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.

Think this belongs here, sorry if it's out of place.

So I've heard alot about good codex writers (Kelly) and bad codex writers (Ward)
They each have their ups and downs, but I've been wondering
Who's the best, who's the worst, who's good at what, who do you hate writing codexes for your favorite races?
I've been wonderin' this for a while

Well for now have to ride out the gk hate unfortunately. Went from a obscurity to infamy thanks to ward..

They all have their ups and downs.

Ward did an ok job on Codex SM (although his fanboi side for UM was a bit noticable...). Pretty solid book.

IMO he buttfethed Necrons though, at least from a 'feel of the army and playstyle' standpoint. I'm not sold on the rules either, but i've not got any real hate on them yet. I no longer play the tin-men, but i've not fought the new ones enough yet to judge the rules fairly.


Cruddace did a reasonable job on Codex IG, though with a few niggles

He reamed the Nids so bad that the hivemind got a migraine.


Kelly did a fabulous job of making the DE interesting again, rather than S+M thongs for the thong god fetish-bunnies. They still have that, but so much more. A few small issues, but nothing major.

Then there's the SW codex...


I'd like to see some new blood, to be honest.

kelly did a great job on the orks!

Kelly I think is the best overall. Ward is good but don't ever let him touch the fluff, EVER!!! Cruddace is crud.

Ward isn't that bad, I think he is one of the better writers. His isn't great at fluff, but for the most part his rules are fun and balanced. C:SM is pretty impressive, C:BA is ok, perhaps slightly overpowered but not game breakingly so, people just seem to be whining about C:GK, and the necrons are great. I can see people disliking the direction they took, but that aside they are well balanced, not overpowered, have a wide variety of vialbe builds, and the new aesthetic is widely liked. I respect peoples oppinion to not like them personally, but I think people who gripe about it from a gameplay perspective are just being bitter. It's well done. The fluff if fun. You might have liked the old fluff more, but the new fluff isn't bad. Overall I think he is currently one of the better designers GW has had.

Kruddance seems to be pretty bad though. Kelly has done some great stuff.

And shouldn't this be in general?

I like Kelly and Ward, and heavily dislike Cruddace. I hope he never touches another one of my dexes.

I really enjoyed the new Direction that the Necron codex went with. I found the fluff really enjoyable, with only a few small gripes.

People sure like to complain about Grey Knights, but tbh they're strong, but not overpowered. Looking at all the codexs released in 5th the only two i didn't like are space wolves and imperial guard by kelly and cruddance, respectfully.
Overall on the scale of 5th most of the ward codexes are balanced when compared to each other, though i will agree that they seem game breaking compared to the older codexes. I haven't seen the Sisters codex or even know who wrote it so, I don't have a complete opinion of 5th.

Kelly wrote eldar, i think, so i'll give him the benefit of the doubt on making super wolves, but i don't recall seeing anything good by cruddance.
So i like Matt Ward, unless its just a big coincidence that his codex mesh pretty well. That being said he shouldn't write fluff anymore....

Kelly is great. Ward does good rules, but his fluff writing leaves a bit to be desired. Cruddance is difficult. IG was good, but Tyranids seem awful from what I've heard.

Sorry all to spoil the party of ward and cruddace hate, however i feel i need to add my 2 bobs worth.

I`m a nid, sisters, orks, eldar and SW and BA player, so i have a little experience of all the writers over the years.

As far as i`m concerned all three have wrote some very good books and i`m particularly enjoying my nids just now, 6 wins on the spin now. I`ve also just resurrected my sisters and i`m enjoying them as well. So as far as i`m concerned cruddace has done ok. The slaughtering these 2 codexes get is unjustified to me they are both written fairly and thankfully have no auto win, which personally i dont believe exists in this game anyway. The IG is one of the best codexes in the game.

My SW and BA tend not to get played very often recently, but thats more down to me being bored of marines in general. Again both well written books that make the ultimate beat sticks different from all the other ultimate beat sticks.

