Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Nate668 wrote:
The 40k community here on Dakka is decidedly toxic.

I just got back into League of Legends a couple weeks ago. You want to see a toxic community, go play that game for like a day and then come back and tell us how awful Dakka really is.

 Nate668 wrote:
The reason you (if you find yourself in the haters camp) hate 40k is because you want it to be something that it is not. 40k is not a competitive ruleset. 40k is a beer and pretzels, casual, lets-get-together-and-put-some-awesome-models-on-the-table-and-roll-some-dice-and-see-what-happens kind of game.

Then it costs too much for what it is. If the aim is to produce a strictly casual, "beer and pretzels" game and atmosphere then they're shooting themselves in the foot because they've priced it too far out of reach of the casual gamer they're targeting. Blood Bowl was a good, casual, "beer and pretzels" type of game: really fun, albeit random gameplay but with minimal investment. GW armies cost so much more in comparison that you really can't justify the expense if you're not going to take the game seriously. It would be like forking out cash for a top-tier competitive Magic deck and then strictly playing newbies on your kitchen table, while mocking people who do participate in the pro Magic scene for taking the game too seriously.

If what you say is true then GW clearly doesn't know what it wants to be. It wants to be a casual game, but demands $800+ for a single army, an investment that is decidedly not casual. It wants people to stop taking the rules seriously, but then charges the better part of $100 for the core rulebook and $50 for every codex, supplement, and expansion, which is at least twice as expensive as it's closest competitor (who actually does cater to the gamer craving balanced play or, god forbid, competition). GW says one thing and does another.

 Nate668 wrote:
TL;DR: Bitching on Dakka does nothing to change GW. If you hate 40k because you are a competitive gamer, check out something else (like Warmahordes), like I did. You may find that, like me, in a couple years you will appreciate 40k for what it actually is, instead of hating it for not being what you wish it was. Or you may find that you still hate GW, and if so, perhaps forums that are primarily focused on 40k are not for you.

Dakka is not 40k-focused and hasn't been for quite some time now. Being a 40k fan or pro-GW is not a requirement for posting here.

Hollismason wrote:
I don't hate companies, because they're companies. Their job is to make money. I disagree with all of their business practices.

I think that's the big disconnect people have is that they personalize it with GW to the point of being able to "hate" them, and that's kind of emotionally silly.

Well, for what it's worth the US Supreme Court just ruled in the Hobby Lobby case that companies are people, so...



Seriously, sad times we live in now.

bullyboy wrote:
it's not GW that makes 40K generally a poor game, it's the player base.

Wrong.

bullyboy wrote:
They abuse the freedom that is provided. Daemonology is a perfect example. It's a great idea to introduce this into 40K, especially with the dark nature of the 40K universe, but then the player base has to find a way to get 30+ summoning dice available. That's the player, not the game. Beastmaster with beasts, how about maybe 5 beasts with your beastmaster? No, player base wants 20+ of them. Etc, etc.
Eldar players told to spam wave serpents with minimal DA sqds inside. OK, aspect warriors in wave serpents are a fluffy feature, but you know the serpent can carry 12 models right?

And it doesn't sound silly at all to you to blame the player for all these instances that the game allows? Why is it even possible to get 30+ summoning dice if you're not "supposed" to, or doing so goes against the "spirit of the game", or whatever other argument you can come up with? Same for all other examples, why am I allowed to take up to 20 fething beasts if I'm technically not "supposed" to? Why can I stuff a mere 5 troops into a transport if I'm "supposed" to pack it as full as possible (which you realize would now cost an Eldar player over $70 to do PER TRANSPORT, right?)? What's the purpose of this freedom if you're not really expected to take advantage of it in the first place, and doing so actually goes against the wishes of the game designers?

bullyboy wrote:
GW has made the ruleset and the codices pretty flexible (overly so) so that many odd combos can be played to cover the 40K 'verse, and small units allowed so that players can play 500pt games with a mix of units. But it's the player base that has created most of the angst that is associated with the game. There are more TFG than you probably think and you may well be one of them. Hate GW as much as you wish, but first figure out what is truly ruining the game.

GW's rules and attitude are ruining the game. Your attitude is ruining the game. You shouldn't be attacking other players and accusing them of wrong-doing, you should be holding GW accountable for the crap they allow and put into the game for the sole purpose of extorting more money out of the fanbase.

