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.

McNinja wrote:I have a feeling that perhaps Wards writings are going to become standard. Perhaps he does favor the SM and the GK a little too much, or maybe he'll be giving every race he writes the Over-powered and ridiculous treatment. So far, he seems biased. We shall see.

I have the same feeling as well that the “Matt Ward” style of rules design might become mainstream as far as GW rules are concerned. It would be a shame if other codex writers started to mimic his style.

In regards to Necrons, I don’t see them generating as much negativity as BA and GK. Yakface has already posted 95% of the special rules in the News forums and so far, the only thing that stands out to me is the Stormlord, when used in conjunction with Cryptek to create night fighting shenanigans.

What's the "Mat Ward" style of rules design you're talking about? If you think it's "X is overpowered" you're sorely, sorely mistaken. Also he has some dumb fluff, but the new Necron fluff owns bones.

Taking it objectively, most players probably aren't concerned with fluff and aren't hardcore gamers and such but just play because its fun. They take the dex, look at the models, and enjoy the game for what it is and not the made up stories surrounding their plastic toys.

Brother SRM wrote:What's the "Mat Ward" style of rules design you're talking about? If you think it's "X is overpowered" you're sorely, sorely mistaken. Also he has some dumb fluff, but the new Necron fluff owns bones.

Because dem bones is borrowed from the tomb kings.

Varrick wrote:Because dem bones is borrowed from the tomb kings.

I'd rather have Tomb Kings in Space (which Necrons kinda were already) over boring robots with no personality in space.

Brother SRM wrote:What's the "Mat Ward" style of rules design you're talking about? If you think it's "X is overpowered" you're sorely, sorely mistaken. Also he has some dumb fluff, but the new Necron fluff owns bones.

I was not referring to the level of power but rather the style of rules written by Matt Ward.

Specifically, I’m referring to his tendency for zany/unclean/needlessly over the top special rules such as Deepstriking LRs, Bloodtalons, GK grenades, 5th Ed Nemesis Force Weapons. Again, this is not referring to the level of power but rather the style/quality.

candy.man wrote:Specifically, I’m referring to his tendency for zany/unclean/needlessly over the top special rules such as Deepstriking LRs, Bloodtalons, GK grenades, 5th Ed Nemesis Force Weapons. Again, this is not referring to the level of power but rather the style/quality.

Okay, that I'll give you. He does have some rules that are remarkably silly, regardless of how good they are. I'm trying to think of Necron ones but I'm having a hard time. I think it's something a bit more contained to the GK and BA codices.

Sasori wrote:The Vast Majority of Wargamers play Matt Ward Codexes. He is a money maker for GW.

And no, I just think it's a lot of Vocal people who have hate for Ward, certainly not the vast majority.

Hating his fluff is completely justifiable. His rules are generally quite balanced for 5th edition, while sometimes poorly written.

Matt Ward hate is just a popular bandwagon that a lot of people attach themselves to.

A large majority of GW gamers play Mat Ward codices
Many wargamers don't even play GW

As for being a money maker, surely it wouldn't matter who wrote the codices, 40k fans would still buy them?

Brother SRM wrote:I'd rather have Tomb Kings in Space (which Necrons kinda were already) over boring robots with no personality in space.

Your own perception of the fluff =/= what is actually written down.

The new fluff is trash.

The problem with the Necrons was the lack of emphasis on certain aspects of their fluff, not what was thematically present.

Void__Dragon wrote:

Brother SRM wrote:I'd rather have Tomb Kings in Space (which Necrons kinda were already) over boring robots with no personality in space.

Your own perception of the fluff =/= what is actually written down.

Hmmm, so Opinion doesn't equal quality of fluff

Void__Dragon wrote:
The new fluff is trash.

Smells like Opinion to me,


Get off your high horse, you think the new fluff is trash, Brother SRM thinks the new fluff is ok

neither is correct, its just opinion.

Grey Templar wrote:Hmmm, so Opinion doesn't equal quality of fluff

Opinions are better when based on facts. Crying "OPINION!" isn't some get out of jail free card for forming views which are frankly not based on facts.

Maybe I jumped the gun on assuming something that Brother SRM believes (Or rather, the basis for that belief), but frankly, "robots with no personality" comes off as frankly ignorant of what is actually in the old codex.

Once more, it's a problem of emphasis, the original Necron codex did not emphasize the character of the sentient Necrons nearly as much as it should of, to solve this problem, what came before didn't have to get a complete retcon. Perhaps that is what he meant, if it was I would agree.

Smells like Opinion to me,

Get off your high horse, you think the new fluff is trash, Brother SRM thinks the new fluff is ok

neither is correct, its just opinion.

