User talk:TheBadageBoys

From 1d4chan
Jump to: navigation, search

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[edit]

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)

I'm not arguing against cracking wise about it, I'm against declaring that was the purpose of it while forgetting to add a joke. I did not download the update when it was available but as I mentioned above, from what I remember it wasn't the same as the Dark Elves 6.5 update, which was a much larger revamp. -- Triacom (talk) 02:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at this. If the cheese-sell jab is too much, I have no problem removing it. TheBadageBoys (talk) 02:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

On Morkar[edit]

Can you direct me to the page where the Chaos Gods and Morkar lost the fight with Sigmar because they got bored? All I'm seeing is they lost the fight with Vorkhan Jarl, not Morkar. -- Triacom (talk) 04:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

My bad, it's Jarl, not Morkar. TheBadageBoys (talk) 08:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The way you write makes it seem like you're new to WHFB, the setting doesn't have a cohesive timeline and writers have always slotted events in like that whenever they've wanted. It's not a shock that it happened here and it makes it look like you've got double-standards, the only real difference is they normally do it to factions that aren't the Empire. Figured I'd mention that before altering or removing it. -- Triacom (talk) 09:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I should also mention the Empire at the time would've been tents set up in clearings and possibly small huts, since this was only 30 years after its formation and it's citizens would still be nearly entirely roaming tribesmen. Saying "the Empire is nearly in ruins" doesn't mean much since there was next to nothing to ruin. -- Triacom (talk) 09:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
No idea where you're coming from with double standards. Can't think of any other instance where a faction "lets" another one win because they'd be bored if that faction lost. Sounds like pretty blatant and pointless faction-wank to me and a pretty good example of Ward's shortcomings. TheBadageBoys (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
And the idea of the Empire being still disunited tribesmen that late into it, I doubt it. Besides, whether it's a primitive tribe or a full imperial state the biggest problem is this massive daemon invasion occurs in the span of a single page, comes out of nowhere, and really serves no other purpose to the setting as a whole other than to make the daemons look strong. Books make their own events all the time obviously but they usually have consequence to and precedence of the setting as a whole, which this doesn't, and it's one of Ward's habits in his writing. He very often makes use of madeup events that either don't make sense or would be a very big deal (both applicable to this example), makes them a footnote, then forgets they even happened. Imagine if in High Elves 8th there's a single paragraph story of Beastmen invading Ulthuan, almost taking it over, and the High Elves having to bring out a giant laser cannon to stop them and doing so because the Beastmen are bored of Elves. The premise makes no sense, it's over in less than a page, it has no consequence, has no precedence at all in the setting, and is never mentioned again. The faction-wank just tops it off. TheBadageBoys (talk) 09:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
And to clarify, it goes both ways. If in Empire 8th there's a paragraph box about Sigmar marching up and conquering all of Norsca then leaving because he got bored, that'd be stupid too. TheBadageBoys (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I said it looks like you had double standards because you're surprised that there was a new fight included, not because the Daemons left because they were uninterested in that victory. That's not surprising, authors will invent things like new Dwarf holds at the drop of a hat just so they can destroy them in a paragraph to make their faction seem stronger. Also being 30 years into the Empire's founding doesn't mean they'd have cities and I never said they weren't united, I said that they were still tribesmen at that point which is true. Their cities were only built hundreds of years later. "Books make their own events all the time obviously but they usually have consequence to and precedence of the setting as a whole-" I'm sorry, but that's not true. As I just mentioned, plenty of books will have events pop in out of nowhere that have no overall consequence and just serve to make the faction look more badass. I'm having trouble thinking of an army book that doesn't do this, with arguably the worst appearing in a Dark Elves book where a massive battle now took place against the Dark Elves and Bretonnians. That alone would've been fine, had the writers any clue how cavalry worked. Let's also put that invasion in context: would they have killed Sigmar? No, they couldn't take him down with their greatest champions and they didn't have them here. Would they much rather prefer trapping Sigmar in a prison he could not escape and could not help his people from while bringing the Empire down from a much greater height? I don't doubt that for a second. If you really want to look at faction wars though, Grimgor got bored and let the Skaven win their war against him on the eve of his victory and wandered off with his horde, yet nobody is pissed about that one. If he didn't get bored he would've taken out some of the most powerful members of Clan Moulder. There's also White Dwarf articles you can find where Daemons will intentionally let mortals win in order to screw them over later, my favourite is one where a Lord of Change has been following a Witch Hunter for his entire life, just so that when the Witch Hunter finally confronts him, he'll be aged into an old man incapable of doing anything to defend himself or accomplish his mission. That's not that strange, and Daemons pulling back from setting a few trees and tents on fire because they want to have a go at one another also isn't strange, yet you're acting like it is. You're treating the Daemons as if they're humans with a human agenda when they're not. -- Triacom (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Honestly though, what lasting effect would this Daemon invasion have if they hadn't left? They're not going to kill Sigmar because they weren't able to with a much greater force, they're not going to stick around because as soon as the winds of magic fades they'll fade away with them, they're not going to cause lasting damage because there's nothing more than tents and huts to destroy, both of which can easily be rebuilt, so what would it have done? -- Triacom (talk) 17:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
