Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I do have an honest question and i do hope someone can answer it for me, why doesn't Black library authors do the fluff? they are actual authors not game makers. they are used to putting together a coherent story. so why not have those guys make up like the rules and stuff and have the authors make the fluff? The op units can be avoided and if everyone is op it makes it kinda interesting, in my opinion at least. (i haven't played against enough of a variety to say that its all balanced so),

To be realistic, the Black Library fluff often isn't much better than the GW stuff, lol.

Because 98% of what they write is IOM bolter-porn

The books in which any other faction looks competent are few and far between,

 Kaldor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trying to merely chalk it up to bandwagon behavior and the like is being disingenuous.

Insisting that it's deserved and merit based is more so.

How so? Simply stating so doesn't make it so. There's no evidence of a bandwagon effect and we have plenty of feedback that shows people don't like his works. The reaction speaks for itself. Plenty of authors have gotten bad rap from players, simply there's no evidence that simple bandwagon effect (which wears off quickly usually, by definition) is at work here. Yet release after release, people find the same things in each of his books that irk people. While other authors make the same mistakes, they don't do it every single time, and thus don't have the consistent level of vitriol directed at them.

It's not like one day everyone decided "Hey, lets hate on this Mat Ward guy forever!". No, he has consistently and repeatedly produced works that people take exception to.

The background he writes is no worse than anyone else in the studio.

Very obviously it is, because nobody else gets the some reaction on a consistent basis. Simply stating he doesn't write any worse than anyone else so doesn't make it so, and given consistent negative response, we have evidence that, yes, Mat Ward does in fact write background worse than others in the studio.


Looking at it, we have a consistent reaction based on a string of releases that all have the same features that generate the same ire amongst players. Thus we get consistent irritation. Other authors do this once in a while or do different things, and thus get different reactions.


So yeah, the "bandwagon" train has little room to stand on. That doesn't just sustain itself or appear from nowhere, there's a very real reason for it.

gh05tdemon wrote:
I do have an honest question and i do hope someone can answer it for me, why doesn't Black library authors do the fluff? they are actual authors not game makers. they are used to putting together a coherent story. so why not have those guys make up like the rules and stuff and have the authors make the fluff? The op units can be avoided and if everyone is op it makes it kinda interesting, in my opinion at least. (i haven't played against enough of a variety to say that its all balanced so),

They have had BL dudes writ fluff and sometimes game rules. Gav Thorpe for example did both.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trying to merely chalk it up to bandwagon behavior and the like is being disingenuous.

Insisting that it's deserved and merit based is more so.

The background he writes is no worse than anyone else in the studio.

The funny part about the Mar Ward hate is that he often gets hated for fluff he didn't even write. Just stuff that already existed which he put into the Codex for continuity's sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ascalam wrote:
Because 98% of what they write is IOM bolter-porn

The books in which any other faction looks competent are few and far between,

40K is about the humans. I hate to break it to you.

The other armies only exist in order to give the Space Marines something to shoot at. It's always been that way, pretty much all the way back to Rogue Trader. /shrug


And the reason why the books focus on humans, is that we, the readers, are humans. So the characters are written so that readers can identify with them to whatever degree. Plus, the writers are all humans too, so they know, more or less, how humans behave.

As opposed to functionally immortal magical space people. Or functionally immortal, soul eating space fetishists. Or biomechanical space termites. Or warmongering sentient space fungus obsessed with constantly recreating the Mad Max movies. Or Anime Mecha wearing Space Utilitarians (well, they might be easy. Read Brave New World, watch anime, write book, lol).

didnt know that vak, well that gav thorpe did game rules. but ya atleast make sure that new fluff matches up with old fluff. lookin at you mr SoB for a hat.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trying to merely chalk it up to bandwagon behavior and the like is being disingenuous.

Insisting that it's deserved and merit based is more so.

The background he writes is no worse than anyone else in the studio.

