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.

 mwnciboo wrote:
Black Templars had a 4th Edition codex, they never received a 5th edition Codex. They had a FAQ for 5th it was one of the more broken codices as it was difficult to use.

On the point you are making about being less overwhelming, relatively yes, but overall it's still OTT. Let me articulate it more easily with numbers/

80% is less than 90%, but it is still predominant.

70% is less than 80%, but it is still predominant.

60% is less than 70%, but it is still a majority.

So by degrees, yes 60% is reduction from 90% and relatively less overwhelming, but it is still predominant.

The Ultramarines was also the flagship chapter, with the Battle for Macragge / Black Reach boxes.

Fluffwise, they are the most predominant chapter, with 3/5ths of all chapters drawing from their Genestock.

Rumour has it the 6th Edition book (if that Model Release post is to be believed) they are adding Tu'shan and a Iron Hands character in the next book. (As well as Severus Agaemmon and Helvictus, but, yeah.) So 2 more non-UM Characters.

The Iron Hands actually got some fluff in the 5th Edition book. They got nothing in the 3rd/4th Edition, if I remember right. (It's been a long time since i've glanced through them.) That's just one chapter.

The Ward accusations of focusing to much on the Ultramarines is silly when you compare it to previous Space Marine codices. They may still be the focus, but they are THE Codex chapter, and the book is made to build Codex Adherent Space Marine armies. They could and should add more fluff for other chapters, but, Ultramarines are still the prime example of "Codex Adherent" in the Warhammer 40k Fluff.

EDIT: On topic, Matt Ward hate stems a lot from his interview where he said the Ultramarines are what the pinnacle of what it means to be a Space Marine, and the fact he wrote the over the top Grey Knights, Necron and, (at the time) Blood Angel codices.

 Galdos wrote:

 Surtur wrote:


Being able to throw out the 4 or so lists that are vastly different at their core choices isn't necessarily a golden standard, it can also mean lack of identity to a codex. The fact that you can run it as inquisition, super elite paladin, elite purifiers or standard load out and each are considered very strong, to say the least, and a core design aspect makes me think of the possibility that the overall design is schizophrenic. It's a codex that is doing too much. Every one of it's slots is packed with choices. It's troops has 5 available choices with 3 of them being unlocked by HQs that combined can represent from a guardsman to a super terminator. This doesn't speak of good design, it speaks of lack of design as few things seem to have been trimmed. The upgrade lists and choices in this book is simply staggering. I'm not saying that I'm against choices, but there needs to be limits as well and Grey Knights do not have them.

Woo hold on for a second. Are you saying it is BAD that a codex offers you multiple ways to play an army? That you dont have to pick a prescribed plan to be competetive?

You understand that sounds rediculous right? I read your poice and I litteraly said "how is this a problem?"

Are you saying that you would prefer that the Imperal Guard codex (using as a hypothetical example) would be better if the only way to play a good IG army was if you picked mechanized list and having the IG codex designed so that Armor, Mech, infantry, and combined arms are all viable options hurts the codex because it lacks "identity?"

If that IS what you are saying I hope every codex every written in the future lacks identity because I dont want to be forced to pick from a limited list to have a good army. I want to create my own identity for the army.

And imperial guard were a top tier army in 5th because the ability to have all of those aspects at once as well. You picked the best of each aspect and discarded the rest. It wasn't just mechanized, it was mechanized vets with heavy artillery. The army didn't play like anything it's described as in the fluff on the competitive level and was a hodge podge of the different ideas present and vast quantities of units were cast aside. Grey Knights popped out 3 types of competitive lists that took relatively small bits of the codex and blew them out of proportion to the rest. Purifiers, paladins and inquis henchies. Each one of those nullified the troop choice making strike squads and normal termies almost obsolete when you could just run a better version or you could run something completely different. It's poor design to take small bits and blow them out of proportion ad libitum. To have an army that over represents itself on several levels that it pushes itself out. No other army out there is doing this on this in this way. Vulcan lists still require actual troops. Haemonculi lists don't impeded on wych cults or kabals. Orks aren't similar to hormaguants and cannot become as such.

Now for other armies comparison, what would happen if by running an inquisitorial henchman list I duplicate another codex's play style because I can. I can effectively make meltavet guard with it, but now I have different support surrounding it. A little less accurate perhaps, but cheaper and the exact same transport available or others if they want. One has S8 rifle dreadnaughts whereas the other has hydra flak at S7. A modest points difference, but defensively and offensively stronger and can be covered by how much I saved on troops. What about Codex marines? Strike squads and other power armor grey knight certainly have a lot going for them above a normal marine equivalent. Terminators are the same points but one has a lot more options and grenades. A lot of people argue that armies are asymmetrical and therefore cannot be compared, but when a codex impedes on another's play style and behave similar, those arguments lose meaning and it becomes a matter of efficiency. Should I just take my models and use them under the new codex because I can make my army stronger? What if it was something more drastic, say it was able to replicate Eldar?

Competitive lists from 5th were abominations of force org rules manipulation and 6th isn't getting much better. It often involved taking the bare minimums in troops and then maxing out good units. Codex Marines focused on land speeders and terminators under Vulcan. Space Wolves heavily relied on longfangs being maxed out. Tyranids barely functioned by using tervigons and hive guard as much as possible. I've already mentioned guard, but their virtue was more of a cheap highly effective troop that allowed other slots plenty of room to work. Orks were perhaps the more honest than most in this regard as they tended to rely on cover mechanics from HQs. The competitive scene is by and large a joke when it comes to list variations. Net listing is a heavy factor, but internal balance with abusive list rules means that you can throw out the garbage and keep the good stuff that's tucked away in other slots. The 3 big names of codex Grey Knights does just that, but trims the fat that many codexes pay for.

Warhammer is a very particular system without much flexibility. Stats are 1-10, 5 levels of saves of 3 kinds and the only die used is a d6. Changes in a stats have great impact on odds and there's only so many stat levels to have especially when most range from 3-5 as a stat. There are only a handful of rules that are used with high frequency such as lance or melta or poison. Codexes that get too broad can and will begin to nullify others because there isn't much wiggle room. We see it with blood angels presenting better assault units than C:SM and better tanks for a tiny price. We see it with Space Wolves and other marine codexes, how SW have excellent troops and "devastators" compared to them. We have seen it with C:SM and undivided chaos armies. Similar roles and function draw comparison, it's bad when it overpowers other codex's function. As such, in many ways the Grey Knights are too broad and too over developed. Antoine de Saint-Exupery said, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." It's an engineering maxim that should have been applied to Grey Knights. They don't need all of their grenades that reduce toughness and make it so you cannot fight back, they already had great melee and ranged attacks. They don't need to replicate units from other codexes and simply make them better, like dreadnaughts. They don't need a psychic power that negates daemons from deploying when they already have anti-daemon weapons out the wazoo. They don't need a whole lot of things their codex has in it. I know this doesn't all come across in my original post and even now, I'm talking in abstract concepts of design.

