New Rumours about Chaos Legions

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.

**Bullockist**

Platuan4th wrote:

You're a bit late to the party. Stormboys worshiped Khorne in Rogue Trader.

Stormboyz didn't worship knorne, A few select stormboyz followed the Bloog Dod. I know that sounds a little finicky but orks for the most part are very resiliant to chaos. I think the khorne stormboy entry in Freebooterz mentions this.
Also on chaos what i would like is for tzeentch to get some love. His demon is the Lord of Change, yet tzeentch gets psychic powers and bolter marines, mutations and other fun stuff anyone?

**H.B.M.C.**

ph34r wrote:A lot of people think Mat Ward's fluff isn't dumb.

Not really a reply there ph34.

You: Who cares about the fluff as long as the book works!
Me: Some people care about the fluff.
You: Some people like Mat Ward’s stuff.

See the disconnect? Your reply does not follow. Now I’ll admit that my ire towards the GK Codex is mostly directed towards the fluff (although the sheer complication of every unit having its own special rule or psychic power is another problem... and the Dread Knight... my God the Dread Knight...), but I wasn’t responding to Ward fluff, I was responding to your assertion that we shouldn’t give, to quote you, a ‘flying feth’ about the fluff – y’know, as long as the book works.

I disagree. Fluff and rules should be congruent. Each one should be as important as the other, and to ignore one in favour of the other just leads to a failed Codex.

ph34r wrote:I am utterly mystified by the fact that you can dislike the new IG codex for a reason other than doctrines being gone.

The Doctrine system was a lot of fun. The Doctrine system was also a terrible set of rules. The Marine Trait system was worse. There are a lot of reasons to dislike the current Guard Codex that aren’t related to the Doctrines. If I’ve misunderstood what you’ve said above, please elaborate and I’ll try again.

ph34r wrote:It seems like some time during 4th edition you arbitrarily flipped a switch between liking and extreme hating GW's new codexes.

Believe what you want to believe. I think the Guard Codex is pants because it’s dull and it killed virtually everything I love about the Guard and Arby somehow managed to change just about every rule in the whole book (which was an amazing feat). I think the Tyranid Codex is pathetic because it’s a bad example of pendulum swinging (from ‘Zilla to non-‘Zilla in one edition!) and because it’s written by Arby, the most boring Codex writer in the world outside of Jervis “Codex: Dark Angels” Johnson. I think Codex

aemons is a hilariously bad Codex that further insults Chaos players. I think the current Marine Codex is awesome (my problems with that Codex stem from the over-reliance on special characters, but that’s more a current 40K design philosophy problem than a problem specific to the Marine Codex). I think the Blood Angel Codex is fine (it’s the fluff & the Mary Sueguinor that I hate from that book). I think the Space Wolf Codex suffers from the over-reliance on special characters that the Marine book suffers from, only its special characters are more obnoxiously bad (Loki and Thor being actual characters, and the less said about Wolfy McWolferson and his Thunderwolf brethren the better), but otherwise I think the Space Wolf Codex was a well realised update of the old mini-dex. I think the Dark Eldar are great and the model’s are gorgeous – the most successful re-release of a race since the Orks. The Ork Codex is fantastic and is easily my fav current Codex because of how much fun it is – a real return to form after the abysmally stale 3rd Ed Codex (Codex: Goff Clan!). I want to go back in time and murder Mat Ward for the Grey Knight Codex (but apparently the line to do that is rather long). And y’all know what I think about the Boring Angel and ‘Chaos’ Codices...

So, as I said, believe what you want to believe. Attempting to say that I did one thing before X-date and then suddenly have the complete opposite view is completely fantasy.

**BrassScorpion**

Stormboyz didn't worship knorne,

Except when they did. Stormboyz of Khorne were a GW creation and a relatively common thing in days of yore (i.e., Rogue Trader to early 2nd Edition era).

**H.B.M.C.**

lord marcus wrote:I think the doctrine system could have worked if they had playtested it more. Then again, all rules could do with more playtesting.

