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.

Draigo wrote:Ok I reread the fluff section and no where does it say theyre immune to chaos.

"To this end, each Grey Knight is an accomplished psyker, trained to channel his mental energies into the halo of protedive wards known as the Aegis. And an array of formidable battle-sorceries. A Grey Knight's psychic presence is anathema to creatures of the Warp, utterly unpalatable to a Daemon's dark appetites and thus entirely immune from corruption. Such was the Emperor's gift to the very first Grey Knights; a legacy renewed in each new generation of Battle-Brothers."

"Needing a tal isman of purity to protect against the Bloodt ide's taint,"

There you go, Matt Ward contradicting himself after just 20+ pages. The only reason he invented Bloodtide story was to show us his opinion on Sisters of Battle.

That is meant mentally not physically.. It's a reference to their blind faith. As far as the blood, did you not read the part where they said at the bottom of pg 9 that they sacrifice millions billions or whatever it took.

How are you sure it means only mentally? do you have access to Ward's notes? Was the answer given to you through a dream? Corruption has been used in other codexes to describe the bodily mutations as well as the corruption of soul.

Because it's similar to the other orignal fluff of incorruptible faith. That's not new. The armor is warded using mystic wards similar to summoning. They use the true names etc which is for the anathema part. I've read all the grey knight stuff and played them for a long time. The new fluff in the beginning is still very similar to the old. Incredibly devoted zealots whos faith is their strongest weapon. Then their deal that makes them different from templars is that they use psy ability to protect thier mind and bt dont use psy. Now I'm not blindly a fan of all the new fluff but as far as the beginning its still hasnt changed dramatically.

As with every new (updated, rewritten, revamped, whatever) codex that comes out, there is some kind of "power creep" to make it an attractive buy to gamers at large. More access to wargear, access to more wargear, cheaper options, different options, powerful combinations within the codex, powerful combinations with the general rules, etc. What I hate about the Matt Ward Gray Knight Codex, is that there was no creep in effectiveness. It was a jump. It was totally uncalled for in its scaling. It rendered mayhap half or more of the existing codices uncompetitive in the tournament circuit. And I could have lived with it knowing that this is a dynamic game, and that Games Workshop might not have known the magnitude of the change in the game that this codex would produce. They would use the FAQ and Errata to curtail this jump. And they didn't. They reinforced it. Jerks.

I prefer Mat Wards codexes than Mr Cruds, I miss the old tyranids.

Hornifex wrote:I prefer Mat Wards codexes than Mr Cruds, I miss the old tyranids.

I beg to differ as I refer to the broken Daemon codex in fantasy to Tomb Kings by Cruddence.

Neither of which were codexes, technically

8th Ed daemons was stooopid overpowered, and invalidated EVERY other armybook. More people i know quit fantasy because of that, or sold their Daemon armies/retooled them for 40K so that people would actually give them a game outside of tournaments.

Power leap.. Sounds familiar..

Cruddace should be digested for what he did to ther Nids.

Redbeard wrote:Anyone who thinks that the Grey Knight rules are reasonable needs to reevaluate what should be the marquee matchup from the book.

A competent daemon player with the same number of points as a competent grey knight player is at such a significant disadvantage that playing the game is largely a waste of time. I've played daemons since the book came out, and have won tournaments with them, and yet, I have been unable to get a single win against the new grey knights. It's just ridiculous.

This should be an epic battle. Instead, the grey knights have so many extra advantages against daemons that it's just a slaughter. And while Grey Knights should be able to fight daemons in the fluff, as a game, both players should be on somewhat even footing or it's not worth playing.

This is largely my main issue with the GK book as well. The old Daemonhunters book had inbuilt rules for Daemons to even the score against Daemonhunters (as the writers acknowledged that such a match-up was unfair). Heck the book also had rules for non-Daemons players to use Daemons (to emphasise a reason for GK battling a non Daemons force). There was even a battle report in WD with a Tzeentch Tau army versus a Daemonhunters army.

What makes the current GK book “sloppy” IMO in terms of rules design is the fact that the anti-daemon gear seems to have been given a major buff as well as the counterbalances of the older codex removed. Heck the fact that almost every model has access to a force weapon and hammerhand has caused balance issues for non daemon players as well.

This core issue IMO is that Matt Ward codices tend to be internally but externally balanced. Even still, he’s not a great codex writer anyway when you also take into account his fluff.