You're catching on that 8th is generally really bad as far as the story fluff is concerned. I think nobody's too upset about Grimgor, because it wasn't Orcs that would eventually be the ones who destroyed the world by becoming writers pets and being layered with plot armor. It's still dumb, and you could even interpret it that it's an Orc point of view, given how they say retreating in panic is just "comin' back fer anuvver go" later. This is harder to put that way from a single date box mention, and again, Grimgor didn't end up destroying the world and laughing in the players faces about it. Not that that specifically is why it needs to be mentioned, not at all, I think it's a good question why people didn't get pissed about a similar thing and that's my two cents as to why. TheBadageBoys (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Daemons don't have human agendas no, but they still have logic and consistency. Letting a very challenging and threatening enemy win on a big scale because you're bored makes no logical sense, or the fact that a huge daemon army just materializes post-Vortex with no major effort makes even less logical sense. I think that's where some people get the implication that Chaos could win anytime it wanted to but chose not to, and they get rightfully (IMO) pissed about it. That's just opinion though. What's more objective in terms of the article is having a big ass daemon legion manifest once then never again, to invade the Empire for one sentence and never get talked about again, to end with a punchline of Chaos not winning because it got bored. It's senseless from multiple perspectives. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh I'm not denying that 8th is bad in those regards, I'm point out that he's not out of the norm in that fact. If you want to write something about how 8th had lowered the bar or worse writing in general and that he fit better with it as a result I wouldn't have a problem with it, however the way it's written makes it sound like a shock that he could add an event like that when pretty much every writer was doing it. For Grimgor, you can't just ignore the event like that because of something that happened after the book was written, that's entirely unfair to both books. If it's an Orc thing to leave because they get bored then why isn't it a Daemon thing seeing as how capriciousness is part of their nature? They don't have logic and consistency, they have emotions and hold grudges, and that's pretty much it. You can piss them off a lot or appease them a lot, but they live in the moment and you can easily go from one extreme to another and that's always been the case. While the book doesn't make it clear how the Daemons appeared after that, I didn't think it was that odd since they can easily be summoned by anyone who knows how, and sustained as long as the winds of magic blow strongly. We're not given an indication that it didn't take major effort and this sort of thing isn't a surprise seeing as how summoned Daemon hordes have been used like this before and after this event, Tamurkhan comes to mind as far as an endgame plot device goes. We're also never given any indication what the size of the Daemon army is, you keep saying it's a big ass horde, but considering what they're up against it could be a relatively small incursion by modern-day standards, the type of thing the Empire at its peak wouldn't have much of a problem in dealing with. -- Triacom (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking a little bit on this on my way to work today. While this is internally consistent, I think it might have the same problem as the bit I mentioned in his 5th edition Grey Knights Codex: It assumes the reader is already on board. To get into that a little, Matt Ward assumes that the reader already has background knowledge of Daemons and their natures, and so doesn't do a good job at explaining to a new reader what Daemons are. Their nature is spread out not only over the entire book, but throughout the 8th edition rulebook and other army books as well as the previous Daemon book, and only by reading all of these do you get the full impression that he wants you to have. If you want to mention the book has a problem in getting certain problems across to new readers that would also be fine, but I will still point out that as far as lore goes, he's still being internally consistent. -- Triacom (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I still disagree that it's internally consistent. It's an apparently cataclysmic invasion that is never talked about before, afterward, or even in the same book, it violates the idea that the Vortex keeps daemons from coming into the world in any sizeable number - and to that, that the gods can often intervene to prevent it, which they don't do here smack dab in the Empire because...? - and given it's forgotten about in one page it really has no impact on anything else or significance. It's an illogical, inconsistent setpiece that goes as quick as it comes and only serves to add needless faction-wank, specifically the idea that this big daemon army that just showed up could've taken out the Empire if they hadn't gotten bored. I think it's a prime example of bad writing on Ward's part, hitting each negative trait he's known for. If you'd like to add the same on articles about Orcs and Goblins for the Grimgor v Skaven thing, go ahead too. Two wrongs don't make good fluff. TheBadageBoys (talk) 09:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
