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.

Experiment 626 wrote:
What pisses people off most about Ward is his 'couldn't-care-less' style attitude towards the community.

Can you blame him, with the volume and intensity of the personal attacks that are thrown his way? I don't think he could openly post on a forum like Dakka without receiving death threats.

 Kaldor wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
What pisses people off most about Ward is his 'couldn't-care-less' style attitude towards the community.

Can you blame him, with the volume and intensity of the personal attacks that are thrown his way? I don't think he could openly post on a forum like Dakka without receiving death threats.

Agreed. GIFT is in full effect when Ward is involved it seems.

That said I can't disagree with Ward (and I'm betting his statements aren't being quoted verbatim but are more like "what he basically said was X"). Daemons SHOULD be bad-ass mothers who take no quarter, and Grey Knights SHOULD be good at killing Daemons. What some people are seeing as a callous brush off is him being straightforward and honest.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
What pisses people off most about Ward is his 'couldn't-care-less' style attitude towards the community.

Can you blame him, with the volume and intensity of the personal attacks that are thrown his way? I don't think he could openly post on a forum like Dakka without receiving death threats.

Agreed. GIFT is in full effect when Ward is involved it seems.

That said I can't disagree with Ward (and I'm betting his statements aren't being quoted verbatim but are more like "what he basically said was X"). Daemons SHOULD be bad-ass mothers who take no quarter, and Grey Knights SHOULD be good at killing Daemons. What some people are seeing as a callous brush off is him being straightforward and honest.

To be fairly honest that seems like what Ward would do if he wrote anything.

Eldar SHOULD be awesome psykers with elite trained units

Tau SHOULD be awesome tech users who use outside help to conquer things.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
What pisses people off most about Ward is his 'couldn't-care-less' style attitude towards the community.

Can you blame him, with the volume and intensity of the personal attacks that are thrown his way? I don't think he could openly post on a forum like Dakka without receiving death threats.

Agreed. GIFT is in full effect when Ward is involved it seems.

That said I can't disagree with Ward (and I'm betting his statements aren't being quoted verbatim but are more like "what he basically said was X"). Daemons SHOULD be bad-ass mothers who take no quarter, and Grey Knights SHOULD be good at killing Daemons. What some people are seeing as a callous brush off is him being straightforward and honest.

To be fairly honest that seems like what Ward would do if he wrote anything.

Eldar SHOULD be awesome psykers with elite trained units

Tau SHOULD be awesome tech users who use outside help to conquer things.

Agreed. Ward seems to be the kind of guy who picks out something about an army that speaks to him and writes the book around that idea. And you know what? It works. It's not always perfect, but it works fine in my book.

I do agree Daemons should have been strong, maybe a tad stronger than the other armies. BUT: when every non-Daemon player gets upset and Ward, for all intents and purposes, says "Tough-that's how I wrote them," well, that doesn't bode well for him looking positive. Had it been something like a panel where he took questions on it and explained his reasoning better than "they should be the best"...it might have helped. For example:
"I realize a lot of you are upset at the strength of the Daemons as opposed to other armies, but here is where I am coming from with my thoughts:" and then list out the reasons in a rational manner, many players probably would have grudgingly accepted his decisions.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I do agree Daemons should have been strong, maybe a tad stronger than the other armies. BUT: when every non-Daemon player gets upset and Ward, for all intents and purposes, says "Tough-that's how I wrote them," well, that doesn't bode well for him looking positive. Had it been something like a panel where he took questions on it and explained his reasoning better than "they should be the best"...it might have helped. For example:
"I realize a lot of you are upset at the strength of the Daemons as opposed to other armies, but here is where I am coming from with my thoughts:" and then list out the reasons in a rational manner, many players probably would have grudgingly accepted his decisions.

It's hard to know what the actual context of what he said what though because the Internet is prone to taking things out of context, and then reacting out of proportion.

I've actually asked for some actual quantification in the past on how specifically the Daemons where overpowered. So far I've gotten "they were overpowered because they were overpowered" as an answer.

I have a problem with the whole "Daemons killed 7th Edition" thing too. The average codex takes about 16-18 months to be completed. The average edition book takes upwards to 2-4 years. But according to the internet the Daemons showed up in 2007, and then an edition was rushed out in 7-10 months of dev time later (add 3 months for the printing run to give us 10-13 months of work) to kick out an edition just because one book broke the edition?

And then we claim that every book released afterwards was cranked to 11 just to compete?

The saner option would honestly that if GW really felt that Daemons were that bad that they would have done a 7.5 update first through Erratta and then by changing the book itself. Or by not printing it at all.

Yet we're supposed to believe that GW somehow crapped out a full rulebook and then adjusted all the other books to make them stronger because one book was broken.

I'm going to instead assume that 8th was at least about half done when Daemons hit the shelves and every other book was written to use those same rules. That's a much simplier and more logical reason why everything changed around the time the VC and Daemons came out.

You're misunderstanding the objection.