The funny part about the Mar Ward hate is that he often gets hated for fluff he didn't even write. Just stuff that already existed which he put into the Codex for continuity's sake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ascalam wrote:
Because 98% of what they write is IOM bolter-porn

The books in which any other faction looks competent are few and far between,

40K is about the humans. I hate to break it to you.

The other armies only exist in order to give the Space Marines something to shoot at. It's always been that way, pretty much all the way back to Rogue Trader. /shrug


And the reason why the books focus on humans, is that we, the readers, are humans. So the characters are written so that readers can identify with them to whatever degree. Plus, the writers are all humans too, so they know, more or less, how humans behave.

As opposed to functionally immortal magical space people. Or functionally immortal, soul eating space fetishists. Or biomechanical space termites. Or warmongering sentient space fungus obsessed with constantly recreating the Mad Max movies. Or Anime Mecha wearing Space Utilitarians (well, they might be easy. Read Brave New World, watch anime, write book, lol).

There was the game from the Tau perspective: Fire Warrior.
If you ask me, Warhammer is about a receeding empire, and the story will occasionally take different looks into the views of other races.

 Testify wrote:

 GimbleMuggernaught wrote:

The people benefiting from his rules aren't complaining about them? My word!

That's a bit unfair. Players are often reluctant to exploit obviously OP rules and stats. I have a friend who simply didn't play GK in 5th because they were that OP. Similarly I played a couple of games with the new Flamer units and quickly got bored because they're so obviously overpowered.

wow... they're not? I played two GK armies at a tournament the day 6e was released and both were power net-builds...

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The background he writes is no worse than anyone else in the studio.

Very obviously it is, because nobody else gets the some reaction on a consistent basis.

I posit that this is the result of bandwagoning, not objective evaluation of his work.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The background he writes is no worse than anyone else in the studio.

Very obviously it is, because nobody else gets the some reaction on a consistent basis.

I posit that this is the result of bandwagoning, not objective evaluation of his work.

Agreed. There was no gnashing of teeth when Cruddace made more unique Tyranids... also its the wonder power of the internets: mindless screaming and crying is easier when effectively anonymous...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Agreed. There was no gnashing of teeth when Cruddace made more unique Tyranids

Yes there was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
The funny part about the Mar Ward hate is that he often gets hated for fluff he didn't even write. Just stuff that already existed which he put into the Codex for continuity's sake.

This is true. I have seen many people whine and bitch about Tigurius making psychic contact with the Hive Mind and gak, when that fluff was present at least an edition prior, in McNeill's Spehss Mehreen codex. As an example.

40K is about the humans. I hate to break it to you.

The other armies only exist in order to give the Space Marines something to shoot at. It's always been that way, pretty much all the way back to Rogue Trader. /shrug

And the reason why the books focus on humans, is that we, the readers, are humans. So the characters are written so that readers can identify with them to whatever degree. Plus, the writers are all humans too, so they know, more or less, how humans behave.

As opposed to functionally immortal magical space people. Or functionally immortal, soul eating space fetishists. Or biomechanical space termites. Or warmongering sentient space fungus obsessed with constantly recreating the Mad Max movies. Or Anime Mecha wearing Space Utilitarians (well, they might be easy. Read Brave New World, watch anime, write book, lol).

But 40k is ultimately about the inevitable doom of mankind, how the Imperium is slowly dwindling and fighting a losing war for survival, which can come across as a bit of an artificial theme when they win all but like 2% of their battles.

The way i'm seeing this as going is A) some people are spouting what they hear. B) people defending him and pointing out that though not the best he isn't the worst. C) People bringing up points about him that they don't like but also admitting that things could be much much worse (lets face it they could be).

Kaldor your right a lot of the authors are about as bad as him and he is just unlucky enough to catch the hate.

so guys i propose we do look at this the way kaldor brought up, objectively. no emotions nothing lets figure out where he is good and where he could use improvement. so if this idea catches on we can make a list of this. anyone willing to agree?

