User talk:TheBadageBoys

Would you mind explaining to me what fluff Matt Ward changed in 7th ed and 8th ed Daemons that was so reviled? Could you also reveal this mystery second army book that was made to fix what he wrote, even though the only other Daemon book made past that point was also written by him?

You're acting as if Daemons in 8th were unplayably broken when that was no longer the case, 7th edition Daemons in 8th lost to Skaven, High Elves and Dark Elves, just to name a few. -- Triacom (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• 8th edition was what began creeping in things that would later be focal to the End Times, including more connections of Aelves and Eldar, and the notion that to that point Chaos only failed to conquer the world when it chose not to, or to quote, "got bored." These remain pretty heavily reviled statements. I also never said there was a second book, it instead came from forums, their site, and an update to correct or adjust some units, and I didn't say Daemons were unplayable in 8th either. I outright said 8th fixed them and made them playable. They were totally busted in 7th facing 7th armies however. I don't wanna seem like a dick or do edit wars, I just don't get what you have contention with when my edits were consistent to the rest of the article. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You said there wasn't a second book?

"There was an updated codex made specifically because of what he screwed up-"

"I also never said there was a second book-"

And there's this:

"-and I didn't say Daemons were unplayable in 8th. I outright said 8th fixed them and made them playable."

Pick one or the other, because you can't have both. Either they made an updated army book (not a Codex) or they didn't, and they were either playable or unplayable. As for your other points, Chaos has failed before then for a number of reasons, but getting bored was exactly what led to the End Times happening. Choosing not to conquer the world never came up because Daemons couldn't venture far from the poles because they'd begin to fade away. Ward also includes a number of cases in his book where Daemons get beaten back by people, not because the Daemons just up and left (an idea created by the Storm of Chaos campaign, well before Ward had anything to do with Daemons), but because they genuinely lost, most notable is when a King manages to kill two Bloodthirsters. The connection with the Elves you talk about has been there well before the 6th edition books came out (hell, it's the reason the pre-7th ed Daemonettes look extremely similar to Witch Elves) and he didn't have anything to do with the 40k Codices or their connection to the Eldar so I'll assume you're mis-remembering. I don't want an edit war either, that's why I'm asking what you think he changed. -- Triacom (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A quick point on your updated edit, you're listing your point as if the 8th ed Daemon book was what finally made the army playable again, when as I've already pointed out to you, they were losing in 8th ed to several armies well before their 8th ed book came out. -- Triacom (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It did, but if we're talking 8th edition Daemons of Chaos, that's what kicked out the idea of them losing fair and square, and only losing when their gods don't want to win. This was never a thing in any earlier fluff, not to the best of my knowledge anyhow, and it still is something hated by fans. This isn't in 7th edition, that may be where the confusion is, though 7th edition's fluff was still quite disliked for different reasons all its own. The connection with Elves became a "thing" as it were in 8th edition, not earlier. That draws criticism too, but that's not something Ward invented, so I list no specifics. I'm not misremembering that bit. Indeed, it was 8th that made it playable. They were somewhat weaker and didn't go well with 8th's redone rules, so really whichever way you look at it it was their 8th codex that made them playable. And don't get me wrong, I totally get where you're coming from. I just think there's pretty solid grounds to say Ward changed a whole lot and not for the better, which is pretty much the whole point of the article to begin with. He doesn't have very many defenders and for good reason I believe. Far as the updated book goes that was my fault and an inaccurate edit which I did rectify. Some of my edits overall were a bit rough and I tweaked them accordingly. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Just a quick flip through the pages of his 8th ed Daemon book shows time after time after time that they lost because they were beaten back. Settra kills a Great Unclean One and banishes a Daemon Horde, an Ogre Tyrant takes on and kills a Bloodthirster, the Slann close a breach that otherwise would've been permanently open, the gods team up with Malekith to destroy the vortex and lose, the list goes on. This isn't at all because their gods didn't want them to win. As I mentioned before, the idea that Daemons could take on the entire world and win so long as the world was swamped in magic was something entrenched before 6th edition, back when the Vortex was first introduced and was a focal part of the Storm of Chaos campaign. I can find one mention of that in the Dark Elves 4th edition book when Malekith was made enough to think he could take Ulthuan by destroying the Vortex.