No amount of play testing will fix a systemic error in the actual execution of a perfectly sound concept. What do I mean by that?

The Doctrine system, and this applies to the Marine Trait system from the 4th Ed Marine Codex as well, was a fantastic concept. Pick the parts that make your army flavourful and give it certain advantages for the sacrifice of either points, choices on the FOC, and with a built in hard-limit of 5. Perfect.

Where it fell apart is the ‘trade off’ area. Points are not the great leveller, and by that I mean that you can’t always balance something just by changing how much it costs. For the Doctrines, what you gave up or lost when you decided to play a Doctrine army wasn’t a big enough deterrent or trade off to taking the Doctrines.

You lost:

Storm Troopers
Ratlings
Priests
Sanctioned Psykers
Rough Riders
Ogryn

There might have been one or two others. Either way, no competitive or reasonably effective army used any of the above with the exception of Rough Riders. So you could get Drop Troops and Close Order Drill for free in your army by ‘giving up’ things you were never going to use anyway.

If a rule set ever gives you something by making you give something else up, and that ‘something’ is something you never intended to use in the first place, then you’re not really giving anything up. That was the problem with the Doctrine system, and it was only further magnified with the Marine Trait system. With the Marine Trait system you had to take a down side for every good side you took. The problem is, one of those downsides was ‘Cannot take allies’. If you were never intending to take allied units this one was the one you chose, as you weren’t really losing anything by taking it.

Those weren’t the only problems with the Doctrine System of course – the special equipment Doctrines were a load of nonsense and the fact that you had to apply them to your entire army (rather than on a much more sensible platoon-by-platoon basis) made them mostly useless, and there was little point in ‘buying back’ things like Sanctioned Psykers or Storm Troopers because they were hopeless – but that big one, the idea of giving something up when in reality you weren’t losing anything, that was the problem that caused the Doctrine/Trait systems to fail.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrassScorpion wrote:Except when they did. Stormboyz of Khorne were a GW creation and a relatively common thing in days of yore (i.e., Rogue Trader to early 2nd Edition era).

Early 2nd Ed? You sure about that?

Khornate Orks went away about the same time as Khornate Genestealer Cults (get your head around that folks – Genestealers fuelled by the power of Khorne!!!), didn't they?

**Ouze**

Khornate Genestealers??? What is, I don't even.

**Ascalam**

I miss my slaanesh-possessed wierdboys and the pastel madboy mob

**ph34r**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ph34r wrote:A lot of people think Mat Ward's fluff isn't dumb.

Not really a reply there ph34.

You: Who cares about the fluff as long as the book works!
Me: Some people care about the fluff.
You: Some people like Mat Ward’s stuff.

See the disconnect? Your reply does not follow. Now I’ll admit that my ire towards the GK Codex is mostly directed towards the fluff (although the sheer complication of every unit having its own special rule or psychic power is another problem... and the Dread Knight... my God the Dread Knight...), but I wasn’t responding to Ward fluff, I was responding to your assertion that we shouldn’t give, to quote you, a ‘flying feth’ about the fluff – y’know, as long as the book works.

I disagree. Fluff and rules should be congruent. Each one should be as important as the other, and to ignore one in favour of the other just leads to a failed Codex.

Actually, it does follow. The examples I gave I do not consider to be horrible fluff butcheries. You do, but I don't.