Perhaps "trash" was too brazen and confrontational, and for that I apologise to Brother SRM for biting his head off in my previous post, but I would vehemently disagree with the notion that the complete retcon of everything that truly defined the Necrons, of every thematic element, was necessary to make them more "accessible" for other players. It was a shoddily done retcon, and even if the new fluff is good (And it probably won't be), it completely retcons the Necron faction, and has made them nigh-unrecognisable.

Brother SRM wrote:

candy.man wrote:Specifically, I’m referring to his tendency for zany/unclean/needlessly over the top special rules such as Deepstriking LRs, Bloodtalons, GK grenades, 5th Ed Nemesis Force Weapons. Again, this is not referring to the level of power but rather the style/quality.

Okay, that I'll give you. He does have some rules that are remarkably silly, regardless of how good they are. I'm trying to think of Necron ones but I'm having a hard time. I think it's something a bit more contained to the GK and BA codices.

Phill Kelly stated something at GD about codices being written as a group effort. I also heard that the new Necrons fluff wasn’t written by Ward. Perhaps there will be more collaboration with future books. All I hope is that the quality is up to scratch and the power creep contained with the next CSM book.

Void_Dragon wrote:The new fluff is trash.

Void__Dragon wrote:Your own perception of the fluff =/= what is actually written down.

You're funny!

Why thank you, so nice of you to say so.

I dunno. the comment about "only loud mouths hating Ward" certainly isn't true in my gaming group. Most of them aren't on forums and don't get up on their soap box, but his name is still banned around the gaming table. When he's mentioned, everyone winces.

I'm hopeless with mechanics, I'll admit that, but my gaming group are pretty good with rules and they're not exactly fans of Ward.

As for fluff, I know my gaming group, which is pretty diverse and has some fairly serious players, is very concerned with fluff.

Yeah. Necrons and Blood Angels are best buddies. ARGH.

CadianCommander wrote:
Yeah. Necrons and Blood Angels are best buddies. ARGH.

This makes more sense with the new codex. It's still silly though.

What personality did the necrons have before? None. They were emotionless robots that strolled around ruining people days basically for the lulz and the amusement of the c'tan. They were the most shallow army in wh40k, unless someone thinks that being unthinking mind-slaves somehow gives the army their personality. I don't. They very sorely needed a new identity, and now they have one.

I don't know if gw is reigning mat ward in on this and future codices, or if we have yet to see some crazy necron rule, but I do hope that the new fluff is at least somewhat restrained, because as one poster already pointed out, Matt ward writes like a fanboy, and even though he loves the game you cannot write like one and still be considered a professional.

Brother SRM wrote:

Varrick wrote:Because dem bones is borrowed from the tomb kings.

I'd rather have Tomb Kings in Space (which Necrons kinda were already) over boring robots with no personality in space.

Granted but it is a VERY silly way of going about the change. Now i just see them as metal tomb kings with a stupid ultra marines symbol for a ship.

Sasori wrote:The Vast Majority of Wargamers play Matt Ward Codexes. He is a money maker for GW.

That's quite disingenuous. He wrote the Marine Codex. Most 40K players are Marine players. Most Games Workshop customers are Space Marine players. Anyone could have written the Marine Codex and it would still be a big selller as Marines are the big seller. Throw Blood Angels into the mix and it only gets bigger. If he'd've written the Wolf Codex then he'd probably be the writer of the books 2/3rds of all GW customers use.

He is their biggest selling writer by default.

McNinja wrote:What personality did the necrons have before? None.

Wrong.

They were emotionless robots that strolled around ruining people days basically for the lulz and the amusement of the c'tan.

Also wrong.

They were the most shallow army in wh40k,

Debateable.

unless someone thinks that being unthinking mind-slaves somehow gives the army their personality.

Well I guess it's a good thing they weren't all unthinking mind-slaves then.

I don't. They very sorely needed a new identity, and now they have one.

Or GW could of showed a surprising degree of competence by retaining their old identity and thematic elements, but put greater emphasis on some uncomfortably vague and lacking elements of the army in the codex. Aka, don't retcon, expand and improve upon.

The upper echelons of the Necrons did have personalities, sentience. They were singular of purpose, which does not equal completely mindless. Their singularity of purpose (A hatred of life that united a species) drove them to make a deal with the devil, that damned their race to achieve their goal, which is what still drives them today. You could say that makes them shallow. I would say it makes them alien. But the upper echelons were capable of more than merely "kill for lulz".

Once again, it was a problem of emphasis, in the old codex.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Sasori wrote:The Vast Majority of Wargamers play Matt Ward Codexes. He is a money maker for GW.

That's quite disingenuous. He wrote the Marine Codex. Most 40K players are Marine players. Most Games Workshop customers are Space Marine players. Anyone could have written the Marine Codex and it would still be a big selller as Marines are the big seller. Throw Blood Angels into the mix and it only gets bigger. If he'd've written the Wolf Codex then he'd probably be the writer of the books 2/3rds of all GW customers use.

He is their biggest selling writer by default.