"Daemons killed 7th edition" is not saying that they hastened GW's production of 8th, but that they rendered 7th unpleasant to play for a large number of players, leading to people shelving their armies and either playing 40k or some unrelated product.

As for overpowered, they were. Fear causing, fast troops with good combat skills that were also cheap enough to spam, and with "Ward" saves even. They were unbreakable, and with a crumble rule that unlike Undead required you to fail a leadership test first.

Then you factor in what Heralds could give them...

Let's just say that they were overpowered and underpriced and leave it at that.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I do agree Daemons should have been strong, maybe a tad stronger than the other armies. BUT: when every non-Daemon player gets upset and Ward, for all intents and purposes, says "Tough-that's how I wrote them," well, that doesn't bode well for him looking positive. Had it been something like a panel where he took questions on it and explained his reasoning better than "they should be the best"...it might have helped. For example:
"I realize a lot of you are upset at the strength of the Daemons as opposed to other armies, but here is where I am coming from with my thoughts:" and then list out the reasons in a rational manner, many players probably would have grudgingly accepted his decisions.

"
To be honest, if he was presented questions like "Why did you make Daemons so overpowered? or "Why did you break Daemon armies with Warpquake?" at a Q&A session or interview, I can totally understand brushing the question aside. That's not the right place to get into a shouting match like that, and the question is almost certainly coming from an angry or upset gamer.

He could attempt to address perceived issues in a blog post or open letter, but what motivation would he have to do that? The community at large hasn't been acting like rational people so much as frothing-at-the-mouth zealots. He would be crucified no matter what he said. And I imagine from his point of view the bitter, aggressive, condescending and outright nasty members of the community don't deserve the effort it would take to address their concerns.

There's a massive disconnect between not liking someones work, and making vicious personal attacks on them. Why would he want to do anything for the people who are attacking him? Even just a "please stop making personal attacks, it's not cool" statement would be met with cries of "well, don't make a gak product then, you neckbeard".

If he had discussed it rationally, there would be less cause for people getting pissed-giving a fairly belligerent answer is likely to piss people off. And look: it has. And a panel is a good place to discuss it. A blog is not-in a blog he could just have somebody write it for him and he wouldn't have to bother with anything. In a panel, he at least shows that he's concerned with addressing people's questions. It would do a lot to bring about good will. But he hasn't done so. At least Kelly publicly apologized for the SW codex-there are far less people pissed about that, even though there are some who still won't accept an apology.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
In a panel, he at least shows that he's concerned with addressing people's questions. It would do a lot to bring about good will.

I can't see that happening. The angry fan would be upset with his response, because anything other than grovelling self abasement on Ward's part would be rejected, and it would only enrage the Internet further.

Freman Bloodglaive wrote:
You're misunderstanding the objection.

"Daemons killed 7th edition" is not saying that they hastened GW's production of 8th, but that they rendered 7th unpleasant to play for a large number of players, leading to people shelving their armies and either playing 40k or some unrelated product.

As for overpowered, they were. Fear causing, fast troops with good combat skills that were also cheap enough to spam, and with "Ward" saves even. They were unbreakable, and with a crumble rule that unlike Undead required you to fail a leadership test first.

Then you factor in what Heralds could give them...

Let's just say that they were overpowered and underpriced and leave it at that.

Perhaps I am, but I see complaints like this raised a lot, and honestly the Daemons don't strike me nearly as broken as people claimed. As I've said before everyone wants progress in the game until it hurts their army somehow. Everyone wants better rules, more stuff in their books, ect, but the second it creates something that they have trouble beating or does something they don't like to their army all the bitching begins.

And that Ward save (aka an Invulnerable save, something not new to Fantasy before then) is the only save Daemons have. Yes they get a save against everything, but for a majority of the army it's a straight 5+. I believe Tzeentch only turns that to a 4+. Yes I know it can't get worse like the armour save, but coming from a 40k playing background I'm more used to armour saves that don't vanish because someone hit me with a S5 attack.

What really kills me is that Daemons were one of the few armies I was looking at starting back when I was first looking at playing Fantasy. I was turned off of them because of how down right mean the internet gets just because you mention them. I don't even play Fantasy anymore because the armies I've looked at either have people throwing bitch fits about them (Daemons where the big one at the time I was looking to start) or are frankly not very good (Beastmen, a Tree Spirit Wood Elves army). There is 0 pleasing the internet about anything, and it only seems to get worse when wargames are involved.

 Kaldor wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
I do agree Daemons should have been strong, maybe a tad stronger than the other armies. BUT: when every non-Daemon player gets upset and Ward, for all intents and purposes, says "Tough-that's how I wrote them," well, that doesn't bode well for him looking positive. Had it been something like a panel where he took questions on it and explained his reasoning better than "they should be the best"...it might have helped. For example:
"I realize a lot of you are upset at the strength of the Daemons as opposed to other armies, but here is where I am coming from with my thoughts:" and then list out the reasons in a rational manner, many players probably would have grudgingly accepted his decisions.

