# The Official Mat Ward Fan page



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

So, for those of us who enjoy Ward's work, i thought i would start this thread to be the enemy of the Hate page. What do you like about Ward's writing style, rules etc, No negative comments allowed.

I like the fact that his codices take underpowered armies from old editions and give them flavour and unique abilities on the tabletop.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

I'll chip in on this; first off I don't hate Ward. If anything Ward is the guy who should write the Stats and special rules of stuff and give the fluff over to you know...his development team.

Honestly, Necron's is impressive and is somewhat a fantastic example of this. They have crunch, they have good units and the choices are varied. Stuff feels powerful and mystical and unique - the "Broadside" of Ghost Arc's is frankly a lovely touch and separates the thing from being just another "Generic Rhino/Chimera/Grav Tank" transport. 

It makes you think about how you want to counter it with your own force - which honestly is all I ask for. It makes you consider tactics on the board, what to buy what not to buy and so fourth; and I think Ward does this very very well. I'm now writing up "all comers" lists and then looking into things like "Necron player All-comers list" "Space marine all-comers list" and so fourth. It makes me want to buy more and play more stuff. Also his fluff is also stomachable - the new Necron dex finally puts to sleep the whole "Buddy bump" of the Blood Angels since it's no longer retarded since the context of the two forces have now changed. 

Also alot of Codices' now have Wards stamp on them, and I'll be honest. His meta-game planning is actually quite good - honestly the ship of "Lets hate ward" is fading more and more with each dex as people try and scrounge ways of hating on him. Overall what Ward brings is the ass-kicking alot of things need: Old players see their armies boosted in power, whilst new players are drawn into the game by new and power things.


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

I can't quite say I'm a fan yet as Necrons is the first work in a long line that has been truly amazing quality, BUT I can say he has successfully impressed me- I have no idea where he'll go from here, but next time he is writing an update I won't assume its going to be something ominous on the horizon.


----------



## sybarite (Aug 10, 2009)

Moonschwine said:


> I'll chip in on this; first off I don't hate Ward. If anything Ward is the guy who should write the Stats and special rules of stuff and give the fluff over to you know...his development team.


this sum me up as well, his rule writing for both 40K and fantesy arimes are very good (yes even 8th ed is fine) with a few curve balls to make an army diffient to the others. However his fluff... well lets say it can only get better right .


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

He has learned from his mistakes. There are very good units in the necron book and nothing that screams CHEESE.


----------



## Praevarus (Sep 27, 2011)

From what I have seen of his work like others have mentioned he does make pretty good codexes and while maybe he lacks in the fluff department the armies come out balanced which is really all a player can ask for...if you don't like the fluff alter it yourself towards your oww hivefleet, chapter, legion, etc.

also does he have beard? if so +1 for him


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

I'm signing this because I'm tired of all the butthurt. You'd think the changes were murdering their families.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Praevarus said:


> From what I have seen of his work like others have mentioned he does make pretty good codexes


In their defence, WHFB Chaos Daemons pretty much wreaked the entire fantasy system and then there was Orks and Goblins with was a mean joke of a codex for anyone who wanted to be competitive. He has grown as a codex writer, but he did fuck up in some pretty epic ways.

Necrons is a good codex. Hopefully, he has learned balance.


----------



## jaysen (Jul 7, 2011)

I'm a big fan of the fact that he had the balls to re-write the Blood Angels codex, after 12 years without an update (I don't count the flimsy WD pseudo-dex). Not only did BA get an update, but they got an awesome, competitive dex. Now, I didn't care too much for the new IC's being retro'd back, but it's all good. They do bring an added punch to the army.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Enjoyed his work on necrons and BA, wanted to bash his skull in for GK. So I guess it balances out to a neutral opinion for me.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

I liked his work on the technical/gameplay side of the gk dex and the necrons one(from what i have seen) is more of the same. He just needs to stay away from the fluff. The thing that needs to be remembered is that some of us have been involved in the universe of 40k for a very long time and we can be protective.