To me it's the simple fact that Ward !! every ounce of fluff he possibly can. Grey Knights were my favorite back when they had the Daemonhunters Codex, The fluffin that was soo good and fitting. Then came Codex Grey Knights and everything went to crap, they went from being the secret order to everybody knows about them.
I mean for gods sake he made Blood Angels fight along side necrons before necrons got their fluff change!

I thought things were gonna be more fun when the new Dark Eldar came out, and they were till Grey Knights came out and practically made it to where my Flying cardboard boxes become flying paper boxes. In no other army do you see a piece of wargear giving practically every weapon 1+ strength... To me every codex he has his name attached to is Heresy. I will bet money that he'll mess up both the Black Templars and the Dark Angels codexes as well. This game used to be really fun for me, now all it is is who can bring the most cheese to the table and IMHO Ward is to blame...

Not gonna lie all the gk hate makes me sad.. I was pretty excited they got a new dex but now not much fun to pull out the ol pewter and hear "OMG so much cheese."

guiltl3ss wrote:Hey everyone,

I've been playing 40k for less than 2 years,I have a fun group of friends who plays with me, and I love the game. I started with Black Reach before getting Imperial Guard 5th Ed and now I have the new necrons. I started looking around the forums for stuff on necrons and I noticed a lot of hate on Matt Ward. I remember hearing some similar things about my Imperial Guard, and I was wondering why? The rules seem solif enough to me, the fluff is interesting...I don't see many reasons to hate the poor guy. Now I'm not defending him; I am asking out of ignorance on the subject.

Thanks!

The primary issue I've found with Ward is that he's blatantly open about how much GW loves ultramarines...I have a mild distaste for the fact that space marines are all superior to their xenos counterpart (I'm well aware of how powerful my BA are compared to my tau, my nids, my necrons...). That's a bit of a problem in and of itself since presently most of the xenos codecies have been updated, and they still have difficulty equalling the raw might of something like a draigowing or av11 spam with any sort of power. Hell dark eldar are an army that's useless without vehicles. No SM army has a weakness that glaring.

The other problem I have is his attitude that somehow ultramarines are the best, that everyone wants to be them. That contradicts basically all the fluff since 2nd edition, that space marines look to their own primarchs as the exemplars. He writes (and speaks in interviews) in a manner that seems to suggest all other space marines are weaker than the ultramarines, which is inaccurate in the codex numbers, and is just more indication that GW loves vanilla marines over any army. And that's not a good attitude to have when you're trying to make a balanced game. Basically his fluff reads like he's a mary sue and it gives a sense that the game should only be played by space marines, which makes me wonder why bother buying armies I like if GW's just gonna update vanilla marines every codex while mine languish in back editions. The ward hate is because he's a face of all the things people don't like about GW.

Simple enough... A game designer should never pick favorites!!! EVER!!! Wards problem is the fact that he thinks space marines are the best so they MUST be the best, while all the other armies fail in comparison which means they should be inferior game wise as well...

Riddick40k wrote:Simple enough... A game designer should never pick favorites!!! EVER!!! Wards problem is the fact that he thinks space marines are the best so they MUST be the best, while all the other armies fail in comparison which means they should be inferior game wise as well...

Why than, is the most unbalanced, badly written, unabashedly fanboi-Marine Codex full of oddly overpowered, special snowflake rule (4 HQ anyone?) still Phil Kelly's Space Wolf Codex by a wide, wide margin?

Brother Coa - the clue is that they talk about their PSYCHIC presence being anathema, so context says the immunity to corruption is mentally.

You can still be physically corrupted, hence anointing. Oh, and bloodtide is sooooo RT / 2nd edition its crazy, yet apparently not retconning == people hating on you.

I also love how the uniinformed "blame" MW for Mephy, etc without realising that that fluff is oooooold.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Brother Coa - the clue is that they talk about their PSYCHIC presence being anathema, so context says the immunity to corruption is mentally.

It does not say "only mentally" it is said "entirely immune". That must be pointed for both mentally and physically.

Zweischneid wrote:

Riddick40k wrote:Simple enough... A game designer should never pick favorites!!! EVER!!! Wards problem is the fact that he thinks space marines are the best so they MUST be the best, while all the other armies fail in comparison which means they should be inferior game wise as well...

Why than, is the most unbalanced, badly written, unabashedly fanboi-Marine Codex full of oddly overpowered, special snowflake rule (4 HQ anyone?) still Phil Kelly's Space Wolf Codex by a wide, wide margin?

Probably because Space Wolves was writen ON TOP of Codex Space Marines. They'd be no where near as annoying as they are now without razorbacks and ++3 storm shields

When it comes to Matt Ward Im neutral, where does that leave me in all of this?

