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.

I did not see anything wrong with that, if it is the one I am looking out. It seems to me to be saying "Look this was not meant to be used this way, however by the rules it is allowed. I myself would not allow it"

Stuff like that happens in game companies. They really do have crap in the way of creative management, however.

"Look this was not meant to be used this way, however by the rules it is allowed. I myself would not allow it"

Okay, that's fine and potentially could be allowed.

Now do you think it should be left within a public venue that's used for corrections for pure game play rules, not as one persons personal soapbox as to what they decide.

It's also as if leaving a very personal note inside it as a way of saying "No you shouldn't be able to do it, and next edition you won't be able to because I will make it so"

And by the fluff, they actually can use armor while casting magic.

Hunterindarkness wrote:
Well said. I asked a simple question and it has turned into a shouting match, along with name calling over what is really simply taste. 40k as far asI can tell, is built upon poor Ip control, Mary sue one upmen ship with the writers and no one giving a damn about consistency within the setting. Just chill guys, you are not going change each others taste.

Why do I have a felling that you watch how this guys argue with popcorn in your hands?

Its basically his own personal bias showing and telling people how HE thinks people should have fun. And that there is a right and wrong way to have fun with this. More or less.

If he really felt there was a proper need to address that point with an Ed note it could have been worded better IMO. But I have a lot of customer service experience so I always try to read things in a manner that looks for where statements can be divisive or interpreted the wrong way so it isn't instantly apparent to everyone as it would be in my mind.

As they say perception is reality, so best to avoid any perception issues entirely if you can rather than just have to fix them later.

They should address things with errata I agree. I just did not see anything in the statement I read that came off as bitter. It came off as something that was overruled but as the author of said rule he made clear his intent with it.

Now I know nothing of this guys history so maybe that would color it a different way, but from what I read, if we are reading the same thing I simply did not take bitter away from it.

@Coa, Not at all man. some of it was informative, but after a point my eyes glazed over and it read mostly like long yells(Types?) of "Are not!, Are too!" I was simply curious about the topic, which is why I asked. I should have known what it would lead to with the level of hate the names seems to inspire however.

Draigo is a total failure. He has utterly failed to achieve any lasting victory. If it weren't for his iron-clad determination, he'd not even be a sympathetic character. He fails. Constantly. It's his entire existence. That he keeps trying is what makes him heroic, not any success he's had (since it is none).

That is depth of character.

How anyone can read him as "the great and unstoppable hero" is without understanding.

If you want to find somethings shallow and vapid in the Grey Knight codex, look at Crowe. Draigo is not your target.

Hunterindarkness wrote:They should address things with errata I agree. I just did not see anything in the statement I read that came off as bitter. It came off as something that was overruled but as the author of said rule he made clear his intent with it.

Now I know nothing of this guys history so maybe that would color it a different way, but from what I read, if we are reading the same thing I simply did not take bitter away from it.

Well I think the bitterness is interpreted by the in-necessity of him telling us it got debated over and what not. It doesn't really add anything to the note. All it sounds like is someone didn't like outcome and had to vent it somewhere. Tad subjective but really the whole note doesn't really need to be there at all which is the telling factor for me at least. And a name with a date once again doesn't entirely need to be there. Date especially. It just reeks of WHY.

I probably wouldn't have really noticed it myself either without more than a cursory glance and read it the same as you, but going over it again it just seems unnecessary. The question in the FAQ got answered, and any original oversight could have been put into the actual answer and not a note. Like 'Yes, though this wasn't our intent but is RAW' or something.

It also begs the question why that question got special attention with its answer when others don't. It didn't seem that special to me at least to warrant the attention it got.

But yeah I am reading this with a different set of eyes to you so mileage is going to vary but I can see where Zeibo is coming from.

Hunterindarkness wrote:
@Coa, Not at all man. some of it was informative, but after a point my eyes glazed over and it read mostly like long yells(Types?) of "Are not!, Are too!" I was simply curious about the topic, which is why I asked. I should have known what it would lead to with the level of hate the names seems to inspire however.

