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.

If you could replace any of the GW writers and pick any other Warhammer related writer to take his place, which one would you pick and why?
I would replace Mat Ward with Sarah Cawkwell because she seems to have a deep grasp on the fluff of particular chapters and she would be a semi-decent ruels writer IMO.

I wouldn't replace anyone, but I would have rules design done separately from the fluff. One person does rules, one does fluff and then we avoid fluff massacres.

rockerbikie wrote:If you could replace any of the GW writers and pick any other Warhammer related writer to take his place, which one would you pick and why?
I would replace Mat Ward with Sarah Cawkwell because she seems to have a deep grasp on the fluff of particular chapters and she would be a semi-decent ruels writer IMO.

Replace Robin Cruddace with a Jokaero that knows its way around the English language...

Get Dan Abnett or Graham Mcneill to do it. Problem solved.

Castiel wrote:I wouldn't replace anyone, but I would have rules design done separately from the fluff. One person does rules, one does fluff and then we avoid fluff massacres.

When Graham McNeil was writing there wasn't any Fluff Massacres I am aware of. I think it's just Ward's writing style which is destroying the fluff. Maybe, they need to hire more writers so the Current writers don't have to rush their Codexes to release anymore.

They should keep the current staff on the gameplay aspect but hire professional writers to write the background.

It's probably Matt Ward's primary job to write the fluff, he has some sexy intern do the rules for him.

I would replace Phil Kelly with someone competent, like Ward.

Replace everyone with Abnett and ADB for fluff, and let Ward do the rules.

I'd fire the whole lot until they retook those English and math classes they clearly slept through and bring in some new blood

I would let Phil Kelly do just about everything, and get Andy Chambers to come back and help with fluff and experimental rules. Ward can write rules as long as there's some more group logic going on.

Just fire Phil Kelly (or keep him busy doing Pirate-game). Insta-improved 40K by about 10.000% right there.

Zweischneid wrote:Just fire Phil Kelly (or keep him busy doing Pirate-game). Insta-improved 40K by about 10.000% right there.

What has he done wrong in 40k in your opinion? The Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar codices are all awesome, and Space Wolves has some problems but is generally a good codex. His fluff fething rules, and his rules tend to be pretty good as well.

Brother SRM wrote:
What has he done wrong in 40k in your opinion? The Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar codices are all awesome, and Space Wolves has some problems but is generally a good codex. His fluff fething rules, and his rules tend to be pretty good as well.

Dark Eldar is likely the worst fluff abomination in the history of 40K. Painfully unfitting looney-toon humour with people chucking black holes and the like combined with boring, action-deprived writing and an abundance of mary-sue characters ("Vect, the most intelligent of all!) forced down the readers throat with bland, expositionary sentences. Cheese-Falcons broke 4th Edition pretty much. Space Wolves nearly did 5th. All his books feature bland, repetitive lists that encourage spam and lack variety, synergy or elegance in army building. Worst of all, his list all encourage playstyles in direct opposition to the backgroud, from gun-line Space Wolves to Greentide Dark Eldar.

I don't think he has written a good Codex yet (and he's been trying for decades).

Replace Cruddace with a leech. Much improvment.

Zweischneid wrote:I don't think he has written a good Codex yet (and he's been trying for decades).

He co-wrote the Chaos 3.5 dex. That was a great book


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rockerbikie wrote:

Castiel wrote:I wouldn't replace anyone, but I would have rules design done separately from the fluff. One person does rules, one does fluff and then we avoid fluff massacres.

When Graham McNeil was writing there wasn't any Fluff Massacres I am aware of. I think it's just Ward's writing style which is destroying the fluff. Maybe, they need to hire more writers so the Current writers don't have to rush their Codexes to release anymore.

That's kinda what I was trying to say.

Matt Ward does rules.

Dan Abnett does fluff.

Get a codex out every 2-3 months.

I'd prefer to see Kelly do the rules. Less special rules everywhere.

Castiel wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:I don't think he has written a good Codex yet (and he's been trying for decades).

He co-wrote the Chaos 3.5 dex. That was a great book

You serious? Chaos 3.5 is the literal definition of broken (though, as you said, that's hardly Kelly's fault alone).

I was referring to the fluff mainly. I never played with it so I can't speak for the rules, but the fluff was great!

Zweischneid wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:
What has he done wrong in 40k in your opinion? The Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar codices are all awesome, and Space Wolves has some problems but is generally a good codex. His fluff fething rules, and his rules tend to be pretty good as well.

Dark Eldar is likely the worst fluff abomination in the history of 40K. Painfully unfitting looney-toon humour with people chucking black holes and the like combined with boring, action-deprived writing and an abundance of mary-sue characters ("Vect, the most intelligent of all!) forced down the readers throat with bland, expositionary sentences.

The funny thing, is I skimmed through this part and I thought you were talking about Ward's terrible background writing. Go figure.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:
What has he done wrong in 40k in your opinion? The Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar codices are all awesome, and Space Wolves has some problems but is generally a good codex. His fluff fething rules, and his rules tend to be pretty good as well.

Dark Eldar is likely the worst fluff abomination in the history of 40K. Painfully unfitting looney-toon humour with people chucking black holes and the like combined with boring, action-deprived writing and an abundance of mary-sue characters ("Vect, the most intelligent of all!) forced down the readers throat with bland, expositionary sentences.

