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.

1.) We don't need a "Why the Mat Ward hate" thread every damn week. Use the search.
2.) Mat Ward singlehandedly killed 7th edition Warhammer Fantasy game balance with his Daemons army book. Didn't recover until 8th edition where Mat Ward killed competitive play completely with the new unbalanced Magic rules. 8th edition is nice for non-competitive games, but even the most extensive house rules can't make tournaments balanced anymore, because one lucky dice role can win over any strategy.
3.) His 40k fluff writing seems inspired by He-Man comics from his youth, with Draigo the most ridiculous character. His introduction of Chaos Grey Knights (Blood Tide incident) is silly on a CS Goto level.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:He writes brilliant, innovative and diverse army lists, revived/scrapped some of the dullest, most pretentious fluff in 40K and killed alot of holy neckbeard cows.

You know how I know you're no older than 10 years old?

No. Enlighten me please.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

:edit: He's the dude who thinks that there was never animosity in Chaos, now everything makes sense (serious)

Am I? I always thought I'd argued that animosity is one of the key themes that defines Chaos. Point me to the post where I framed that wrong please.

This article sums up some of the rage involved. Enter at your own risk, though.
http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Matt_Ward

The English language doesn't have words to accurately express my disdain for Mat Wards fluff writing. The phrase "vomit inducing " comes to mind, but that only scratches the surface. However it's his actual codex writing that makes me cringe the most. Starting with BA.....they can do everything C:SM can do, and more, for fewer points. Plus they are obviously superior to the 4th Ed. codices, especially in the realm of point costs. Simple as that. There is no way stuff like that should've been published IMO. Grey Knights......every stinking unit in that book is broken. When fighting GK, you're fighting an uphill battle from the moment you lay the first piece of terrain...unless of course you too are playing GK. They are the least balanced codex he's written for 40k (I'm not even gonna touch that Daemons debacle in Fantasy). Necrons.......actually I don't have anything bad to say about Necrons. I think he did a good job there, both in fluff, and in rules. Good job Mat.....probably the only time I'll ever say that.

Zweischneid wrote:
Am I? I always thought I'd argued that animosity is one of the key themes that defines Chaos. Point me to the post where I framed that wrong please.

I don't know, are you? I'm not gonna go looking through your post history but I remember you talking about how animosity was never a part of Chaos and it was just put there to dissuade power gamers. I remember this from a thread I posted in though:

Zweischneid wrote:World Eaters disbanded after the Battle of Skalatharax. Angron's attempt to reunite (what was left of) them at Armageddon (investing literally decades of preparation) failed miserably.

World Eaters don't exist in 40K. Only remenant berserker warbands of various sizes, some alone, but the vast majority fighting with/for other Chaos Forces do.


Thus, like pretty much all "mono-God" list, all-Khorne is exceedingly unfluffy. Adding a few Tzeentch "Liberians" or other non-Khorne units would certainly help.

Emphasis mine

Kind Regards,
Vladsimpaler

jgehunter wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:He writes brilliant, innovative and diverse army lists with 0 regard to external balance, revived/scrapped some of the dullest, most pretentious fluff in 40K and killed alot of holy neckbeard cows.

Fixe'd for you

Who cares? Get him to write all the new codices and they'll balance one another out 40k's just getting overhauled and we're in a bit of an iffy transition period at the moment.

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:World Eaters disbanded after the Battle of Skalatharax. Angron's attempt to reunite (what was left of) them at Armageddon (investing literally decades of preparation) failed miserably.

World Eaters don't exist in 40K. Only remenant berserker warbands of various sizes, some alone, but the vast majority fighting with/for other Chaos Forces do.


Thus, like pretty much all "mono-God" list, all-Khorne is exceedingly unfluffy. Adding a few Tzeentch "Liberians" or other non-Khorne units would certainly help.

Emphasis mine

Kind Regards,
Vladsimpaler

I think you missed the point. Combining Tzeentch and Khorne is fluffy because it represents the animosity that defines Chaos on the Table. A mono-God Chaos list, which excludes animosity, is like an Ultramarine list that excludes the colour blue or an Eldar list that excludes pointy ears. What is the point of having animosity in the background, if all Chaos players are doing their dearest to not bring it to the table? What is the point of having background material saying how the traitor legions split up, if Chaos players are doing their dearest to field them as seemingly just as functional, unified forces as loyalists are?