(p.s. by objective i do think we should look at other codex's and other writers not just his.)

 Kaldor wrote:
I posit that this is the result of bandwagoning, not objective evaluation of his work.

Or it could just be bad fluff.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:
I posit that this is the result of bandwagoning, not objective evaluation of his work.

Or it could just be bad fluff.

I'm not going to deny he is probably the worst with the fluff (Not counting necrons, they already had horrible fluff and the new stuff is far more tolerable) , but not the worst when it comes to rule making. (Even if he badly needs an editor for some of the books wording)

Void__Dragon wrote:But 40k is ultimately about the inevitable doom of mankind, how the Imperium is slowly dwindling and fighting a losing war for survival, which can come across as a bit of an artificial theme when they win all but like 2% of their battles.

Eventually, all of those two percents add up.

That's why the decline is slow.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
I'm not going to deny he is probably the worst with the fluff (Not counting necrons, they already had horrible fluff and the new stuff is far more tolerable) , but not the worst when it comes to rule making. (Even if he badly needs an editor for some of the books wording)

I'd frankly disagree on the notion that Codex: Emocrons had better fluff than Codex: Necrons, but hey.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:
Eventually, all of those two percents add up.

That's why the decline is slow.

But see, they don't just win the majority of their defensive actions, they win the majority of their offensive/crusading actions as well.

Kaldor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

The background he writes is no worse than anyone else in the studio.

Very obviously it is, because nobody else gets the some reaction on a consistent basis.

I posit that this is the result of bandwagoning, not objective evaluation of his work.

And again, based on what, simply re-iterating that stance doesn't add to anything here. We've had other authors receive lots of criticism before and outright hatred in some quarters, that often has lasted for some time, and yet...

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:

Agreed. There was no gnashing of teeth when Cruddace made more unique Tyranids... also its the wonder power of the internets: mindless screaming and crying is easier when effectively anonymous...

There was quite a bit of problems with Cruddace's work, but his work was written sufficiently such that these things weren't seen as unstoppable, do-no-wrong demigods. The Doom of Malantai was a purpose-built psychic WMD but isn't portrayed to be anything particularly derpy and had believable explanations around it's feats, the Swarmlord was described as a stress induced response to extreme resistance and has been shown to fail and be killed, etc. It's the manner in which these things are written an introduced, not simply that they exist.


You can't just handwave "bandwagon" and discount it.

Kaldor out of curiosity when did you start playing grey knights? not going to attack you if you say 5th just curious.

Most people tend to have a problem with the Swarmlord's alleged independence from the Hive Mind, as well as the alleged sentience among the Hive Tyrants in general.

Also occasionally Maugan Ra, lol.

 Kaldor wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Trying to merely chalk it up to bandwagon behavior and the like is being disingenuous.

Insisting that it's deserved and merit based is more so.

The background he writes is no worse than anyone else in the studio.

The GK fluff/Background is possibly the worst I have ever read. I think that others tend to agree, while I like the rules and how the army plays, the fluff is quite terrible. Overall I give it a C- .

Warhammer Fantasy: Daemons. That's pretty much all I need to say.

If you need more on that subject, the 7th edition Daemon book single-handedly broke 7th edition and required 8th edition on its own. When asked about its power, Ward just stated that they're daemons-they deserve to be broken. That's a big reason people hate him-his douchebag "I don't care what anyone thinks" attitude.

Mostly unrelated to the current set of data points on the issue, but I'll throw a few chips down on this table. I could never get used to the way the current SM and necron codexes were laid out. Surfing through 100 pages to gather together the rules for one freaking unit is getting annoying. Look here for the stat line and load out, then here for explanation of the special rules, then here for a different special rule, then here for some of the gear, then back there for other gear. Then I pause and look around to make sure I'm still in Kanssas. So formatting is my beef. Though there really is no excuse for necrons. AKA the army that starts at one cost and ends up with 10~20% more points by the end of the game. Its weird when you play 'points killed' as a house rule and your tally says you killed 450pts in a 650pt game, and he still has a 350pts on the board. (weird games, dont ask.)