How is it cataclysmic in scale? Damn, the Daemons took down the Empire, it'll take them all of a few years (if that) to rebuild it, what a cataclysm. The Empire isn't the world, and as I said before once the winds fade the Daemons will vanish. "it violates the idea that the Vortex keeps daemons from coming into the world in any sizeable number-" Hold up, because you're entirely wrong here. Daemons have always been able to appear in legions, depending on how hard the winds are blowing and the type of summoning used to bring them in (this was even a major plot point in Storm of Chaos). What the Vortex does is prevent them from appearing in an infinite number, and it prevents them from respawning and instantly setting foot on the world again, both of which would make the Daemons impossible to overcome. The reason it seems like the other gods don't interfere in 99% of chaos invasions is because they either can't, or they're so much weaker than the chaos gods that them giving it their all is barely noticed. Most of what they offer their supporters are passive things that will help them grow into better warriors, healers etc., while the chaos gods are able to outright make their followers larger, stronger, tougher, etc. What lasting impact would burning down the Empire in that state have? Sigmar would just round everyone up again, and that's if they weren't still following his lead. Frankly I'm pretty sure every faction could've taken out the Empire at that point if they set about to it, most of the ones who might have wanted to didn't even try because they didn't realize they were there, and the ones that did try, Nagash mainly, was stupid enough to engage Sigmar directly when he could've held off and let Sigmar's will drain away (thanks to the fact that he had to wear a will-sapping device to render him safe from Nagash's magic). This also goes for Morkar, his mistake was also engaging Sigmar directly. Even Krell and his own minor forces (and I do mean undead Krell) caused a massive amount of destruction to the Empire in that state whereas the Empire in their prime would've laughed his forces off the battlefield. In the past, practically every enemy brought the Empire to its knees before Sigmar managed to kill their leader. As for Grimgor, Ward didn't write that and it's one of the things people like the most about Grimgor, that he's unpredictable and insatiable, always looking for a bigger fight than the one he's currently got. You can say that's bad writing too, but it's consistent with his character as well. -- Triacom (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I think again we'll have to agree to disagree on what we consider good, logical, and/or consistent writing. For my edit I'm mainly going off of the reaction many others, not only myself, had to the book. It's one of many reasons why a lot of guys don't even go with 8th, rules or the fluff both, because all of it was really bad. We seem to have almost polar opposite views on the fluff, the editions, and Ward, so I'm not sure a debate's going to do anything to change either of our minds, at all. Whatever your or my thoughts on it that stuff really caused skub when it came around, and for good reason. Nobody likes being told their faction sucks and another could beat it up blindfolded with its hands behind its back, especially when it's inconsistent with everything that came before it - like most of 8th. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And for my edits I'm going off of what's consistent in the setting. If the setting's already established that Daemons are capricious creatures who live in the moment, why's Ward being targeted for making them capricious creatures who live in the moment? Again, the Empire in that state wasn't a world power and everyone could've kicked their shit in, it was only later when they developed their industry that they became a true force to be reckoned with. The examples I listed like Nagash and Krell are still consistent with this blurb about Daemons in that regard, in that in all cases they brought the Empire to its knees because it had just barely been formed. -- Triacom (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
In 8th. Prior to that Nagash for example got beaten handily in a duel by Sigmar, no crown or trickery involved. It changed in 8th that he was stomping the Empire. 8th is not consistent with the rest of the setting history, and Ward is often guilty of doing this in both 40K and Fantasy. We'll have to agree to disagree man because nothing else of value for either of us can be taken from arguing. TheBadageBoys (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll need to look up when the story originally came out because I'm very certain Nagash was written to be dominating their war before Sigmar beat him, and I know for sure that bit about Krell is pre-8th edition. As for agreeing to disagree, I can't do that without pointing out on the page that the Lord's consistent. How about you wait for me to make the edit and see what you think of it? -- Triacom (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
I've explained why it isn't consistent. If you're curious on Nagash as an aside, prior to 8th he definitely intimidated and damaged the Empire, but only a single big battle was fought where Sigmar killed him and beat the invasion. Prior to that it doesn't seem like many clashes happened. Source is Undead 4th codex.TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
And I've explained why it is consistent, your reasons for why it isn't are based on false statements like "daemons are logical" or "the vortex prevents them from appearing in hordes". When you use false statements you can't claim they've proven anything. -- Triacom (talk) 23:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
You've explained either with your personal opinion or by citing the book itself. Not only is it not really consistent with itself, but even it were it's still inconsistent with everything else. I'm done debating this, and if you'd like to dispute my change I'd be fine with mod arbitration. There's nothing to gain from us arguing. You believe one way, I believe another, and it's clear we're both not budging on this. If we can't, a mod can step in if they think it's necessary. TheBadageBoys (talk) 01:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You know what the difference is? You don't have any facts backing up your edits. I've used facts both in the book and outside of it (notably the Storm of Chaos campaign), you haven't. Instead you've made bizarre claims like Daemons being logical or being unable to show up in hordes, two statements supported by nothing. That's why I say you haven't shown Ward to be inconsistent with Daemons, you can't back your argument up with anything. -- Triacom (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's an idea, since you say you go off the reaction of others for your posts, why don't we put that to the test? We can simply post your bit about it being bullshit on /tg/ while claiming that Daemons are logical beings who wouldn't leave for a more exciting fight back in the realm of chaos. Just a fun experiment to see what people think on it. -- Triacom (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I've told you why it's inconsistent. I'll try to keep my edit up unless a mod says otherwise. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