I know, I was kidding

But since you are new here, let me tell you the most important rule of Dakka: everybody have their own opinion on how 40k work. As you read trough post you will see that most of the people defend their believes and army's ( "my army is the best" syndrome ) to the death - even going as far as insulting other people on national and racial level ( I was insulted on national level few times already because of some minor things ). So don't be to surprised if your post about Tau, Matt Ward, Grey Knights, Ultramarines or any other sensitive subject ends up like this.

Especially not Mat Ward's Codex UltraTau Knights. Only mexican jew lizards post about that Codex.

God I hope people get that reference instead of reading it as a racial slur.

OMG RACIAL SLUR ALERT THE INTERNET PO... oh, wait. I get it.

Yeah, I read the fluff for Draigo and it's not all that bad. Although I did find myself inserting "And then..." at the beginning of every paragraph, which only made it better. And slightly amusing.

He's a tragic hero, and that I can get behind.

There are fluff reasons to hate Matt Ward's writing (notably his failures as a writer - things like saying "It's hard to imagine"), and the rules are definitely pushing the limits of what could possibly be considered "codex creep".

It seems like all of GWs writers are in some kind of competition to see who can go the furthest over the top the fastest when it comes to rules, and Ward's GK 'dex has set the bar pretty fething high. Let's hope that it's just in preparation for a major overhaul with 6th edition and leave it at that - if it isn't that, then I foresee a lot of whining and a run on GK models.

Atma01 wrote:Only mexican jew lizards post about that Codex.

Ok, everyone, before we jump on Atma, this is a reference to an old Penny Arcade comic. Don't ban him the way I was banned for using the phrase 'die in a fire'.

Whatever you... you.... DOUBLE NECRON!

:p

Chesh wrote:Yeah, I read the fluff for Draigo and it's not all that bad. Although I did find myself inserting "And then..." at the beginning of every paragraph, which only made it better. And slightly amusing.

He's a tragic hero, and that I can get behind. .

The problem I have with the idea of Draigo as a tragic hero is that for something to be a tragedy something that the person hold dear must be lost, or they have been brought down by their own hubris (if you want to go Greek tragedy style) . Dragio's life in the materium and the warp are exactly the same, only he's now in the chaos god's face 24/7, and that'd forgetting that he does occasionally gets pulled back into the real world and proceeds to kick seven different flavors of snot out of everything in arm's reach (how else would he be on the table?).

and that'd forgetting that he does occasionally gets pulled back into the real world and proceeds to kick seven different flavors of snot out of everything in arm's reach (how else would he be on the table?).

The same way several dead SC's get on the table even though they're dead in the fluff.

Luke_Prowler wrote: only he's now in the chaos god's face 24/7,

And the most significant thing he does there is say "I'm not touching you" over and over.

I found Zweischneid's reply to Atma01 very calm, well written and peacefully explaining his point of view.

Completely opposed to rockerbikie's response which was just plain awful. No content. No reference to any of the points. Unnecessary video.
I am seriously puzzled what post did you reply to... There is no mentioning of 4chan, there is absolutely no aggression, no name-calling. He is mostly talking about authors while you are only talking about him personally. It's actually people like you who are responsible for "trolling" and awful state of internet conversations.

I didn't read the whole topic but Zweischneid dominated the last pages. Partly because other responses were very lacking.
And I'm not trying to defend/accuse Ward, just pointing out the overall quality of statements.
Just my 2 cents.

Then read the entire thing and you'll get the references to 1d4chan, Notice the evidence twisted in his favour and realise that he seems to love the words mary sue and twilight whilst subscribing to the theory that repeating your arguament somehow makes it stronger. He mentioned vect at least 5 times as a wrongly defined example of a Mary sue.