The gk dex is great fun and allows you to build an army that is very different to anything else out there and i am very happy we got what we did. It looks like the necron one is more of the same.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

What exactly is wrong with the GK dex? I know that daemon players whine about them but I like it.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

I've enjoyed all his work for 40K, starting at 5th ed SM all the way through to Necron (reading the codex now, may even collect them). There have been bumps in the road (Vanguard Vets and Thunderfire cannons, fluff issues that DEMAND additional exploration [Draigo needs a book, BA/Necron incident should be a SM Battle Novel]) but all in all I think his 40K work has been pretty good.

The only thing I have to go on with his fantasy work is the 8th edition rules. Nobody at my club plays Chaos Deamons, so I can't comment on them. My club plays mostly 40k with Fantasy as a non-competitive alternative so we don't mind the crazy magic rules blowing armies away (storm of magic is fun to play for shits and giggles). I could see where people may get pissed at 8th ed but I think it's more tuned to the setting with it's rules, where 40k is less so.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Reaper45 said:


> What exactly is wrong with the GK dex? I know that daemon players whine about them but I like it.


In short some people take aspects of the codex that are good but impractical and use perfect storm situations that would/should never happen to claim that aspects of the codex are overpowered. These are somewhat difficult to refute as math hammer supports the damage but the builds themselves aren't really viable. Anybody remember the Cotez build with Psykers and the Culexus assassins?

Combined with the fact that the codex is slightly above the curve in general power (up there with SW and IG) and it really lacks glaringly weak units, so optimizing still allows for a broad range of choices, you get people fussing over the codex.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> I've enjoyed all his work for 40K, starting at 5th ed SM all the way through to Necron (reading the codex now, may even collect them). There have been bumps in the road (Vanguard Vets and Thunderfire cannons, fluff issues that DEMAND additional exploration [Draigo needs a book, BA/Necron incident should be a SM Battle Novel]) but all in all I think his 40K work has been pretty good.
> 
> The only thing I have to go on with his fantasy work is the 8th edition rules. Nobody at my club plays Chaos Deamons, so I can't comment on them. My club plays mostly 40k with Fantasy as a non-competitive alternative so we don't mind the crazy magic rules blowing armies away (storm of magic is fun to play for shits and giggles). I could see where people may get pissed at 8th ed but I think it's more tuned to the setting with it's rules, where 40k is less so.


Ur new. Ward made his mark in 7th and oh, what a mark. From a competitive view, it is only with a levelling of the playing field that he is okay. He has wreaked older/weaker codexes. GK almost invalidates 'nids which is a 5th codex. Necnons is good,but it is good because it is not super cheese. That puts its potential at less than the OP (and that was screamed when these codexes came out). Have you noticed that since necrons came out, Cheese has yet to be claimed?


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

It is more GW's fault than his. Codex creep is the problem. 

Support/FAQ's to keep everything relevant is what is really needed.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Ward`s codexes are always fun to play against, and now for necron players, as. 

I like them.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

I can only dream of the world where every race has a Ward-dex, where all armies are equally powerful and the fluff ties together nicely.

I suspect that the Grey Knights killing the Sisters will be explained in the Daemons codex, as the Blood Angels/Necron Alliance has been explained in the Necron codex. Also, it should have a note on why Draigo is still in the Warp.

Also, beard ftw.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I like all of Ward's books. While I'm not a fan of some of the fluff in them I think Ward knows how to make a Codex that can be used to make a great range of fun and competitively viable armies. Never before in my time playing this game (since the first quarter of third edition basically) has it truly been possible to build multiple different types of armies from the same Codex. During 4th there were a couple examples of different army types working decently from the same Codex (4th edition Codex Marines had the Traits, Chaos had the Legions, Guard had sorta doctrines, though they all tended to lead to similar looking armies).