The funny thing, is I skimmed through this part and I thought you were talking about Ward's terrible background writing. Go figure.

Hahaha.

Personally I think the Eldar, Ork and DE codices were all really good (by the way, the plural of codex is codices, trust me). The eldar one was hardly ever broken, and I started in 4th ed. I can assure you my falcon didn't do all that well all the time as Zweischneid accuses falcons of being cheesy.

Edit: I would replace Ward with one person for fluff and another for rules.

Lord Rogukiel wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:
What has he done wrong in 40k in your opinion? The Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar codices are all awesome, and Space Wolves has some problems but is generally a good codex. His fluff fething rules, and his rules tend to be pretty good as well.

Dark Eldar is likely the worst fluff abomination in the history of 40K. Painfully unfitting looney-toon humour with people chucking black holes and the like combined with boring, action-deprived writing and an abundance of mary-sue characters ("Vect, the most intelligent of all!) forced down the readers throat with bland, expositionary sentences.

The funny thing, is I skimmed through this part and I thought you were talking about Ward's terrible background writing. Go figure.

Hahaha.

Personally I think the Eldar, Ork and DE codices were all really good (by the way, the plural of codex is codices, trust me). The eldar one was hardly ever broken, and I started in 4th ed. I can assure you my falcon didn't do all that well all the time as Zweischneid accuses falcons of being cheesy.

Edit: I would replace Ward with one person for fluff and another for rules.

Haha, ignore Zweischneid. He's butt hurt because his Grey Knights probably got beat by some kid playing Eldar and now he has a burning rage towards Phil Kelly and anything not written by his spiritual liege.

Anyway I personally think that Ward's rules for the most part are actually pretty good. In reality though, I think we should have all of the games designers stick with the rules and have someone write the background, like one of the current book writers. Would at least make for more interesting codices at any rate!

All current writers get fired and replaced by people who actualy bother to properly playtest their godawful books.

Brother SRM wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:Just fire Phil Kelly (or keep him busy doing Pirate-game). Insta-improved 40K by about 10.000% right there.

What has he done wrong in 40k in your opinion? The Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar codices are all awesome, and Space Wolves has some problems but is generally a good codex. His fluff fething rules, and his rules tend to be pretty good as well.

Of those the only real good ones are Dark Eldar, and possibly orks, but orks are so bland..

Eldar was so horribly broken in 4th, and in 5th shows that without the falcon trick it's aspects are worthless, the special characters are laughable, and that the internal balance was just as bad.

Along with space wolves being one of the three most overpowered codex's out to date right now.

All current writers get fired and replaced by people who actualy bother to properly playtest their godawful books.

Amen!

The rules wouldn't be so bad if they just sat down prior to each edition and went through what the strengths and weaknesses of each codex should be. And then have a peer review of whether the codex fits the predefined limitations prior to releasing the codex.
Other than that, it's a game regardless of what GW says, so the fluff can be a bit OTT and juvenile. That's OK.
Edit: (nearly) proper use of abbreviations...

Lord Rogukiel wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:
What has he done wrong in 40k in your opinion? The Orks, Eldar, and Dark Eldar codices are all awesome, and Space Wolves has some problems but is generally a good codex. His fluff fething rules, and his rules tend to be pretty good as well.

Dark Eldar is likely the worst fluff abomination in the history of 40K. Painfully unfitting looney-toon humour with people chucking black holes and the like combined with boring, action-deprived writing and an abundance of mary-sue characters ("Vect, the most intelligent of all!) forced down the readers throat with bland, expositionary sentences.

The funny thing, is I skimmed through this part and I thought you were talking about Ward's terrible background writing. Go figure.

Hahaha.

Personally I think the Eldar, Ork and DE codices were all really good (by the way, the plural of codex is codices, trust me). The eldar one was hardly ever broken, and I started in 4th ed. I can assure you my falcon didn't do all that well all the time as Zweischneid accuses falcons of being cheesy.

Edit: I would replace Ward with one person for fluff and another for rules.

Eldar were extremely broken in 4th. Tri-Falcon Builds completely dominated. It was seriously the top list of it's time.

Funny how quickly people forget. But yah, the game was virtually unplayable for two years or so thanks to Messrs Kelly (until they got some capable people for 5th and fixed Kelly's his botch).

Falcons even coined the term "cheese" for large parts of the hobby.

While I wan't around for 4th edition, I did hear some flame aimed at Tau during that time as well (the infamous Fish of Fury list), so I have to question if the Eldar dominance wasn't partly in fault of the 4th edition rules, not just the eldar codex.

Luke_Prowler wrote:While I wan't around for 4th edition, I did hear some flame aimed at Tau during that time as well (the infamous Fish of Fury list), so I have to question if the Eldar dominance wasn't partly in fault of the 4th edition rules, not just the eldar codex.

You can say that for ever "broken" unit or book. It's not the "Codex" its the basic rules it builds upon. And it is even true to a degree. Some of the current problems with Tau is the general dominance of CC, fast movement and deepstrike. Some of the problems with Nids is their lack of vehicles. Vulkan was likely made without realizing how key Melta was going to be in 5th. But still, to fumble a Codex as badly as the Eldar book did, several years into the edition, one can assume that the author might have had some problems comprehending the rules he was writing (and pricing) the army for.