Just my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Nom

Oh god... this thread again



DIE DIE DIE

well once the over blown Matt ward hate stops or someone places a sticky warning new folks about it, then threads like this stop.

Hunterindarkness wrote:well once the over blown Matt ward hate stops or someone places a sticky warning new folks about it, then threads like this stop.

Or trolls start them anyway since its an easy way to get a reaction.

Nom

nomsheep wrote:

Hunterindarkness wrote:well once the over blown Matt ward hate stops or someone places a sticky warning new folks about it, then threads like this stop.

Or trolls start them anyway since its an easy way to get a reaction.

Nom

You may have a point, but in this thread alone I have seen folks hate on him, not based on anything except he wrote something, so it must be hated. They never even gave it a chance or took any merit from it at all because he wrote it so it must be hated.. I mean if you have a reason to dislike something, that is one thing. But from what I have seen it is far more over blown then it really warrants.

Hunterindarkness wrote:

nomsheep wrote:

Hunterindarkness wrote:well once the over blown Matt ward hate stops or someone places a sticky warning new folks about it, then threads like this stop.

Or trolls start them anyway since its an easy way to get a reaction.

Nom

You may have a point, but in this thread alone I have seen folks hate on him, not based on anything except he wrote something, so it must be hated. They never even gave it a chance or took any merit from it at all because he wrote it so it must be hated.. I mean if you have a reason to dislike something, that is one thing. But from what I have seen it is far more over blown then it really warrants.

Welcome to Dakka.

Hunterindarkness wrote:

nomsheep wrote:

Hunterindarkness wrote:well once the over blown Matt ward hate stops or someone places a sticky warning new folks about it, then threads like this stop.

Or trolls start them anyway since its an easy way to get a reaction.

Nom

You may have a point, but in this thread alone I have seen folks hate on him, not based on anything except he wrote something, so it must be hated. They never even gave it a chance or took any merit from it at all because he wrote it so it must be hated.. I mean if you have a reason to dislike something, that is one thing. But from what I have seen it is far more over blown then it really warrants.

Welcome to the internet. Where if you like/love something there's ten more that hate it for no reason.

A lot if ward hate is warranted he's done some daft things with rules and fluff, but you'll find anywhere wards name is the trolls are never far behind.

Nom

How about we just agree that whether you like or hate Ward is a matter of OPINION and leave it at that

Luke_Prowler wrote:How about we just agree that whether you like or hate Ward is a matter of OPINION and leave it at that

90% have its that 10% left over thats the problem.

Nom

Luke_Prowler wrote:How about we just agree that whether you like or hate Ward is a matter of OPINION and leave it at that

This is 99% true and I agree. The other 1% is foibles like the indefensible Spiritual Liege gaff, and when people try to pass opinion off as fact or an absolute. That is the part that tends to set me off at least.

But this whole thread has gotten a little drawn out so um... how about that local sports team eh?

Atma01 wrote:. how about that local sports team eh?

Well my locale sports team, which happens to be a collage basketball team just won the national championship, so I am good with that topic

Hunterindarkness wrote:

Atma01 wrote:. how about that local sports team eh?

Well my locale sports team, which happens to be a collage basketball team just won the national championship, so I am good with that topic

Lol. And I just remembered that mine would be the Parramatta Eels for the Rugby League. And that it will be another year of heartbreak for me. Useless bloody Eels. :(

So how about that local Starcraft team eh?

Oh and I would like to take this opportunity to apologise to Zwei, assuming he hasn't set me to ignore already. Sorry buddy if that did get overly personal and aggressive. I am usually pretty chill and try to be proper about this sort of subjective stuff. Unfortunately the GK Codex and the Ward fiasco is one of the few things that can bypass my usual safe guards and set me off.