Nowadays we get

Vanilla Marines
Mech
Bikers
Double Land Raider rush packed with Terminators

Blood Angels
Mech
Descent of Angels/Jumpers
Sanguinary Guard armies

Grey Knights
Mech
Terminator/Paladin spam
Purifier heavy (sort of ties in with mech, not always though)
Coteaz and Henchmen

Necrons are too new to really tell.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

I really have no beef with Ward, since fluff has zero impact on the game itself. The only thing I have an issue with is making GK very OTT versus Daemons. He could of just given them preferred enemy against them and called it a day, and it would of still filled the fluff requirements of the chapter.

Not a big fan of seeing every list being mech, so hopefully 6th will change that a little.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

lokis222 said:


> Ur new. Ward made his mark in 7th and oh, what a mark. From a competitive view, it is only with a levelling of the playing field that he is okay. He has wreaked older/weaker codexes. GK almost invalidates 'nids which is a 5th codex. Necnons is good,but it is good because it is not super cheese. That puts its potential at less than the OP (and that was screamed when these codexes came out). Have you noticed that since necrons came out, Cheese has yet to be claimed?


When it comes to Fantasy I will gladly admit I'm new. I don't play very often and I don't play competitively so Wards work on 7th ed Deamons doesn't affect me at all.

He's 40K work I feel is just fine. His only codex that is considered top end is GK and it is ranked up there with 2 other codices. I would say most of his stuff is pretty balanced.

As the for the argument of GK invalidating the Nids codex, that's more to do with the Nid codex (not written by Ward) being crap upon release. The Nid codex was bad from the start, and was clearly the weakest of the 5th edition codices.

I'm glad Cheese hasn't been claimed. Cheese is the cry of the ill prepared.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Wusword77 said:


> When it comes to Fantasy I will gladly admit I'm new. I don't play very often and I don't play competitively so Wards work on 7th ed Deamons doesn't affect me at all.
> 
> He's 40K work I feel is just fine. His only codex that is considered top end is GK and it is ranked up there with 2 other codices. I would say most of his stuff is pretty balanced.
> 
> ...


Yeah. I had my first run in with Dark Eldar and Grey Knights with my Nids. Amongst my first losses of the year. Can think of counters, but they all depend a lot on luck.

I agree though, all of 5th edition has been overall very good. Just finished reading the Necron codex in full and I am a fan. In spite of everything, I liked the fluff. All the models are pretty top notch. The new lord with res ord has fantastic detail and I am really looking forward to getting it all painted. I think a lot of variety will come down to court and lord choices. The HQs are all very interesting and if 6th rumours with rapid fire and preferred enemy pan out, could be a very subtle and strong codex.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Ravner298 said:


> I really have no beef with Ward, since fluff has zero impact on the game itself. The only thing I have an issue with is making GK very OTT versus Daemons. He could of just given them preferred enemy against them and called it a day, and it would of still filled the fluff requirements of the chapter.
> 
> Not a big fan of seeing every list being mech, so hopefully 6th will change that a little.


Ah what can I say, daemons were always kind of a short bus army. All ward did was kick a dying mule in the face. I guess what pissed most people off was the fact that a gimped 4th edd dex was now against a soundly built 5th edd dex that had a few static buff against said army. Are any of their buffs OP. No not really but if someone gives you a stick to beat the dying man in the street with, in won't really help the situation. (really if you can't see this you either don't play daemons, or have no real casual daemons player in your area.) After all a max mining, monster will always destroy noob and the unprepared regardless of the army.

Fact is the GK are a decent 5th edd codex, and I even find their max min lists about on par with other armies. However as stated the biggest benefit of the codex is its flexibility, with almost no unit being garbage. 

On the plus side since a lot of the CSM stuff has been really one sided in sales and daemons having been carted down to the mid lower range of game play, kind like the old GK were. We can expect a decent book regardless of who writes it.

Although going by wards record it probably wouldn't be bad if he wrote either book, as it would likely get rid of the idea of joke choices in either.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Daemons will absolutely be bottom tier before they get another codex. Way too many in line before them.

On that note, gogo CSM


----------



## Praevarus (Sep 27, 2011)

Beard confirmation ....