If minimum-sized squads were only intended to be taken in smaller games as you imply, then GW could easily incorporate that into the rules. They could set requirements for squad sizes based on several, popular points levels. 500 points you're limited to 5, no more, no less. 1000+ you need to take 10, minimum. Easy. Do this for every unit choice for every army and hey, you might actually start to have something resembling a balanced game. As far as summoning dice goes, that sounds like an oversight by the games development team, one that wasn't picked up on because of poor/inefficient testing, one that the fanbase managed to figure out pretty quickly because, unlike the people who are paid to do this for a living, they knew what they were doing. There's really no reason why taking 20 beasts, five troops in a transport or an army based around demon summoning should be a bad thing, other than GW are idiots and made it that way. If they made even a small effort to balance the game all that freedom would actually mean something and 40k might actually be fun to play again, but as it is it's entirely pointless since there are so many unwritten rules and restriction put in place by the fanbase that having the freedom to play any kind of list you want really doesn't mean jack gak in the end.

It isn't the players that are ruining the game, it's GW's laid-back attitude in regards to game design and lack of interest in "fixing" the game post-release...unless they can figure out how to make you pay for it, of course.

Deadnight wrote:
What we have with 40k is self policing via social control, negative stigmatisation and group pressure. Bullying by other words. if anything, this attitude leads to even more resentment within the player base.

Pretty much this. I've felt that way for years myself, that 40k players are essentially bullies, and it's one of many things that's helped to drive me out of it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

KommissarKarl wrote:
Yes it's clunky and way too bloated but people still have fun playing it, the refusal to acknowledge that fact is one of the reasons that people are labeled as "haters" or "whingers" because they always push it to the extreme in stating that it is *too* bloated or *too* clunky to be playable at all.

People occasionally have fun playing lots of bad games. That doesn't make them good games.

Yes it does. The point of a game is for the players to have fun. If they do this, that game is objectively good, regardless of whatever arbitrary criteria you might hold it up to. You are of course free to analyse and critisise a game when compared to other games and point out what you perceive its failings to be, but that doesn't make your opinion any better or worse's than any others.

If I design a game where you and I flip a coin each - if I flip a heads I win, if you flip a heads or tails you still lose. Clearly we won't enjoy or play this game, therefore I would consider it objectively bad. People aren't stupid (well I'm not sure about that), they wouldn't sit around playing 40k if they weren't enjoying themselves. And since they are enjoying themselves, it's a successful game.

Incidentally I feel this way about plenty of things that I regard as crap. The Sims has outsold Europa Universalis a billion times over, yet I still consider it utter trash. And yet, due to its popularity, I have to acknowledge that it is a successful and good game. Ditto how way more people will watch Lee Evans than Charlie Brooker, despite me having risible contempt for the former. And yet millions of people will tune in to watch him, so again on some level I have to acknowledge a talent there.

To use some video game examples:

ET on the Atari is not a good game, though enjoyment can be had when playing it (or maybe watching other people play and get more and more infuriated).
Big Rigs: Over The Road Racing is not a good game, though you can have fun playing it (just seeing all the different ways to break it).
Superman 64 is not a good game but yet again you can have fun playing it (just to marvel at how bad and dull it is. Flying through hoops...YAY!).

Or maybe a notorious film example:

The Star Wars Holiday Special is awful. It goes beyond "so-bad-it's-good". Yet this can also provide some enjoyment when viewed in the right context. It's just that the context is not, at all, what the creators intended.

So you can have fun despite things being objectively bad. Having fun does not make something good. It just means that you can have fun playing something bad.

Your examples might hold some weight if they'd dominated the video games industry for 20 years. If that's all your proof that 40k is objectively bad...hell I could do better than that

So the point of this thread is .....the way to enjoy the game is to just chill out man...its just a game, stop asking questions and be happy with the way things are.

The government loves people who are like that.

And therefore that makes me nervous.

Thanks for sharing your story Nate668. It's always interesting to hear people's reflections on their experiences. It's certainly true that taking a break from something allows you to approach it with a fresh perspective.

Unfortunately, it's been my experience that it's impossible to convince people of the epiphany. This goes for everything, not just games of toy soldiers. People either have to discover it for themselves or follow a different path. It's the different experiences and paths we follow that make people such a diverse bunch and I think we are stronger for it.

I find it disheartening that most threads on here seem to turn towards criticising GW. I think Nate668's shared frustration prompted him to refer to the community at "toxic". Don't get me wrong. I think the criticism is important but it would sometimes be nice to reat and chat about the positive aspects too.