PS, spelling is your friend.

Crazyterran wrote:


The Ward accusations of focusing to much on the Ultramarines is silly when you compare it to previous Space Marine codices. They may still be the focus, but they are THE Codex chapter, and the book is made to build Codex Adherent Space Marine armies. They could and should add more fluff for other chapters, but, Ultramarines are still the prime example of "Codex Adherent" in the Warhammer 40k Fluff.

Not to mention that the 5th Edition Space Marines Codex has more fluff, rules and attention doled out to non-Ultramarines Space Marines than all previous Space Marines Codicies together.

Applies to most other things Ward is "accused" of as well.

On objective reading of the fluff and rules, Ward isn't any worse than others and usually quite a bit better than Kelly.

He's just the name to hate for people generally jaded with their hobby, unable to let go, and incapable of dealing with their own inner frustration without a scape-goat.

I don't know, I cannot remember despising Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestley or Gav Thorpe. As I've said previously, Ward just seems to go against the tide and cause unnecessary conflicts or retconning.

I do agree with the previous assertion that 3/5ths of all Space Marine Chapters coming from the Ultramarines. Well if we extrapolate that forward.

60% - of the codex should be Ultramarine/ Successors.
40% - The other Legions and their descendants.

The Codex Space Marines is supposed to be a "Cover-all Book", based on the Codex Astartes as put forward by Guilliman. But it is still far too much to the Ultramarines to the detriment of the rest of the thousands of Chapters including the thousands of them descended from the Ultra's themelves. Even the most pre-eminent of them the original Legions, get very little.

Look at the Imperial Fists, one of the most Iconic Legions and then later a Chapter, they get one Special Character and he's not even the Chapter Master Vladmir Pugh, it's Lysander! The Same with the Raven Guard, got one who was a line Captain, and the White Scars got one special Character, the Salamanders got one special character, the Iron hands got zero.

Ward had a chance to do so much more, but instead he want very narrow. The justification for his focus would have been fine if he had written "Codex Ultramarines" , but he wrote the Generic Space Marine Book almost like a "Codex for a Specific Chapter" namely the smurfs. He didn't approach the subject objectively he just went down the Ultramarines route. Guilliman himself wrote the Codex Astartes for every chapter not just his, just because the UM exemplify it doesn't make them the only example.

Codex GK just proved to me how OP and lacking in objectivity and diversity the books he had written had become.

 mwnciboo wrote:

Codex GK just proved to me how OP and lacking in objectivity and diversity the books he had written had become.

Codex: Grey Knights does NOT lack in diversity. Seriously, the other complaints I'm fine with arguing, but not that.

 mwnciboo wrote:
I don't know, I cannot remember despising Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestley or Gav Thorpe. As I've said previously, Ward just seems to go against the tide and cause unnecessary conflicts or retconning.

I do agree with the previous assertion that 3/5ths of all Space Marine Chapters coming from the Ultramarines. Well if we extrapolate that forward.

60% - of the codex should be Ultramarine/ Successors.
40% - The other Legions and their descendants.

The Codex Space Marines is supposed to be a "Cover-all Book", based on the Codex Astartes as put forward by Guilliman. But it is still far too much to the Ultramarines to the detriment of the rest of the thousands of Chapters including the thousands of them descended from the Ultra's themelves. Even the most pre-eminent of them the original Legions, get very little.

Look at the Imperial Fists, one of the most Iconic Legions and then later a Chapter, they get one Special Character and he's not even the Chapter Master Vladmir Pugh, it's Lysander! The Same with the Raven Guard, got one who was a line Captain, and the White Scars got one special Character, the Salamanders got one special character, the Iron hands got zero.

Ward had a chance to do so much more, but instead he want very narrow. The justification for his focus would have been fine if he had written "Codex Ultramarines" , but he wrote the Generic Space Marine Book almost like a "Codex for a Specific Chapter" namely the smurfs. He didn't approach the subject objectively he just went down the Ultramarines route. Guilliman himself wrote the Codex Astartes for every chapter not just his, just because the UM exemplify it doesn't make them the only example.

Codex GK just proved to me how OP and lacking in objectivity and diversity the books he had written had become.

Have you ever even read the "Codex: Space Marines" for 4th Edition?

It had literally 4 pages of non-Ultramarines, consisting of 2 pages of paint-showcases and 2 pages for 2 Characters not from the UMs. Every entry in the army list was depicted with the Ultramarines logo. Half a dozend of units that Ward made "generic" were still Ultramarine specific (i.e. Honour Guard was "Calgar's Honour Guard", "Sternguard were "Ultramarine War Veterans", etc..). There was nothing on Salamanders, White Scars, etc.. . Ever fluff entry was taken from McNeills Ultramarines novels.

There hasn't been a book that broke more thoroughly with GW's Ultramarine fetish than the one by Mat Ward. If the general (over-)emphasis on Ultramarines annoys you, you should hate Thorpe, Johnson, McNeill (as a Codex writer) and applaud the direction Mat Ward took the book.

Could he have gone even further, killing even more sacred cows? Perhaps.

But it was his first 40K Codex as a young writer, tackling a fairly iconic book in the 40K line already, and even under these circumstances he displayed more daring and creativity than "old hands" like Kelly did in their entire 10 to 15 year career writing Codexes for 40K.

 mwnciboo wrote:
I don't know, I cannot remember despising Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestley or Gav Thorpe. As I've said previously, Ward just seems to go against the tide and cause unnecessary conflicts or retconning.

Exactly.

Jervis brought us 40K Bland Edition when the last DA Codex came out (and all the Codices around that time), but I didn't hate him for it.
Rick? Never hated Rick. What did he ever do wrong?
Gav wrote the single worst Codex ever written, the 4th Ed 'Chaos' Codex (at least until Ward did the GK Codex, that is), but I still complimented him on his fun fluff. I blame him for that Codex, but I didn't wish his head upon a pike.

Ward... is different.

 mwnciboo wrote:
I don't know, I cannot remember despising Jervis Johnson or Rick Priestley or Gav Thorpe. As I've said previously, Ward just seems to go against the tide and cause unnecessary conflicts or retconning.

Gav Thorpe was getting so much hate about the 4th Ed Chaos Marines codex even after he left the dev team that he wrote a public response and pointed out that attacks on a person are not a reasonable response. He was very much at his time the "Ward" of his team. You can read his response on his blog here.

 mwnciboo wrote:
I do agree with the previous assertion that 3/5ths of all Space Marine Chapters coming from the Ultramarines. Well if we extrapolate that forward.

60% - of the codex should be Ultramarine/ Successors.
40% - The other Legions and their descendants.