Luke_Prowler wrote:Probably because Space Wolves was writen ON TOP of Codex Space Marines. They'd be no where near as annoying as they are now without razorbacks and ++3 storm shields

Unlikely. Lead time to develop a Codex is more than a year. So Kelly was working on it before Space Marines was published. Besides, Storm Shields aint 1/10th of the problem compared to JoTWWW-character sniping (still the best proof that Kelly doesn't even know the fething core rules apparently), fanboish idiocy like 4HQ, horrid internal balance (Long Fangs, Grey Hunters vs. Blood Claws), Wound allocation abuse Cavalry (again, guy seems totally ignorant of even the most basic 40K rules) and, worst of all, the fluff travesty that are womanizing Space Marines, Thunderhawk-nappers for the heck of it, Wolf Cavalry, Wolf-raised Mowgli-Marines, Sister-slaugherers (without even trying to give a decent reason) to name just a few.

"entirely immune" when talking about psychic presence does not mean both physically and mentally immune. Context, you have to learn to love it.

Luke - 3++ SS in a SW tourney army? Since when? They at least pay a sensible price for SS/TH (63) which is why you rarely see them.

SW is all about crap internal balance (so an army which should be all about moving into assault has the cheapest AND most effective dev squad available - why?) and stupid mechanic breaking powers, like Jaws

Zweischneid wrote:

Luke_Prowler wrote:Probably because Space Wolves was writen ON TOP of Codex Space Marines. They'd be no where near as annoying as they are now without razorbacks and ++3 storm shields

Unlikely. Lead time to develop a Codex is more than a year. So Kelly was working on it before Space Marines was published. Besides, Storm Shields aint 1/10th of the problem compared to JoTWWW-character sniping (still the best proof that Kelly doesn't even know the fething core rules apparently), fanboish idiocy like 4HQ, horrid internal balance (Long Fangs, Grey Hunters vs. Blood Claws), Wound allocation abuse Cavalry (again, guy seems totally ignorant of even the most basic 40K rules) and, worst of all, the fluff travesty that are womanizing Space Marines, Thunderhawk-nappers for the heck of it, Wolf Cavalry, Wolf-raised Mowgli-Marines, Sister-slaugherers (without even trying to give a decent reason) to name just a few.

I'm not a fan of the SW book by any means, but much of what you're complaining about there existed in previous SW books (more than 1 HQ, fighting sisters, womanizing drunk space marines, etc).

And yeah, kelly was probably working on it before C:SM was published, but considering that C:SM was probably finished summer 2008 in house and C:SW was released in late 2009, and that books generally are about 2 years between start of dev work and release, the C:SM rules were probably mostly codified if not completely finished by the time the SW project really got rolling.

You'll also notice that Ward was not immune from creating his own iterations of many of these things (how often do you see purgation squads instead of psyrifleman? Paladins are far and away more abuseable as a wound-allocation gaming unit than TWC's, etc).

Vaktathi wrote:'m not a fan of the SW book by any means, but much of what you're complaining about there existed in previous SW books (more than 1 HQ, fighting sisters, womanizing drunk space marines, etc).

As do many complaints leveled at Ward (Mephiston) pre-date his work on the book. But some things like Wolf-raised Mowgli-Marines, Thunderhawk-napping for the fun of it (can you imagine what would have happened to 3rd or 4th edition Neophyte-Marines that stole a Thunderhawk to go "cruising"?), He-Man-style Battlecat.. erm Thunderwolf riders, etc.. are all Kelly's own. And Space Marines WERE unable to engage in sexual activity until Space Wolves 5th (Slannesh-mutation excepted perhaps).

Vaktathi wrote:
And yeah, kelly was probably working on it before C:SM was published, but considering that C:SM was probably finished summer 2008 in house and C:SW was released in late 2009, and that books generally are about 2 years between start of dev work and release, the C:SM rules were probably mostly codified if not completely finished by the time the SW project really got rolling.

Sure. But the argument voiced above was that Space Wolves was purposefully written to address popular options that appeared in the meta-game AFTER the publication of Codex Space Marines. If 3++ Thundershields and/or Vulcan among others were undercosted, this wouldn't be obvious to the designers until after the Codex Space Marines was out and the meta-game began to move. The idea that Kelly wrote the Space Wolves Codex purposefully broken to address the grievances of the net-whiner community remains ludicrous.