You've got no facts backing you up, how can you claim it's inconsistent? -- Triacom (talk) 23:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Man, I'm not sure what you want me to say. I've given you multiple reasons backing up why. I've explained why it isn't consistent. You've either come back talking about unrelated things, like Grimgor, or you just say I'm wrong. I ain't mad over any of this but discussing this with you is really confusing, because no matter what I say or will say you're going to deflect it or just say it isn't true, while yourself having no claims to back it up. The only example related you've given is the one where a Lord of Change waits to fight a Witch Hunter until he's old and doesn't pose a threat. That's at least vaguely related to the argument, but it's still a far cry from him waiting to kill the Hunter because he was bored and had nothing better to do. Chaos isn't here to screw around, not on a grand scale. Its gods and daemons want to win and accomplish their own goals, hoping to screw over each other and gods outside of Chaos alike, but the world provides credible resistance and retaliation for it. That's how it's always been, not that Chaos lets people live and survive because they'd be bored otherwise. That was invented, specifically, by 8th, specifically written by Ward. If they had seen Sigmar as a major threat that would throw back their efforts, them waiting until he died - and that backfiring when he becomes a god anyway - would be much more logical, consistent, and unskubby than "They got bored and left." TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I want the same thing I wanted earlier, cite a source stating Daemons are logical beings, and a source stating the vortex prevents Daemons from appearing in large numbers. You make these sorts of claims but without anything backing them up I can simply respond to an argument like "they wouldn't grow bored and leave" with "why not?" I can also look at this: "Chaos isn't here to screw around, not on a grand scale." And point out that taking down the Empire in that state gains them nothing in the grand scheme of things because there's nothing there they could permanently destroy. As such, they're literally there just to screw around. The chaos gods and their Daemons want to win at the expense of the others, and if that involves fighting in the realm of chaos we know that's what they'll do (for proof of that we only need to look at the Masque's description). The world wasn't saved in that instance by them growing bored either since the Empire is not the world, and that's the only time it's mentioned that they left because they grew bored, yet you seem to think otherwise for some reason. As for why I brought Grimgor in, that wasn't unrelated. You were saying it would be stupid if it happened to another faction, apparently unaware that it had happened with another faction, and I don't think you can find anyone willing to argue that Daemons are more logical and consistent than Orcs. -- Triacom (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Matt Ward Round 2[edit]