The Codex Space Marines is supposed to be a "Cover-all Book", based on the Codex Astartes as put forward by Guilliman. But it is still far too much to the Ultramarines to the detriment of the rest of the thousands of Chapters including the thousands of them descended from the Ultra's themelves. Even the most pre-eminent of them the original Legions, get very little.

Look at the Imperial Fists, one of the most Iconic Legions and then later a Chapter, they get one Special Character and he's not even the Chapter Master Vladmir Pugh, it's Lysander! The Same with the Raven Guard, got one who was a line Captain, and the White Scars got one special Character, the Salamanders got one special character, the Iron hands got zero.

Ward was writing Codex Ultramarines at the time when the people above him told him to fold the seperate Codex Space Marines project into it. It's not his fault that the book doesn't cover a lot of non-Ultramarines, he was just doing as he was told.

 mwnciboo wrote:
Ward had a chance to do so much more, but instead he want very narrow. The justification for his focus would have been fine if he had written "Codex Ultramarines" , but he wrote the Generic Space Marine Book almost like a "Codex for a Specific Chapter" namely the smurfs. He didn't approach the subject objectively he just went down the Ultramarines route. Guilliman himself wrote the Codex Astartes for every chapter not just his, just because the UM exemplify it doesn't make them the only example.

Can you prove he had the time to do so when the project shifted? For all we know Codex Ultra Marines was -done- when he was told to fold in the seperate Codex Space Marines book.

 mwnciboo wrote:
Codex GK just proved to me how OP and lacking in objectivity and diversity the books he had written had become.

Codex GK looks to actually have been written about the same time he was already working on 6th Editions rule set (look at all the times "Infantry (character)" shows up in the codex). They went down a few pegs because of the edition change, and even when the internet was jumping up and down on it's bed screaming that GKs where unstoppable, they rarely won any big events and most of the lists that did get into the top 10 weren't the builds that the internet claimed to be broken. In fact if I recall correctly, at least one of them was an all Henchmen force that was used before the internet considered Henchmen to be any good.

I'm not saying Ward's books are perfectly balanced, but we're looking at the finished product without knowing what's going on inside the studio. We don't really know how much of Ward's "failures" are him, how much are because of other people's ideas, or even executive meddling (I'm looking at you Jervis). Ward is just an easy person to blame and honestly just because he's easy to blame it doesn't make him the right person to blame.

Usually the only people who complain about Ward are just bad players in general or fluff ragers. With fluff ragers you can't really hate on them, some of these dudes have been reading, writing, and playing in the 40K universe for longer than some posters have been alive, so them being pissed is understandable. But as for rules, dude is about as pro as it gets and pretty much the only dudes who cry are really bad mcbads.

In comparison to other dexes Ward army players almost never cry about their dexes. Mostly because they are really well balanced and fun to play and build armies for. They also tend to do generally well in most metas.

tl;dr

Haters gonna hate.

My sons and I are pretty much happy with the new books and 6th edition. In fact the only complaint I have is the way crudannce destroyed my tomb kings army. I tried to continue playing but always felt my greatest opponent was my own book. I play gk and my sons play crons and nids. Under 6th edition we're pretty evenly matched with no-one really dominating anyone else.

 BeefCakeSoup wrote:
Usually the only people who complain about Ward are just bad players in general or fluff ragers. With fluff ragers you can't really hate on them, some of these dudes have been reading, writing, and playing in the 40K universe for longer than some posters have been alive, so them being pissed is understandable. But as for rules, dude is about as pro as it gets and pretty much the only dudes who cry are really bad mcbads.

In comparison to other dexes Ward army players almost never cry about their dexes. Mostly because they are really well balanced and fun to play and build armies for. They also tend to do generally well in most metas.

tl;dr

Haters gonna hate.

That argument was so bad it gave me cancer.

 BeefCakeSoup wrote:
Usually the only people who complain about Ward are just bad players in general or fluff ragers. With fluff ragers you can't really hate on them, some of these dudes have been reading, writing, and playing in the 40K universe for longer than some posters have been alive, so them being pissed is understandable. But as for rules, dude is about as pro as it gets and pretty much the only dudes who cry are really bad mcbads.

In comparison to other dexes Ward army players almost never cry about their dexes. Mostly because they are really well balanced and fun to play and build armies for. They also tend to do generally well in most metas.

tl;dr

Haters gonna hate.

Ofc and ward army players wont cry,his latest dexes are overpowered.They do not just do well in the meta,they dominate.Although both the gk and necron codexes have great internal balance(on the gk part though i am not so sure) their external balance sucks.I can not see how a nid or deamon player in 5th edition was considered to be a bad general just because he whined for gk.Those 2 armies couldnt stand a chance against them and many players were forced to shelve their armies(especially since in the end of 5th everyone was playing gk).Furthermore,you will hear many ba,vanilla players whining about their dexe's current power level.

archonisthebesthqever wrote:

 BeefCakeSoup wrote:
Usually the only people who complain about Ward are just bad players in general or fluff ragers. With fluff ragers you can't really hate on them, some of these dudes have been reading, writing, and playing in the 40K universe for longer than some posters have been alive, so them being pissed is understandable. But as for rules, dude is about as pro as it gets and pretty much the only dudes who cry are really bad mcbads.

In comparison to other dexes Ward army players almost never cry about their dexes. Mostly because they are really well balanced and fun to play and build armies for. They also tend to do generally well in most metas.

tl;dr

Haters gonna hate.

Ofc and ward army players wont cry,his latest dexes are overpowered.They do not just do well in the meta,they dominate.Although both the gk and necron codexes have great internal balance(on the gk part though i am not so sure) their external balance sucks.I can not see how a nid or deamon player in 5th edition was considered to be a bad general just because he whined for gk.Those 2 armies couldnt stand a chance against them and many players were forced to shelve their armies(especially since in the end of 5th everyone was playing gk).Furthermore,you will hear many ba,vanilla players whining about their dexe's current power level.

I'd really like to know where you played because in 5th we had 1 GK player. Just one. And he got stomped regularly because he bought into that whole idea that the Draigowing build was some how really powerful. Yeah, when I have 5 models to your one and multiple units can focus fire on a single unit to kill it....not so much. Weight of fire has always killed Terminators....and Nids can bring a lot of firepower pretty cheap.

The internet is a fickle mistress. We cry that things are OP based on the book alone (as if a book can somehow play by itself and win without the skill of the player behind it, or that a book examined in a vacuum is somehow able to beat all other armies ever), and then when we get well balanced books that aren't OP (Chaos Marines) we cry that they aren't good enough. Make up your damned minds already.