As for 7th ed, if you're not going to mention why it was so reviled, then those mentions should be deleted on the main page as you're not supporting your claim with anything.

"The connection with Elves became a "thing" as it were in 8th edition, not earlier."

Weird, you should tell that to Gav Thorpe because I don't think he got your memo. It most definitely was a thing well before 7th edition, in 6th was when it became deeply rooted in and in Storm of Chaos they even decided to have an army list built around it.

"I just think there's pretty solid grounds to say Ward changed a whole lot and not for the better-"

Could you let me know what lore changes he did in 7th that were so reviled then? -- Triacom (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record do you have the revisions you're talking about? Because I downloaded the FAQ's on their site for the various armies and not only were they not there, but I don't recall their changes being anything like what the 6th edition Dark Elves went through. I think you're really overselling it. -- Triacom (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you not check the timeline of events? Where the Chaos gods "grow bored on the eve of victory" and allow Sigmar to win? That's not even the only instance of similar phrasing. Yes, the idea that, unchecked, the Daemons could overrun the world is there, and has been, but isn't what I'm referring to. And likewise, I really have no idea what you're referring to about the Aelves and Eldar connection coming from the Storm of Chaos, at all. I'm well aware it was Thorpe who established that, and is one of his own most reviled changes, but that was a very late-stage change he consulted on, when Fantasy became Medieval 40,000. However, at this point we're just arguing our own opinions on when and where certain changes came from, the specifics. The point moreover is that the additions Matt made weren't taken well, including his fluff additions and the fluff he traced from. If you think this is just my own opinion, feel free to look around at discussions from now and back then. The balance changes got the most hate, but no one ever praised the fluff, not for 7th and especially not for 8th. Note that in my edit I made it clear too the reaction to the fluff of 7th was much less negative in comparison to 8th, while conversely 8th's rules were much less hated than 7th's. I'm not sure how you'd want me to rephrase that, and if you want me to remove the edits entirely, I'm not sure why. Other sections talk of fluff being passable, good, or bad, so why not the ones with Daemons of Chaos, which received extensive criticism of their fluff and rule content alike? TheBadageBoys (talk) 03:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I should also add the introductory text, which got the brunt of critique, for 8th, states that it's not the valor or skill of mortals that saves them, but the Chaos gods having other interests and fighting each other. It sets the tone for the whole book, one of "It's their world, you're just living in it" that understandably pisses off those who care about any other armies. This was never present in any other book prior. TheBadageBoys (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Did you not read any other entry on that page? There's one account of the chaos gods growing bored, and six accounts of them outright losing, as every other entry there shows they lost and not of their own volition. The claim about them "only losing when their gods don't want to win" is outright false. As for the Elves, I didn't say that Storm of Chaos was the one that gave them the connection, I said that it was so prevalent even then that they had an army list made from it. If you're aware Thorpe was the one who established it then why did you claim Ward did it in 8th edition when we both know that's not true? For that matter, why do you keep mentioning the Eldar as if Ward had anything to do with making their connection? We're not arguing opinions, you're claiming stuff that provably isn't true and not answering questions like what Daemon lore Matt Ward changed. You claimed that it was 8th edition that kicked off the idea they only lose when they want to when we both know that didn't happen, and we both know the idea that if they could run rampant would destroy the world also wasn't Ward's so what is it? Speaking of shit that didn't happen, you say "That's not even the only instance of similar phrasing-" However any other instances certainly didn't happen in the timeline of events because there were no others like that. The vast majority of occurrences in the timeline are defeats, so stop pretending as if the book's acting as if they cannot possibly be stopped unless they choose to stop.

"Other sections talk of fluff being passable, good, or bad, so why not the ones with Daemons of Chaos, which received extensive criticism of their fluff and rule content alike?"