I've said my piece and you've said yours, and we've obviously not come to an agreement. I stand by my edit, and I respect you stand by yours. I think the only sure resolution is to get a mod to arbitrate, if they thought it necessary. TheBadageBoys (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Post up facts or delete your fiction. -- Triacom (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I've posted facts. I'm going to continue challenging your edit until we get arbitration. TheBadageBoys (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Which facts? The ones I called you out on for being fiction? The false ones like "Daemons are logical and can't appear in large numbers"? Those aren't facts, those are fiction. -- Triacom (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
For the record I gave you more than enough time to find any source in the setting, literally any that backs up your argument, you didn't post any. -- Triacom (talk) 21:59, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Each one I posted you refuted with 'nuh-uh', so again, arbitration or otherwise I'm disputing your edit. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I called bullshit and you couldn't back up your claims, if you make a claim the burden of proof is on you to prove it. If I call bullshit and you cannot prove it, then you can't claim it as fact. My arguments against it used lore from the earlier editions (like the masque entries) or previous events, like the Storm of Chaos campaign to prove what you were saying wasn't true even before Ward wrote anything for the Daemons. -- Triacom (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Your only counter is either "you're wrong" or "daemons don't have to make sense", and neither of those statements disprove anything I said in the edit. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You fucking liar. I pointed out before that Daemons enjoy fighting against one-another as much, if not more than weak human kingdoms above with both the Masque entry and I've already mentioned The Daemonic Duel entry in the previous book for more evidence of that. In that one Daemons outright ignored the nearby human settlement and all other combatants just to attack and kill each other, and your point about the vortex preventing them from appearing is disproven in that entry, nearly any previous entry in the last book, and the entries in Storm of Chaos. Saying that I'm only countering by saying you're wrong without backing it up simply isn't true, and you're ignoring any source I cite to do that. -- Triacom (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Something else I should mention is I don't even have to cite any of the sources I did, because you've never once cited a source for either of your arguments. If you can't prove it's true, you can't say it's true. -- Triacom (talk) 22:36, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
You cited literally nothing from anything besides Ward's own book that had any relevance. Look, I'm really not interested in discussing this with you further, as clearly we won't reach an agreement. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Right, if you scroll up you most definitely will not see me bring up Storm of Chaos several times right? You won't find me referencing the previous edition right? In fact, the only book I didn't use as a source for refuting your points was the 8th edition book, because I did not need to so once again you're lying. You're so full of shit and the only reason you refuse to discuss it is because you cannot find a single source that backs up anything you said. I gave you several days and you still found nothing. -- Triacom (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe you're confusing our arguments here, because I've cited books throughout and you haven't cited a damn thing. Before you want to accuse me again of refuting your argument with "nuh-uh" you should look in the mirror, because that's all you've been doing. Think about your argument for a second and think of the facts that support it, because if there are no facts backing it up, there is no argument. -- Triacom (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Your only, and I mean only, argument for why writing that Daemons got bored so they let Sigmar win isn't a bad thing, is that Daemons aren't logical. That's it, and honestly, weak doesn't begin to describe it as an argument. It is, objectively, stupid to make up a cataclysmic invasion for one sentence just so you can use it to make one faction look really good at another's expense. It has no precedent, it is dumb, and it wasn't liked: this is what fans themselves have said, and that's the general consensus on it from what I've gathered. Unless we get mod arbitration, I'm not discussing this further with you, because you've established that no matter what I say or add you're not going to budge. You say you've cited Storm of Chaos, and yes, you've used that phrase, but you never specify how you mean, what you're referring to, and why you bring it up. I'm not going to go back on this either, because you've provided nothing to challenge my point. If we're both going to be that stubborn on it, there is zero point in talking about it ourselves. TheBadageBoys (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh so Daemons aren't logical now? Funny how you were arguing something different earlier and now changed your tune. You keep claiming that incursion was "cataclysmic" when it wasn't, bringing a human kingdom that consists of tents and tribes to its knees would be child's play to literally any other faction in the setting, but of course we've already been over that. The event wasn't cataclysmic despite you claiming it is, which is another fact you cannot find a source to back you up on. It is objectively stupid to continue making these claims when you've got no facts behind your arguments. "It has no precedent-" Bullshit, in the previous book there's an entry called "A Fortunate Betrayal" where the Daemons decided that fighting each other was more worthwhile than killing the humans they were fighting, and they lost as a result. That's also ignoring The Daemonic Duel where the Daemons cared more for fighting each other than the humans, which is exactly what happened in the entry you don't like. "it is dumb, and it wasn't liked: this is what fans themselves have said-" Bullshit, you haven't posted a single source of fans complaining about it and when challenged to bring it up on /tg/ you refused. "you've established that no matter what I say or add you're not going to budge." Bullshit, I've told you in no uncertain terms, that all I want is for you to cite facts and sources with your argument, and you haven't done that. Hell, in the paragraph right before this topic I ask you to do this. "You say you've cited Storm of Chaos, and yes, you've used that phrase, but you never specify how you mean, what you're referring to, and why you bring it up." My mistake, I assumed you weren't this ignorant. In Storm of Chaos, Daemons showed up in their legions to bring waste to the world, and they were even given a shitload of new units and new characters to help them in their battles. I brought it up because it blows your complaint that the vortex prevents them from showing up in large numbers out of the water and proves that claim is false. "I'm not going to go back on this either, because you've provided nothing to challenge my point." What point? You never made any because you have nothing backing up any of your arguments, all you've done is bitch and moan that the books in the setting aren't how you want it to be while ignoring how the setting is and works. Find facts that back your points up and cite them, don't continue to make your argument only a "because I say so" type of argument. -- Triacom (talk) 23:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Citing stuff from the book in question, or trying to slide stuff in from a previous book by Ward himself, doesn't make it cohesive or sensible. This is the entire problem with his writing. Again, I'm open for arbitration, but otherwise, I'm done here. TheBadageBoys (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
If it's from the previous book in question then it's canon, trying to pretend it isn't is just stupid, and you're trying to pretend that this is suddenly only a thing with his 8th edition book when it wasn't. -- Triacom (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
For the record if you really were done here, you'd either post any source to anything that could back up your argument, or you'd leave the page alone. -- Triacom (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you know how edits work. You don't need to wait to remove edits that claim something is a fact when it isn't. -- Triacom (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Where are your facts?[edit]