Ward's books do not have instant win combos. They have strong combos for sure, but there isn't anything in there that is nearly as OP as people claim. A unit of 4 Paladins and an Apothecary is 350 points before you start giving them things like Psycannons. But according to the internet this is somehow broken despite using high points costs to keep people from taking large numbers of them. They're individually 15 more points than a standard Terminator -each-. They can't have a 3++ save (no Storm Shield), the best they pull is a 4++ in close combat. And their T4 so anything S8 or above (which Guard have a lot of blast plates that fit that category) automatically kill the models that fail their saves with no chance of a FnP due to being double their toughness. Oh, and you can drag them down just by shooting them a lot.

Seriously internet, get some freakin' perspective about these kinds of things. No one ever claims their own book is OP, just that every other book is instead. How about this, starting in 5th Edition they've all roughly balanced about the same with only 6th Editions rules actually screwing that up, and only because of the Flyers not being prevalent enough for everyone to have one.

40k isn't fine-tuned to some kind of high degree of perfect balance, it's all roughly in the same ballpark. Yet we see constant tier levels that are open shown to be wrong when those "bottom tier" armies make it in the top 10 spots at a big tournament.

You know what that tells me? The armies are all actually one the same level, just some rely more on your skill to play the army properly than relying on the innate toughness and redundancy of the army to win for you.

archonisthebesthqever wrote:

 BeefCakeSoup wrote:
Usually the only people who complain about Ward are just bad players in general or fluff ragers. With fluff ragers you can't really hate on them, some of these dudes have been reading, writing, and playing in the 40K universe for longer than some posters have been alive, so them being pissed is understandable. But as for rules, dude is about as pro as it gets and pretty much the only dudes who cry are really bad mcbads.

In comparison to other dexes Ward army players almost never cry about their dexes. Mostly because they are really well balanced and fun to play and build armies for. They also tend to do generally well in most metas.

tl;dr

Haters gonna hate.

Ofc and ward army players wont cry,his latest dexes are overpowered.They do not just do well in the meta,they dominate.Although both the gk and necron codexes have great internal balance(on the gk part though i am not so sure) their external balance sucks.I can not see how a nid or deamon player in 5th edition was considered to be a bad general just because he whined for gk.Those 2 armies couldnt stand a chance against them and many players were forced to shelve their armies(especially since in the end of 5th everyone was playing gk).Furthermore,you will hear many ba,vanilla players whining about their dexe's current power level.

A large bulk of new players sprint for the powehful Space Marines! So it's no surprise a large number of them complain. Seasoned Vanilla players have little to gripe about, their dex is awesome because it offers simple power and lots of options. It may lack the flare of other dexes, but its simplicity suits new players very well and can be used to build decent lists for seasoned vets too!

As for overpowered? Thats a cute joke right? How about IG armies that had so many shots you had about 2 turns until 80% of your army was blown away? Or how about wolves that had EVERYTHING from awesome cheap units like longfangs that could split fire, to a line that magically made you vanish if you Ini wasnt stupid high? DE? How about that venom spam huh! Or how about Green tide?! Yeah because fighting 180 Orkz with most armies was always a balanced scrap lol!

Wards dexes were powerful but they were always points balanced and model count approriate for what you had. A draigo wing at its peak in 5th was really powerful, but it wasnt unbeatable for most armies. Infact once you understood it they were easy to tink apart. And BAs? Great at assault but still not as good as SWs, they were a highly mobile force that let you pick the charge most of the time and had some cool tricks in the mechanized department. Crons are very well balanced and despite having good volume of fire they still lack a hefty amount of mid to long range AP1/2 which helps them in balance.

In all honesty the only book I feel is a hot piece of fud is Tau atm, and even the Tau if done right are a nasty surprise for someone who doesnt play against them often. player skill > book

 Surtur wrote:
.

Sorry about bad spelling, I guess I wasnt paying attention when I wrote that. I dont remember what I was doing.


Anyways, I feel like you are arguring 2 different points. You mentioned that if an army has multiple choices that is bad yet I can only see that as an advantage because it allows the player to play the army however he wants. I know 3 people who play Imperial Guard and they all play different from each other. (Im combined Arms, my friend who introduced me is Armor heavy, my other friend who I introduced is artillery heavy) Yes I realize those are not that different but its close, Im 2 tanks above being an Infantry blob while my other friends only have 2 Vets and thats it.

I just cant see that being bad.



What it seems like you are arguring though is something slightly different. I feel like you are actually arguring certain units that are OP compared to the other units in their codex (or others in the case of longfangs) making people want to pick that playstyle because of those units is bad. In that case I agree with you, I just do not agree that having multiple choices in a codex is bad. In fact when you mentioned the other factions, you made it sound that they lacked choices which is what was hurting them. If you wanted a really good Space Wolf list, you did Longfangs for example. That is a problem of lacking choice.


If you are arguring that making these list people, the best options are very unfluffy thats also different, and I agree with that.


spelling better that time?

 Galdos wrote:

 Surtur wrote:
.

Sorry about bad spelling, I guess I wasnt paying attention when I wrote that. I dont remember what I was doing.


Anyways, I feel like you are arguring 2 different points. You mentioned that if an army has multiple choices that is bad yet I can only see that as an advantage because it allows the player to play the army however he wants. I know 3 people who play Imperial Guard and they all play different from each other. (Im combined Arms, my friend who introduced me is Armor heavy, my other friend who I introduced is artillery heavy) Yes I realize those are not that different but its close, Im 2 tanks above being an Infantry blob while my other friends only have 2 Vets and thats it.

I just cant see that being bad.



What it seems like you are arguring though is something slightly different. I feel like you are actually arguring certain units that are OP compared to the other units in their codex (or others in the case of longfangs) making people want to pick that playstyle because of those units is bad. In that case I agree with you, I just do not agree that having multiple choices in a codex is bad. In fact when you mentioned the other factions, you made it sound that they lacked choices which is what was hurting them. If you wanted a really good Space Wolf list, you did Longfangs for example. That is a problem of lacking choice.


If you are arguring that making these list people, the best options are very unfluffy thats also different, and I agree with that.


spelling better that time?