"
To be honest, if he was presented questions like "Why did you make Daemons so overpowered? or "Why did you break Daemon armies with Warpquake?" at a Q&A session or interview, I can totally understand brushing the question aside. That's not the right place to get into a shouting match like that, and the question is almost certainly coming from an angry or upset gamer.

He could attempt to address perceived issues in a blog post or open letter, but what motivation would he have to do that? The community at large hasn't been acting like rational people so much as frothing-at-the-mouth zealots. He would be crucified no matter what he said. And I imagine from his point of view the bitter, aggressive, condescending and outright nasty members of the community don't deserve the effort it would take to address their concerns.

There's a massive disconnect between not liking someones work, and making vicious personal attacks on them. Why would he want to do anything for the people who are attacking him? Even just a "please stop making personal attacks, it's not cool" statement would be met with cries of "well, don't make a gak product then, you neckbeard".

I do agree that if someone ask a question like "Why did you make this move OP" Im okay with him brushing it off. Its kind of a bad question to ask especially in a Q&A event. However had he been receptive from Codex SM with a "what did you not like about my codex" when the hate for him wasnt anyone as bad as it is now, he would have had a chance to help save his image and improve his writing. Ask what the people would like him to watch, and remember that as he wrote Blood Angels. After Blood Angels he ask again and remember that when he wrote Grey Knights and we could have gotten a very different book. THAT could have really helped out, however hindsight is 20/20 and its simply too late now for him to save himself. Even if he wrote a new codex SM that really made the Ultramarines to be more tamed chances are he would still have the fans against him.

Of course that would make sense for me sense I hate his Ultramarines and Grey Knights. If he fixed Ultramarines to be more like Graham McNeill's UMs from the BL Books he would still have the Grey Knights that I wouldnt like, though I would be pleased to see the new UMs that have flaws in their character and are clearly not the best at everything they do no matter what it is

ClockworkZion wrote:

Perhaps I am, but I see complaints like this raised a lot, and honestly the Daemons don't strike me nearly as broken as people claimed. As I've said before everyone wants progress in the game until it hurts their army somehow. Everyone wants better rules, more stuff in their books, ect, but the second it creates something that they have trouble beating or does something they don't like to their army all the bitching begins.

And that Ward save (aka an Invulnerable save, something not new to Fantasy before then) is the only save Daemons have. Yes they get a save against everything, but for a majority of the army it's a straight 5+. I believe Tzeentch only turns that to a 4+. Yes I know it can't get worse like the armour save, but coming from a 40k playing background I'm more used to armour saves that don't vanish because someone hit me with a S5 attack.

What really kills me is that Daemons were one of the few armies I was looking at starting back when I was first looking at playing Fantasy. I was turned off of them because of how down right mean the internet gets just because you mention them. I don't even play Fantasy anymore because the armies I've looked at either have people throwing bitch fits about them (Daemons where the big one at the time I was looking to start) or are frankly not very good (Beastmen, a Tree Spirit Wood Elves army). There is 0 pleasing the internet about anything, and it only seems to get worse when wargames are involved.

Daemons were not balanced in any way shape or form...

Do you know that 3's are the average statline in Fantasy?
No Core unit outside of Daemons get troops with crap like WS5/S5 attacks that strike at initiative order! (go-go Bloodletters). No Core unit outside of Daemons get troops with WS5/A2/I5 who can then also gain ASF for having a Hero plonked into the unit (yay for Daemonettes).

Do you realise that the Magic Phase now has a dice cap because opponents for some reason thought it was OP for an army to generate 22+ casting dice, and then be able to spam 7-8 times or more a 3+ to-cast magic missile spell that did D6+1/SD6+1 hits?
Because Tzeentch armies were infanous for that! Sure Dark Elves & VC's could push the boundries there too, but they didn't have the outright instant damage dealing ability Daemons have.

You do realise that Flamers were perhaps the most broken unit in the game?!
A skirmishing unit with BS4/S5/T4/W2/A2, that could march 12" a turn and then each of the buggers got D6/S4 shots with no negative modifyer for multiple shots! And all for just the low-low cost of 35pts a pop!
You do understand there's a damn good reason most tournaments severely limited the number of them you could take?!

Slaanesh armies had a dirty, filthy list known as the Ld-bomb. Pretty much any Ld tests you needed to take would be at best around Ld6/7! (and that's if you had a Ld10 general!)
In an edition were Fear was still game-breaking, guess what? That list was entirely game-breaking!

Who the hell would want to fight a Bloodthirster that got 2D6+2 attacks every turn?



Hell, I haven't even begun on the Gifts section...

I was a huge Fantasy player in early 7th. I even wanted to start a Daemon myself when I first saw the new models coming with the book. Then I saw what that pile of steaming turd book could do, and I just gave-up the idea and played 40k Daemons instead.
I couldn't make a tame/friendly list with that book to save my life! Even just blindly throwing darts at the army list and picking units that way would give you a very strong force! (since you couldn't legally field nothing but Daemon Princes, Nurglings, Furies & Beasts of Nurgle - the worst of the best choices in that book!)

