Sephyr wrote:Text

Devastators and Havocs also carry anti-infantry weapon, they're not exclusively anti-tank units in fluff.

I'm also gona throw out nosferatu1001's favorite argument here and remind you that you're not taking the opportunity cost of the Force Weapons into account; you're paying for them even if you want to put the unit in the backfield as an objective holder. You're also paying for the storm bolters even if you're gonna cruise around in a Land Raider or Stormraven.

Regarging Battlewagons, if you think anything you listed except POSSIBLY the Vindicare has an easy time taking down AV14, let alone AV14 with a 4+ cover save, you're woefully mistaken.

Finally, Cleansing Flame is basically the old concept of the Holocaust power turned up to 11. I'm not even joking, in the first book in the Grey Knights Omnibus some Terminators That's my biggest pet peeve with the current Grey Knight Codex: removing Holocaust from the Terminators and making the version that is in the book pretty much rubbish.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

pretre wrote:So Ward had LESS Ultra material than 4th and 2nd in his 5th Ed codex? Myth busted.

Look at the page numbers. Ultra materials have increased per codex. Myth Confirmed.

As a percentage of total volume. Geeze. The codexes in general have gotten bigger since 3rd. Other Chapters / Generic got more love in as well (30 pages in 5th, 20 in 4th, 11 in 3rd).

So no, Ward did not suddenly put the emphasis on Ultras. In fact, he had less about Ultras in his 5th Ed SM codex percentage wise than the 4th ed codex and provided more material for Non-Ultra chapters in his version. So still, Myth Busted.

Sephyr wrote:

Draigo wrote:

There's lots of troos better then 1k sons that arent even elite or have to pay for an almost useless hq. Most the named stuff like 1k, noise marines etc are way over priced and weaker then ork boyz, grey hunters, and almost any troop choice you could take from any 5th edition codex.

Blanket favored enemy daemon? The're daemon hunters. Should all Devastators and Havocs have Tank Hunters of Favored Enemy: Monstrous Creatures? It's what they do.


Force weapons? We always had those. Storm bolters? Had those too. For the current price? No you did not. And you're again leaving each unit's extra thingy (Warp Quake, Cleansing flame, shunting, etc) suspiciously unmentioned.

Have yet to see a horde player say flamers are cheesy cause last I saw most get those free. IG has flamer spam that cheaper and way more damaging vs hordes then 5 power armor marines could dream
Flamers are quite short-range, and only a few units get -one- flamer for free. Just spreading your troops a bit can reduce flamer efficacy by over 50%. No amount of spreading will help you against Cleansing flame.

Plus psycannon spam doesnt give you a 100 percent answer to AV 13 or 14. I actually didn't bring up psycannon spam, but I'm glad you did. It's revealing when someone's argument is "This cheap, ultra-killy combo is not 100% effective against the game's most expensive vehicles! Truly our suffering is boundless!"

A truck with a def rolla full or boys could erase a purifier squad without even disembarking. A vindicator could as well for half the cost. Wow. Really. A pair of Killa Kans is able to murder/counter a full Obliterator Cult for 1/3rd of the cost in cc, but if I let it get all the way over there, I deserve it. It has NOTHING to do with unit functionality or costing. If you think a trukk, Vindicator or even a Battlewagon is making it all the way close to an army with rending psycannons, Vindicare snipers and psyriflemen without enough luck to make strategy moot, I don't know what to tell you. They don't even need to go for side-armor shots much.

So complaining about stuff they had before really seems lack luster arguement. Actually I was complaining about the addition of Cleansing Flame, which I believe they did -not- have before, in addition to the neat package they had, now at a reduced price. It may be a lackluster argument, but there you go.

I'm not even that peeved about much of the stuff above, but the sheer refusal of some people to even see the point is a bit annoying.

I left things like quake, shunt etc unmentioned because they were not mentioned in the previous post I was responding. As far as tank hunter, I could care less if they did. Cleansing flame hits only models in base to base which isnt that many to a 5 man squad but Im not a fan of it insta hitting. Cleansing flame is short range like a flamer. Funny you mock the psycanon. Its not that cheap and has a limited range of 24 in. Harly threatending like a lascanon or darklance. What annoys me is that everytime a new codex comes out they complain. Wheres all the sw, ig etc hate anymore? what now that a new dex is out theyre some how more acceptable? It's also annoying that many of the haters just bandwagon onto the newest books because theyre new, some new rules hard to understand(god know the crons have a few) and just generally cause the win against this strategy hasnt been developed. For all the hate sw got they were still no more competitive then the older IG book.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'm also gona throw out nosferatu1001's favorite argument here and remind you that you're not taking the opportunity cost of the Force Weapons into account; you're paying for them even if you want to put the unit in the backfield as an objective holder. You're also paying for the storm bolters even if you're gonna cruise around in a Land Raider or Stormraven.