Side note:
I dont collect GK but if the hardest of the beat stick armies in the fluff are the hardest in the game then i`m alright with that. I`m more than happy to keep kickn thier butts so again i dont see what all the fuss is about.

The orks and the eldar are just brilliant for me, old codexes and easily still capable of a good fight with anyone. Phil kelly is undoubtedly the best and just has the right idea about this whole game. Standing the test of time is what shows the quality of the writing/writer.

Fluff wise, I would say Kelly is best, Ward is good with Rules, and I don't mind his fluff generally.. Cruddace... Well...

Of the current writers, none of them are particularly terrible. When it comes to the rules only Cruddace has so far struggled, switching between extremes of overly-good and rubbish without finding a middle ground yet. Kelly and Ward on the other hand have produced as many consistent efforts with their 5th Edition back catalogue (Blood Angels, Dark Eldar, Necrons) as those which are criticised for being overpowered. If there's one element that almost always lets them down it's the fluff. Codex: Dark Eldar has perhaps been the most pleasing with its fluff in 5th Edition but the majority have caused at least some ruckus in this area. I think in 6th Edition GW should bring back duel partnerships in codex writing. After all, all three writers are game designers foremost so the fluff side is rarely going to be their forte by comparison. Have Cruddace, Kelly and Ward write the rules and maintain overall creative direction of each book still but have them paired up with a well established author who can really flesh out their ideas into more approachable narratives. Easy.

I have no comment on fluff writing, but I think as far as rules go, Ward is by far the best.

As a 'Nids player, I hate both Cruddace and Phil "Jaws of the World Wolf" Kelly. I'm in every game I play against a Ward 'dex.

Lord Magnus wrote:Fluff wise, I would say Kelly is best, Ward is good with Rules, and I don't mind his fluff generally.. Cruddace... Well...

This

You want good fluff? Go to Kelly.
You want good rules? Go to ward
You want sub par to par rules and fluff? Cruddace.

While I can't say anything about kelly's rules besides that I've heard many people complain about them, I CAN attest to wards horrendous fluff writing. The IG codex is pretty solid. Not great, some things undercosted maybe, elites choices in general suck, fluff is ho hum, but nothing is just downright terrible. Just...average. I didn't particularly like the nid codex because direction went from effective melee armies to effective ranged armies, and I don't play nids to shoot things, I play then to drown people in claws and teeth. Shooting stuff is an IG thing.

Ascalam wrote:Cruddace did a reasonable job on Codex IG, though with a few niggles

He reamed the Nids so bad that the hivemind got a migraine.

He did just as bad a job on the Guard book as he did the Tyranids, he just put far more options in the Guard book that you don't see it at first glance. The book is full of redundant choices. Look at how pitifully few of the Russ variants are worth taking, or how plain ordinary the Valkyrie is to the Vendetta. Look at the fluff - it's a mishmash of fluff copy/pasted from various editions (some of which was retconned since, but he just did it anyway, like the Storm Trooper fluff).

People ignore it because the Guard book is on the top of the power level thanks to the few really overpowered things he put in the book.

Fair enough.

I don't play guard, so i was mostly going off friend's opinions and those battles ive fought against them.

At least if he DID feth them up he left them still able to win a match ot two

I'm not a fan of Cruddace. My Nids deserved better.

Kelly would be the best overall, then Ward and then Cruddace. It's very silly that 40k only has three 'main' codex writers. There really isn't any reason why GW shouldn't employ more, except the budget cuts they've tried to justify recently.

I love GW and how they work things out.

"Hmmmm, we're not doing so swell, I know, raise the prices! That'll increase revenue!" (Players start quitting or being more conservative with their money) "Hmmmm... we're still not getting revenue, let's cut codex writers!" (Crud begins surfacing more often)

This seems to be a general discussion about codices, not just the fluff, so it will go in Discussions.