted the game so negatively was because they had a tight bond with the fluff and followed is so accurately.

Phase Out, for example, has gutted Necron post-3rd, but fit perfectly to the fluff.

Exactly. If they hadn't followed the fluff with their rules so closely, they wouldn't have had to play with such a handicap for 2 editions.