I think a lot of people agree. There seem to be a lot of recent threads such as this one along the lines of "why all the GW hate?". These seem to turn quickly to criticising GW, the rules or the models. More successful ones (in terms of keeping away from criticism) seem to go along the lines of "share a cool story" .

 Sidstyler wrote:

I've felt that way for years myself, that 40k players are essentially bullies, and it's one of many things that's helped to drive me out of it.

Hmm. I wonder if it's at all possible, that sometimes the 'issue" is not GW?

It's really as if we're in a different (and less grimdark) universe. We play with pleasant people, get tabled occasionally, play in tournaments... never have we had to blame GW for problems with other people.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Nate668 wrote:
The 40k community here on Dakka is decidedly toxic.

I just got back into League of Legends a couple weeks ago. You want to see a toxic community, go play that game for like a day and then come back and tell us how awful Dakka really is.

Sexual harassment for days... Really the way to deal with them is to bring your own community at times.

Anway blind hatred is as bad as blind praise is. You can disapprove of the decissions they take without actually being a "hater", it's called reasoning. Also when referring to a community the buzz word toxic is generally considered toxic.

A loose collection of things I'm not quite impressed with which some will see as hating, really those would need to take a step back and get some fresh air.
- Constant increases in price for products in general, but some specific cases such as the SoB 10 pack which here imcreased from if I remember correctly something like $50 --> $72 over the course of a couple of years. I understand a full metal monopose army has to be more expensive somehow, but that progressively made it more annoying. I'm not going to mention the lack of model updates that range has seen.
- Annoying repackages, more recent example is the Dire Avengers box. Basically take the same kit they've been producing for a while, cut down the models in it and sell it at the same price. Catachan and Orks had also seen this, but the most annoying were probably the DA and the SoB which are blister exclusive. All of which is a stealth price increase which really wasn't even required when it could have recieved a smaller increase with the rest of their ranges while containing the same amount. I understand the move to the ten man boxes, but moving some of those to five just seems like a cheap money grab.
-The Embargo, they were still getting my money; in fact they were getting more of it over time than they do now.
-One man store / word of mouth.
-Marine codex saturation. What about chapters such as the Iron Hands rather than BA, DA, or SW some of which seemed to have last minute stuff pushed into it to try to justify not being a supliment.

They have done some things I do like such as the Wraithguard update, the Wraithknight model I also like. I also sort of like the LoW system, but as sort of a bridge between normal 40k and full apocalypse units.

Long time 40k gamer here and said this many different ways but really want to address what the OP says.

For "pick-up" games 40k is unsuitable since there is no real good way to ensure a balanced scrap.
Not really an option there.
People still say to me "I followed the rules in the book so you have to accept my army!" really false assumption it is balanced.

For my friends who are less... competitive, it is a great sandbox or rules to play pretty much whatever we want... we do forge the narrative.
So I really fall in the camp of 40k does what I need.

I also have way too much models from GW to just plain rage quit if they do things I do not like (which there are many), let me repeat: quitting is not an option, too... much... invested.

If I was a new player, BRB, codex and army to buy = no freaking way.
(BRB = $100, Codex Space Marine = $70, Space Marine Strike Force = $270, Total $440 not including tax).

BattleTech Introductory Box Set = $39.99

X-wing, Core Game = $39.95

Warmachine two player battlebox = $100

To be fair, Dark Vengeance is listed on Amazon for $100 (not on GW web site) but you still need to spend an extra $170 if going with Dark Angels or CSM with 7th ed rules. = $270

Battletech I got the most value for the money.

Yes, 40k, friends, pretzels: good times.

But I am a gamer, I like competition, GW still does a good job of masking things into making you think this is a great competitive game until it is too late.
It bears saying again "40k is like an RPG for lots of little miniatures, could look at it as a larger quantity game of their Inquisition warband type game."

I must admit that since the game IS so unbalanced and relies so heavily on luck that many epic improbable things have happened that can be quite memorable.

If someone takes their 40k very serious, back away slowly and hope some day they figure it out.

If you meet a new person thinking of getting into the game tell them "Unless a relative is giving you their army, run, run now while you can still leave!"

 Hivefleet Oblivion wrote:


Hmm. I wonder if it's at all possible, that sometimes the 'issue" is not GW?