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I like Matt Ward and i don't take it as a personal insult if i am not personally contacted by Matt Ward to get my permission to write a Codex.

I suspect that is where most of the hate comes from, those who take it as a personal insult that Matt Ward has not contacted these exceptionally sad and bitter individuals to get their personal permission for Matt Ward to write stuff of their fave Army.

As far as i am concerned Matt Ward can write the next CSM Codex, i know that CSM will become one hell of a badass army.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Personally, I think Ward has gotten better at balancing his books over his time at GW, and though the normal power creep is there, that's more GWs modus operandi than his particular touch. He has (as have most other GW writers) managed to get some new and diverse units into the game for this edition, with many viable builds, which helps to diversify armies, and that's always a good thing. The newer codecies are certainly a lot more interesting rules wise than those that came out through most of 4th edition. 

I'm still of the opinion that GW could do with a better editorial staff though, both for unifying the fluff and checking the rules, so that there's less need for an Errata and FAQ for each book straight out the door - I think that would help all of GW's writers really, but that's by the by.



Achaylus72 said:


> I like Matt Ward and i don't take it as a personal insult if i am not personally contacted by Matt Ward to get my permission to write a Codex.
> 
> I suspect that is where most of the hate comes from, those who take it as a personal insult that Matt Ward has not contacted these exceptionally sad and bitter individuals to get their personal permission for Matt Ward to write stuff of their fave Army.
> 
> As far as i am concerned Matt Ward can write the next CSM Codex, i know that CSM will become one hell of a badass army.


Mate, whatever your thoughts on Matt Ward, your constantly attacking other heretics (in this thread, and with even more venom in others) for having an opinion different from your own is crappy behaviour, and makes you seem more like the "sad and bitter individual" that you try and project onto others. Seriously, people have an opinion, you might as well attack film review sites for giving a film a directors films bad reviews. It would be in your interest to go back and edit those comments out, because they are certainly not helpful to the tone of this thread (or others). 

Lighten up Francis.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

maddermax said:


> Personally, I think Ward has gotten better at balancing his books over his time at GW, and though the normal power creep is there, that's more GWs modus operandi than his particular touch.


Power creep is a myth. If it was true then Nids wouldn't be a weak dex and both DE and BA would have been stronger then IG and SW.


----------



## maddermax (May 12, 2008)

Wusword77 said:


> Power creep is a myth. If it was true then Nids wouldn't be a weak dex and both DE and BA would have been stronger then IG and SW.


I was referring more generally to the large power gap between older (mostly 4th edition) codecies and newer codecies. Power creep doesn't mean that _every_ following book is automatically more powerful than the previous book, it just means there's a general trend towards more powerful books over time. For an example, see 7th ed fantasy, the books that followed the Daemons were not more powerful than it, but they _were_ generally more powerful than books that preceded it (mainly to try to catch up to the Daemons on power level), leading to a power imbalance between older and newer Army books - the power level of the system had creeped up on average, but not for every book. Looking at 40k, when Orks and C:SM came out, they were considered quite powerful books, but now they would only be middle of the pack - they haven't changed, but the newer codecies represent a gradual increase in the power of army books. That is what I mean.

Power creep is certainly not a myth, it's just not what you think it is.

Edit: but this is off topic anyway, so you can bring up another thread if you wish to discuss it further, so we don't derail this thread.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

maddermax said:


> I was referring more generally to the large power gap between older (mostly 4th edition) codecies and newer codecies. Power creep doesn't mean that _every_ following book is automatically more powerful than the previous book, it just means there's a general trend towards more powerful books over time. For an example, see 7th ed fantasy, the books that followed the Daemons were not more powerful than it, but they _were_ generally more powerful than books that preceded it (mainly to try to catch up to the Daemons on power level), leading to a power imbalance between older and newer Army books - the power level of the system had creeped up on average, but not for every book. Looking at 40k, when Orks and C:SM came out, they were considered quite powerful books, but now they would only be middle of the pack - they haven't changed, but the newer codecies represent a gradual increase in the power of army books. That is what I mean.
> 
> Power creep is certainly not a myth, it's just not what you think it is.
> 
> Edit: but this is off topic anyway, so you can bring up another thread if you wish to discuss it further, so we don't derail this thread.