Um, pretty much everything in 40k has opportunity cost, at least as you're using the phrase. Points spent on X can't be spent on Y is true for every army. Unless there's some army that has the option of taking unarmed models with '1's across their stat line as non-FOC slot objective holders, I don't see how objective cost comes into this simply because everyone can make the same argument about everything.

The increase in Ultramarine stuff in the Codex wouldn't be so bad if the current Codex weren't so dependent on using special characters to add flavor to armies. Ultras are represented in the rules by default, but if you want to bust out something that has rule/FOC/whatever changes to reflect Raven Guard or Salamanders, you have exactly one choice. And even that's an improvement over the poor Iron Hands. I mean they can take a Master of the Forge, but then what?

Basically, when they removed traits and used SCs as a sorta-kinda replacement, they really should have taken more care to have a more balanced representation of the various loyal chapters (that don't get their own books).

pretre wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Really? Why would anyone EVER deepstrike a Land Raider?

Because it is Hilarious!

I want an all land-raider BA army that only deepstrikes. Legen... wait for it... dary.

Seconded!
Besides, I can see some times in which Deep-striking a LR variant in the rear of a horde army would be a good thing: avoiding kan walls and unleashing flamestorm cannons/hurricane bolters upon Lootas and the like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Draigo wrote:

Cleansing flame hits only models in base to base which isnt that many to a 5 man squad but Im not a fan of it insta hitting.

No. It hits -every- enemy model in the assault. You obviously don't know the rule you're defending. I look forward to you NOT changing your opinion in light of this new fact.


Cleansing flame is short range like a flamer.

And unlike the flamer, you can go on using it again and again during the assault. It's actually far better for a cc-oriented strategy, since there's no risk of the enemy removing models to deny you the charge...which happens to flamers.


Funny you mock the psycanon. Its not that cheap and has a limited range of 24 in. Harly threatending like a lascanon or darklance.

It can also be fired on the move, has vastly more shots and rends. A fair trade, I'd say. that fact that something has drawbacks does not mean it's bad, you might learn.

What annoys me is that everytime a new codex comes out they complain. Wheres all the sw, ig etc hate anymore? what now that a new dex is out theyre some how more acceptable?

There was remarkably little hate regarding the Tyranid and the DE books. There was plenthy of BA and SW hate. But that's not what we are discussing. When caught having an affair by your wife, saying 'Bob at the office has TWO mistresses!' is a very poor defense. Though I'll give you props for trying it if it comes to that.

daveNYC wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'm also gona throw out nosferatu1001's favorite argument here and remind you that you're not taking the opportunity cost of the Force Weapons into account; you're paying for them even if you want to put the unit in the backfield as an objective holder. You're also paying for the storm bolters even if you're gonna cruise around in a Land Raider or Stormraven.

Um, pretty much everything in 40k has opportunity cost, at least as you're using the phrase. Points spent on X can't be spent on Y is true for every army. Unless there's some army that has the option of taking unarmed models with '1's across their stat line as non-FOC slot objective holders, I don't see how objective cost comes into this simply because everyone can make the same argument about everything.

Yes, it applies to everyone, but everyone doesn't have 20 ppm units. It hits Grey Knights harder than everyone else (possibly with the exception of Deathwing and similar "elites that are troops" elite armies), which is also why they're not OP. Furthermore, a strike squad only has 1A base and still die as easily as a normal marine. Sure, Purifiers have 2A and Cleansing Flame, but they're 10 ppm more expensive than a marine and don't get melta or long-range weapons.