It's really as if we're in a different (and less grimdark) universe. We play with pleasant people, get tabled occasionally, play in tournaments... never have we had to blame GW for problems with other people.

People aren't blaming GW for their problems with people, they're blaming GW for their problems with the game. Two distinct aspects at play here.

People can ruin your experience regardless of the game you play. That's the player's fault; their general attitude and such.

The game can ruin your experience despite an excellent opponent. That's the game's fault; poor rule wording and bad balance may be factors.

These issues can compound, but it doesn't absolve GW of poor game design if you happen to just play against a poor sport. Make sure you're making the distinction, as they're two different problems with entirely different solutions.

 Talizvar wrote:
If you meet a new person thinking of getting into the game tell them "Unless a relative is giving you their army, run, run now while you can still leave!"

Haha, coincidence.
The only reason I got into WH40k was because I got Assault on Black Reach for 20 euro and I saw some nice deals on our local "eBay".

 rayphoton wrote:
So the point of this thread is .....the way to enjoy the game is to just chill out man...its just a game, stop asking questions and be happy with the way things are.

The government loves people who are like that.

And therefore that makes me nervous.

I have to admit I too have lain awake at night worrying that people who like 40K might usher in the zombie apocalypse or CCTV or universal health care or something.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 rayphoton wrote:
So the point of this thread is .....the way to enjoy the game is to just chill out man...its just a game, stop asking questions and be happy with the way things are.

The government loves people who are like that.

And therefore that makes me nervous.

I have to admit I too have lain awake at night worrying that people who like 40K might usher in the zombie apocalypse or CCTV or universal health care or something.

Yes, the cameras my department has in KK's bedroom can confirm the veracity of this statement.

There is a cure for my GW hate. GW can fire Jervis "the moron" Jhonson. GW can write a competent ruleset. That is the cure.

dresnar1 wrote:
There is a cure for my GW hate. GW can fire Jervis "the moron" Jhonson. GW can write a competent ruleset. That is the cure.

Ok, you think JJ is a moron.

I'm inclined to agree, but there's prolly no need to state it every time you post m'kay?

dresnar1 wrote:
There is a cure for my GW hate. GW can fire Jervis "the moron" Jhonson. GW can write a competent ruleset. That is the cure.

When you're making disparaging remarks about someone, maybe take the time to spell their name correctly to avoid making yourself look just as silly?

In the meantime, I would recommend reviewing Dakka's rule #1. The name calling just because someone worked on a game that you're not thrilled with is uneccessary. We're talking about toy soldiers here.

 Nate668 wrote:

The reason you (if you find yourself in the haters camp) hate 40k is because you want it to be something that it is not. 40k is not a competitive ruleset. 40k is a beer and pretzels, casual, lets-get-together-and-put-some-awesome-models-on-the-table-and-roll-some-dice-and-see-what-happens kind of game. It sucks that GW used to attempt to cater to the competitive player and no longer does, but that's how it is, and bitching on Dakka isn't going to change it. If you're unhappy with 40k, move on to a new system to scratch your competitive itch.
.

I want the game to reflect the fluff. Wheres your argument now?

I fail to see the point of the original post.

This said, a fair number of replies from many of the senior Dakka members seem to have shown your view to be skewed and in fact has improved my opinion of the Dakka horde.

 azreal13 wrote:

dresnar1 wrote:
There is a cure for my GW hate. GW can fire Jervis "the moron" Jhonson. GW can write a competent ruleset. That is the cure.

Ok, you think JJ is a moron.

I'm inclined to agree, but there's prolly no need to state it every time you post m'kay?

Heh. Its the only thing that brings me even the smallest glimmer of enjoyment from GW anymore. Everything else is just rage.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

dresnar1 wrote:
There is a cure for my GW hate. GW can fire Jervis "the moron" Jhonson. GW can write a competent ruleset. That is the cure.

When you're making disparaging remarks about someone, maybe take the time to spell their name correctly to avoid making yourself look just as silly?

In the meantime, I would recommend reviewing Dakka's rule #1. The name calling just because someone worked on a game that you're not thrilled with is uneccessary. We're talking about toy soldiers here.

Misspelled? Where?

 Wulfmar wrote:



I fail to see the point of the original post.

This said, a fair number of replies from many of the senior Dakka members seem to have shown your view to be skewed and in fact has improved my opinion of the Dakka horde.

I fail to see the point of this post. The poster does not even state which of my views are skewed.