Mind you, I've been made to understand that GW makes no attempt to balance the game so that point is moot. Then, what in the name of is going on with the 40k universe anyway? NONE of the fluff ever makes any sense so why care as long as its 'cool' to someone right? Beer and pretzels anyone?

I thought up a neat solution though. GW continues to make products as they do now. But every year they release a 'Master' edition that is a still shot of the current game where everything is rewritten to a balanced state, and a compendium of buildable 'maps' that are balanced are released. It will never happen but the idea was entertaining for a while. maybe not explained well.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
The GK fluff/Background is possibly the worst I have ever read. I think that others tend to agree, while I like the rules and how the army plays, the fluff is quite terrible. Overall I give it a C- .

It's certainly no worse than any other codex out there.

 Kaldor wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
The GK fluff/Background is possibly the worst I have ever read. I think that others tend to agree, while I like the rules and how the army plays, the fluff is quite terrible. Overall I give it a C- .

It's certainly no worse than any other codex out there.

It really is though. Perhaps you like it, fine, it's very subjective, but that book got a lot of hate for it's background for a reason, and not just because Mat Ward wrote it. It's reads like bad internet fanfiction to many and its characters and events do some things that break the suspension of disbelief even for 40k for many more.

Again, the hate didn't come from nowhere and I'd be more than comfortable putting cash down on the wager that most people do consider it noticeably worse than other codex books. It's certainly provoked more negative controversy than any other Codex has between the Tide of Blood thing, its writing style, Draigo, etc, and blaming that all on a bandwagon won't explain it away.

Ward on any technical level is a terrible writer, even by codex standards.

Kelly can release some goofball gak like Space Wolves, but also good fluff like that of the Dark Eldar, and his writing is just so much less awkward to read than Ward's. Ward's writing style is pretty bad.

Other than a few lines in Nids that some might take issue to, Cruddace's fluff isn't particularly bad, it's just kind of barren and rife with mediocrity.

Ward creates actively offensive fluff, and the GK codex in particular from any objective standpoint is a pile of Bloodthirster dung.

 Vaktathi wrote:
it's very subjective

Exactly. I'd never argue that people don't like it. But that doesn't make it objectively bad or even objectively worse than the other codexes.

but that book got a lot of hate for it's background for a reason

He writes like a teenager, it's hard to read without being ashamed for him. He also pushes 40k into blatant in your face fantasy herohammer in space direction.

Well, I'm not complaining about Ward, fluff aside.
The Necron codex is really nice. All units are useful in some way, even in a competitive setting.
I'm more complaining about other codex writers like Kelly. His CSM codex contains units or upgrades that are not well thought.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
. He also pushes 40k into blatant in your face fantasy herohammer in space direction.

To it's origins then.

 thenoobbomb wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
. He also pushes 40k into blatant in your face fantasy herohammer in space direction.

To it's origins then.

Not really, Rogue Trader was not some GW fantasy in space, it was a massive multiple way ripoff from many sources, mainly from 2000AD comics like Gothic Empire (fantasy), Rogue Trooper (SF), ABC warriors (SF) , Judge Dredd (SF) also Moorcock obviously (fantasy) then they added bits from Dune, Rambo, Lovecraft, Star Wars, Conan, fantasy, Star Trek and later Aliens, Predator, Terminator, B class SF movies etc. Fantasy for sure wasn't the biggest trope there, that Emperor is Conan in spaace and you have orks and elves doesn't mean you have to mold it into a blatant cosmic equivalent of WHFB, it draws from so many sources that it can go in many directions. As for herohammer, looking at RT artwork it was mostly dystopian not heroic.

What Bombastic Mat does is bringing back the ridiculous in a bad way parts from RT like orangutans and furry cat people then mix it with herohammer boyhood fantasy stories. He has it all wrong.