I think that you're interpreting my argument differently that I'm intending which is my fault for clarity. Having multiple choices in a Codex is how they work. I'm more talking about how Grey Knights essentially provides avenues to three distinct concepts that begin to nudge out others. When you take Dark Eldar and you run a wych cult, kabal or haemun army you are running 3 distinct armies, a lot of these questions can be leveled at them as well if it was over developed. But the difference is that the armies presented don't have much over lap with one another or other codexes play styles. The Grey Knights can replicate many different armies as they share many stat lines and models with the main difference often being improvement for a modest points difference. That causes conflicts and means that an identity was not reached for the army as a whole. Blood angels essentially took Codex Marines and made them assault oriented, a subtle change, but significant. How ever when it came to vehicles, BA's fast preds and vindicators showed a marked increase in power and flexibility for often as few as 5 to 10 points. As a mechanized army, that subdues C:SM's function as such due to shared stat lines and models. In that regard, Blood Angels over reached as they impeded on other codexes. Space Wolves' longfangs are cheaper and more efficient than devastators and their grey hunters are cheaper and more effective than tac marines impeding upon C:SM's foot armies. Dark Angels and Black Templars often fall under for similar reasons because there are codexes out there that are functioning in a similar manner, but are doing it better. The easy fix is to do the One Codex to rule all space marines because at the core, many space marines are having identity crisises. Dark Angels used to be the Termie army with Deathwing, now several other Mariens armies have taken that away and done it better. Dark Angels had the identity of Ravenwing, but C:SM took that and replicated it. Black Templar were the assaulty marines, but BA and SW took that from them. These are all examples of poor development choices as they over reach. I simply put forth that Grey Knights do this as well. Being marines and all they do impede on other marines with terminator armies, superior marine equivalent units, and generally improved vehicles. Inquisitorial henchmen can be built so many ways they impeded on Guard with some units being able to mimick function of other units. A dreadknight could stand in for a hellhound and a rifle dread a hydra flak (until 6th happened) and you could essentially recreate melta vets, stormtroopers and psycher battle squads with henchies. I hope that's a bit clearer.

From what I have read, and that is quite a bit, Ward used to be really really bad at writing this kind of stuff. Hell, something he wrote broke an entire edition of fantasy so they had to re-write the core rules.

However, after that little scrap, he got much better. C:SM is actually a nice book, rule wise. Nothing is too bad. Fluff wise, not too bad either. It has better balanced fluff than some of the older books. C:BA wasn't too bad either, admittedly I don't know BA fluff that well but when it comes to rules he did fairly nicely for his first 40k book. I think he went a bit OTT with vehicles, as BA really shouldn't be much of a mech shooty army that ended up happening. C:GK was likely his most broken 40k book, but even then it had it's weaknesses once we figured out what they were. I mean, he has done OTT things before but I feel like he has slowly gotten much much better at balancing things out. I think his biggest problem though is not his rule writing, but more of his costing. He does tend to upgrade things a lot, then only cost them up 5-10 points.

 washout77 wrote:
From what I have read, and that is quite a bit, Ward used to be really really bad at writing this kind of stuff. Hell, something he wrote broke an entire edition of fantasy so they had to re-write the core rules.

See, I disagree with this because the changes didn't unbreak other armies. And if an edition is supposed to be about 5 years old when it gets replaced (as per a recent interview with I believe Phil Kelly) then 8th only dropped 2 months early.

And an edition takes a long time to put together. Like a couple years. 8th Edition dropped in less than one (3 months for printing, only leaves about 6-7 months for development, writing, proofing and testing.....yeah, this doesn't add up right).

I think Daemons were aimed at 8th Edition much like Grey Knights were (released a year prior, work well in the rules, and just seem strong in a previous edition) and people just can't stop trying to find new insane things to accuse Ward of.

 washout77 wrote:
However, after that little scrap, he got much better. C:SM is actually a nice book, rule wise. Nothing is too bad. Fluff wise, not too bad either. It has better balanced fluff than some of the older books. C:BA wasn't too bad either, admittedly I don't know BA fluff that well but when it comes to rules he did fairly nicely for his first 40k book. I think he went a bit OTT with vehicles, as BA really shouldn't be much of a mech shooty army that ended up happening. C:GK was likely his most broken 40k book, but even then it had it's weaknesses once we figured out what they were. I mean, he has done OTT things before but I feel like he has slowly gotten much much better at balancing things out. I think his biggest problem though is not his rule writing, but more of his costing. He does tend to upgrade things a lot, then only cost them up 5-10 points.

Ward's costing is more internally balanced than Cruddace's in all honesty. There isn't anything that he's made that I've seen where one option is significantly better or worse than other options in the same book.

I'm not saying he's perfect, but he does a lot better than people give him credit for. I think they just like accusing him of things because he's an easy target.

ClockworkZion wrote:

 washout77 wrote:
From what I have read, and that is quite a bit, Ward used to be really really bad at writing this kind of stuff. Hell, something he wrote broke an entire edition of fantasy so they had to re-write the core rules.

See, I disagree with this because the changes didn't unbreak other armies. And if an edition is supposed to be about 5 years old when it gets replaced (as per a recent interview with I believe Phil Kelly) then 8th only dropped 2 months early.

And an edition takes a long time to put together. Like a couple years. 8th Edition dropped in less than one (3 months for printing, only leaves about 6-7 months for development, writing, proofing and testing.....yeah, this doesn't add up right).

I think Daemons were aimed at 8th Edition much like Grey Knights were (released a year prior, work well in the rules, and just seem strong in a previous edition) and people just can't stop trying to find new insane things to accuse Ward of.

 washout77 wrote:
However, after that little scrap, he got much better. C:SM is actually a nice book, rule wise. Nothing is too bad. Fluff wise, not too bad either. It has better balanced fluff than some of the older books. C:BA wasn't too bad either, admittedly I don't know BA fluff that well but when it comes to rules he did fairly nicely for his first 40k book. I think he went a bit OTT with vehicles, as BA really shouldn't be much of a mech shooty army that ended up happening. C:GK was likely his most broken 40k book, but even then it had it's weaknesses once we figured out what they were. I mean, he has done OTT things before but I feel like he has slowly gotten much much better at balancing things out. I think his biggest problem though is not his rule writing, but more of his costing. He does tend to upgrade things a lot, then only cost them up 5-10 points.

Ward's costing is more internally balanced than Cruddace's in all honesty. There isn't anything that he's made that I've seen where one option is significantly better or worse than other options in the same book.

I'm not saying he's perfect, but he does a lot better than people give him credit for. I think they just like accusing him of things because he's an easy target.

Ah, thanks for the info on Fantasy. I've only recently been looking into it, so I learn something new every day hahaha

And I agree with everything you said. As an IG player, I have to say that our internal balance is quite a bit off. Vendetta's are way too good for their price, for a quick example everyone can relate to (although, I think a lot comes from the fact it happened to fit with the new Flier rules nicely as opposed to other units). I don't hate Ward, but there are things he has screwed up on like every writer. Also, I don't think it's so much that he pays too much attention to the UM but more the fact he has a habit of...retconning things to make the Space Marines sound much better. I can't remember the name of the battle, but the original battle ended in severe Space Marine casualties and a minor loss. Then in the C:SM book it was re-written to be a major SM victory. I will have to look it back over when I come back from vacation...

 washout77 wrote:

ClockworkZion wrote:

 washout77 wrote:
From what I have read, and that is quite a bit, Ward used to be really really bad at writing this kind of stuff. Hell, something he wrote broke an entire edition of fantasy so they had to re-write the core rules.

See, I disagree with this because the changes didn't unbreak other armies. And if an edition is supposed to be about 5 years old when it gets replaced (as per a recent interview with I believe Phil Kelly) then 8th only dropped 2 months early.