Ok Ill concede the pt of cleansing flame being too much but Ive not been a huge fan of it from the start with it auto hitting even before the number it hits. I do like psycanons and use the hell outta them but in seein them on the table vs dl spam etc I didnt see them as op. 30 plus shots to my 12 didnt seem that unfair. DE do get lots of hate espeacially dl spam on other forums so idk where you decided no one hates on them. Though I think the part that bugs me most is that they count towards combat resolution.. Lots of killy power but very soft back with only a power armor save.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

daveNYC wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'm also gona throw out nosferatu1001's favorite argument here and remind you that you're not taking the opportunity cost of the Force Weapons into account; you're paying for them even if you want to put the unit in the backfield as an objective holder. You're also paying for the storm bolters even if you're gonna cruise around in a Land Raider or Stormraven.

Um, pretty much everything in 40k has opportunity cost, at least as you're using the phrase. Points spent on X can't be spent on Y is true for every army. Unless there's some army that has the option of taking unarmed models with '1's across their stat line as non-FOC slot objective holders, I don't see how objective cost comes into this simply because everyone can make the same argument about everything.

Yes, it applies to everyone, but everyone doesn't have 20 ppm units. It hits Grey Knights harder than everyone else (possibly with the exception of Deathwing and similar "elites that are troops" elite armies), which is also why they're not OP. Furthermore, a strike squad only has 1A base and still die as easily as a normal marine. Sure, Purifiers have 2A and Cleansing Flame, but they're 10 ppm more expensive than a marine and don't get melta or long-range weapons.

I'm pretty sure some traitor legion CSM players would like to talk to you. If you want to talk about whether something is over or under costed, that's fine. The specific argument of 'opportunity cost' though just doesn't make sense. Like I said, 1500 points spent on X can't be spent on Y, and that's true for everyone. Arguing whether unit X should be 25 or 20 points actually makes sense.

CSM got hosed.. they have a lot of troops way over costed. Plague Marines compared to BA assault marines with a sanguinary priest. 1k sons to almost anyone. Noise marines.. Almost as bad as some eldar.. But at least the eldar stuff is cheaper and better rides..

Draigo wrote:Ok Ill concede the pt of cleansing flame being too much but Ive not been a huge fan of it from the start with it auto hitting even before the number it hits. I do like psycanons and use the hell outta them but in seein them on the table vs dl spam etc I didnt see them as op. 30 plus shots to my 12 didnt seem that unfair. DE do get lots of hate espeacially dl spam on other forums so idk where you decided no one hates on them. Though I think the part that bugs me most is that they count towards combat resolution.. Lots of killy power but very soft back with only a power armor save.

A big part of dark lance spam lists and their success though lies in how dumb the deployment/1st turn rules work in 5th... Because by winning that single dice roll, the DE player can gamble on an alpha-strike approch knowing he's got a 5/6 chance of going first with his 30+ lances. So, he'll set 'em up covering all the open firing lanes and force his opponet to deploy in cover/out of sight and hand the DE the run of the movement phase. (or the opponent will be dumb, deploy all their stuff without any thought and get blasted to scrap and then complain about lances being broken!)

I honestly find vemon-spam builds alot nastier because it combines hordes of splinter cannons for mass troop removal with obscene amounts of blasters for killing tanks/teq's.

Actually, doesn't every spam army play that card anyways?!! If we went back to the old deployment format of alternating units and then rolling for 1st turn, games wouldn't be so easily decided by a single dice roll.



I simply hate Ward's rules because as of late, both of my main armies have been relegated to the shelf because they suck balls thanks to his lack of understanding the basics/how his new rules would interact with existing armies.
- Daemons in 40k. Thank-you GK's for being so blaitently OP'd against 1 specific army
- Vampires in fantasy. Thank-you 8th ed for removing the 'un'(dead)...

hundreds of dollars now left to rot on the shelf because of one man.

Dave - no, it means you HAVE to spend 20 points for that scoring model, even if you get no benefit from the perks you get for that price. SM get to spend 18 points for the same exact ability (scoring) and SW get it even cheaper, with more A to boot and a host of cheap upgrades, including the entirely 100%^ required melta guns.

The LAST things you should scream and whine about being "OP" in the GK codex are the actual Grey Knights. Psybacks are grossly underpointed WHEN combined with 12pt scoring units.

Also, comparing a 4th edition, badly created codex to a much much newer codex which actually had some care and attention to it is comparing apples to cannonballs. Dont.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Also, comparing a 4th edition, badly created codex to a much much newer codex which actually had some care and attention to it is comparing apples to cannonballs. Dont.