As for codex chaos's fluff, as long as it isn't somehow magnitudes worse than every other codex's fluff recently, I don't care.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Believe what you want to believe. I think the Guard Codex is pants because it’s dull and it killed virtually everything I love about the Guard and Arby somehow managed to change just about every rule in the whole book (which was an amazing feat). I think the Tyranid Codex is pathetic because it’s a bad example of pendulum swinging (from ‘Zilla to non-‘Zilla in one edition!) and because it’s written by Arby, the most boring Codex writer in the world outside of Jervis “Codex: Dark Angels” Johnson. I think Codexaemons is a hilariously bad Codex that further insults Chaos players. I think the current Marine Codex is awesome (my problems with that Codex stem from the over-reliance on special characters, but that’s more a current 40K design philosophy problem than a problem specific to the Marine Codex). I think the Blood Angel Codex is fine (it’s the fluff & the Mary Sueguinor that I hate from that book). I think the Space Wolf Codex suffers from the over-reliance on special characters that the Marine book suffers from, only its special characters are more obnoxiously bad (Loki and Thor being actual characters, and the less said about Wolfy McWolferson and his Thunderwolf brethren the better), but otherwise I think the Space Wolf Codex was a well realised update of the old mini-dex. I think the Dark Eldar are great and the model’s are gorgeous – the most successful re-release of a race since the Orks. The Ork Codex is fantastic and is easily my fav current Codex because of how much fun it is – a real return to form after the abysmally stale 3rd Ed Codex (Codex: Goff Clan!). I want to go back in time and murder Mat Ward for the Grey Knight Codex (but apparently the line to do that is rather long). And y’all know what I think about the Boring Angel and ‘Chaos’ Codices...

So, as I said, believe what you want to believe. Attempting to say that I did one thing before X-date and then suddenly have the complete opposite view is completely fantasy.

Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, and Dark Angels were all terrible and bland codexes cooked up in the old days when they thought streamlining everything and trying to double chaos sales would somehow be a good idea. They are awful.

They also are nothing like the modern GW codexes. The only "failure" of a codex is considered to be Tyranids, and I even disagree with this. Though tyranids aren't as braindead easymode as most spess maren tournament armies you see, they can still be competitive. As for carnifexes being nerfed into the ground? Slightly excessive, but after their being literally 50% of the competitive lists in every tournament in 4th edition, I'm glad to not see them any more.

Also, in case you didn't know, Codex:SW very rarely uses named characters in moderately serious lists.

**H.B.M.C.**

ph34r wrote:You do, but I don't.

A lot of us do. I’ve said this at other times, but was it just me raging against the night, then maybe I’d take a time out to consider that maybe – just maybe – I was looking at it wrong. In the case of the GK fluff, and what Mat Ward does in general, this clearly is not the case. It’s not hard to see the effect he’s had, and the sheer reaction the man created when he destroys the soul of an army (like he did with the GK’s), or when he adds things that are just silly (Sanguinor, Necron/Blood Angel BFFs, etc.). Using 4Chan as a benchmark for community response isn’t always the best of ideas (in fact it’s often a bad idea), but if threads about Ward’s GK Codex are actually banned for a time for the sheer frequency, then something significant has happened.

And while you mightn’t have a problem with it, enough people do; enough that it stands as a high example of what happens when someone is allowed to take the fluff an army deep into the woods and have their way with it. *plays Deliverance theme*

ph34r wrote:As for codex chaos's fluff, as long as it isn't somehow magnitudes worse than every other codex's fluff recently, I don't care.

And that’s great for you – I have no issue with you holding this viewpoint – but some of us are more invested in the fluff than we are in the rules. For instance, I know that the current ‘Chaos’ Codex is a perfectly serviceable Codex from which you can make competitive builds (or build), but it doesn’t matter how balanced or how powerful it is if it is dull and missing the flavour of the (completely imbalanced and 1/3rd useless) 3.5 Codex.

If you only care (or mostly care) about how effective a Codex is then great, more power to you. Some of us, though, don’t see it quite that way.

And I just used ‘it is if it is’ in a sentence and it made sense. Surely I win something for that?

@ me!

ph34r wrote:Chaos Daemons, Chaos Marines, and Dark Angels were all terrible and bland codexes cooked up in the old days when they thought streamlining everything and trying to double chaos sales would somehow be a good idea. They are awful.