The rules are already slammed in the article, slamming them again in the same entry is redundant and slamming the fluff was fine if you could mention anything negative about it that he either added or changed, so far you have not. All you've done is say "It's so bad!" But when asked to describe why you've just pointed either to actions done by other people, or stated something that wasn't true. -- Triacom (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Somehow forgot to address your final paragraph, every fucking book talks up the army that it's for. Every fucking book. This isn't new and the chaos gods losing because the fall to in-fighting is something that was established long before 8th edition, their hatred for each other is why them uniting in the first place is so rare. The Skaven book says practically the exact same thing, yet people didn't have a hate-boner for Vetock so it was fine. The book also makes it clear later on that without magic and will to empower them, the Daemons can't continuously ravage the world and anyone who's using just that one specific point is using it out of context, especially if they want to ignore the many times the Daemons have lost. -- Triacom (talk) 04:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Also forgot to mention this, if you want to bring up how people were really upset over the Daemons in-fighting destroying their forces, you should also bring up how people were pissed that there wasn't enough in-fighting that would cause the Daemons to lose their forces. I remember more than enough forum posts of those and even now you can find old threads on google about that. -- Triacom (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree with your first point, I really do. We both know the Daemons lose, as do the Chaos gods, and it's not because they don't want to win. The problem is we're using logic and a touch of common sense taking a look at all the other material, while Ward was notorious for having a view very much centered on his own book, his own fluff, and his own rules and none others, hence why his first go at it was so horribly unbalanced it broke the meta for a while. In his mind Chaos only losing when it chooses to was truth, and even though we know it isn't, the fact he wrote it that way is what causes contention. That's one big reason Ward is rightly hated, for never taking other material into consideration and just putting out his ideas as the only ideas that matter. He's not a collaborative storyteller or rulemaker by any means. And, once again, I never said Ward made up the Elf changes, only that he perpetuated him, and whether right or wrong some fans blamed him on that too. This isn't what I put in the article though so I'm not sure why the detail matters that much. If fans didn't like him for his fluff and his rules, they didn't like him. It doesn't matter if he himself was wrong and made a ton of glaring mistakes, that's the whole idea. And, yes, every book talks up its own faction, but ultimately it was the conjecture in his book that became the final 'canon' of the setting, which in turn gets him plenty of hate. What I will say I also agree on to an extent is it's redundant, but again if the other "highlights" of Ward's writing touch on how good or how bad the fluff is, why can't Daemons of Chaos when it got unanimous hatred for both fluff and rules as well? Why does it get a pass if it's probably one of the most egregious examples of Ward screwing up? TheBadageBoys (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If we both know they lose, and if we both know that Ward included this in his book, why are you claiming that he's the one who kicked off the idea that Daemons only lose when they want to? I didn't even need to look at other material to disprove that point, all I had to do was look at Ward's book and your claim immediately fell apart. The only time I needed to look at other material is when you claimed he was the one who established a connection between the Elves (false) and the Eldar (also false) when both of those were Gav Thorpe.

"In his mind Chaos only losing when it chooses to was truth-"

Bullshit, now you're just lying to yourself. If this was the truth he wouldn't have written a shitload of other times where they lost because they were genuinely beaten. He didn't write it that way at all.

"That's one big reason Ward is rightly hated, for never taking other material into consideration and just putting out his ideas as the only ideas that matter."

This is also untrue, one of the big things Ward has done is take ideas from previous material and attempt to put new spins on them. Unfortunately there's many times in which he fails to do it right, and sometimes he's really fucked it up with his portrayal (the Grey Knights killing Sisters of Battle come to mind, which was something established about them back in the days of Rogue Trader), but the vast majority of things he includes are ideas that were created years or decades before the edition he's writing for.

"He's not a collaborative storyteller or rulemaker by any means."

Also untrue. He an extensive playtester for Fantasy 8th edition and he would keep throwing out new ideas and ways to change the system with the other writers so that he could hear their thoughts on the matter. He's also come up with some of the most liked rules for 40k (Eldar Battle Focus comes to mind) even though his name doesn't appear in the books his rule(s) appeared in, you have to look at designer interviews for that where they mention he was one of the collaborators.

"And, once again, I never said Ward made up the Elf changes, only that he perpetuated him-"

"The connection with Elves became a "thing" as it were in 8th edition, not earlier."

You fucking liar. I can scroll up to see right here that you did say Ward came up with the Elf changes because he was the one who was behind the 8th edition stuff. Claiming that it became a thing in 8th edition but not by Ward is the same as claiming it magically appeared through thin air without any writer writing it down. If you want to claim he only perpetuated it though, then your claim that he changed the fluff for the worst falls flat since that means he didn't change shit. Your claim that he's notorious for ignoring other works also falls flat since that would mean he wasn't ignoring past works.