Maybe the necron codex will bomb and they will think he is a failure. I feel sorry for the crons if so but consider it vengeance if he feths up your army. Admit it; if he made your army into a laughable tomb kigns variant wouldn't you want his job and head on a pike? Then hope sales bomb when he does that to necrons.

I actually take it a step further and sometimes wish GW would go bankrupt.

I think I might be a bad person.

Void__Dragon wrote:I actually take it a step further and sometimes wish GW would go bankrupt.

I think I might be a bad person.

Nah, not a bad person. If this happened, somebody would pick up the pieces. We wouldn't be without our plastic crack for too long.

Brother SRM wrote:

CadianCommander wrote:
Yeah. Necrons and Blood Angels are best buddies. ARGH.

This makes more sense with the new codex. It's still silly though.

It might seem cynical, but sometimes I just get the feeling he's included the "sometimes Necrons make alliances" part into their fluff just to cover his stupid mistake in the BA dex

Personally I think the fluff shift is mostly an improvement, looking at it from the outside in. But I think its worrying that the people that are least happy with this (soon to be) 'dex are the people that actually play it already. If someone totaly changed the fluff for Eldar in their next codex I'd be livid, that shouldn't be what happens when an army you've loved for years finally gets the attention it deserves.

Gosh, what a surprise, a ward hate thread

Fact: he makes interesting books full of a wide variety of units from which you CAN build a wide variety of effective and fun armies with

Fact: the MOANING about the fluff is ridiculously overblown. The hyperbole is shocking, seriously so. Is some of the fluff over the top? Yes. Is it actually very similar to RT 2nd ed fluff - you know, that era that people view through rose tinted glasses, yet complain when someone actually incorporates it into the codex? Yes.

Surprise, GW can never win, haters gonna hate no matter what, and can be dutifully ignored as an irrelevance.

Void Dragon - I suggest you actually read the rumour threads, as nothing you have stated as "fact" about Necron fluff is true. It really isnt.

As I see it people are entitled to an opinion about the background of their armies and may not like developments to stories that made them want to play an army in the first place. There is a lot of investment not just in terms of cash into collecting and playing.

The problem is that there can no longer be any useful discussion on the matter.
What happens is a polarisation and any justified complaints get lumped in with the "haters".

Comments like "GW can never win" and "haters gonna hate" are also an irrelevance.

Though it is fair comment imho about the levels of unjust complaining about Mat Ward.

IMHO, rulewise Ward's codices aren't bad... indeed, I think that grey knights have a very balanced codex, and personally I didn't find so many OTT rules... it's difficult to find no-brainer choices or very poor ones in ward's codices.
His fluff is horrible, I agree, but I really like the rules...
IMHO, rule-wise, codex-space wolves by Phil kelly, for example is much more unbalanced and full of OTT units next to obviously poor choices...(and to a lesser extent also Codex DE suffer a similar problem)

IMHO Ward thinks good but write that idea totally wrong.
The real reason why peole hate him is because his obsession with Ultramarines, and his comments and writings about how they are coll and supreme and how all other Space Marines wants to be Ultramarines and to see Guiliman as their leader. While all others ( Blood Angels, Black Templars, Space Wolves etc... ) are just genetic mistakes and will die out soon enough.

I hate his Ultramarine fanboyism, his overpowered characters who alone smash army's and monsters and his hate toward Sisters of Battle.
But I don't have anything against his other stuff, I now actually like Necron - Blood Angel temporary pact against Tyranids since this new codex explains this.

punkow wrote:IMHO, rulewise Ward's codices aren't bad... indeed, I think that grey knights have a very balanced codex, and personally I didn't find so many OTT rules... it's difficult to find no-brainer choices or very poor ones in ward's codices.

It's not hard to find issues with the GK book, 5pts for psybolt ammo on dreads with two TL'd autocannons (don't tell me that isn't a no-brainer option I don't think I've seen a GK army without psyrifleman dreads), the incredible min/max & spam capabilities that coteaz/henchmen builds offer (552pts for 6 scoring units with 6AV11 boxes sporting TLLC's), etc? The GK book is probably the least well balanced of Ward's books.

Granted SW's were very poorly done as well, possibly moreso, but GK's have some very clear (again...5pts for psybolt ammo on dreads? how was that not obvious?) design issues.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:As I see it people are entitled to an opinion about the background of their armies and may not like developments to stories that made them want to play an army in the first place. There is a lot of investment not just in terms of cash into collecting and playing.

The problem is that there can no longer be any useful discussion on the matter.
What happens is a polarisation and any justified complaints get lumped in with the "haters".

Comments like "GW can never win" and "haters gonna hate" are also an irrelevance.

Though it is fair comment imho about the levels of unjust complaining about Mat Ward.

Remember Chibi:

It's only overblown hyperbole when you dislike Ward's stuff. If you like it, you're 'being reasonable'.