Ain't nobody saying that the CSM codex isn't a steaming pile of junk. I'm just saying that you can complain about how much GK units cost, but there are others who have it far worse.

I'm missing what your point is regarding GK cost though. They're expensive and they're good. They're the complete opposite of a horde army. That's just what they are. Complaining about GK being expensive is like bitching that DE don't have good armor on their vehicles.

My point is that, if you want a GK army, you will need some scoring troops. You pay more for those scoring troops than other PA armies do, *in general*, even if their perks arent needed in your army build.

GK SS are not "good", theyre "ok". WQ hardly ever sees use, a FW *sounds* nice, except its on a A1 model with average stats, and is on a LD9 model which if you fail you lose the hammer in your unit.

You're paying, even if you dont need it, 25% more for your scoring units than SW do, and the SW unit is FAR more reliable and has a greater damage output than a SS does

The only people who want to believe that Matt Ward created the Ultramarines-centric approach to Codex: Space Marines are the ones who have some axe to grind against him.

It's an indisputable fact that the Codex: Space Marines has always been Codex: Ultramarines, especially given that Codex: Space Marines was called Codex: Ultramarines in 2nd edition. I can't believe this has devolved to a nitpicking discussion of what percentages there are. There's no question that the C:U was renamed C:SM as a marketing decision to make it less confusing to new players. The army list in C:SM3E is identical to the C:U2E. The definition of a "Codex" chapter was created in C:Ultramarines and the linear descendent of that codex is the current Codex: Space Marines, 5th Edition. Why is it shocking that the Ultramarines continue to be the feature chapter? It's always been that way. If you want to play one of the other 995 chapters without their own codex, you accept not having as many (if any) special characters or official fluff.

Like I said before, complaining that the Ultramarines get more attention than the other Codex chapters is pointless. Nobody seems to complain about the Blood Angels or Black Templars getting their own Codex.

I actually dont see why the blood angels get a seperate codex. They follow the codex, the only different thing is they are vampireic pretty boys. Or dark angels either. Space wolves are super special snowflakes and so are the crusader themed black templars.

The guard should get more codex, you can actually create more varied regiments.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I actually dont see why the blood angels get a seperate codex. They follow the codex, the only different thing is they are vampireic pretty boys. Or dark angels either. Space wolves are super special snowflakes and so are the crusader themed black templars.

The guard should get more codex, you can actually create more varied regiments.

BA/DA had their own codex (Angels of Death) as did Space Wolves in 2nd edition. Black Templars were part of Codex Armageddon and the 3rd edition SM codex that became insanely popular and got their own dex.

I think that the IG codex is pretty varied as it is, but that's me.

I like the ig codex. Only it really doesnt represent the different style regiments. You can make cadians. Thats about it.

You cant make a true catachan, elysian, harkonian, mordian,valhallen, or tallern regiments

All regiments that are have more varied tactics then ba and da compared to sm.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I like the ig codex. Only it really doesnt represent the different style regiments. You can make cadians. Thats about it.

You cant make a true catachan, elysian, harkonian, mordian,valhallen, or tallern regiments

All regiments that are have more varied tactics then ba and da compared to sm.

Only question I have and I'm not tryin to offend here but would each of those armies as a stand alone have the same buzz about them as say BT, SW, etc.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:I like the ig codex. Only it really doesnt represent the different style regiments. You can make cadians. Thats about it.

You cant make a true catachan, elysian, harkonian, mordian,valhallen, or tallern regiments

All regiments that are have more varied tactics then ba and da compared to sm.

You have the same ability to build those armies that you do Salamanders, Imperial Fists, Crimson Fists, White Scars, etc. I.e. Special Characters to manipulate how the base army works.

Nope. You cant make an drop trooper army, ie Elysians, a jungle fighter army, ie Catachans, disiplined gunlines in close order drill, ie Mordians, or a dkok army.

Imperial Guard special characters dont allow an army wide change like space marine characters do.

You're way off topic, but yeah you can.

Veterans have doctrines which allow you to have personalize your army (All Carapace Guard go!) and special characters allow it further.

I'm not saying you have the ability to make crazy distinct forces, but neither do Salamanders, White Scars, etc.

The ig has nothing like the space marine characters. I cant take one character and it changes my army.

You can build a cadian army. Or a army that looks like x army and plays like cadians.