"This isn't what I put in the article though-"

Sure it is, I asked you what fluff changes he made that were so reviled and your response so far has been the Elf/Eldar changes, and the idea that Daemons only lose when they want to. Since those are your only two points, either they're the only reasons you changed the article, or you have other reasons you're not sharing for no given reason.

"It doesn't matter if he himself was wrong and made a ton of glaring mistakes, that's the whole idea."

That's the only part that does matter, fans not liking him is no justification for saying that the fluff's worse than ever when he didn't change shit. If you want to say that it's worse than ever you need to explain why it's so bad, and you haven't done that aside from lying about it.

"And, yes, every book talks up its own faction, but ultimately it was the conjecture in his book that became the final 'canon' of the setting-"

And seeing as how he was gone from the company by the time the End Times came out, how is that his fault? He had nothing to do with the final 'canon' of the setting.

"but again if the other "highlights" of Ward's writing touch on how good or how bad the fluff is, why can't Daemons of Chaos when it got unanimous hatred for both fluff and rules as well?"

I already told you, the rules section was already slammed as breaking the game several times in the same paragraph that you again stated it broke the game. That's redundant and shouldn't be included. If you want to include the fluff being hated by the fans, either you need to include how Ward screwed it up, or you need to include how people hate it despite it not actually differing from what was already established.

"Why does it get a pass if it's probably one of the most egregious examples of Ward screwing up?"

Because you've yet to explain how Ward screwed up the fluff. Every single time you've responded to me you've immediately tried to backtrack from your previous points as soon as I call you out on this bullshit. -- Triacom (talk) 16:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Alright man, at this point it's all an argument of opinion. I've given my reasons why I think it's valid to say he messed up, you've given me your reasons why you think it isn't valid to say that, and beyond that for both of us it's just become whether or not we agree with what we think justifies it, and then too what we think is good or bad. I think if so many of the people playing it are saying it sucks, then it probably sucks, but I definitely get why not everyone would agree there, and both of those are still just opinions. This is getting us nowhere and it's nothing worth getting frustrated over, and I hope I've not caused that. How would it sound if I cut down on the text to be less redundant and removed mention of fixes being put out, keep notes that the fluff wasn't good, and leave it at that? Simple, consistent, and readable. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not an argument of opinion, you're outright stating things that aren't true. One of these arguments is backed up by facts, the other is not. If you want to definitively state that something sucks you need to state why it sucks, if you just want to list the fan backlash then that's fine, but you also wouldn't be able to argue against anybody who points out what the fans were ignoring, or when they were complete hypocrites about it.

"How would it sound if I cut down on the text to be less redundant and removed mention of fixes being put out, keep notes that the fluff wasn't good, and leave it at that? Simple, consistent, and readable."

As I've pointed out before, pretty much everything you had to say on the rules was already there, or do you mean to tell me that this: "When he wrote the 7th edition Daemons of Chaos codex, it was so overpowered, so unbalanced, that it practically destroyed the edition's overall balance and forced GeeDubs to build a whole new edition to even begin to staunch the bleeding." And this: "Ward's descent into skub and infamy begins with Army Book: Daemons of Chaos, a work of such apocalyptic cheese mongering it is widely credited for single-handedly breaking WHFB. No army could come close to beating it (Dark Elves and Vampire Counts, accepted as 2nd and 3rd powerful in the rankings, generally had to struggle to grab DRAWS!) and the failing attempts at Power Creep to match eventually broke the entire system so hard that Fantasy required a hard reset in the form of the massive shakeup that was 8th edition." Do not make the exact same point you were already trying to make about the crunch? As for the fluff, can you explain why it wasn't good and why that was Ward's fault? Because if not, then that would also need to go, which would mean that every edit you made in the past day or so would need to be reverted. -- Triacom (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I've given you pretty adequate reasons why the fluff was bad, I'm not sure what else you want there. Is overpowering the Daemons and insinuating the Chaos gods only lose when they choose to lose not enough? As I said, yes, we know it's bullshit, we know the book itself disproves that very point, but it doesn't change the fact the book tries to make that point in the first place, going above and beyond the standard fare of talking up its own army into trying to drag down the others to do so, and once again yes, it's just an example of Ward's flawed writing and it contradicts its own material, but that doesn't mean it isn't there or that those aren't valid criticisms of Ward. TheBadageBoys (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You've given three reasons: He made the connection between Daemons and both the Elves and the Eldar, I proved that wrong as that was Gav Thorpe. He kicked off the idea that Daemons only lost when they want to, something you restate here. I proved that wrong and now you're pretending that not only didn't I prove that wrong, but you're ignoring 90% of the page that's on and 99% of the book just so that you can take that claim out of context (you're lying when you say it and we both know it). You're also ignoring how every fucking evil faction (and even some of the good ones) tries to drag the other factions down to make their own look better. Your third claim is fans hate it for unspecified reasons, that's not a reason to say it's bad, it's only reason enough to say fans don't like it. What I want is for you to point out parts and say "This is bad because X." I'll give an example, the Grey Knights needing to kill the Sisters of Battle is complete horseshit and a stupid fucking idea. Even though it's an idea created in Rogue Trader when they would sacrifice holy individuals to create blood wards out of holy blood, which Daemons couldn't touch without serious injury, Matt Ward not only fails to explain the process of creating the blood wards, making it feel like it came out of left field, but the way in which it's presented makes it look like there was an alternative so it seems like the Grey Knights only butchered the Sisters because they wanted to.