Alot of mono-God lists seem hell-bound on making a Chaos army that is precisely not showing animosity, not showing the fracteous nature of the legions, not showing the rag-tag force that are iconic of Chaos. I deplore them because they neglect the animosity that defines Chaos, rather than claiming there is no animosity.

Zweischneid wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:World Eaters disbanded after the Battle of Skalatharax. Angron's attempt to reunite (what was left of) them at Armageddon (investing literally decades of preparation) failed miserably.

World Eaters don't exist in 40K. Only remenant berserker warbands of various sizes, some alone, but the vast majority fighting with/for other Chaos Forces do.


Thus, like pretty much all "mono-God" list, all-Khorne is exceedingly unfluffy. Adding a few Tzeentch "Liberians" or other non-Khorne units would certainly help.

Emphasis mine

Kind Regards,
Vladsimpaler

I think you missed the point. Combining Tzeentch and Khorne is fluffy because it represents the animosity that defines Chaos on the Table. A mono-God Chaos list, which excludes animosity, is like an Ultramarine list that excludes the colour blue or an Eldar list that excludes pointy ears. What is the point of having animosity in the background, if all Chaos players are doing their dearest to not bring it to the table? What is the point of having background material saying how the traitor legions split up, if Chaos players are doing their dearest to field them as seemingly just as functional, unified forces as loyalists are?

Alot of mono-God lists seem hell-bound on making a Chaos army that is precisely not showing animosity, not showing the fracteous nature of the legions, not showing the rag-tag force that are iconic of Chaos. I deplore them because they neglect the animosity that defines Chaos, rather than claiming there is no animosity.

@ Vlad

Aaaaaand exalted.

I can google gifs and pics too instead of arguments The true sign of 10-year olds I would guess

Henners91 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:He writes brilliant, innovative and diverse army lists with 0 regard to external balance, revived/scrapped some of the dullest, most pretentious fluff in 40K and killed alot of holy neckbeard cows.

Fixe'd for you

Who cares? Get him to write all the new codices and they'll balance one another out 40k's just getting overhauled and we're in a bit of an iffy transition period at the moment.

Dear sweet zombie Jesus no! Ward writting every codex would simply turn 40k into a 100% game of pure rock/papper/scissors.

The guy can internally balance his rules, even if it's through simply slapping as many USR's as possible into the mix, but he seems to go out of way to fart all over external balance and offers up laughably childish responses.
I don't think anyone will ever forget his infamous, "well they're Daemons!" answer when he was questioned by players as to just why the Fantasy daemons book was so blaitently OP to the point it wasn't even worth playing the half turn game.

Not evne going to touch his fluff... Hell, he actually seems to try and out do CS Goto for sheer fanboy'ish stupidity in alot of the crap he spouts.



Outside of the magic debacle and the inept stupidity of the Steadfast rules in Fantasy, that game is becoming reasonably well balanced now as the 8th ed books are being churned out. (and lo and behold, Ward's been firmly shut out of them! )

Acutally, if you simply use the 7th ed rulebook magic Lores with the new lore attribute, it really improves things in leaps and bounds.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Henners91 wrote:

jgehunter wrote:

Zweischneid wrote:He writes brilliant, innovative and diverse army lists with 0 regard to external balance, revived/scrapped some of the dullest, most pretentious fluff in 40K and killed alot of holy neckbeard cows.

Fixe'd for you

Who cares? Get him to write all the new codices and they'll balance one another out 40k's just getting overhauled and we're in a bit of an iffy transition period at the moment.

Dear sweet zombie Jesus no! Ward writting every codex would simply turn 40k into a 100% game of pure rock/papper/scissors.

The guy can internally balance his rules, even if it's through simply slapping as many USR's as possible into the mix, but he seems to go out of way to fart all over external balance and offers up laughably childish responses.
I don't think anyone will ever forget his infamous, "well they're Daemons!" answer when he was questioned by players as to just why the Fantasy daemons book was so blaitently OP to the point it wasn't even worth playing the half turn game.

Not evne going to touch his fluff... Hell, he actually seems to try and out do CS Goto for sheer fanboy'ish stupidity in alot of the crap he spouts.



Outside of the magic debacle and the inept stupidity of the Steadfast rules in Fantasy, that game is becoming reasonably well balanced now as the 8th ed books are being churned out. (and lo and behold, Ward's been firmly shut out of them! )

Acutally, if you simply use the 7th ed rulebook magic Lores with the new lore attribute, it really improves things in leaps and bounds.