So I'm sorry there buddy. We don't have to be friends and you don't even have to accept the apology, but I thought I would try and clear the air. I think I did step over a line somewhere there and that is not cool. So my bad, and once again I'm sorry.

nomsheep wrote:Then read the entire thing and you'll get the references to 1d4chan, Notice the evidence twisted in his favour and realise that he seems to love the words mary sue and twilight whilst subscribing to the theory that repeating your arguament somehow makes it stronger. He mentioned vect at least 5 times as a wrongly defined example of a Mary sue.

Just my 2 cents. Take it or leave it.

Nom

Maybe that is my thing with this discussion. I didn't see any previous posts but it doesn't matter. I honestly don't see all that reference to 4chan in his long post. There may be some but the answers are so aggressive and focused on that one thing. Also, rockerbikie posed something about idiots, you posted something about full of idiots. I don't see that either.

He also mentioned Maugan Ra as much as he did Vect but again it seems like his whole post is just about Vect and 4chan.
He talks about MarySue a lot but that is one of the main problems people say they have with Ward. How else can he defend him if he can't address number one hate-reason?

I get that he may have used it, but when he stopped or toned it down why bash him for something that happened earlier?

It just seems to me that responses to his post show exactly why Matt-hatred is so overblown.
I do get it that one may not like Ward, even hate him. But not everything is as bad as people make it.
According to the internet everything he does is bad and if something is bad he has a monopoly for it.
No matter what he writes, how he writes it, how interesting his rules are, EVERYTHING is bad because some parts are bad. I see this directly applied to Z's post. His post and reasoning wasn't addressed in for what it was but what the author wrote earlier.

Macok wrote:Maybe that is my thing with this discussion. I didn't see any previous posts but it doesn't matter. I honestly don't see all that reference to 4chan in his long post. There may be some but the answers are so aggressive and focused on that one thing. Also, rockerbikie posed something about idiots, you posted something about full of idiots. I don't see that either.

He also mentioned Maugan Ra as much as he did Vect but again it seems like his whole post is just about Vect and 4chan.
He talks about MarySue a lot but that is one of the main problems people say they have with Ward. How else can he defend him if he can't address number one hate-reason?

I get that he may have used it, but when he stopped or toned it down why bash him for something that happened earlier?

It just seems to me that responses to his post show exactly why Matt-hatred is so overblown.
I do get it that one may not like Ward, even hate him. But not everything is as bad as people make it.
According to the internet everything he does is bad and if something is bad he has a monopoly for it.
No matter what he writes, how he writes it, how interesting his rules are, EVERYTHING is bad because some parts are bad. I see this directly applied to Z's post. His post and reasoning wasn't addressed in for what it was but what the author wrote earlier.

Sorry dude but you do kinda need to go over the other posts to get the context of why it got to the point it did. It started civil (well mine did at least), but then erroneous statements were made. And not on subjective things like fluff preference, but statements of fact that weren't correct. Then certain things were being outright ignored when pointed out.

As for the idea that everything he writes is bad because of a few bad things, that is partially the case. I don't think everything he does is bad, and as I stated earlier I make no judgment on his rules and he did put some nifty stuff in there. But people are allowed to not want to buy anything he had something to do with, as that isn't the same thing as everything he does is actually bad. It is a blurry line but hopefully this next part will clear up what I mean. It is the concept in the customer service industry of a 'toxic' customer. One that has become so jaded with your product or service that they not only refuse to purchase it, but actively seek to deny you sales by telling others of the horrible service or product. He turned a number of the fanbase toxic by his actions and attitude (specifically the Spiritual Liege thing) and that is entirely fair. That is why I stated I simply refuse to purchase anything with his name on it until I see a change in attitude, and in my mind an increase in his ability as a fluff writer. The part that does him in unfortunately is that perception is reality. If enough people think its bad, then for all intents and purposes it is. That is why customer service is so important and why one always needs to do anything they can to prevent toxic customers.

For many of us he was just the icing on the GW lie cake though. GW's actions and business practices turned me toxic to them a long time ago.

Did that make sense? Never had to type out the explanation of a toxic customer before.