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 have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
When GW talks of forging a narrative. They mean on the forums, not in game. And they've succeeded, I've never seen so much narrative.
"The games broken", "what were they thinking", "do they game test at all". The narrative go's on.
Since moneys tight sky sports in the canteen has had to go. Their only entertainment is browsing forums, and chuckling at gamers raging.
Its hard to be awesome, when your playing with little plastic men. Welcome to Fantasy 40k
If you think your important, in the great scheme of things. Do the water test.
Put your hands in a bucket of warm water,
then pull them out fast. The size of the hole shows how important you are.
I think we should roll some dice, to see if we should roll some dice, To decide if all this dice rolling is good for the game.
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He had his place (initially), as he was a tournament gamer so I would presume he was brought in to break the game in playtesting. This obviously didn't come through in his codexes, as with my twin lash prince example from earlier.
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
TheKbob wrote: Mat Ward writes a good book, most of the time, from a rules perspective. There usually isn't a "bad" Mat Ward unit, just an average one with others being amazing or useful.
Flayed Ones, C'tan shard...
While Codicis Necrons and Grey Knights both have their weak units, the fact that both are still able to cope and adapt to the modern meta and still be reasonably competent prior to the finalized 6E rules shows that Mat Ward is a pretty good guy, in my opinion. Giving him crap for ruining the end of a great edition, GKs at the tail end of 5E, isn't warranted seeing that they are perfectly reasonable, if not underpowered a touch, in the current 6E meta. Dreadknights are considered underpriced now, no one wants to bring purifiers thanks to the Baledrake (stupid FAQ), and Draigowing can still be a curb stomping list. Necrons, besides a few dud units, have multiple play styles that are still very effective as both primary and allied detachments.
Kelly is hit or miss, Cruddance needs relieved after several routinely stinker books, Vettock needs some grooming but has done well, and Ward should be the EIC for rules. Jervis needs to be let out the back door quietly, give him a nice pension, and a new box of models every month and a section in the White Dwarf. Make him the "Andy Rooney" of Games Workshop, we can roll our eyes at his old man views of the game, chuckle and move on.
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Banner of the World Dragon. 50 points for almost total immunity to magical damage. Able to be taken on a core troops Standard Bearer.
And? Empire can take a pretty nasty banner on a unit of Inner Circle Knights...which just happens to be Core. It allows them to completely ignore barding penalties and is a hell of a lot scarier than the Banner of the World Dragon on a block of Inner Circle Knights who have a Warrior Priest or a Grandmaster hunkered down with them.
I'm sorry but how is ignoring the movement penalty for barding better than immunity to magic? Elves have that basically as standard thanks to their horses higher base movement. Stick Barding on an Elven steed and you have a normal horse from any other army.
Tell a Daemons player that ignoring Barding penalties is worse than a 2+ ward against all magical attacks. Go on.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/04 20:09:17
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
TheKbob wrote: Mat Ward writes a good book, most of the time, from a rules perspective. There usually isn't a "bad" Mat Ward unit, just an average one with others being amazing or useful.
Flayed Ones, C'tan shard...
While Codicis Necrons and Grey Knights both have their weak units, the fact that both are still able to cope and adapt to the modern meta and still be reasonably competent prior to the finalized 6E rules shows that Mat Ward is a pretty good guy, in my opinion. Giving him crap for ruining the end of a great edition, GKs at the tail end of 5E, isn't warranted seeing that they are perfectly reasonable, if not underpowered a touch, in the current 6E meta. Dreadknights are considered underpriced now, no one wants to bring purifiers thanks to the Baledrake (stupid FAQ), and Draigowing can still be a curb stomping list. Necrons, besides a few dud units, have multiple play styles that are still very effective as both primary and allied detachments.
Kelly is hit or miss, Cruddance needs relieved after several routinely stinker books, Vettock needs some grooming but has done well, and Ward should be the EIC for rules. Jervis needs to be let out the back door quietly, give him a nice pension, and a new box of models every month and a section in the White Dwarf. Make him the "Andy Rooney" of Games Workshop, we can roll our eyes at his old man views of the game, chuckle and move on.
I would say a good chunk of the ire for GKs and Necrons was due to the sweeping changes in background to them, rather than gameplay (certainly in the case of Necrons).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/04 20:09:56
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them.