I thought 40k *was* Rock Paper Scissors and a bit of luck? It's all about the list-tailoring. Outside of that it's hardly too complex.

This thread is going out of control.... and it's hailarious to read.
Vlad you always make me lol

ANyway, Ward tends to kill an aspect much loved by 40k fans, diversity ! Biggest example being chapter traits, in favor of the generic sm in the 5th ed Space marines. It kills that personal touch you have with your models.
On the other hand his codexes are very.... competetive ?


Personaly i think :
His fluff writing is.... original ? It goes against the the whole grimdark feel there was to 40k.

Yes necrons can ally with people now.... but the whole point of 40 k is not to build a huge super empire where evryone is friends and bunnies and lollipops and stuff, it's about last man/machin/bug/deamon/whatever standing wins.

This tread is stinks of troll potential.

mayfist wrote:


Personaly i think :
His fluff writing is.... original ? It goes against the the whole grimdark feel there was to 40k.

Yes necrons can ally with people now.... but the whole point of 40 k is not to build a huge super empire where evryone is friends and bunnies and lollipops and stuff, it's about last man/machin/bug/deamon/whatever standing wins.

Nah. The whole point of 40K is to give some token background for the games people play with GW's plastic toy soldiers. As doubles tournaments are rather popular, it makes sense to give them a grounding in the elaborate advertisement that comes with those plastic minis.

mayfist wrote:This thread is going out of control.... and it's hailarious to read.
Vlad you always make me lol

ANyway, Ward tends to kill an aspect much loved by 40k fans, diversity !

But C:SM is a great example of letting you customise your army; the chapter tactics on the ICs, who can be renamed and proxied to suit your given army are a great idea. You can alter your playstyle based on the heroes you take.

Furthermore, C:GK has a whole bunch of ways to play. Draigowing or Crowe and his Purifiers... plus a whole bunch of toys that can do the same job in different ways (Stormraven vs Land Raider).

You don't have those kinds of options in other codices... even more novel ones like Eldar.

Kroothawk wrote:1.) We don't need a "Why the Mat Ward hate" thread every damn week. Use the search.
2.) Mat Ward singlehandedly killed 7th edition Warhammer Fantasy game balance with his Daemons army book. Didn't recover until 8th edition where Mat Ward killed competitive play completely with the new unbalanced Magic rules. 8th edition is nice for non-competitive games, but even the most extensive house rules can't make tournaments balanced anymore, because one lucky dice role can win over any strategy.
3.) His 40k fluff writing seems inspired by He-Man comics from his youth, with Draigo the most ridiculous character. His introduction of Chaos Grey Knights (Blood Tide incident) is silly on a CS Goto level.

An elegant summary of The Great Beast's career thus far - one wonders what further rage and misery his singular talents will inflict upon the gaming world in the future.

Kroothawk wrote:1.) We don't need a "Why the Matt Ward hate" thread every damn week. Use the search.

Until we get a thread of this stickied with a list showing how many times this has been asked and linkied to each, it'll be easier just to make a new one than bother to search.

Nom

nomsheep wrote:Until we get a thread of this stickied with a list showing how many times this has been asked and linkied to each, it'll be easier just to make a new one than bother to search.

Even if you stickied one exemplar of every recurring thread, you won't reach a certain kind of members who rather post than read.

Kroothawk wrote:

nomsheep wrote:Until we get a thread of this stickied with a list showing how many times this has been asked and linkied to each, it'll be easier just to make a new one than bother to search.

Even if you stickied one exemplar of every recurring thread, you won't reach a certain kind of members who rather post than read.

But then the mods would be able to delete/lock the recurring threads.

Nom

Honestly I didn't think of searching, The terms "Matt Ward"+"Hate" Would have most likely lead me to about 30 posts saying "I hate matt Ward". I asked because in 6 out of the last ten threads I have read someone stated matt ward hate. I really see any reason why other the n he ruined "X" without saying just how he ruined it. As a new player I simply lack the knowledge of how something was changed.

E.g oldcrons used to be mindless kiling robots bent on destruction.

newcrons are tomb kings in SPPAAAACCEE XD

Nom

Hunterindarkness wrote:Honestly I didn't think of searching, The terms "Matt Ward"+"Hate" Would have most likely lead me to about 30 posts saying "I hate matt Ward". I asked because in 6 out of the last ten threads I have read someone stated matt ward hate. I really see any reason why other the n he ruined "X" without saying just how he ruined it. As a new player I simply lack the knowledge of how something was changed.