Experiment 626 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

Perhaps I am, but I see complaints like this raised a lot, and honestly the Daemons don't strike me nearly as broken as people claimed. As I've said before everyone wants progress in the game until it hurts their army somehow. Everyone wants better rules, more stuff in their books, ect, but the second it creates something that they have trouble beating or does something they don't like to their army all the bitching begins.

And that Ward save (aka an Invulnerable save, something not new to Fantasy before then) is the only save Daemons have. Yes they get a save against everything, but for a majority of the army it's a straight 5+. I believe Tzeentch only turns that to a 4+. Yes I know it can't get worse like the armour save, but coming from a 40k playing background I'm more used to armour saves that don't vanish because someone hit me with a S5 attack.

What really kills me is that Daemons were one of the few armies I was looking at starting back when I was first looking at playing Fantasy. I was turned off of them because of how down right mean the internet gets just because you mention them. I don't even play Fantasy anymore because the armies I've looked at either have people throwing bitch fits about them (Daemons where the big one at the time I was looking to start) or are frankly not very good (Beastmen, a Tree Spirit Wood Elves army). There is 0 pleasing the internet about anything, and it only seems to get worse when wargames are involved.

Daemons were not balanced in any way shape or form...

Do you know that 3's are the average statline in Fantasy?
No Core unit outside of Daemons get troops with crap like WS5/S5 attacks that strike at initiative order! (go-go Bloodletters). No Core unit outside of Daemons get troops with WS5/A2/I5 who can then also gain ASF for having a Hero plonked into the unit (yay for Daemonettes).

Do you realise that the Magic Phase now has a dice cap because opponents for some reason thought it was OP for an army to generate 22+ casting dice, and then be able to spam 7-8 times or more a 3+ to-cast magic missile spell that did D6+1/SD6+1 hits?
Because Tzeentch armies were infanous for that! Sure Dark Elves & VC's could push the boundries there too, but they didn't have the outright instant damage dealing ability Daemons have.

You do realise that Flamers were perhaps the most broken unit in the game?!
A skirmishing unit with BS4/S5/T4/W2/A2, that could march 12" a turn and then each of the buggers got D6/S4 shots with no negative modifyer for multiple shots! And all for just the low-low cost of 35pts a pop!
You do understand there's a damn good reason most tournaments severely limited the number of them you could take?!

Slaanesh armies had a dirty, filthy list known as the Ld-bomb. Pretty much any Ld tests you needed to take would be at best around Ld6/7! (and that's if you had a Ld10 general!)
In an edition were Fear was still game-breaking, guess what? That list was entirely game-breaking!

Who the hell would want to fight a Bloodthirster that got 2D6+2 attacks every turn?



Hell, I haven't even begun on the Gifts section...

I was a huge Fantasy player in early 7th. I even wanted to start a Daemon myself when I first saw the new models coming with the book. Then I saw what that pile of steaming turd book could do, and I just gave-up the idea and played 40k Daemons instead.
I couldn't make a tame/friendly list with that book to save my life! Even just blindly throwing darts at the army list and picking units that way would give you a very strong force! (since you couldn't legally field nothing but Daemon Princes, Nurglings, Furies & Beasts of Nurgle - the worst of the best choices in that book!)

It's come up a few times before so I decided to look at the book that came before Daemons of Chaos: Hordes of Chaos.

And you know what? Most of what you're bitching about is in that book. Bloodletters as WS5/S5 core? Check. Heck Flamers in the new book got 10 points more expensive a piece when they split from the Pink Horrors.

Yes, Ward made things MORE expensive.

So I'm going to have to say that Ward didn't break the game with the DoC. He took a project he was given (to make Daemons their own book), took stuff from the old book (which you could build a 100% Daemon list with before) and fleshed it out into an army that could stand on it's own a little better.

tl;dr: Go read Hordes of Chaos. Most of these complaints start there, not with Ward.

 Zweischneid wrote:

SC's by Phil Kelly are far sillier than anything Ward's ever written (Mowgli-Marine on a Wolf says hi). Phil Kelly also has the worst grasp of the rules, demonstrated very easily by the fact that his books need the most FAQ. Always.

I think that was probably more of a studio choice than Kelly, ''lets have some SWs riding giant wolves'' kind of idea. But that being said, yes I didn't take into account the SW codex. I view this as a Kelly goes Ward codex. It's his attempt at emulating Wards style of codex IMO. The codex as a whole aside, lets look at the characters... yes Canis is silly, Draigo is silly, Mordecai with his resurrecting paladins is silly, Mephiston with his DP stats is silly... Ward creates silly special characters, they are like a trademark for him...

 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:

 Zweischneid wrote:

SC's by Phil Kelly are far sillier than anything Ward's ever written (Mowgli-Marine on a Wolf says hi). Phil Kelly also has the worst grasp of the rules, demonstrated very easily by the fact that his books need the most FAQ. Always.