Nailed it on the head. People, for all we know Ward has been told to make the armies "interact" more, in more ways than simply kicking the shit out of each other (Necron Alliance, Sisters Blood thing, etc.) and has been told to make the armies more fun to play games with. For me, more selection = more fun. Hence why there's a difference in power between the newer codices and the older ones. 

Now we could complain about how older armies don't have as powerful a codex as these newer ones, but we know that GW is working on that so we just have to be patient.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

> Nailed it on the head. People, for all we know Ward has been told to make the armies "interact" more, in more ways than simply kicking the shit out of each other (Necron Alliance, Sisters Blood thing, etc.) and has been told to make the armies more fun to play games with. For me, more selection = more fun. Hence why there's a difference in power between the newer codices and the older ones.
> 
> Now we could complain about how older armies don't have as powerful a codex as these newer ones, but we know that GW is working on that so we just have to be patient.


Wise words. As I keep saying, 40k is cyclical - Honestly, I'd rather see thought put into codex and models (like they seem to be doing now) and having 1 or 2 released a year rather than have a total "reboot" of every army every few years.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Moonschwine said:


> Wise words. As I keep saying, 40k is cyclical - Honestly, I'd rather see thought put into codex and models (like they seem to be doing now) and having 1 or 2 released a year rather than have a total "reboot" of every army every few years.


I would prefer a reboot. With expansions every so often. It would avoid balance issues. Bring more variety to the tournament scene. And, it would make gameplay more interesting. Only having to account for a few armies makes tactics a bit of a joke. As a painting hobby, it is solid. As a game, it has serious balance issues. Hoping with 6th they release a game wide erreterra to balance everything. Its nice to have a dream, isnt it?


----------



## comrade (Jun 30, 2008)

Mat Ward is a great rule maker. I like alot of his rule. Just leave the fluff to someone else.

I really don't see the super power GK and SW. (Well I hate long fang spam) And at my ard boyz down here we had everyone and their mother bring net lists for said armies, some guys had been playing them for years.

I played foot guard. Total trump card.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

OH GOD! I just read that note that Trazyn the infinate send to inquisitor Valeria. So cool to find out about the origins of the hyperstone maze! 

Brilliant... just plain brilliant. I love how the Ward fluff interacts. All that remains now is that he writes a chaos book in wich all the legions are having a big laugh at Draigo for his pointless endavours.


----------



## Durandal (Sep 18, 2011)

comrade said:


> I really don't see the super power GK and SW. (Well I hate long fang spam)


space wolves werent written by matt ward.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

Mat Ward is my heeeeero My old Necrons love my new Necrons.


----------



## Minizke1 (Feb 7, 2010)

mcmuffin said:


> So, for those of us who enjoy Ward's work, i thought i would start this thread to be the enemy of the Hate page. What do you like about Ward's writing style, rules etc, No negative comments allowed.
> 
> I like the fact that his codices take underpowered armies from old editions and give them flavour and unique abilities on the tabletop.


This is what I love about Heresy. Oh, people are whining about Matt Ward? LOL how about no.


----------



## MaidenManiac (Oct 2, 2008)

I gotta say that as long as he stays the hell out of Marine fluff he does it good. Compare WHFB Daemons with 40k Daemons for example. Ward kicks the retardduo of developers arse there, the fantasy book is a lot more alive and enjoyable. The Necron fluff is also neat imo. Its just certain Powerarmour things in between thats, uuh, goofy


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Sothot said:


> Mat Ward is my heeeeero My old Necrons love my new Necrons.


there is nothing like that sweet sweet necron loving


----------



## chino101 (Nov 11, 2011)

*Yes*

im sorry but if i was to meet him id salut him. he has turned necrons into a what i think competative force, revived grey knights (woop for purifiers) and the fact he took on a BA codex and revamped it. i love this guy. :victory:


----------



## aranelthemithra (Nov 1, 2011)

Simple truth: 

The correct solution when a codex is released is to publish updates (through WD or whatever) to other codecii to rebalance the game. 