Being a newb is fair enough as far as excuses go, but if you actually do try searching the forum next time, you'll find a wealth of threads dealing with this very topic (and the topic of how it came about) in depth.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/jforum.page?module=search&action=search&forum=69&match_type=all&sort_by=time&search_keywords=why+hate+matt+ward

Henners91 wrote:
But C:SM is a great example of letting you customise your army; the chapter tactics on the ICs, who can be renamed and proxied to suit your given army are a great idea. You can alter your playstyle based on the heroes you take.

Furthermore, C:GK has a whole bunch of ways to play. Draigowing or Crowe and his Purifiers... plus a whole bunch of toys that can do the same job in different ways (Stormraven vs Land Raider).

You don't have those kinds of options in other codices... even more novel ones like Eldar.

I don't want to field a special character to be allowed to run my army the way I used to be able to. I want to be able to field my bloody army and kit out my HQ how I choose. I'm not happy with C:IG doing it, and I'm not happy with C:SM doing it. Your comment about Draigowing and Crowe illustrates my point. You don't build a GK army, you pick a special character. Ward didn't write the Eldar codex, so armies from it don't wind up getting named after their special character (as far as I know... I haven't heard anyone call their army "Eldrad-fest" or anything similar).

As for Ward himself, he ruined WHFB with Daemons (I've played against them, and if you look up "F**K YOU" in the dictionary, there's a Daemon list pictured next to it). He made GK so OP that they have become a byword for "Cheese" (Seriously, when people think the Space Wolves aren't as bad as you, you know you are the cheesiest cheese-factory in all Wisconsin). He wrote the most masturbatory fluff possible in C::[ULTRA]spacemarines. He used the word "uncorruptable" no less than fifty times in C:GK, without actually knowing what the word means (Bloodtide, anyone?). His codexes aren't ballanced agianst other codexes, even ones he wrote himself (seriously, he should at least be able to manage that... I can understand BA and GK overpowering Orks, Eldar, Tyranids, and Tau... but SM? Surely HE should know how his army is going to stack up against another army HE wrote). Oh, and much like a broken clock, he did the right thing with the Newcrons. That is the only good thing I will say about him: he made the Necrons into something that deserved an army list, as opposed to their being nothing more distinctive than any other mysterious race that feths with humanity.

Oh this is going to be quite hilarious. I don't know how much longer it'll take until this entire thread implodes and turns into one giant flame war.

ShatteredBlade wrote:Oh this is going to be quite hilarious. I don't know how much longer it'll take until this entire thread implodes and turns into one giant flame war.

Who is flaming how? its just a few reasonable [s]trolls[/s[ peoplw having a conversation. no flaming here

Oh, I do love reading these Ward threads.....it's a nice way to get a few laughs.

Anyway, my personal opinion on Ward, is that everyone just wants someone to yell at.......

Well, in all honesty the WHFB people do have a right to complain about him.

ShatteredBlade wrote:Well, in all honesty the WHFB people do have a right to complain about him.

I never played WHFB, so I'm not going to talk about the daemon book, because i know nothing about it....

bombboy1252 wrote:

ShatteredBlade wrote:Well, in all honesty the WHFB people do have a right to complain about him.

I never played WHFB, so I'm not going to talk about the daemon book, because i know nothing about it....

In my opinion on the 40k side, Nidzilla was a lot more annoying to play against than Grey Knights.

Henners91 wrote:

mayfist wrote:This thread is going out of control.... and it's hailarious to read.
Vlad you always make me lol

ANyway, Ward tends to kill an aspect much loved by 40k fans, diversity !

But C:SM is a great example of letting you customise your army; the chapter tactics on the ICs, who can be renamed and proxied to suit your given army are a great idea. You can alter your playstyle based on the heroes you take.

Furthermore, C:GK has a whole bunch of ways to play. Draigowing or Crowe and his Purifiers... plus a whole bunch of toys that can do the same job in different ways (Stormraven vs Land Raider).

You don't have those kinds of options in other codices... even more novel ones like Eldar.

That's kind of the whole point of the Eldar. Units aren't supposed to do each other's jobs. Eldar units are supposed to be the absolute best at what they do. The fact that some of them are not, is a sign of the codex's age. Playing Eldar is like conducting a symphony. It's what makes it different from 90% of the armies out there where you just push power armor across the table and hope for the best.