I think that was probably more of a studio choice than Kelly, ''lets have some SWs riding giant wolves'' kind of idea. But that being said, yes I didn't take into account the SW codex. I view this as a Kelly goes Ward codex. It's his attempt at emulating Wards style of codex IMO. The codex as a whole aside, lets look at the characters... yes Canis is silly, Draigo is silly, Mordecai with his resurrecting paladins is silly, Mephiston with his DP stats is silly... Ward creates silly special characters, they are like a trademark for him...

Why would Kelly, the veteran of over a decade of writing 40K-books "go Ward" after (if not simultaneously to) Ward publishing his very first 40K Codex?

Why exactly is Kelly's silly "a studio choice" but Ward's (allegedly) silly his fault and his fault alone (again, with Kelly being the senior guy and Ward being the newb)?

Doesn't add up to me.

The SW codex came out after the SM by months, take the basis of the SM use that to keep SW in line with them (so as not to OP or UP them when compared to SM) Kelly is known for trying to get balance into his codex. He'd easily have to tried to achieve balance with the new SM codex.

And why is it a studio choice? Just look back over the previous editions of Kelly's work, nothing outrageously new or silly. Previous CSM codex is a shining example of mediocrity. And isn't Mat Ward currently the lead developer/writer for GamesWorkshop? Having written both WHFB and 40k latest editions, as well as a myriad of new books and codexs.

EDIT: grammar

EDIT2: Just for reference I don't dislike Mat Ward, he is taking GW in a new more dynamic direction which is good for them. I just find there is sooo much cheese in his codexs that it makes me wonder about his diet...

 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:
The SW codex came out after the SM by months, take the basis of the SM use that to keep SW in line with them (so as not to OP or UP them when compared to SM) Kelly is known for trying to get balance into his codex. He'd easily have to tried to achieve balance with the new SM codex.

So that is why pretty much everything in the Space Wolves Codex does everything better than Marines while also being cheaper in the bargain? Not to mention flaunting standard FoC limitations, etc.., just for the heck of it? And adding a heavy helping Wound Abuse shenanigans on top of it, just to round it out, despite this gak being known as broken since the Ork Codex?

Must have a strange conception of balance?

But than again, if that is what Kelly thinks is balance, it might help explain the utter loop-sided trainwreck of Cheese-Falcons in 4th Edition.

Again your not looking into his previous work. One codex out of wack that came right after a rather telling edition for SM is not a surprise. And the skimmer spam was a result of the rule book not the Codex. Eldar weren't the only ones up to those shenanigans back then and Tau were far worse with every single vehicle they had being a skimmer. The wound shenanigans were everywhere in 4th and 5th not just Kelly's codex, plus mech spam became the norm for almost all armies back then too...

 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:
Again your not looking into his previous work. One codex out of wack that came right after a rather telling edition for SM is not a surprise. And the skimmer spam was a result of the rule book not the Codex. Eldar weren't the only ones up to those shenanigans back then and Tau were far worse with every single vehicle they had being a skimmer. The wound shenanigans were everywhere in 4th and 5th not just Kelly's codex, plus mech spam became the norm for almost all armies back then too...

Well, if it's ok to publish badly written books following a badly out of whack codex, there can't be anything wrong with any book written AFTER the atrocious Space Wolves Codex, now can there? And if mech-spam was the norm, you can't really blame Ward for the popularity of Vulkan/Melta either, which was a reaction to the widespread mech-spam (and, to a lesser degree, the deluge of nob-biker lists that polluted the game for a while thanks to Kelly).

And the rest of Space Marines Codex is exquisitely well balanced, with perhaps slightly undercosted TH/SS (rectified in later SM books) and slighly overcosted Devastators (also rectified in later SM books). Certainly nothing anywhere near the totally -out-of-whack lists produced by the Space Wolves Codex.

Exactly the SM codex has been updated since, SW hasn't. The SW codex is still based around the old SM codex as it is from a previous edition. And what about Draigo? Mordecai? Imhotek? Mephiston? 4 examples there for silly SCs compared to Kelly's one... Canis. Grimnar is a lot like Calgar, just all wolfy, that shows Kelly was emulating Ward's previous dex.

Ok let me put it this way, if we look at Codex's designed for 6th we have Crons (by Ward), GK (by Ward) and CSM (by Kelly). Make of that what you will.

If Kelly is so much better then Ward, then why did he not write the main rulebook?

 JbR of the Endless Spire wrote:


Ok let me put it this way, if we look at Codex's designed for 6th we have Crons (by Ward), GK (by Ward) and CSM (by Kelly). Make of that what you will.

Who says they were?

If anything, the Necron problem with Flyers seems to me a pretty strong indicator that there were changes to the way flyers work that were not anticipated by the Necron Dex. Much less the much earlier GK Dex. And CSM isn't a 6th Edition Codex, not even a 5th Edition Codex, as much as a copy & paste of the 4th Edition Codex.