Again would each on their own sell as well? I ask the same when eldar and csm players bring this up. I for one would love to refield my iron warriors but I can see why not make their own stuff cause if everyone had their own range, own codexes it may spread the hobby too thinly. You need a certain amount of buyers to validate making their own book.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:The ig has nothing like the space marine characters. I cant take one character and it changes my army.

You can build a cadian army. Or a army that looks like x army and plays like cadians.

CCS with Straken
Marbo
Foot Veteran Squad with Harker
1-5 Foot Veteran Squads with Forward Sentries
1-3 Scout Sentinel Squadrons with Heavy Flamers

Look, it's Codex: Catachan! That certainly doesn't play like Cadians.

Neat trick. Only its pretty much cadians in stealth. Quick do Codex elysians. Or codex mordian. Or codex tanith, or ect.

The point is, cba and cda can be put into csm. Easily. And maybe cbt. Only really space wolves and gk need another codex.

Ig is more varied in the fluff, but get shoehorned into being cadians. At least bring back regimental doctines and it would make it better.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Neat trick. Only its pretty much cadians in stealth. Quick do Codex elysians. Or codex mordian. Or codex tanith, or ect.

You can say that about any army. Making Fists are just Ultras with Stubborn. Raven Guard are just Ultras with Fleet.

At least bring back regimental doctines and it would make it better.

Yeah no.

Anyway, go start an IG whine thread, keep it out of this silly Ward thread.

This silly thread is full of cicular aguement and people repeating the same thing. One side saying "matt ward suxor!!!!1!1!1" qnd the other "matt ward rulxor1!1!!1!1!!!1"

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:This silly thread is full of cicular aguement and people repeating the same thing. One side saying "matt ward suxor!!!!1!1!1" qnd the other "matt ward rulxor1!1!!1!1!!!1"

Its cause were unified in hating stuff.. one thing you can count on is a neverending hate thread.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:This silly thread is full of cicular aguement and people repeating the same thing. One side saying "matt ward suxor!!!!1!1!1" qnd the other "matt ward rulxor1!1!!1!1!!!1"

Yeah... Because when I cite specific books, pages and articles, that's really 'Matt Ward Rulxor'. Go pull the other one.

Unified in Hate" I like it. One side unified in their hatred of ward, the other unified in their hatred of the ward haters

Veteran Sergeant wrote:The only people who want to believe that Matt Ward created the Ultramarines-centric approach to Codex: Space Marines are the ones who have some axe to grind against him.

It's an indisputable fact that the Codex: Space Marines has always been Codex: Ultramarines, especially given that Codex: Space Marines was called Codex: Ultramarines in 2nd edition. I can't believe this has devolved to a nitpicking discussion of what percentages there are. There's no question that the C:U was renamed C:SM as a marketing decision to make it less confusing to new players. The army list in C:SM3E is identical to the C:U2E. The definition of a "Codex" chapter was created in C:Ultramarines and the linear descendent of that codex is the current Codex: Space Marines, 5th Edition. Why is it shocking that the Ultramarines continue to be the feature chapter? It's always been that way. If you want to play one of the other 995 chapters without their own codex, you accept not having as many (if any) special characters or official fluff.

Like I said before, complaining that the Ultramarines get more attention than the other Codex chapters is pointless. Nobody seems to complain about the Blood Angels or Black Templars getting their own Codex.

The 3rd ed codex was a codex SPACE MARINES since everyone had to use it. There was 0 standalone SW, DA ,BA BT codices.
The focus on UM came in 4th ed, when traits allowed to diversify and thus nobody cared if there was a lot of blue painted over it.
Plus the first standalone codices for non-codex chapters after the Main codex <> mini dex organization of 3rd ed for BT and DA.
So no, you could play the other 995 chapters, using IndexAstartes or traits,. No SC needed.

pretre wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:

pretre wrote:So Ward had LESS Ultra material than 4th and 2nd in his 5th Ed codex? Myth busted.

Look at the page numbers. Ultra materials have increased per codex. Myth Confirmed.

As a percentage of total volume. Geeze. The codexes in general have gotten bigger since 3rd. Other Chapters / Generic got more love in as well (30 pages in 5th, 20 in 4th, 11 in 3rd).

So no, Ward did not suddenly put the emphasis on Ultras. In fact, he had less about Ultras in his 5th Ed SM codex percentage wise than the 4th ed codex and provided more material for Non-Ultra chapters in his version. So still, Myth Busted.