You keep saying you've given facts, so please, name one. -- Triacom (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That this made-up invasion has no previous precedence at all in the lore, is irrelevant itself and gets forgotten about, and has Chaos only losing out of boredom. All things never touched on before. Citing Ward's previous book is poor in and of itself, because this is about Ward's continued misunderstanding mishandling of the series, but even then it's an individual Daemon's decision to try to one-up his fellow, whereas Ward writes this boredom withdrawal as a decision of the Chaos gods. That makes it an entirely different story from one minion screwing up, and even then he didn't do it because he was bored of winning, but because he didn't want the other Daemon to get the glory. This happens as well, and I believe you referred to it, in a battle, where the leading Nurgle Daemon gets backstabbed so a Khorne Daemon can take credit for the victory, after which the Empire leader uses the distraction to kill them and destroy their forces. That is still very different from them simply running off because they got tired of winning. Losing because you're bored in an instance made up solely for one sentence that doesn't match the logic or consistency of what came before it all for a punchline that serves to lift up one faction and tear another down is poor writing. Your example, in this case, is irrelevant to the point of contention. TheBadageBoys (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
"this made-up invasion has no previous precedence at all in the lore-" I already proved that false. The previous book has several examples of Daemon invasions occurring, as does Storm of Chaos.
"is irrelevant itself and gets forgotten about-" If that were true it wouldn't be in the book.
"and has Chaos only losing out of boredom-" Disproven by every other entry on that page. If you're trying to say that's bullshit, then explain how, because even in the same book it mentions the Daemons begin fighting each other when they're about to win, which is exactly what happens in that entry.
"All things never touched on before." We've discussed all of these and I've already proven them false earlier. Facts are not something that can be disproven. Citing the previous book to disprove your claim on the current book is using canon to prove that what you're saying isn't true. I also don't think you get that the Daemons are an extension of their diety, what they do is the will of their god.
"and even then he didn't do it because he was bored of winning, but because he didn't want the other Daemon to get the glory-" The book doesn't say why he did what he did, only speculates so don't assume you know better. Losing because you're bored fits with creatures whose whole purpose works on a whim, and we've already gone over this when I brought up how it's not unprecedented even with other factions, which is when we talked about Grimgor.
None of these claims are facts because you're claiming something that isn't true. That's called a lie. -- Triacom (talk) 00:43, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
This particular invasion was never mentioned before, that is a fact. In this particular instance Ward says they lose out of boredom, that is a fact. Third, it isn't that Ward never touched on it himself before, it's that these themes were invented by Ward himself, hence why he has a reputation for continually misunderstanding and confusing the lore. If Ward wrote, for example, that Grey Knights are actually Orks in one book, then said so in the next, it doesn't mean it isn't a nonsense statement contradicting everything else before it. That's the entire point. You can't refute it by saying: "Well, it's fine for them to be Orks, because in the last book on them he wrote them as Orks, so it's fine." Fourth, Daemons are formed by their god, but not directly possessed by them. Daemons can make their own decisions, even go rogue. Of course their gods get mad, but that doesn't stop many Daemons from acting independently. And finally for the Orks, do you know the joke of them retreating being referred to as "coming back for another go"? Even when they're fleeing for their lives screaming in terror they just say they're bored and coming back later. That's in-character, it's a funny quirk and fits them. If the Daemons were getting smashed by Sigmar, who even before becoming a god was more than capable of slaying dragon ogres, Everchosens, and Nagash, and left because there's nothing they could do, but being very prideful creatures claimed they merely got bored, that would be fine, that would be in character. Ward doesn't do this. He writes it as a matter of fact, not a character quirk or personality trait, and it lacks any logic or precedence. This is why it is wrong. I'm not lying to you, and you textshouting it at me that I am every single time you make an edit is a big reason why I don't want to discuss this with you, because what's the point? I truly think you're not going to listen to anything I have to say, and if that's the case, then we might as well stop. TheBadageBoys (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not a sin to make up a new invasion, new events that are related to the army appearing in the books has been a thing as long as there has been army books. That is a fact, if you want to claim it's bad that Ward did this, you'd have to claim every army book ever is bad for doing it. "In this particular instance Ward says they lose out of boredom-" Yeah, because Sigmar wasn't mentioned at all in that instance right? Even if the themes were created by Ward, you still need to prove why they're bad, and you'd need to prove that they were new to the 8th edition book when the 7th edition book proves they're not. At the moment you've still written "Aside from his signature shitty fluff and gross misunderstanding of Warhammer history-" When this event contradicts nothing that was established before and contradicts no established Warhammer history. "If Ward wrote, for example, that Grey Knights are actually Orks in one book, then said so in the next, it doesn't mean it isn't a nonsense statement contradicting everything else before it." It would be erroneous to put the mistake on the edition after it was established they were Orks in disguise. According to you, you're blaming 8th edition for a problem you think 7th edition created. If somebody wanted to defend how the Orks act in that newer book they could absolutely use the book before it because it's established canon by that point. "Fourth, Daemons are formed by their god, but not directly possessed by them. Daemons can make their own decisions, even go rogue." Now I'm calling serious bullshit on this. Daemons are extensions of their diety and do their diety's will, I didn't say that they were directly possessed by their diety. That being said they don't have true free will, the only things they know and comprehend are what their own god allows them to and, if they wish, the gods can change this. We've seen this with Skarbrand, if that's what you call going rogue, when he was still obeying Khorne's philosophy (even though he was goaded by Tzeentch). There was also the Masque to a lesser extent. There has never been a Daemon who went rogue and gave the middle finger to their patron, and I cannot think of a single Daemon that intentionally went against the will of their creator or chose to go against their own nature. "And finally for the Orks, do you know the joke of them retreating being referred to as "coming back for another go"?" You're confusing 40k with Fantasy. Fantasy Orks don't see fleeing as coming back for another go, they see fleeing as failure. This is best shown in the Storm of Chaos book, specifically the part where Grimgor's brooding after having lost to Krom's army, and then he chooses to slaughter all the goblins in his army because he blames them for his loss. "If the Daemons were getting smashed by Sigmar... but being very prideful creatures claimed they merely got bored, that would be fine, that would be in character. Ward doesn't do this." Sorry but you're wrong on this point, Ward intentionally writes contradictory lore in his books, the biggest of which was in both the Blood Angels and Necron Codices. In the infamous teamup bit, the Blood Angels claim they were fighting over the same planet, then the Necrons left after they joined forces to kill the Tyranids out of respect for the Blood Angels, while the Blood Angels honour demanded they let the Necrons go. In the Necron Codex, it states the Necrons were there specifically to prep for the Tyranid invasion, and as soon as the Tyranids are dead they left because they didn't care about the Blood Angels. Everything in Ward's book is written through the eyes of the faction he's writing for, and recorded as they would record it. "He writes it as a matter of fact, not a character quirk or personality trait, and it lacks any logic or precedence. This is why it is wrong." There's nothing wrong with writing a history section as if it was a fact, every fucking army book in the game does this. "I truly think you're not going to listen to anything I have to say, and if that's the case, then we might as well stop." Find anything in the lore that backs up your arguments and I'll ease off, so far you haven't referenced a single thing in any book that helps you, you're still saying "This is dumb because I say it's bad." -- Triacom (talk) 03:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