That's what I expect to see, not just "This book is bad because I don't like it." That's not justification for anything, if you want to say you subjectively don't like something then that's fine, but you cannot force your opinion into the main page as if it were fact. -- Triacom (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You keep accusing me of lying and I really don't get why. However, I think for now the article gets the point across well without really needing anything further added to it. Bickering over detail isn't really going to help it much and really I don't think my edits added anything. Anyone coming to the article who doesn't like 8th's fluff will know why they didn't like it and will know it sucked, they don't need an article to tell them that, and you're correct in that Ward's erroneous claim is disproven in its own book anyway. I'll revert my edits, though now I'm just pissed because you reminded me of how bad his Grey Knight stuff is. Just... fuck, dude. I see your point. TheBadageBoys (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I was accusing you of lying because you're stating stuff that you know and have admitted isn't true, like the first two points I brought up above. It's a little frustrating when I can point out why those are wrong, and then you ignore what I've said to try and make the same claim again without refuting anything, instead claiming that facts are just opinions. If you could bring up and explain other reasons for why the fluff is terrible or refute my points then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Here, I'll play devil's advocate for why the claim that the chaos gods' could destroy the world but for their rivalries is 100% correct as an example to refute your point: to take in the forces of the chaos gods, we must also include their mortal champions. If they had never fought against each other and worked together (keep in mind this includes both the Warriors of Chaos and the Beastmen), then the forces the dark gods have would be far larger than even the hordes the Everchosen had, since they wouldn't lose entire armies to one themselves. With those forces they really could bring about the end of the world and Ward's correct in that infighting is the only thing preventing that from occurring. Now to stop playing devil's advocate, even though he's right Ward did a really shitty job of making that point, since its meaning can be easily confused with something else. -- Triacom (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Two more questions, do you have the sales records showing there was a spike in Daemons sales after Wards book because of the cheese, and do you have evidence that Ward's job was in danger if there wasn't a spike? I'm asking because you wrote it as if you knew and that he'd be fired if sales didn't increase. Seeing as how the company lost a shitload in its stocks and sales after the 7th edition Tyranids codex and no writers were fired, I highly doubt it. -- Triacom (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Man, I think we're just gonna have to come to an agreement of disagreement. I don't think this is getting anywhere and we both might have a misunderstanding of what opposing point we're trying to make. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think what I'm asking for is unreasonable, all I want is explanations. If the lore's bad then please come up with good reasons for why and try to defend those when they get refuted (if you can't defend them, they weren't good reasons). If you think Daemons sales spiked then please show the sales figures or something else like a spike in stock. For example, I claimed that Tyranids was a bust because you can easily link its release to their stocks falling. The Tyranids codex came out in January 2014, the company experienced extremely low sales, their stock fell by 24%. If you think Ward was in danger of getting fired then just show evidence that his position was in jeopardy. It's pretty easy to back that up and if I was putting that info on the Tyranid page without backing it up I wouldn't be surprised if I was called out on it. -- Triacom (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not that it's unreasonable, it's that your counter to my points is your opinion on them, but in the first place my points are my opinions too, so that's why nothing really gets anywhere. Saying that Ward's career was saved and he was kept on for "goodboy points" is half-joking, I'm not trying to seriously bring up sales charts and stuff on it, but hey, we know sales picked up and the company in that era was really heading into the shitter, so maybe that's actually what happened, maybe it isn't, but I meant it as a joke. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