Ward had a bulls eye on his back when GW printed "written by Matthew Ward" in capitalized letters at page 2.
Former codices had the authors in small font as part of a team...
His emphasis on UM as bestest marines, combined with the comments about the non-codex chapters in the same publication made him from a target to a welcome major target on the shooting range called interweb.


The interesting part of this page count is, a 48 page main codex has grown a lot and still doesn't contain enough to make us all happy.

pretre wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:This silly thread is full of cicular aguement and people repeating the same thing. One side saying "matt ward suxor!!!!1!1!1" qnd the other "matt ward rulxor1!1!!1!1!!!1"

Yeah... Because when I cite specific books, pages and articles, that's really 'Matt Ward Rulxor'. Go pull the other one.

Yeah because I was literally quoting the whole thread. Not giving a over view. Stop being so sensitive bro.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Unified in Hate" I like it. One side unified in their hatred of ward, the other unified in their hatred of the ward haters

Im a third party I hate that a couldnt have gotten a new dex that I didnt hear so much hate over. I just wanted to play my dang daemon hunters in peace.

Ward had a bulls eye on his back when GW printed "written by Matthew Ward" in capitalized letters at page 2.
Former codices had the authors in small font as part of a team...
His emphasis on UM as bestest marines, combined with the comments about the non-codex chapters in the same publication made him from a target to a welcome major target on the shooting range called interweb.

Doesn't matter that it is factually inaccurate. But that's the internet for you. Ward brought nothing to Ultras that wasn't already there in 2nd, 3rd and 4th and in fact brought more to the other chapters and still gets hated for it.

The interesting part of this page count is, a 48 page main codex has grown a lot and still doesn't contain enough to make us all happy.

Agreed.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:This silly thread is full of cicular aguement and people repeating the same thing. One side saying "matt ward suxor!!!!1!1!1" qnd the other "matt ward rulxor1!1!!1!1!!!1"

I think you're confused. There's a lot of Matt Ward hate, but also a lot of "I don't get why you hate Matt Ward so much, because most of the reasons you give are wrong."

pretre wrote:

Ward had a bulls eye on his back when GW printed "written by Matthew Ward" in capitalized letters at page 2.
Former codices had the authors in small font as part of a team...
His emphasis on UM as bestest marines, combined with the comments about the non-codex chapters in the same publication made him from a target to a welcome major target on the shooting range called interweb.

Doesn't matter that it is factually inaccurate. But that's the internet for you. Ward brought nothing to Ultras that wasn't already there in 2nd, 3rd and 4th and in fact brought more to the other chapters and still gets hated for it.

I disagree, by getting substituting SCs for traits non-Ultramarine chapters lost quite a bit. Poor Iron Hands didn't even get a SC out of the deal.

daveNYC wrote:I disagree, by getting substituting SCs for traits non-Ultramarine chapters lost quite a bit. Poor Iron Hands didn't even get a SC out of the deal.

That wasn't really Ward's choice though, as is made evident by the IG codex. 5th edition moved away from traits/doctrines.

They did get a Master of the Forge, which pretty much gives them the traits they had in the old book.

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Unified in Hate" I like it. One side unified in their hatred of ward, the other unified in their hatred of the ward haters

We've basicly reached Twilight levels of hatedom

Luke_Prowler wrote:

ObliviousBlueCaboose wrote:Unified in Hate" I like it. One side unified in their hatred of ward, the other unified in their hatred of the ward haters

We've basicly reached Twilight levels of hatedom

sshhh don't mention that.. we can't have both those flame storms in the same place.. might blow up dakka.

Ahhh i hatez me them there sparkling vampires!!!!! Twilight suxor!!!1!11!

Lol

Ward's not that bad. Frankly, the online 40k crowd is far too nit-picky about these things. Sure, some of the fluff might be over-the-top, but WHFB and 40k aren't exactly paragons of realism, are they? It's OK if things seem a bit lopsided when you have 8-foot metal warriors fighting green fungus in the name of a soul-sucking super dictator who's been dead for 10000 years. In that context, Kaldor Draigo is just another part of the wallpaper.
The only huge issue I had with Ward was when he made the Necrons and Blood Angels collaborate, and that was suitably explained by the overhaul of the Necron fluff.