...So just to check, Ward's writing is fine and isn't bad because he intentionally makes it contradicting and incoherent? Is that what you're going with? And hey, by the same token I could say you're saying it's good because you say it is. Opinion doesn't mean much in this instance. TheBadageBoys (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

No, what I'm pointing out is that you're complaining that you got what you wanted because you didn't realize you've gotten what you've wanted. I've never defended my stance on this by just reverting to my opinion, you've defaulted to "people didn't like it" multiple times when your only example was yourself, meaning it's literally just your opinion. I guess yours somehow means a lot more than anyone else's, even the writers and established facts in this instance doesn't it? -- Triacom (talk) 03:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Look, I really don't care if you "back off" or not. I'm confident in and stand by my edit, and I think all this is completely ridiculous. I've given my side, you've given yours. I suggest you wait for the mod arbitration you yourself asked for, because otherwise, I will challenge your edit and continue challenging it. This is the last I'm talking about it with you. TheBadageBoys (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
How can you stand by your edit when it's demonstrably wrong? The side you've given me has no facts behind it, you've never cited any source to back up your argument, and it all revolves around "because I say so". You've also demonstrated a great amount of ignorance of the setting, even with your recent bit on the Orcs. I also only asked for mod arbitration after you've asked for mod arbitration, so don't pretend I was the one who wanted it, I only went there because I was sure you didn't know how. -- Triacom (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If I was really trolling you, why would I bother backing up anything I say with references to the books? Why would I point out how even minor points are wrong, like your point that the Orcs think losses aren't losses? -- Triacom (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