And an edition takes a long time to put together. Like a couple years. 8th Edition dropped in less than one (3 months for printing, only leaves about 6-7 months for development, writing, proofing and testing.....yeah, this doesn't add up right).

I think Daemons were aimed at 8th Edition much like Grey Knights were (released a year prior, work well in the rules, and just seem strong in a previous edition) and people just can't stop trying to find new insane things to accuse Ward of.

 washout77 wrote:
However, after that little scrap, he got much better. C:SM is actually a nice book, rule wise. Nothing is too bad. Fluff wise, not too bad either. It has better balanced fluff than some of the older books. C:BA wasn't too bad either, admittedly I don't know BA fluff that well but when it comes to rules he did fairly nicely for his first 40k book. I think he went a bit OTT with vehicles, as BA really shouldn't be much of a mech shooty army that ended up happening. C:GK was likely his most broken 40k book, but even then it had it's weaknesses once we figured out what they were. I mean, he has done OTT things before but I feel like he has slowly gotten much much better at balancing things out. I think his biggest problem though is not his rule writing, but more of his costing. He does tend to upgrade things a lot, then only cost them up 5-10 points.

Ward's costing is more internally balanced than Cruddace's in all honesty. There isn't anything that he's made that I've seen where one option is significantly better or worse than other options in the same book.

I'm not saying he's perfect, but he does a lot better than people give him credit for. I think they just like accusing him of things because he's an easy target.

Ah, thanks for the info on Fantasy. I've only recently been looking into it, so I learn something new every day hahaha

And I agree with everything you said. As an IG player, I have to say that our internal balance is quite a bit off. Vendetta's are way too good for their price, for a quick example everyone can relate to (although, I think a lot comes from the fact it happened to fit with the new Flier rules nicely as opposed to other units). I don't hate Ward, but there are things he has screwed up on like every writer. Also, I don't think it's so much that he pays too much attention to the UM but more the fact he has a habit of...retconning things to make the Space Marines sound much better. I can't remember the name of the battle, but the original battle ended in severe Space Marine casualties and a minor loss. Then in the C:SM book it was re-written to be a major SM victory. I will have to look it back over when I come back from vacation...

No problem about the info on Fantasy. I kept seeing this "Ward killed 7th" thing....but when you go and look at it and what GW's current plan on releases....well it looks less and less like he "killed" 7th but was already heavily involved in writing the next edition and wrote the book to fit the new edition instead of the current one.

Solis Luna Astrum wrote:
My sons and I are pretty much happy with the new books and 6th edition. In fact the only complaint I have is the way crudannce destroyed my tomb kings army. I tried to continue playing but always felt my greatest opponent was my own book. I play gk and my sons play crons and nids. Under 6th edition we're pretty evenly matched with no-one really dominating anyone else.

I mean no disrespect, but that may mean you are playing the TK book incorrectly. I have a buddy who uses it to truly abusive ends (Necro Knights and Sepulchral Stalkers are your best friends), and he only has about 2 losses with it, including bringing it to an 'Ard Boyz tourney (lost at the top table to Daemons). Please feel free to PM me, and I'll talk with him later and send you his tips to army lists and where to go with it, as I don't want to de-rail this thread, but maybe he/I can help you out. That army book is solid though-just skip the big, sexy looking monsters-they're only good in appearance. You'll want princes in each skeleton unit, a King and Necro-tech SC with your TG, a unit of chariots, stalkers, knights, and I don't remember the rest. But the list we built was truly heinous.

On Ward (again), I actually LIKE the SM codex. Other than all SM chapters looking up to the boring Ultramarines-everyone looks up to Calgar as their liege and wants to be just like one chapter? It's poorly written. But the units are solid, and the codex offers more choices than any other. I'll ignore the awful fluff for a solid rules set that isn't game breaking, but isn't worthless. Ward gets kudos for that book. But Grey Knights was awful because it made DS based armies lose before they hit the table if GK players used their basic troops. Thankfully, most didn't, but having the entire Daemon army made worthless overnight...unforgivable. Draigo's fluff is over the top and written like a twelve year old's fanfiction. I should know, I've graded 12 year olds' papers. It would be hard to tell the difference. Yes, there are a TON of choices, and I'd LOVE to run henchmen (probably won't, due to hate it received), because I wanted a true crusade: crusaders, assassins, Black Templars. Maybe when the BT book comes out, I'll try it out. My armies are pretty much shelved, and I'm only doing LCGs/Warpath/Kings of War/Dust Warfare until the BT book. Necron book...looked fun and didn't seem over the top until 6th came out. The book was written with 6th in mind, and became close to unstoppable for any casual gamer with the sheer amount of fliers that were possible. Also, Imhotek is N'jal Stormcaller +5. His abilities are similar, but even more powerful. Necron Courts are Wolf Guard +5. The book, after longer views, really seems like an updated SW codex, with Egyptian themes instead of Norse ones. And Blood Angels...when they came out, we had no idea how the Necrons would get remade and old-crons working with BA and then both walking away after the Nids were dead? Hell no-would never happen, based on either side's personality. It was an abomination at the time. The current Necron codex fixes this, a bit, but it still seems wrong that the Astartes would just let them leave without issue. And deep striking land raiders? Sure, it's worthless on the table top, but it's absurd beyond measure. Mephiston? Really? And of course, as stated before by me (and more than a few others)...Fantasy Daemons. They weren't late into a broken edition, they STARTED the breaking of 7th. Daemons came first, then DE and VC. Then Skaven. Ugh...Skaven. Point is, other authors had to make more overpowered books to combat the sheer fact that Daemons were near unstoppable thanks to Ward.

tl;dr-Ward's SM codex is good, others are bad, Fantasy Daemons ruined an entire edition by themselves.

lso, Imhotek is N'jal Stormcaller +5. His abilities are similar, but even more powerful.

They are completely different. The only thing that is remotely similar, is the Chain lighting aspect of Lord of the Tempest. He is most certinaly not "Njal Stormcaller+5"

Necron Courts are Wolf Guard +5.

This is complete hyperbole.

7th. Daemons came first, then DE and VC.

Vampire Counts came before 7th Daemons.

 Sasori wrote:

lso, Imhotek is N'jal Stormcaller +5. His abilities are similar, but even more powerful.

They are completely different. The only thing that is remotely similar, is the Chain lighting aspect of Lord of the Tempest. He is most certinaly not "Njal Stormcaller+5"

Necron Courts are Wolf Guard +5.

This is complete hyperbole.

7th. Daemons came first, then DE and VC.

Vampire Counts came before 7th Daemons.

That's odd...I started playing my 7th edition Daemon codex before anyone pulled out the 7th edition VC book in my area...also bought VC stuff when it first hit the shelf to add things to the missing daemon line (ghouls for plastic plaguebearers/horrors). I swear wikipedia is wrong on that...do you have the books in front of you to check their dates? Mine are 4 hrs away, currently. I can't double check until tomorrow.