Oh I know that. They’re from what I comically refer to as the ‘Jervis Era’, or the ‘Dark Times’ if I’m parodying Jervis to Darth Vader. A period of Codex design where all flavour and life and colour was drained from the team and we were left with two husks of a Codex and once Codex that simply shouldn’t exist at all. This was thankfully ended when Ward’s Marine Codex – which I love both because of and in spite of its absurdities – but not everything since then has been a winner.

ph34r wrote:The only "failure" of a codex is considered to be Tyranids, and I even disagree with this. Though tyranids aren't as braindead easymode as most spess maren tournament armies you see, they can still be competitive. As for carnifexes being nerfed into the ground? Slightly excessive, but after their being literally 50% of the competitive lists in every tournament in 4th edition, I'm glad to not see them any more.

Couldn’t agree more as far as the ‘Fexes are concerned. The Tyranids are a great example to use whenever you want to point out that GW is a miniatures company first and a rules writing company last. Tyranid 4th Ed – ‘Fex is the new hotness kit, so of course the rules allow millions of them. ‘Zilla lists dominate (and I hated that – Tyranids are a swarm, not an army with 8 Monstrous fething Creatures). Along comes 5th and we’ve got our new Trygon, so we want people to use them... so we’ll just nerf the ‘Fex. Of course, people now have all these ‘Fexes... so we’ll allow them to be in broods. But then Arby got a bout of the ‘Arbitraries’ and decided to force people to arm their ‘Fexes with the same weapons across broods. Uhhh...

ph34r wrote:Also, in case you didn't know, Codex:SW very rarely uses named characters in moderately serious lists.

As I think I’ve made clear, I’m none too fussed about what ‘serious’ lists do. My issue with the Woof’s special chars is to do with the concepts behind them. Bastardised Norse mythology making up part of the Space Wolves back story? Cool, I can live with that. We get Space Vikings. No problems. Actual Norse Gods (with different names) as special characters? And then there’s the whole Thunderwolf thing, but let’s not get into that...

Your criteria for a successful Codex appears to be how it plays on the table. I can respect that view – some people truly don’t give that much of a damn, or, to quote you again, a ‘flying feth’ – but not everyone is like that and I’m certainly like that. I’m willing to overlook a lot of fluff inconsistencies as long as the universe remains mostly internally consistent. The more Ward writes, the more cracks begin to appear in that facade. With the Blood Angels Codex we got a few hammer-blows to the fluff, but the wall was fine. With Grey Knights, the man drove a fething rocket-powered bulldozer at the wall... and then once he was through he came back for another run at it...

**Ouze**

For me, at least, I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK when they were released. Then I actually looked at the codex and I could not. I know my experience, just one guy, is anecdotal, but it is true. The writing turned me off in a major way. I guess I care more about having compelling fluff then necessarily being competitive, rule wise.

So! That being said, I'm pretty stoked about the Chaos Legions book! My understanding is 4th was awesome, and 5th ruined it. If that were accurate, it can only get better, right?

**ph34r**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ph34r wrote:As for codex chaos's fluff, as long as it isn't somehow magnitudes worse than every other codex's fluff recently, I don't care.

And that’s great for you – I have no issue with you holding this viewpoint – but some of us are more invested in the fluff than we are in the rules. For instance, I know that the current ‘Chaos’ Codex is a perfectly serviceable Codex from which you can make competitive builds (or build), but it doesn’t matter how balanced or how powerful it is if it is dull and missing the flavour of the (completely imbalanced and 1/3rd useless) 3.5 Codex.

If you only care (or mostly care) about how effective a Codex is then great, more power to you. Some of us, though, don’t see it quite that way.

And I just used ‘it is if it is’ in a sentence and it made sense. Surely I win something for that? @ me!

That's the thing, I don't care if the codex is super competitive or not, I just want it to have options. I think the fluff in the recent codexes is decent stuff, on par with the 3rd-4th edition codexes. In fact, the 3rd-4th edition codexes had tiny amounts of fluff, so I enjoy the fact that the new books use their extra 30-40 pages over the old one to give us more fluff.