Vaktathi wrote:
You'll also notice that Ward was not immune from creating his own iterations of many of these things (how often do you see purgation squads instead of psyrifleman? Paladins are far and away more abuseable as a wound-allocation gaming unit than TWC's, etc).

I never said Ward was immune to any of these mistakes. Just that authors like Kelly or Cruddace are equally prone to them, and that singling out Ward for the net-Hate by selective readings that hype up his mistakes but endlessly "excuse" those very same faults in the work of Kelly and Cruddace with far fetched fantasies is simply hypocrisy and/or self-delusion of the highest order.

Yes and the 3d6 psy tests eldar force, stuff like huskblade, death ray, Joww, or cheap tanks aren't cheese-erific. lol though the 3d6 doesnt bother everyone but *cough gk are HUMPED buy it lol As far as the mephiston fluff I always bring that up even if its old because well.. it's one of the silliest things I have ever heard as far as fluff lol

Zweischneid wrote:
As do many complaints leveled at Ward (Mephiston) pre-date his work on the book. But some things like Wolf-raised Mowgli-Marines, Thunderhawk-napping for the fun of it (can you imagine what would have happened to 3rd or 4th edition Neophyte-Marines that stole a Thunderhawk to go "cruising"?), He-Man-style Battlecat.. erm Thunderwolf riders, etc.. are all Kelly's own. And Space Marines WERE unable to engage in sexual activity until Space Wolves 5th (Slannesh-mutation excepted perhaps).

The womanizing part IIRC (don't have book in front of me) referred to a Space Marine's life before he actually was recruited. And yeah, a lot of the stuff is ridiculous and pants on head slowed. However, it's no worse than much of the stuff Ward has written, giving us silly naming conventions and ridiculous stories as well on a consistent basis as opposed to a single standout.

Sure. But the argument voiced above was that Space Wolves was purposefully written to address popular options that appeared in the meta-game AFTER the publication of Codex Space Marines. If 3++ Thundershields and/or Vulcan among others were undercosted, this wouldn't be obvious to the designers until after the Codex Space Marines was out and the meta-game began to move.

There was plenty of time for that, or Kelly may have just seen what *everyone* else saw the instant they opened up C:SM and saw 2+/3++sv termi's for 40pts.

The idea that Kelly wrote the Space Wolves Codex purposefully broken to address the grievances of the net-whiner community remains ludicrous.

In some ways yes in some ways no. In regards to the TH/SS issue, it's possible. It's not hard to see that being something that was foreseen way early in development given how ubiquitous they became in C:SM armies.

Vaktathi wrote:
I never said Ward was immune to any of these mistakes. Just that authors like Kelly or Cruddace are equally prone to them, and that singling out Ward for the net-Hate by selective readings that hype up his mistakes but endlessly "excuse" those very same faults in the work of Kelly and Cruddace with far fetched fantasies is simply hypocrisy and/or self-delusion of the highest order.

In some ways perhaps, but Ward certainly has a habit of doing his very best to match others in those respects.

There's a reason Ward gets so much hate over other authors. It didn't materialize out of nowhere. No other author in GW's history has managed to create the same kind of angst and butthurt nerd rage, and there's a reason for that. More than any other author, he writes like an internet fan-boy, a Michael Bay of codex authors. Others have their issues yes, very definitely so, and Ward has his good moments, but there's a reason he's so divisive and seen in such a poor light in so many circles.

Vaktathi wrote:
There's a reason Ward gets so much hate over other authors. It didn't materialize out of nowhere. No other author in GW's history has managed to create the same kind of angst and butthurt nerd rage, and there's a reason for that. More than any other author, he writes like an internet fan-boy, a Michael Bay of codex authors. Others have their issues yes, very definitely so, and Ward has his good moments, but there's a reason he's so divisive and seen in such a poor light in so many circles.

See. That's where you go wrong, even as the arguments fail you.

There is no objectively verifable reason Ward gets this sort of hate of Ward over other authors. Any claim ever brought forward against him has been found in equal quality, quantity and severity in the other books of current and past Codex authors. Usually their incompetence far, far outstrips even the most remote claims laid at Ward's feet. Kelly's incompetent, bland, expositionary and blatantly fanboi-pandering writing style being the most poignant example in this case.

All the "Ward-hate" is, is a convergence of generic anti-Marine bias of jaded, cynical gronards and arm-chair game designers who failed to move on in time, combined with a self-amplifying dynamic of bitter-jaded internet-bashing which in turn becomes the basis of most people's opinion instead of the actual, objective comparison of the books.