What part of my counter is opinion? Pointing out that what you said isn't true? That's not opinion, that's fact against falsehood. I also already went over how none of your points were opinion either, you've written them as facts and stated them as facts, and that's why I've accused you of lying. Saying that Ward's career was saved also is stated as being a fact, you might think you're telling a good joke but tone doesn't translate through text. The company during that time also wasn't heading into the shitter, that happened much later (the stocks I list was when people were seriously worried GW was dying). -- Triacom (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You've stated opinion, not fact, of why Ward's fluff is good, or at least not bad, while I've stated my points, also opinion even if citing other players, that it's bad, or at least not good. That's what I'm talking about here. Again the last part there is a joke. GW most definitely was heading into the shitter at that time too, it's generally around that period that stuff started coming down even if the stocks hadn't yet plummeted. Given the rest of the article's tone I'm not sure if a line about Ward having goodboy points is out of place, or if it needs some kind of professional citation of financial estimates. It's a joke. It's good to talk about these things rather than do an edit war though, I appreciate that. I've reverted the edits we talked about though as I agree that they were redundant, and I'm going to leave it at that. TheBadageBoys (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It isn't opinion that he didn't create the connection between the Elves, the Eldar and the Daemons. It isn't opinion that he didn't kick off the idea that Daemons lost only when they want to. I'd list a third point but you didn't have anything beyond those two. It's debatable on when GW started their downhill trend, and while I'd agree that it was around that time, they wouldn't get rid of their forums and community pages until much later, that's when things started getting really bad. See, now that's opinion, unlike your earlier points because we can't point to a definitive answer. I'm also willing to bet that if you showed your joke to somebody, that Ward's career was saved because he supposedly made GW money, that nobody would catch on to it, but you don't see me stating that opinion as if it's a fact. -- Triacom (talk) 02:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you at least explain why you want to lie about Ward? If you don't stop adding it to the page, I'll have to ask for a suspension since you've given up on talking. -- Triacom (talk) 23:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you really want me to provide intricate financial chart citations to make a disparaging joke about one of the most disparaged people in the history of tg? A joke that's not even stated as fact and doesn't clutter up the article? That provides a probably reasonable explanation as to why despite backlash and failure he didn't get shitcanned way back then? Something players have bantered about before? If it's truly fact or truly false doesn't really matter when it's presented as a jab. If you like him, by all means do, it's not my place to tell you not to, but otherwise I really can't tell at this point where you're having problems with my edit. If you think there's an issue feel free to ask a mod to step in. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I want you to provide proof you're not lying. Nothing about that little fact you put there is a joke, and it's definitely stated as a fact, claiming it isn't is yet another lie, as is claiming it's presented as a jab (you either have no clue what jabs are, or you're lying to keep it on the page). The problems I have with your edit is that it isn't true, and when I confronted you about your edits here you've lied to me directly time after time after time. Put simply, I don't see why I should put up with them any longer. -- Triacom (talk) 23:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Very well, since you've asked for a moderator to step in on your recent summary, I've now asked them directly. -- Triacom (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you at least tell me why it's so important to you to make up lies and put them on the main page? -- Triacom (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Ain't trying to lie, we gotta agree to disagree and see what take a moderator has on this. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

But you are, when you present something as fact despite knowing it isn't, that is a lie. Why is doing that so important to you? Also you can say we need to agree to disagree all you want, but you're not doing that, you're telling me that's what should happen and then reverting any edits you didn't make. -- Triacom (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to wait for a mod's resolution on this. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

So in other words, you're not interested in answering, you just want to get your way? -- Triacom (talk) 01:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Whichever way the mods decide is fine to me. We've explained our sides. If my edits seem like I've been trying to lie or the conversation with you, I'm sorry you feel that way. It's really not been my intention. At this point I feel like it'd do more good to just let it be arbitrated than to argue it further. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Since you asked for arbitration

It's fair to remark that there was an official "7.5" update to the Daemon codex with rule changes (I don't understand the system well enough to comment on what exactly changed, but it looks like there were some toughness nerfs?). Cracking wise about intentionally committing cheese to sell models is a bit far, though. --AssistantWikifag (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)