I am in fact very invested in Chaos's fluff, as I am with IG's fluff. I think the recent IG book had good fluff. I think the recent GK book had good fluff other than a very select few things that people blew way out of proportion. I think that if the new Chaos book's fluff is somewhere around the level of recent books, then it will be just fine.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:My understanding is 4th was awesome, and 5th ruined it. If that were accurate, it can only get better, right?

Never say that!

**Kingsley**

Ouze wrote:For me, at least, I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK when they were released.

Ouze wrote:I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK when they were released.

Ouze wrote:I had been around 90/10 leaning towards starting GK

Ouze wrote:90/10 leaning towards starting GK

Ouze wrote:90/10

I don't think your ability to evaluate your own decision-making process is very developed.

**Ouze**

90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?

**Kingsley**

Ouze wrote:90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?

Yeah, I don't believe you.

**ph34r**

Ouze wrote:90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?

Yeah, if you were 90% inclined to start GK, there is legit no way you would let the few minor fluff-sillies in codex:GK stop you. The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.

**H.B.M.C.**

ph34r wrote:The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.

Except they're not the only ridiculous thing to us. How is this so difficult to understand?

**ph34r**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
ph34r wrote:The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.

Except they're not the only ridiculous thing to us. How is this so difficult to understand?

It might be hard for me because I am actually able to remember fluff that was created more than 6 months in the past, and in fact remember that it was equally good/bad back then. Most everyone nowadays seems to be so far up their own asses with ward-hate that they have no perspective.

**Asherian Command**

Finally is what i have to say.

**Ouze**

Fetterkey wrote:
Ouze wrote:90% inclined, 10% disinclined? I was almost certainly going to start playing GK?

Yeah, I don't believe you.

Well, I'm glad to know you know more about my plans, feelings and motivations then I do. In all fairness, you have had many opportunities to gain insights into me, with having never met me once, and all.

Wait, you could have insight into my thoughts from posts on Dakka! Like the things I said previously about Grey Knights here. Like when I said, naively in January, "Grey Knights, I'm excited about but I don't think GW will screw them up. Wasn't that months before they were actually released, where I was describing them as my second biggest hope for 2011? Or when I said in March "OK, the models are all terrific, and I think that I'm just about ready for yet another army to build half of and then abandon anyway, so perhaps the ghostbusters are it."That was also about a month before the codex was released, right?

Oh, wait. All of my postings on this topic have consistently indicated, pre-release, that I planned to get them and then decided not to once the book came out ebcause I didn't like the lore.

I guess you don't know a damn thing about me after all.

**ph34r**

Ouze wrote:I guess you don't know a damn thing about me after all.

I guess he just found such a course of action so out of touch with what a normal/logical/informed person would do that he found it implausible to believe.

**nosferatu1001**

I rarely agree with HBMC about anything, but the current chaos dex is....beyond dull.

Part of the issue is it was rushed out ahead of schedule to make up for delayed orks (modelling issue) so they chopped anything out of it that didnt meet the new deadline.

As for GK - I love the options you get in the book, the fact ive yet to see 2 identical GK armies (UK) and that noone has settled on a "power build" unlike with SW and IG (such dull armies to face...) as yet - and hopefully there wont be just one. The internal balance in the book, especially how the HQ slots compete (cheap, effective hq? Inq with rad nades. Change your strategy as you face each mission? GKGM. Awesome psychic powers? Libby) is far far better than either the SW or IG dexes. Yes, there is some trash in there - but it seems lot lower than in previous books.

I can live with poor instances of fluff (crowe, mainly) but i cant live with a poor rulebook, as I like to travel to play games at tournaments (i dont travel to win, as i've never managed more than 2nd and that was a complete fluke, I travel to play new people / people i rarely see and shoot sh*t / get drunk for 2 days) and like to play with armies I at least have a chance with, and where Im not bored stiff playing them - like I got with my unconventional chaos khorne list (2 dp,khorne, wings, 3 x 8 zerkers, rhinos, oblits, FW WE dreadnoughts) after a while.