And my roomie and I were discussing the Njal/Imhotek similarities. Imhotek really is a better version of Njal. Sorry if you disagree. I'd love to share the similarities right now, but as I posted above, codexes are 4 hrs away. And how is the court vs wolf guard hyperbole? The courts act the same way as the wolf guard (minus HQ vs Elite roles), but have two different options (Lords and Crypteks) which unleash even more items that make wolf guard items tame. Mindshackle Scarabs? War Scythes? Relentless armor for the unit? WBB on a 4+? Yes, they are definitely a superior version of Wolf Guard, who were previously the only unit able to be bought in one section and used to supplement other units by splitting them off. Hyperbole? Hardly.

That's odd...I started playing my 7th edition Daemon codex before anyone pulled out the 7th edition VC book in my area...also bought VC stuff when it first hit the shelf to add things to the missing daemon line (ghouls for plastic plaguebearers/horrors). I swear wikipedia is wrong on that...do you have the books in front of you to check their dates? Mine are 4 hrs away, currently. I can't double check until tomorrow.

Wikipedia is where I nabbed the source as well, I don't have book in front of me.

And my roomie and I were discussing the Njal/Imhotek similarities. Imhotek really is a better version of Njal. Sorry if you disagree. I'd love to share the similarities right now, but as I posted above, codexes are 4 hrs away.

I don't really think they are comparable in they are a version of each other.. Imotekh has one Board wide ability, which shares similarities with chain lightning. That's it. Imotekh isn't a Psyker, doesn't have a Runic Weapon, and doesn't have all the Psychic powers that Njal carries. So I don't see how he is a better Njal.

And how is the court vs wolf guard hyperbole? The courts act the same way as the wolf guard (minus HQ vs Elite roles), but have two different options (Lords and Crypteks) which unleash even more items that make wolf guard items tame. Mindshackle Scarabs? War Scythes? Relentless armor for the unit? WBB on a 4+? Yes, they are definitely a superior version of Wolf Guard, who were previously the only unit able to be bought in one section and used to supplement other units by splitting them off. Hyperbole? Hardly.

It is Hyperbole, because while they may have some better options than Wolfguard, they also cost significantly more. A Basic Lord is almost double the cost of Wolfguard. When you start adding all those options, it becomes exceediling expensive. So, while the Court Members may be better than Wolfguard, they end up costing more. When you call them "Wolfguard +5" it just appears like you're calling overpowered, when they're not really. Perhaps I misinterpreted the +5 statements, but they read to me as you're saying they're better without any downsides.

Relentless is also an upgrade only available to Overlords. Which is pretty useless in 6th, anyway.

 Sasori wrote:

And my roomie and I were discussing the Njal/Imhotek similarities. Imhotek really is a better version of Njal. Sorry if you disagree. I'd love to share the similarities right now, but as I posted above, codexes are 4 hrs away.

I don't really think they are comparable in they are a version of each other.. Imotekh has one Board wide ability, which shares similarities with chain lightning. That's it. Imotekh isn't a Psyker, doesn't have a Runic Weapon, and doesn't have all the Psychic powers that Njal carries. So I don't see how he is a better Njal.

He has the lightning ability, but both have the options to limit visibility (Imho does both automatically, Njal has to test to do so). I'm pretty sure they have one more similar ability-I think it was three things in total. Imhotek is also a better fighter, and I feel he has better wargear-Njal's weapon only matters if he hasn't already used his psychic abilities, Imho's abilities are always on until they run out.

 Sasori wrote:

And how is the court vs wolf guard hyperbole? The courts act the same way as the wolf guard (minus HQ vs Elite roles), but have two different options (Lords and Crypteks) which unleash even more items that make wolf guard items tame. Mindshackle Scarabs? War Scythes? Relentless armor for the unit? WBB on a 4+? Yes, they are definitely a superior version of Wolf Guard, who were previously the only unit able to be bought in one section and used to supplement other units by splitting them off. Hyperbole? Hardly.

It is Hyperbole, because while they may have some better options than Wolfguard, they also cost significantly more. A Basic Lord is almost double the cost of Wolfguard. When you start adding all those options, it becomes exceediling expensive. So, while the Court Members may be better than Wolfguard, they end up costing more. When you call them "Wolfguard +5" it just appears like you're calling overpowered, when they're not really. Perhaps I misinterpreted the +5 statements, but they read to me as you're saying they're better without any downsides.

Relentless is also an upgrade only available to Overlords. Which is pretty useless in 6th, anyway.

Apologies on relentless then. Probably not going to agree here, because I do feel Necron courts are far superior to Wolf Guard, but that they are the only two units that are purchased this way and act the way they do. Yes, Courts cost more (Wolf Guard are 2/3 the price of a Necron Lord, both are fairly cheap to start), but also give more options. To me, at least. Obviously you feel differently in the matter, but I do see courts as much better. I didn't mean over powered, because I don't think Wolf Guard are OP at all, nor do I think Courts are OP. Just much, much better.

 Surtur wrote:
I hope that's a bit clearer.

Ya actually it is. Thanks

Imhotek is also a better fighter, and I feel he has better wargear-Njal's weapon only matters if he hasn't already used his psychic abilities

Imhotek really is only the better fighter because he can reroll wounds, he's a pretty poor fighter compared to much of codex Necron, course he'll be hitting less as Njal has the better WS, and will be hitting before him with the better I

And considering that Njal can cast Jaws of the World Wolf, which against Imhoteks I2... Yeah, Imhotek cannot instant death Njal, Njal can do it on his force weapon as well.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

That's odd...I started playing my 7th edition Daemon codex before anyone pulled out the 7th edition VC book in my area...also bought VC stuff when it first hit the shelf to add things to the missing daemon line (ghouls for plastic plaguebearers/horrors). I swear wikipedia is wrong on that...do you have the books in front of you to check their dates? Mine are 4 hrs away, currently. I can't double check until tomorrow.

VC was March '08. It didn't take-off massively as the new bandwagon because Undead overall are a more challenging army to come to terms with;
- On the whole you have crap combat units - even your so-called "elites" have stats that are simply average or just above.
- Your core units can't fight their way out of a wet, moldy, half-decomposed paper bag without help from characters and/or supportive magic.
- Instead of running away, you lose models for however many pts you lose combat by. At times it can be advantageous, like if you're only -2/-4 or so, but then when you get crushed, being undead is a huge disadvantage because your entire unit simply goes 'poof!' Everyone else at least gets the chance at rolling double 1's and getting the 'Insane Courage!' result.
- If your general dies, your army crumbles at the begining of every subsiquent turn.
- You're very dependent on magical support, more so than any other army in the game.