This isn't a tool that GW gives their designers. Therefore, instead of balancing the game to an old equilibrium, they must balance the game in order to evolve it without the benefit of fixing old mistakes. 

This is an inherent issue of 40K. 

I am neither a Ward fan or hater. But I understand the challenge facing GW designers and it's not one that should be idly overlooked. The game itself is flawed - I think the necron codex demonstrates some serious effort to maintaining balance. Good job on it. Hopefully the next codex will be just as carefully crafted.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

I'll echo the good with his rules/not always good with fluff sentiment. 

I think GW should pair Ward with Kelly and have them write all the codices together. Ward could write the rules and Kelly the fluff. I think Kelly writes good rules, but splitting it that way would play into the strengths of both authors, not to mention create a stronger connection between codices.

If the same team writes all the dexes, it stands to reason GW would improve the power balance/fluff consistency between dexes. Add some of the world's best power gamers to the team, and I think you'd have a winning combination.

For example, we all cried foul when Ward wrote the Necron Blood Angel team up in the BA dex. However, since he also authored the Necron dex ultimately changing how the Necrons work, it all makes a lot more sense now. Since he wrote both dexes, there's now consistency and it all fits together quite nicely. 



Personally I think all of Ward's 5th ed codices are more interesting than their 4th ed predecessors. Just think of all the really cool new units he's introduced to Space Marines, Blood Angels, Grey Knights, and now Necrons. I can't really think of a complaint on that front. 

It's really his fluff that's bothered me. I didn't like the overwhelming Ultramarine fluff and special character focus in the 5th ed. marine dex, and felt some of the BA and GK fluff was over the top. On the flip side, I felt Kelly nailed Space Wolf and Dark Eldar fluff. I really think these two guys would make a good combo. Add in the power gamer team to expose all the possible abuses or inadequacies of a new dex through extensive play testing, and I think the quality of our 40K experience would shoot up several notches.

Sure GW play tests their new dexes, but I think they need to bring in people from the outside who know how to abuse a dex. Reading the battle reports in WD and seeing the disparity between certain dexes, I'm not convinced GW knows how to do this properly. Bringing in some ringers would help expose possible overpowered/underpowered problems _*before*_ print. Who knows... might even reduce the number of needed FAQ's as well.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Uber Ork said:


> Add in the power gamer team to expose all the possible abuses or inadequacies of a new dex through extensive play testing, and I think the quality of our 40K experience would shoot up several notches.
> 
> Sure GW play tests their new dexes, but I think they need to bring in people from the outside who know how to abuse a dex. Reading the battle reports in WD and seeing the disparity between certain dexes, I'm not convinced GW knows how to do this properly. Bringing in some ringers would help expose possible overpowered/underpowered problems _*before*_ print. Who knows... might even reduce the number of needed FAQ's as well.


That's the problem, GW does have external playtesters but they rarely take suggestions. If they opened it up to more people then they'd have to worry about their precious secrecy which everyone knows is the most important thing ever, more important even than selling stuff. -__-


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

Katie Drake said:


> That's the problem, GW does have external playtesters but they rarely take suggestions. If they opened it up to more people then they'd have to worry about their precious secrecy which everyone knows is the most important thing ever, more important even than selling stuff. -__-


Quite understandable but there is that saying that too many cooks spoil the broth.

Taking advice from so many sources in my opinion would confuse the issue and i suspect GW came to that conclusion many years ago.