Every single "Mat-Ward-Hater" I have ever met has been a more or less disgruntled, anti-GW whiner from the start who blamed "the company" for the (inevitable) fading of that fragile unencumberedmess of his(mostly his, not her) unspoiled, exhuberant childhood-immersions with exaggerated sci-fi cowboys and indians. Ward-Hate is a conduit for the inability of this overmature segment of the GW-customer base to preserve their rosy-tinted nostalgia of glory days that never were. They find it easier to blame an internet-scape goat rather than face their own stagnation in their hobby-time. If it wasn't for Ward, they would have found another fall guy to pick on in order to prop up their self-deluded, elitist conception of their involvement in the hobby as being somehow superiour to the parts they see as (used derogatory) "catering to the kids".

But the unbiased approach to the 5th Edition books reveals their Ward-hate to be ultimately unbased in any tangible, objective or replicable sense. There is no reason for the "Ward-hate" because the "hate" came first and it's only then that it attached to "Ward".

Zweischneid wrote:
See. That's where you go wrong, even as the arguments fail you.

There is no objectively verifable reason Ward gets this sort of hate of Ward over other authors.

There are many reasons already stated. While other designers make occaisonal mistakes and derpy fluff, Ward consistently writes fluff that irritates people.

Any claim ever brought forward against him has been found in equal quality, quantity and severity in the other books of current and past Codex authors.

Not so. For Phil Kelly, aside from Codex: Space Wolves, how often do you see people complaining about his fluff? Rarely. Likewise Cruddace, aside from a couple things in the Tyranid book, how much complaining about fluff did you see in his works, especially Codex: Imperial Guard? Very little.

Kelly's incompetent, bland, expositionary and blatantly fanboi-pandering writing style being the most poignant example in this case.

See, this is what I don't understand. Aside from C:SW, which ranks up with any of Ward's books as silly and broken, his other works aren't that bad and are rarely complained about aside from 4E Eldar, of which many of the things complained about existed previously (e.g. Holofields+SMF) but rather were just made more apparent.

Kelly's fluff certainly doesn't consistently generate the same angst that Ward's does. He's got one book where his fluff was derpy, in a book that consistently had had derpy fluff since 2nd edition as a sub-faction where derpy fluff is the rule this edition.

All the "Ward-hate" is, is a convergence of generic anti-Marine bias of jaded, cynical gronards and arm-chair game designers who failed to move on in time, combined with a self-amplifying dynamic of bitter-jaded internet-bashing which in turn becomes the basis of most people's opinion instead of the actual, objective comparison of the books.

And you base this on...?

Lets be real here, if, as you are arguing, other authors are just as guilty of the same issues, why on earth should this sentiment be so focused on one author unless there's something else to it?

Every single "Mat-Ward-Hater" I have ever met has been a more or less disgruntled, anti-GW whiner from the start who blamed "the company" for the (inevitable) fading of that fragile unencumberedmess of his(mostly his, not her) unspoiled, exhuberant childhood-immersions with exaggerated sci-fi cowboys and indians.

Methinks we are projecting some altogether unrelated issues here...

Ward-Hate is a conduit for the inability of this overmature segment of the GW-customer base to preserve their rosy-tinted nostalgia of glory days that never were.

There's a difference between "nostalgia for glory days that never were" and 'this doesn't really resemble anything I've read before'.

It's one thing to find and complain about every single fault in every single thing someone has written and complain how it doesn't match every single thing from 2E/RT. It's another when it's written like like bad internet fanfic.

To put it in perspective:

A single dude holding off hordes of enemies with a machine gun in desperate battle can make for a cool visual/story. When it gets to the point where he just holds down the trigger and sways back and forth and everything just drops dead immediately, it becomes stupid. That's the kind of thing we run into with Ward's fiction.

They find it easier to blame an internet-scape goat rather than face their own stagnation in their hobby-time. If it wasn't for Ward, they would have found another fall guy to pick on in order to prop up their self-deluded, elitist conception of their involvement in the hobby as being somehow superiour to the parts they see as (used derogatory) "catering to the kids".

Again, methinks there's more than a wee bit of projection here. Using the Occam's Razor approach, it's more likely that he just writes fluff that people don't think is very good.

But the unbiased approach to the 5th Edition books reveals their Ward-hate to be ultimately unbased in any tangible, objective or replicable sense

Unbiased approach?

With all these Matt Ward Hate threads I can't help but ask, Are we all just giving him a load a free press?
It has been said that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.
Are we feeding the beast?