VC's popularity came about AFTER Daemons hit tables in May '08, because the true strength of the VC army was playing the pts denial game. VC's were one of the very few armies that could at least force draws or minor victories against Daemons, since you could raise stupid amounts of Zombies/Ghouls by maxing out your power dice pool and simply spaming Invocation of Nehek on a 3+ until you ran through your 12-16 or so power dice.
Hide your general in the back corner, out of sight with huge Zombie mobs guarding him, then have a 'Drakenhof Deathstar' unit to earn VP's. Made for very boring games.

The following Fantasy books; Dark Elves in August '08, Warriors in Nov '08, Lizzies in Feb '09 & Skaven in Nov '09 all were 'powered-up' to be able to simply try and compete with Daemons. By the time those other four books were all out, the silent majority had simply given up even attempting to play Fantasy since Daemons had been the ultiment catalyst that turned the clock back to the awful days of 'Herohammer' that dominated 5th.

Ward's response to why he made Daemons so insanely OP was simply "well, they're Daemons - they should be strong."
That arrogance pissed off a large portion of the Fantasy community, and GW finally issued an apology of sorts by telling the greater community that it agreed that Daemons was a huge mistake. GW even now considers Daemons of Chaos to be a massive failure since that one army book so allienated the community.



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

For example, I had a friend of mine ask Ward at UK Games Day about why he felt it nessessary to give GK's an auto-win button in Warp Quake, on top of every concievable advantage possible against Daemons. My friend explained that I'd been forced to simply shelve my entire army because there was simply no enjoyment what so ever in trying to compete against the new codex.
My friend told me, Ward's response was simply that "Grey Knights are ment to destroy Daemons."
So in other words, his attitude is simply, "Daemon players can go suck an egg and deal with it."

At least the other authors admit to their mistakes! Kelly has admitted that he didn't do a great job with Wolves. Cruddace admits that he's a huge IG fanboy and let that influence him. Gav & Jervis both admitted that CSM's were gimped and that style of codex was a mistake because it so limited what players could choose.
Ward's excuse is pretty much, "I don't care what you think." It's insulting and arrogent in the extreme to not consider how important external balances will change with new rules.

He's also unproffessional.
Hell, he outright admitted in WD he "didn't like Orcs & Goblins and wasn't enthused about writting their book."
And guess what? It showed up big time! His 7th edition O&G booked sucked so hard, the army all but disappeared within a month or so of the 'new' book being released. Only the most dedicated greenskin generals stuck with the army, and they almost never pulled it out if they wanted to compete in Tournaments...
I know that when I worked at the local GW store, if you bad-mouthed an army like that, saying toyour customers, "I hate 'X', don't buy them", you'd be fired. Ward basically said in the WD 'desingers notes' that O&G's were lackluster and people could steer clear of them.

Experiment 626 wrote:
A lot of good stuff

Ah, thanks for that. That actually makes a lot of sense, and corrects my error while still making me not sound like a complete nutball. Kudos for the info.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

That's odd...I started playing my 7th edition Daemon codex before anyone pulled out the 7th edition VC book in my area...also bought VC stuff when it first hit the shelf to add things to the missing daemon line (ghouls for plastic plaguebearers/horrors). I swear wikipedia is wrong on that...do you have the books in front of you to check their dates? Mine are 4 hrs away, currently. I can't double check until tomorrow.

VC was March '08. It didn't take-off massively as the new bandwagon because Undead overall are a more challenging army to come to terms with;
- On the whole you have crap combat units - even your so-called "elites" have stats that are simply average or just above.
- Your core units can't fight their way out of a wet, moldy, half-decomposed paper bag without help from characters and/or supportive magic.
- Instead of running away, you lose models for however many pts you lose combat by. At times it can be advantageous, like if you're only -2/-4 or so, but then when you get crushed, being undead is a huge disadvantage because your entire unit simply goes 'poof!' Everyone else at least gets the chance at rolling double 1's and getting the 'Insane Courage!' result.
- If your general dies, your army crumbles at the begining of every subsiquent turn.
- You're very dependent on magical support, more so than any other army in the game.

VC's popularity came about AFTER Daemons hit tables in May '08, because the true strength of the VC army was playing the pts denial game. VC's were one of the very few armies that could at least force draws or minor victories against Daemons, since you could raise stupid amounts of Zombies/Ghouls by maxing out your power dice pool and simply spaming Invocation of Nehek on a 3+ until you ran through your 12-16 or so power dice.
Hide your general in the back corner, out of sight with huge Zombie mobs guarding him, then have a 'Drakenhof Deathstar' unit to earn VP's. Made for very boring games.

The following Fantasy books; Dark Elves in August '08, Warriors in Nov '08, Lizzies in Feb '09 & Skaven in Nov '09 all were 'powered-up' to be able to simply try and compete with Daemons. By the time those other four books were all out, the silent majority had simply given up even attempting to play Fantasy since Daemons had been the ultiment catalyst that turned the clock back to the awful days of 'Herohammer' that dominated 5th.

Ward's response to why he made Daemons so insanely OP was simply "well, they're Daemons - they should be strong."
That arrogance pissed off a large portion of the Fantasy community, and GW finally issued an apology of sorts by telling the greater community that it agreed that Daemons was a huge mistake. GW even now considers Daemons of Chaos to be a massive failure since that one army book so allienated the community.



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

For example, I had a friend of mine ask Ward at UK Games Day about why he felt it nessessary to give GK's an auto-win button in Warp Quake, on top of every concievable advantage possible against Daemons. My friend explained that I'd been forced to simply shelve my entire army because there was simply no enjoyment what so ever in trying to compete against the new codex.
My friend told me, Ward's response was simply that "Grey Knights are ment to destroy Daemons."
So in other words, his attitude is simply, "Daemon players can go suck an egg and deal with it."

At least the other authors admit to their mistakes! Kelly has admitted that he didn't do a great job with Wolves. Cruddace admits that he's a huge IG fanboy and let that influence him. Gav & Jervis both admitted that CSM's were gimped and that style of codex was a mistake because it so limited what players could choose.
Ward's excuse is pretty much, "I don't care what you think." It's insulting and arrogent in the extreme to not consider how important external balances will change with new rules.

He's also unproffessional.
Hell, he outright admitted in WD he "didn't like Orcs & Goblins and wasn't enthused about writting their book."
And guess what? It showed up big time! His 7th edition O&G booked sucked so hard, the army all but disappeared within a month or so of the 'new' book being released. Only the most dedicated greenskin generals stuck with the army, and they almost never pulled it out if they wanted to compete in Tournaments...
I know that when I worked at the local GW store, if you bad-mouthed an army like that, saying toyour customers, "I hate 'X', don't buy them", you'd be fired. Ward basically said in the WD 'desingers notes' that O&G's were lackluster and people could steer clear of them.

I'm sorry, but I've never seen anyone bring up GW apologizing for Daemons before. Where can we find this?