I gave up on table top years ago so please tell me... Did Matt Ward write this? EDIT: read comments, of course he did
I'm afraid he already took interest in them. The same thing happened here effectively, with Iyanden being turned into Beil-Tan 2.0 and lots of plot holes, bad writing and plots driven by character idiocy. Also Iyanna Arienal was turned into a mad cult leader who could hear the voices of those consumed by Slannesh thanks to poor consistency between events.
Why is he still allowed to touch the lore if people dislike him so much? I just hope he doesn't touch orks for their long overdue new updates (no update since 4th edition), but rumors be the nasty thing they are... Prays to gork and mork that the the person who writes for the orks codex is NOT Matt Ward. Prays to gork and mork that the person who writes for the orks codex (and their lore) is (the glorious) Phil Kelly again! PLEASE! The community begs you! Orks only seem to get an update every 2 editions (I have no idea why...). But both past codecs were and are among the best codecs ever written. Ward helped write the 6th edition rules, he was involved in several big whooops before, including Necrons and the horrid 5th edition Space Marine codex which was so bad that GW had to release a 6th edition one to calm the rage. Thing is he still works there, it's just I don't think they give him full control over anything anymore. Look honestly, people wouldn't dislike Mr Ward if he didn't constantly make such horrible stuff.
Went to the B&C thread about SoT, somewhat less of a hate-driven mindless rant of opinion-based analysis. I don't play TT but from a pure fluff standpoint, it doesn't seem that bad. I'll get my hands on it to check it out now, I guess.
Define 'canon'. In 40k, and ADB's touched on this a thousand times, it's very superfluous. Yes, there are instances of egregious disregard, but 40k is not static, and will keep evolving for however long it remains popular. I'm starting to read SoT right now, but I don't know how bad this really is just based off 'BRING BACK IAN WATSON' (not saying you specifically said this, but it's a sentiment I've seen floating around in the two threads and one review I've skimmed so far).
Consistent, well written solid details. Like the entire expertise and specialty of an army, their abilities, and their flaws. Most of which are usually kept consistent no matter the author, not in this book. I know what you are referring to, but there are specific ideas which should remain solid pillars to a setting for other stories and details to work around with some freedom. For example, an author wouldn't claim the Horus Heresy never happened, Jaghatai Khan wasn't a primarch, or that none of the Thousand Sons are psychic or sorcerers. Ward, as with this book, simply has no respect for them or any previously consistent details or ideas.