On the Imperium's Character[edit]

I think you misunderstood me, my point is that the edit states in the other setting humans are the ones most open to working together, however in 40k other factions almost always have to ask the Imperium if they want to work together. Basically it's the opposite of what's suggested and that's why I said it was against their character. -- Triacom (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I got you. Yeah, I did misunderstand you there. Sorry about that. TheBadageBoys (talk) 21:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
No problem, glad we could agree on that. -- Triacom (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Lovecraft Again?[edit]

Do we seriously need to do this again? Do we seriously need to have another discussion on why it's important to mention that he's a racist? How about we go through the cliffnotes and skip to the ending:

Your question: "What does it even add? What relevance does it have?"

The Answer: "It informs the reader because it influenced his writing."

You: "I'm going to pretend this article isn't about him as a person, it's about his influence on tabletop gaming, and I'm not shifting the goalposts."

Article: "I'm about both actually, and his racism is relevant to both because his most popular mythos spawned from it."

You: "I still don't see why we should mention something that influenced him as a person, influenced his writing, and created his most popular mythos which in turn is the only reason this article exists. Please tell me how it contributed to any of those."

Me: "Here's how it contributed to all of those."

You: "Making proxies of various races and demonizing these races by using these proxies doesn't make him racist." Me: "When you're fully aware that they're proxies and you see his remarks on them in other works it absolutely makes it racist."

Your conclusion: "I've edited it to say simply the fact as he himself didn't hide, that he was a racist. No bias, judgement, or commentary given, just fact."

Your conclusion reverted your edit to the exact same edit that existed before you started this editwar, only now you're trying to take credit for it. I let it go last time because I didn't feel like stirring the shit pot, but now I'm going to call you out on it.

There we go, the exact same argument we're going to have followed with the same conclusion. Did I miss anything, or are you going to pretend he wasn't a racist this time? -- Triacom (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Friendly reminder[edit]

When you say you're leaving and never coming back, people expect you to follow that through. --Newerfag (talk) 02:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)