Vaktathi wrote:
There are many reasons already stated. While other designers make occaisonal mistakes and derpy fluff, Ward consistently writes fluff that irritates people.

As shown above frequently, this divison into "occassionally" (not-Ward) and "consistently (Ward) is not matched by actual readings of the books. If anything, Cruddace and Kelly feth it up with far greater consistency than Ward ever did.

Vaktathi wrote:
Not so. For Phil Kelly, aside from Codex: Space Wolves, how often do you see people complaining about his fluff? Rarely. Likewise Cruddace, aside from a couple things in the Tyranid book, how much complaining about fluff did you see in his works, especially Codex: Imperial Guard? Very little.

The fluff in Dark Eldar is just as bad, if not worse than Space Wolves. Eldar 4th pretty much broke 4th Edition. IG? Do a Forum search on "Leafblower". And "a couple things in the Tyranid book". Seriously, if you don't see how your own pre-bias to corner Ward is playing tricks on you, there is little more to say.

Vaktathi wrote:
Kelly's fluff certainly doesn't consistently generate the same angst that Ward's does. He's got one book where his fluff was derpy, in a book that consistently had had derpy fluff since 2nd edition as a sub-faction where derpy fluff is the rule this edition.

Kelly's fluff is consistently just as bad, if not worse. His writing is simplistic on a literary level below that of Ward with mostly ex-machina, expositionary statements thrown at the reader ("Vect is the most intelligent DE!" "Dark Eldar are a depraved race!" "Vect didn't feel appreciated in his childhood!", etc..) But that is just the point. Kelly doesn't get the same hate despite producing worse fluff with great consistency BECAUSE the Ward hate is not grounded in objective readings of the different authors.

Vaktathi wrote:
And you base this on...?

What do you base your judgements of what is "an occassional, excusable mistake" and a "consistent" mistake on?

Vaktathi wrote:
Lets be real here, if, as you are arguing, other authors are just as guilty of the same issues, why on earth should this sentiment be so focused on one author unless there's something else to it?

Do I need to repeat myself? My arguments are in the post above.

Vaktathi wrote:
There's a difference between "nostalgia for glory days that never were" and 'this doesn't really resemble anything I've read before'.

Like Wolf-cavalry in space?

Vaktathi wrote:
It's one thing to find and complain about every single fault in every single thing someone has written and complain how it doesn't match every single thing from 2E/RT. It's another when it's written like like bad internet fanfic.

To put it in perspective:

A single dude holding off hordes of enemies with a machine gun in desperate battle can make for a cool visual/story. When it gets to the point where he just holds down the trigger and sways back and forth and everything just drops dead immediately, it becomes stupid. That's the kind of thing we run into with Ward's fiction.

Like what? Like Maugan-Ra defending an entire planet from a Tyranid's Hive Fleet skyfall singlehandedly, pole-to-pole, round the equator, mountains, oceans, plains and cities? Come'on, don't tell me non-Ward fluff is more "in perspective".

All stories of single characters or heroes taking on the might of legions are ridiculous. You cite Maugan Ra, but what about Calgar holding an entire pass against an Ork horde for an entire day, Tigerius owning the Hive Mind, the overused Draigo slaying Mortarion... etc?

Every codex has got at least one ridiculous hero or something which just wouldn't work, no matter how hard you try to believe it. Why not just go all the way in this train of thought and say: "the emperor is OP in fluff and should be dead"?

Lord Rogukiel wrote:All stories of single characters or heroes taking on the might of legions are ridiculous. You cite Maugan Ra, but what about Calgar holding an entire pass against an Ork horde for an entire day, Tigerius owning the Hive Mind, the overused Draigo slaying Mortarion... etc?

Every codex has got at least one ridiculous hero or something which just wouldn't work, no matter how hard you try to believe it. Why not just go all the way in this train of thought and say: "the emperor is OP in fluff and should be dead"?

The notion that Tigurius communicating with the Hive Mind and surviving is preposterous assumes that the Hive Mind is concious. We don't know if it is or not. IIRC the Calgar episode was him holding a gate for an entire day, which isn't all that far-fetched as long as he had ammo. And finally, how is it "ridiculous" that Draigo, the greatest of the Grey Knights, whose very being is anathema to daemons, beat Mortarion, a daemon Primarch, after Morty just slaughtered the ex-greatest Grey Knight? Seriously, it took the two best daemon hunters in the Galaxy to merely banish Mortarion. Compare this to Hector Rex, a mere human, who banished An'ggrath the Unbound, the Most Favoured Champion of Khorne and tell me it's "silly".