And if you think everything from early 2011 forward (GK) was done with 6th Edition rules already in the bag, you missed Sisters. Not to mention that Dark Eldar came out less than 3 months before Grey Knights. Seems implausible that GK already knew about 6th Edition details but DE did not. Or did they write 6th Edition over the Christmas Holidays in 2010?

If anything, I hope Dark Angels will be the first 6th Edition Codex we'll see, as Vetock was a pivotal person designing 6th Edition rules.

Lets call it what it is, MATT ward is not doing anything that he is not being asked to do. That being said, lets see how the new Dark Angels codex reads, these guys will be the new force to be reckoned with. Flavor of the month is right, after all gamesworkshop wants to sell more models. Writing super human rules in to the army books is an easy way to do just that.

@ thenoobbomb
At no point did I say Kelly was better, simply stating the facts. Kelly makes balanced codexes, one bad example doesn't ruin his decades of stable books, one edition where skimmers were abused doesn't stand up either. Mat Ward writes terrible fluff, but he is sending 40k in a new direction and thats fine with me. The guy writes top tier codexes nothing less, and so other codex authors don't compare.

@ Zweischneid
GK have a Psyker level system as well as rules that function better in 6th than in 5th, all implemented in 6th edition, and Necrons have special rules in the codex not even in 5th edition rule book.

Dark Eldar were probably finished when work started on the GK and 6th Edition development probably started around that time too, so things could easily be carried into 6th from GK. In other words it was done with 6th in mind not based on 6th.

In your mind CSM isn't a 6th edition codex? But its the only actual codex released since 6th came out... that points to Ward's codexes being OP (yes, I know, GK aren't as OP as they were) as his codexes are still top tiers while an actual 6th codex enters at a mid-tier level. So either his codexes are OP, or they were geared with 6th in mind so as to maintain their life span into 6th.

 Kaldor wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
What pisses people off most about Ward is his 'couldn't-care-less' style attitude towards the community.

Can you blame him, with the volume and intensity of the personal attacks that are thrown his way? I don't think he could openly post on a forum like Dakka without receiving death threats.

yeah only he was acting the same before those happened . People knew nothing about him when he made demons and his anwser to why demons are OP was that because they should be OP.

ClockworkZion wrote:

It's come up a few times before so I decided to look at the book that came before Daemons of Chaos: Hordes of Chaos.

And you know what? Most of what you're bitching about is in that book. Bloodletters as WS5/S5 core? Check. Heck Flamers in the new book got 10 points more expensive a piece when they split from the Pink Horrors.

Yes, Ward made things MORE expensive.

So I'm going to have to say that Ward didn't break the game with the DoC. He took a project he was given (to make Daemons their own book), took stuff from the old book (which you could build a 100% Daemon list with before) and fleshed it out into an army that could stand on it's own a little better.

tl;dr: Go read Hordes of Chaos. Most of these complaints start there, not with Ward.

I have Hordes of Chaos. I played Hordes of Chaos. Daemons overall were lackluster to outright suck'tastic in 6th. They weren't actually viable as a true stand alone army until the Storm of Chaos 'Daemonic Legions' list.

Your Bloodletter idea? Let's check that out shall we;
HoC 'Letter = M4/WS5/BS0/S5/T3/W1/I4/A1/Ld8 + Frenzy for 16pts a pop
Unit Command cost = 30pts total, no upgradable Icon

HoC 'Letter = M5/WS5/BS0/S5/T3/W1/I4/A1/Ld7 + Killing Blow for just 12pts a pop
Unit Command cost = 30pts total, upgradable Icon choices between "march even if enemies within 8"." or "add D6" to first charge"

Also, Daemonic Instatbility was crippling in HoC. (ie: If you failed your Ld check outright, your entire unit simply went 'poof'!)
So, not only did Bloodletters get cheaper in Ward's book, they got a buffed version of the Undead crumbling mechanic, AND higher movement which was game-winning in 7th due to how charges worked, AND they traded Frenzy (which you could lose) for the far, far superior Killing Blow rule.

Ward would have been fine if he left Bloodletters with the exact same stats, killing blow and the Undead crumbling mechanic. Those Bloodletters would still have been solid for 15/16pts a model - they would still be roughly equal with the current Chaos Warriors.
At their current cost and rules he did give them however, they're just too good.

As for Flamers? Read their HoC rules:
- Worse statline than what Ward gave them.
- Flames of Tzeentch were only 8"/D6/S3 shots, NOT 18"/D6/S4 shots!
- They always acted as single models, not units.
- If they moved more than 5" away from their parent Pink Horror unit, they could insta-pop. (that alone made them pretty much useless)
A paltry 10pts increase is just plain silly for what they turned into. Sure Ward made them a Rare unit. But even at the standard 2k of 7th ed Fantasy, you could easily have 12 of the damn ards.



Ward deserves the dislike he gets because more so than the other authors, he either invalidates people's army/s by making OTT rules, (ie: Daemons or Tyranids vs GK's), or else he ruins the game itself (Daemons in 7th & Undead in 8th before their new books).