Frankly none of them greatly impress me at this point, but i'm always open to the possibility that they will surprise me sometime. I slightly prefer kelly over the others, but he has had his stinkers too.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/04 20:21:27
The Viletide: Daemons of Nurgle/Deathguard: 7400 pts
Disclples of the Dragon - Ad Mech - about 2000 pts GSC - about 2000 Pts
Rhulic Mercs - um...many...
Circle Oroboros - 300 Pts or so
Menoth - 300+ pts
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Just so you and everyone else here knows it, Matt Ward hasn't written a rule in two years, being a background writer at this time.
He has offered ideas for rules though (Battle Focus as we know) and honestly I think he's fluff is getting better. I mean he was already showing signs of improving back when he co-authored Sisters but he's really improved in his more recent stuff.
One thing that just occurred to me: I've never needed help "forging a narrative". I've been adding narrative to my 40K games since I was 12. There have been few games I've played where my characters haven't had names, my army hasn't had fluff, and I haven't had a specific narrative event in mind when either organising the game/s or just playing them in general. The rules shouldn't encourage "forging a narrative", that should happen naturally. The rules, on the other hand, are never going to be 100% balanced - that's virtually impossible - but they should be unambiguous and well written from a technical standpoint. If they are, the narratives will forge themselves and won't need forcing.
I would say a good chunk of the ire for GKs and Necrons was due to the sweeping changes in background to them, rather than gameplay (certainly in the case of Necrons).
I can certainly understand that some Necron fans might have been peeved at their army becoming a considerable degree less universe dominating and terrifying, just as Tyranid fans might feel at the changes introduced to them in terms of their weaknesses being openly discussed.
This was an intentional change to both these 'ultimate threats' to bring them back down a bit and let the big bad return to center stage, Chaos is supposed to be the ultimate threat, the end of all things and that was a driving force behind the changes to the Necrons and Tyranids, along with the sense that the Necrons were lacking a lot of background and potential for background by being a relentless, faceless force of silver machines, instead of dynasties of warring powers.
Just so you and everyone else here knows it, Matt Ward hasn't written a rule in two years, being a background writer at this time.
I suppose the idea that his rules were "too competitively" focused? Or maybe he likes fluff better than rules writing? I'd rather he back on the rules side versus the fluff. I liked the new Crons and the new GKs because it's the type of grimdark I want; a dash of the zany and everything so serious it can't be taken seriously. New Crons are awesome than the old soulless automatons. Can't speak on how GKs have changed outside of my favorite Mary Sue...
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
He was also criticized because the book was widely held as "garbage".
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
He was as full of himself as Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson. He had this idea that he could do nothing wrong and that anyone who did not "get" what he was doing just did not "get" the game as a whole.
His ego did not go down in his move to Mantic either.
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
I can certainly understand that some Necron fans might have been peeved at their army becoming a considerable degree less universe dominating and terrifying, just as Tyranid fans might feel at the changes introduced to them in terms of their weaknesses being openly discussed.
This was an intentional change to both these 'ultimate threats' to bring them back down a bit and let the big bad return to center stage, Chaos is supposed to be the ultimate threat, the end of all things and that was a driving force behind the changes to the Necrons and Tyranids, along with the sense that the Necrons were lacking a lot of background and potential for background by being a relentless, faceless force of silver machines, instead of dynasties of warring powers.
The daemons and chaos marines are too cartoony to be taken seriously. They have never felt like the big bad to me. Even with the fluff changes (read making Nids boring and making Necrons have a real back story), the universe will either be conquered by one of the two, it feels like. The Imperium is screwed unless they ally with all the xenos, Necrons don't give a damn, and Nids will eat them all.
If GW wants me to take Chaos seriously, dump the stupid dinobots and hire some of the folks from Kingdom Death and make them really horrifying. Not just "Zowy Wowy, Power Armor WITH SPIKES".
Spoiler:
SCARY! OOOoooo!
Or hire whomever made this or buy the rights:
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/04 20:38:03
Perhaps all of the GW writers are bad and that's why we get bad codexes and why the present unauthored "GW design team" Codexes are bad too.
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
Mother earth is pregnant for the third time, for y'all have knocked her up. I have tasted the maggots in the mind of the universe, but I was not offended. For I knew I had to rise above it all, or drown in my own gak.
TedNugent wrote: Perhaps all of the GW writers are bad and that's why we get bad codexes and why the present unauthored "GW design team" Codexes are bad too.