The best solution is to have what Uber Ork suggests

Ward does the Rules and Kelly covers the Fluff. Easy Peasy, possible headache avoided.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> That's the problem, GW does have external playtesters but they rarely take suggestions. If they opened it up to more people then they'd have to worry about their precious secrecy which everyone knows is the most important thing ever, more important even than selling stuff. -__-


Ah, I didn't realize that. I thought they were doing that less and less over the years for the exact same reason you mention. Secrecy. However, if they still do employ outside play-testers then maybe I should amend what I said to this... how about GW actually listens to input from outside play-testers then.

I also think it couldn't hurt to bring in the 'ardest 'ard boyz they can find into the mix. Give them the early version of rules and tell them to abuse away. They'll quite naturally find all the killer combos and swiftly compose lists of absolute cheese. Have them play against the power lists from current codices to see how the new dex fares.

Doing this would quickly tell the codex authors if what they've written is high powered verses other dexes (IG, SW's, etc.), or if it's underpowered (nids, etc.). Hopefully this would translate into GW being able to identify and fix problem's prior to print and make all of our gaming experiences that much better. The same could be done concerning new rule editions. Play-testing not just the game mechanics but how it effects each army.

Maybe the travesty that was 5th edition + 4th ed. necrons, or the sadness that is 5th ed. Tyranids could have been avoided. Sure the Necrons have their new dex now... but how long did they have to wait, and how long will the nids be made to wait until their dex is redone again? 

As to secrecy, I do understand GW's concern. However, reality TV shows are able to get their contestants to sign secrecy clauses threatening major fines/legal action if they spill the beans. It seems to work well for them, I don't see why the same wouldn't work for GW.






.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I will give matt one thing he sure knows how to make a interesting and flexible army. I should know CSM's despite being a competitive force showed virtually no flexibility or interesting codex specific abilities or rules.

Case in point Matt seems unafraid to complicate things a bit by adding unit specific wargear and abilities. While the CSM book decided that one of the most random ass armies in the game should simply have a bunch of universal special rules slapped onto sum marines to add character. Hell another thing in m|Matts favor compared to the rules style of the 4th edd is the fact that flavoring elements are actually useful and not just their for suicidal idiots. Beasts of nurgle, spawn, ect.

Yet I still got to say for all his rules and what not the man is not a good fiction writer. He really should get someone to write the fluff while he focuses on the rules to express the armies.


----------



## chino101 (Nov 11, 2011)

*idea*

ok i love what matts doing rule wise. he is 'switching' it up a bit, having fun with it aswell.. i dont always read the fluff of the stuff though, if i have a spare time on the toilet i will lol. but thats not the point, the point is, his fluff isnt up to scratch, maybe if he was paired with adam troke, i grew up with this guy in my childhood and he is an awesome guy who writes amazing pieces. it sucks he hasnt written anything in a while. but. if they were paired. matts rules. adams fluff. youd have a best selling book right there.


----------



## Grimskul25 (Feb 17, 2009)

It's mainly his way of storytelling that puts me off from the codices he makes; small details like Imperial Fists, Raven Guard and Salamanders seeing Roboute Guilliman as their spiritual liege (*facepalm*) and hinting that they try to "aspire" to be as good as Ultramarines. Draigo in particular is a trainwreck. What was meant to portray a hopeless neverending battle where Draigo is stuck in the Warp essentially doing nothing while the Grey Knights lose a Grand Master is utterly destroyed by Matt Ward's writing of how he does extremely "damaging" as well as ridiculous things like burning down Nurgle's garden, beating the crap of a bloodthirster in its domain while reforging its axe into a weapon for himself.... 

Besides that in terms of Necrons one thing I find people to often miss is the fact that Ward "improving" the Necrons is not really that great a feat. It would be very hard for him in fact to screw them over anymore than before since the 3rd. ed book was bland, overpowered and extremely thin in terms of both gameplay and fluff. While I appreciate that he seems to be getting slightly better at the writing game than when he started off with the Space Marines codex I'm still extremely wary of letting him near other much more established xenos like Orks; the last thing we Ork players want are Goffs having a meaningful partnership with Tyranids or Tau.


----------