**KingmanHighborn**

6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*

Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.

40K went through 3 in 10 years....by the gods I miss the rulebook that had the awesome Black Templars artwork on it...best 40K rule book..ever...

**H.B.M.C.**

KingmanHighborn wrote:6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*

Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.

Remember, GW priorities are:

1. Dividends to the share-holders (ie. mainly Kirby & Wells).
2. Short-term profits.
3. Making models to sell.
4. Secrecy.
...
...
...
97783994. Writing a good set of rules.

6th Ed is an excuse to push more minis, not to improve the game.

**ph34r**

KingmanHighborn wrote:6th edition *eyetwitch eyetwitch eyetwitch*

Seriously WTF D&D since it's incarnation has had 4 versions.

40K went through 3 in 10 years....by the gods I miss the rulebook that had the awesome Black Templars artwork on it...best 40K rule book..ever...

3rd edition had some problems. Like rhino rush.

I for one am happy with the rate that 40k is progressing through editions.

**Ouze**

ph34r wrote:
Ouze wrote:I guess you don't know a damn thing about me after all.
I guess he just found such a course of action so out of touch with what a normal/logical/informed person would do that he found it implausible to believe.

So, I'm a liar, or abnormal, illogical, and stupid because I didn't like the Grey Knight backstory and that stopped my plans for collecting them? This is now the default stance of reasonable people like you and Fetterkey?

**Kingsley**

Ouze wrote:So, I'm a liar, or abnormal, illogical, and stupid because I didn't like the Grey Knight backstory and that stopped my plans for collecting them? This is now the default stance of reasonable people like you and Fetterkey?

Nah, you're reading too much into it. I just thought you were being goofy and hyperbolic with your original post.

**Ouze**

Fetterkey wrote:Nah, you're reading too much into it. I just thought you were being goofy and hyperbolic with your original post.

I'm not sure what I'm reading too much into, exactly, by stating I had intended to collect GK and summarily being branded a liar who doesn't understand my own thought process, but sure, ok, whatever. The fact is, I did not like the codex and this was, far above all other considerations, the reason I did not collect Grey Knights as planned.

ph34r wrote:The only ridiculous things in the book are basically everything about Crowe, and how much Psilencers suck.

That seems like a rather self-serving summation, in it's rather conspicuous omission of certain elements of the codex.

**Asuron**

Fetterkey wrote:
Ouze wrote:So, I'm a liar, or abnormal, illogical, and stupid because I didn't like the Grey Knight backstory and that stopped my plans for collecting them? This is now the default stance of reasonable people like you and Fetterkey?

Nah, you're reading too much into it. I just thought you were being goofy and hyperbolic with your original post.

That he was almost certainly going to get GK until he read the background and decided not to?
Yeah that was hyperbolic alright.

Anyways if you two only think those things are what we( I use we here, because i've seen these guys post similar complaints to mine in threads about the GK fluff) have problems with and are trivial, by all means feel that way.
My personal issues with the background extend to far more issues in the book than just bloody Castellan Crowe however.
Besides if you take away the background, you only have a set of shoddy rules to lean on and honestly I feel if thats all your in for, you might as well go play better balanced games

**H.B.M.C.**

Yeah, Ouze, even I kinda got that Fetterkey was kidding around. Just sayin'. That's all.

And, apropos, the 1d4Chan article has been updated with this:

Why the Hate?

Hating Matt Ward on /tg/ is almost so universal it's painful these days. Although his fluff writing skills are beyond terrible, he has been improving as far as writing balanced codices go (arguably). Hence, one begs the question, why all the unfettered rage? Can't /tg/ just ignore his fluff and play the game for what it is? Why not just make up your own fluff and ignore the guy?

The problem with Matt Ward is a touch complicated, but the biggest issue is the way he writes the fluff. For many, as can be seen by the plethora of /tg/ made chapters here on 1d4chan, the true appeal of 40k is designing a unique, colorful army with a rich history and engaging heroes. A good player of 40k likes to put a certain amount of himself in his lovingly assembled and painted armies, and he likes his army to reflect his own sensibilities and his own ideals. That's what makes an army truly belong to a player – that's what makes them special.