That or the studio has poor play testing standards (from what I've heard you want play testing you do it on your own time), has too many projects going on at once for there to be a good and proper focus on any one thing, and generally needs an overhaul in how the game is designed from the ground up to make designing more consistent and balanced overall.
TedNugent wrote: Perhaps all of the GW writers are bad and that's why we get bad codexes and why the present unauthored "GW design team" Codexes are bad too.
nothing wrong with the AM dex (except omission of ICs and ogryns and rough riders still sucking)
Ravenous D wrote: 40K is like a beloved grandparent that is slowly falling into dementia and the rest of the family is in denial about how bad it is.
squidhills wrote: GW is scared of girls. Why do you think they have so much trouble sculpting attractive female models? Because girls have cooties and the staff at GW don't like looking at them for too long because it makes them feel funny in their naughty place.
I have said for years there ought to be a "bible" for the core rules, an editorial board to consider rules changes and how they fit the game, and a technical author or editor to put the rules into clearly understandable language.
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
He was also criticized because the book was widely held as "garbage".
He wasn't criticized at all and no one said that. You're a liar.
Again, see how that works? You can't just make random blanket statements like that because you've decided to create them and then present them as fact. It is common in human communication to follow up such a statement with some examples, some support for such a strong presentation, rather than sounding like you just pulled it out of your arse.
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
He was as full of himself as Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson. He had this idea that he could do nothing wrong and that anyone who did not "get" what he was doing just did not "get" the game as a whole.
His ego did not go down in his move to Mantic either.
Are Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson full of themselves? On which occasions during your meetings with them have they proven themselves so? What did the Mantic employees say to you to show his ego has been detrimental? Or is what you are so painfully stumbling around that you had the perception that they seemed that way? (again, Kan, remember about supporting evidence for your rather obtuse sounding statements, rather than just curling off a concrete turd in the community pool and leaving it there for the rest of us to boggle at)....
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
Your hypocrisy is staggering, as always.
This is not an effective retort, again, you need to explain why this is hypocrisy, or it's just a nonsense retort and makes you sound about 12 years old, shouting 'neener neener' and putting your fingers in your ears and sticking out your tongue.
You're not twelve are you? Start conversing like an adult, Kan, instead of random blanket statements of absolutes with no bloody supporting evidence or expansion.
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
He was criticised along with Gav T for simplifying chaos marines and taking the flavor out of them by streamlining them...
He was also criticized because the book was widely held as "garbage".
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
In what way is Alessio a 'pretentious tool'? Do you know him? Has he personally offended you, or are you being a massively obtuse spanker? (see how that remote insult of someone you've never met thing works?).
He was as full of himself as Andy Chambers and Jervis Johnson. He had this idea that he could do nothing wrong and that anyone who did not "get" what he was doing just did not "get" the game as a whole.
His ego did not go down in his move to Mantic either.
You really do take some simple things someone says and fill in all your own spaces and create something vast and utterly unlike what was actually said, to fulfill some need of yours to pick a fight with a shadow that isn't there.
No one praised a savior, I did say that his was a different style to whats held sway in 6th, but feth knows we shouldn't let that get in the way of you grandstanding yet again against something you've invented to fight with.
Your hypocrisy is staggering, as always.
As is your ability to take things personally where there is no such intent, and manufacture conflict where none exists. Now, one last time, topic?
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
My personal belief? GW writers should have a long sit down and talk about revising the strategy of relying on their players to be nice, balanced and reasonable individuals enjoying a Saturday together before heading out for a slap up pub dinner and instead, write their rules like they were facing Stelek or someone of his ilk across the table at the final of a tournament with a sizable cash prize. Writing tighter like that, exclusively rather than inclusively, and then allowing all expansions and random charts to be added on if the players agree/want it on it is the better idea to me than making anything and everything inclusive and letting the players hash it out over what to exclude. Writing based on a 'highly competitive or difficult' player as your potential opponent rather than a mate you've known for decades and been best man to is road testing your new car in really difficult conditions instead of a nice leisurely jaunt. You make things to withstand the worst rather than get by in the best circumstance.
Less help forging the narrative, more help ensuring fluid and intuitive gameplay.
I smell a Zwei incoming...
Well written and I agree coming from traveling the US while playing 40k.
I also anticipate "a well written 40K ruleset is bad because the sky is yellow" type post in the near future!