Kelly may have goofed with SW's. But SW's didn't invalidate any other army or break the game. At their release, SM's/Orks & Daemons could hang with them pretty evenly, while IG/BA's/DE came out around the same power level, and GK's were a giant leap ahead of 'em.

Cruddace's Tyranids may have been behind the curve, but they still had a gimmick or two and they've gained a good bit in 6th. IG on the other hand were and still are a top contending army, but again, they didn't cause people with army 'X'/'Y'/'Z' to shelve their entire force!

Ward? SM's was solid. BA's gave vanilla players cause for butthurt and had a few OTT units, (Mephy & Baal Preds). GK's forced every Tyranid & Daemon player to quite their armies and shelve them...
Oh yeah, then there was 7th ed Daemons!

ClockworkZion wrote:
I don't even play Fantasy anymore because the armies I've looked at either have people throwing bitch fits about them (Daemons where the big one at the time I was looking to start) or are frankly not very good (Beastmen, a Tree Spirit Wood Elves army). There is 0 pleasing the internet about anything, and it only seems to get worse when wargames are involved.

This is pretty true. I remember when spirit wood elves* were the big complaining point in fantasy and all of the things to moan about before that. GW complaints move in circles along with the people they blame although Ward just about gets it worse than Gav Thorpe did.


*pretty sure Ward is named as coauthor in the WE book.

Oh, I played demons from 5th edition through to 8th and 7th was certainly the strongest they'd been since the raveniing hordes reboot list at the beginning of 6th. I always played them because I liked them in the 4th ed book and went for it with the update, but it did seem as though they suddenly became the favoured army of the tournament players I know (quite a few a UK regulars inc a masters winner)

Experiment 626 wrote:
*snip*

Alright, since we're going to do this, let's do this right. Let's take a look at some stuff side-by-side and give it all complete disclosure on how it all fairs in changes and what they really mean. I'm doing this from an outsider's perspective on the book so I won't be able to give all the ins and outs of what these rules meant in their editions, but let's get a baseline at least:

Core Rules
Daemonic Instability
6th: If Daemons lose combat roll 2D6 and compare the difference with no modifiers. If the roll is higher than the Ld, the Daemons are destroyed. If the unit passes the die roll is then compared to the Ld value counting in modifiers, for each point it fails by the unit suffers an additional wound with no saves allowed. If a Daemonic unit is wiped out by instability in the first round of combat the enemy may overrun as normal.
7th: When losing combat roll 2D6, add in combat modifiers. For each point the unit fails by the unit suffers an additional wound with no saves allowed. Each unit involved in combat must test individually, Battle Standards give rerolls (if within 12"), stubborn units can roll on leadership value without penalties.
Change: The unit can't be instantly destroyed by one bad combat, but loses models the same way. It makes up for the fact that the army can't take non-Daemons and would fall apart since they don't have the way of regenerating models like Vampire Counts and Tomb Kings do.

Immune to Psychology
6th: Had it as a rule
7th: No change
Change: None.

Daemonic Aura
6th: Grants a 5+ Ward Save (can't be used vs magic attacks)
7th: Grants a 5+ Ward Save
Change: Daemons lost their automatic access to armour so the ability to take Ward Saves against everything keeps them from getting blown off the table if they'd kept the old restriction

Daemonic Attacks
6th: All attacks are magical
7th: All attacks are magical
Change: None

Fear
6th: Daemons cause Fear
7th: Daemons cause Fear
Change: None

So from a core rules standpoint the only changes to Daemons made them more durable since they have no way of recouping casualties like other armies who use similar mechanics (Vampire Counts, Tomb Kings).

I can keep going but the point is out of the 5 special rules the Daemons army has Ward adjusted 2, and only by removing some minor points to make the rules better support the army. Honestly I can't see anything wrong with this as it means the army doesn't just up and crumple because of magic templates, cannons or a bad set of rolls in combat. None of these changes actually breaks the army since it can't take non-Daemons (something HoC had as an option that would help balance out the the instability of Daemons) and can't regenerated dead models (like Vampire Counts or Tomb Kings can). 6th Ed's Daemonic Instability was frankly not viable to support a pure Daemon army with. It's not broken because it still has penalties despite the small bonuses (you still take extra wounds, the average Ld in the army is 7 which is down from 6th Edition, making it easier to hurt the Daemons, and the Daemons who had armour lost it outside of the Daemonic Heroes/Lords who have it/can purchase it).