Matt Ward takes those elements away from the player. The biggest rage-inducing codex he has made thus far is the Ultramarines codex, which explicitly stated that all chapters, excluding a few "abhorrent" (Black Templars, Space Wolves...etc), behave and think in exactly the same manner as his army – Ultramarines, his chosen faction. He spelled out the organization patterns, the ideologies, who they revere and why, and then proceeded to tell the community at large that if they don't do it that way, then they're making their army wrong.

Players can still make their own marine factions, but with Ward's fluff, they'll always be bearing a black mark: the flaw of being unlike Ward's army. The flaw of being unique and of following a set of ideals that don't match Ward's. The flaw is canonized and inescapable, and Ward enforces it in all his writing with sincerity and vigor.

Even this would not be so much of a problem if it weren't for the fact that Ward just doesn't appear to be, well, very smart or insightful. Either that, or he doesn't seem that well educated in what he writes. His ideas on what makes good warfare and tactics seem based around the idea that might is right and strength is victory. His grasp of the subtle nuances of conflict and managing people revolve around things far displaced from reality. Ward's heroes lead head first, sacrificing all in frontal assaults that could be circumvented with more ingenuity.

And while there is such a thing as a front line general, the fact is that all his heroes are like that, and ones that aren't seem vague and unfocused. Furthermore, Matt does a lot of telling rather than showing. He tells us that Calgar is a patient tactical genius who considers the danger of an incoming projectile before taking cover. The image painted in the average person's mind in that case is one of Calgar analyzing a falling bomb until it strikes him in the head and explodes, at which point he decides, “Yes, that one was dangerous, I should have taken cover from that one.”

The biggest offender of Matt's “tell not show” policy is Kaldor Draigo, the Grey Knights' supreme grand master who's main personality trait is “badass”. Without rhyme, reason, or feasible explanation, Draigo simply exists as this whirlwind of enemy-destroying fiction in his codex. He pops in and out of the Warp, wrecking everything without so much a minute of exposition, and all the while the reader is never really told how or why. Draigo is a concept – a meaningless one without any emotional impact. He's not a person or anything to which the average man can relate. Ward has simply declared him the best ever, and in canon, so it is true.

So Ward is hated for this among other reasons. He yanks the floorboards out from underneath your army, telling you that you're playing the game wrong and giving your army the wrong characteristics, and then shoves a handful of nothing against your chest, insisting that, yes, this is what you've been missing all along. He's that jerk in your wargaming club that leans over your shoulder while playing, breathing heavily and telling you where to move your guys. He's that sweaty donkey-cave in those fun games that cheats on his dice rolls because he's not there to drink beer and chat with you. He's that complete moron in the room that everyone pegs as a sucker, and he's the only one who doesn't realize he's not a genius. Matt Ward is that guy. Yes, that guy.

And this is why I'm dreading Necrons, Black Templars and anything else he gets his grubby little mitts on...

**Ouze**

As an aside, I had never even heard of Matt Ward previous to the codex being released, so it's not like I was set to hate it. The only write in all of GW's stable whose work I know is Dan Abnett, and I don't think he writes codexes (right?).

Was the word actually "abhorrent"? I think I remember it as "abberrant".

**ph34r**

Asuron wrote:That he was almost certainly going to get GK until he read the background and decided not to?
Yeah that was hyperbolic alright.

Anyways if you two only think those things are what we( I use we here, because i've seen these guys post similar complaints to mine in threads about the GK fluff) have problems with and are trivial, by all means feel that way.
My personal issues with the background extend to far more issues in the book than just bloody Castellan Crowe however.
Besides if you take away the background, you only have a set of shoddy rules to lean on and honestly I feel if thats all your in for, you might as well go play better balanced games

You actually think that the rules of Codex:GK have significant problems?

Lol, ok.