Still, at least he's the minority, and can be shut down fairly easily, because his argument has no supporting structure when placed under close scrutiny beyond "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you"
That really applies to any playstyle advocacy though, doesn't it. I mean, I'd be happy if GW playtested the rules more thoroughly, took a more careful approach to wording and so on, and I think Escalation was a mistake when they could have gone with a percentage-based Lord of War slot, but MGS' "exclusive not inclusive" concept sounds bloody awful to me, and as soon as you move beyond arguing merely for better written rules and into what the "core" rules should actually permit by default, it all boils down to "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you" regardless of what direction you're coming from.
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Ah, I see you've yet to experience Zwei's "everything is fine because purple dinosaur, pineapples, plinth" debating technique.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Oh boohoo, Mat Ward's still around. Look at the Wood Elf, Dark Elf, and High Elf books.
He's one of the few writers they have who isn't stuck in the Phil Kelly mentality.
Banner of the World Dragon. 50 points for almost total immunity to magical damage. Able to be taken on a core troops Standard Bearer.
And? Empire can take a pretty nasty banner on a unit of Inner Circle Knights...which just happens to be Core. It allows them to completely ignore barding penalties and is a hell of a lot scarier than the Banner of the World Dragon on a block of Inner Circle Knights who have a Warrior Priest or a Grandmaster hunkered down with them.
I'm sorry but how is ignoring the movement penalty for barding better than immunity to magic? Elves have that basically as standard thanks to their horses higher base movement. Stick Barding on an Elven steed and you have a normal horse from any other army.
Tell a Daemons player that ignoring Barding penalties is worse than a 2+ ward against all magical attacks. Go on.
Can't take the BotWD on any core choice, as it's 50 points.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Yodhrin wrote: [
That really applies to any playstyle advocacy though, doesn't it. I mean, I'd be happy if GW playtested the rules more thoroughly, took a more careful approach to wording and so on, and I think Escalation was a mistake when they could have gone with a percentage-based Lord of War slot, but MGS' "exclusive not inclusive" concept sounds bloody awful to me, and as soon as you move beyond arguing merely for better written rules and into what the "core" rules should actually permit by default, it all boils down to "I like my game this way, so feth the rest of you" regardless of what direction you're coming from.
I don't like olives. I don't much care for raw onion.
I'm in a restaurant and I order a meal that comes with a complimentary salad as part of the main course.
Option 1 is that I am presented with a salad premixed with many ingredients, added to my plate. 'I don't like olives or bits of onion', I tell the waiter, 'well you can pick them out of it as you go' he replies. I spend tedious time picking out the bits that I don't like from my salad, having to sift through it to remove what I don't like and making sure it's fully removed. This is the inclusive option.
Option 2 is that I am given access to the salad bar with all those same ingredients and can pick and choose what I like, leaving out the olives and onion and adding extra bits of what I want, leaving me entirely satisfied with my own informed choices. This is exclusive, I can add back in as I wish, the same core meal is present for both options, but the salad is what I make it, what I want it to be.
I have a perfectly reasonable cause. I think Alessio Cavatore gets way too much credit when he was a pretentious tool. He gets remembered as some kind of savior for the game by the same people who usually talk about how "great things were back in my day...".
On his time, Cavatore was reviled just as much as say, Matt Ward later, particularly from CSM 4th edition book...I am also amazed that some people now hold him as some sort of messianic figure.
I thought the late 4th edition lack of good Codex rules writing was because of a mandate Jervis had at the time? 3-4 books in a row were just bland. And if you want to talk reviled due to CSM, Pete "A model with 2 wounds has quite a lot going for it" Haines would top my list.
The irony with the whole "forge the narrative" crap is that balanced rules would let you forge the narrative better than the gak we have now. You are limited in themed forces due to the current set of rules - e.g. you can't do an entire Terminator army outside of I believe Dark Angels (not counting GK) and they need a special character who is the grand master of all the terminators who just so happens to be at every single battle that they go on. You field special characters everywhere for their special rules, when you should be able to make your own characters with appropriate rules.
40k lets you forge the narrative in name only, while the rules actually prevent truly narrative games and in any event balanced rules would let you do it more.
I dont get it personally, people complain about the rules then complain because they replace the rules. Some people really dont seem happy unless they are complaining!
Fang, son of Great Fang, the traitor we seek, The laws of the brethren say this: That only the king sees the crown of the gods, And he, the usurper, must die.
2000 l 
2000 l 
2000 l 
1500 l 
1000 l 
1000 l 
Blood Ravens (using Ravenguard CT) 1500 l 
1500 l