Alright, let's look at the Bloodletters again (not going to relist the core rules from above but they all apply):

6th Edtion: M4/WS5/BS0/S5/T3/W1/I4/A1/Ld8, Equipment: Light Armour, Special Rules: Magic Resistance (1), Frenzy, Starting Cost: 160/10
7th Edition: M5/WS5/BS0/S5/T3/W1/I4/A1/Ld7, Equipment: Hellblade (Handweapon), Special Rules: Magic Resistance (1), Killing Blow, Starting Cost 120/10

Changes: Well first we need to look at how many models the models kill in a typical round of combat. Since the minimum unit size is 10 that's what I'll be comparing them to. The baseline unit is going to be a block of 10 Empire Swordsmen. I will use no upgrades and will just calculate straight wounding potential of the unit (I don't have the 6th or 7th Edition rules handy so I can't verify how many models are killed, someone would have to fill me in how many would be killed, and if there were additional bonus attacks I didn't account for here), and for the sake of fairness to the Swordsmen I'm assuming they passed their Fear check.
6th Edition: 10 Attacks Base + Frenzy (gives +1 attack each)(I don't have the rulebook in front of me so I can't verify if there were other rules for the combat) = 20 attacks at WS5/S5 = 11 Wounds generated.
7th Edition: 10 Attacks base = 10 Attacks at WS5/S5 with Killing Blow = 5.556 Wounds (with 1 being from Killing Blow).

So 6th Edition actually had Bloodletters who were more capable at killing models enmasse because of Frenzy and the extra attacks it gave (even if it was on the first round of combat only that's still 5-6 more wounds average straight up). I think the drop of 4 points a model is a bit more justified even with the increased movement (getting them across the board faster because they'll suffer from enemy magic and enemy shooting along the way which is important when your opponent outnumbers you) and the drop of 1 point of courage means that by making the Daemons lose combat they were actually more likely to lose models (even if the whole unit didn't vanish). Without the rest of the rules to work out if people got armour saves, or bonus attacks on the charge it's clear from the statline and the Frenzy Rule (as it was used in 6th) that Bloodletters actually became -less- killy overall.

And Bloodletters had Light Armour AND a 5+ Ward Save in 6th. I don't know how that would stack in the older editions but in 8th that's a 6+ followed by a 5+ against anything S3 or less. That makes the old Bloodletters less likely to take wounds against S3 enemy units (assuming the rule hasn't changed of course).

So how about those Flamers you were complaining about?

Yes Ward changed the way the only shooting unit in the Daemon army worked by making it a seperate unit (which was restricted to a 0-1 (in games of 2,000 points or less) Rare slot in 6th meaning that you could have 3-6 of them period in your average game). He also made them more expensive and put the only shooting unit in the entire army in the same slot as Bloodcrushers (who I've heard to be more popular), Beasts of Nurgle (was better in 7th last I heard), and Fiends of Slannesh (who I've never heard anyone talk about).

On top of this their stat line between the books changed. They became less powerful in combat (S3, not 4), became more likely to be hurt by Daemonic Instability (Ld7, not 8) and while the shooting attack got better (18", not 8" and S4, not 3), it was still the only one in the book (outside of magic), and still counted as being magical (so Magic Resistance gave extra protection against it).

So he made them useful and then made people pick between one thing or another and then capped them at a small unit size to ensure that even if someone did get a lot of lucky rolls they couldn't do too much damage (on a REALLY good set of rolls you could shoot 54 shots....if you took 9 Flamers (315 points) and rolled all 6s. At 315 points for a 9 unit short range shooting unit you were more likely do to 27 shots. For the same cost you could by 52 Briettonnian Peasant Bowmen (312 points) who were Core choices and had 30" bows (almost double the distance of the Flamers) and come with free Defensive Stakes (no bonuses to charge the unit). Almost the same number of shots, more consistently since your number of shots was more directly related to the number of models in your units and with 34 more wounds than the Flamers).

So I'm going to have to say that at least from an outsider's perspective the Flamers weren't that broken either. They put out roughly the same number of shots for cost (and usually less), had a less effective range than a unit that could have more models, meaning they had to get closer and would get only a turn or two of shooting at best if they didn't have the ability to move, and had less wounds overall.

I know I didn't play in 7th, so I don't have all the rules available, nor do I have the ones for 6th, but the more I look the more it looks like Ward did an okay job making Daemons a force that wasn't a wash to take while making them a little more balanced overall. But again, I'm an outsider on this so maybe I just have the little extra room to see it that way.

Experiment 626 wrote:



Ward deserves the dislike he gets because more so than the other authors, he either invalidates people's army/s by making OTT rules, (ie: Daemons or Tyranids vs GK's), or else he ruins the game itself (Daemons in 7th & Undead in 8th before their new books).

Kelly may have goofed with SW's. But SW's didn't invalidate any other army or break the game. At their release, SM's/Orks & Daemons could hang with them pretty evenly, while IG/BA's/DE came out around the same power level, and GK's were a giant leap ahead of 'em.

Cruddace's Tyranids may have been behind the curve, but they still had a gimmick or two and they've gained a good bit in 6th. IG on the other hand were and still are a top contending army, but again, they didn't cause people with army 'X'/'Y'/'Z' to shelve their entire force!

Ward? SM's was solid. BA's gave vanilla players cause for butthurt and had a few OTT units, (Mephy & Baal Preds). GK's forced every Tyranid & Daemon player to quite their armies and shelve them...

Because Dark Eldar Venom Spam was perfectly balanced against Tyranids and MC's