That said, a fair number of replies from many senior Dakka members that actually contribute something to the thread are much less useless than this post.

The bottom line is: A game company should be in touch with their player base. And from what I've gathered, GW doesn't do this. They don't seek out customer feedback, they don't utilize it to help improve what could be a vastly superior game to every other tabletop game out there...IF they would put the time into doing so. Look at what Sakurai is doing with Smash Bros. He held a tournament, had players TELL him and the team what they thought of it so far, and what they were expecting/wanting. If he uses this feedback to its fullest, the new Smash Brothers game could be the best one to date. THATS what GW should be doing. Figuring out what players think, and how to improve.

But they don't. People have the right to complain, they have given the company money, and in most cases a LOT of money. No one likes to see what they have collected over the years become worthless because the company screwed over their Codex or made shoddy rules that put their army in the lowest quadrants of mundane.

But, I went into this game knowing this. Knowing the company could screw me. But, I went the smart route, and chose to give the company my money, ONLY when I felt it was worth it to do so. I've bought all my models, with the exclusion of my Morkanaught, second hand or from an online retailer/ebay. I love this game, which was why I wanted to put money into it. It's a sad shame I couldn't find the justification in supporting the company directly outside of Codex releases because I don't feel they will put my money to a better use.

Wizkids did the same thing with Heroclix. They started out strong, but over time, really started to feth with the players. It made people upset. And they have recently begun to pull out of it, though they still had flubs here or there (Mostly distribution set backs or errors). It's frustrating, but at least they are TRYING to do better. And thats the whole difference. Wizkids is trying. GW doesn't seem to be trying at all.

Will I stop playing 40k? No, not until every local player I've got ends up stopping. But I'll end up keeping my models, maybe even buying more (second hand) to keep my army looking cool and expand. GW has a great product...they just need to listen to us some more...make this game a 'must play' by wargamers everywhere.

Melevolence wrote:
The bottom line is: A game company should be in touch with their player base. And from what I've gathered, GW doesn't do this. They don't seek out customer feedback, they don't utilize it to help improve what could be a vastly superior game to every other tabletop game out there...IF they would put the time into doing so. Look at what Sakurai is doing with Smash Bros. He held a tournament, had players TELL him and the team what they thought of it so far, and what they were expecting/wanting. If he uses this feedback to its fullest, the new Smash Brothers game could be the best one to date. THATS what GW should be doing. Figuring out what players think, and how to improve.

But they don't. People have the right to complain, they have given the company money, and in most cases a LOT of money. No one likes to see what they have collected over the years become worthless because the company screwed over their Codex or made shoddy rules that put their army in the lowest quadrants of mundane.

But, I went into this game knowing this. Knowing the company could screw me. But, I went the smart route, and chose to give the company my money, ONLY when I felt it was worth it to do so. I've bought all my models, with the exclusion of my Morkanaught, second hand or from an online retailer/ebay. I love this game, which was why I wanted to put money into it. It's a sad shame I couldn't find the justification in supporting the company directly outside of Codex releases because I don't feel they will put my money to a better use.

Wizkids did the same thing with Heroclix. They started out strong, but over time, really started to feth with the players. It made people upset. And they have recently begun to pull out of it, though they still had flubs here or there (Mostly distribution set backs or errors). It's frustrating, but at least they are TRYING to do better. And thats the whole difference. Wizkids is trying. GW doesn't seem to be trying at all.

Will I stop playing 40k? No, not until every local player I've got ends up stopping. But I'll end up keeping my models, maybe even buying more (second hand) to keep my army looking cool and expand. GW has a great product...they just need to listen to us some more...make this game a 'must play' by wargamers everywhere.

Pretty much this. In our current age and methods of communication being so accessible and easy to use it boggles my mind how walled in GW is. It is as if they are still living in the early to mid 90's. I will keep playing 40k with the one army i have chosen to keep and in the years to come if they get their act together I will gladly reinvest in a new army.

 Nate668 wrote:
I fail to see the point of this post. The poster does not even state which of my views are skewed.

There's no need. Your post falls over with its first sentence because it's very premise is incorrect.

dresnar1 wrote:
Misspelled? Where?

His name is Jervis Johnson not Jhonson. Also, it's rude to call someone a moron. I doubt that JJ is making the high-impact decisions, he's just doing his job.

WayneTheGame wrote:

dresnar1 wrote:
Misspelled? Where?

His name is Jervis Johnson not Jhonson. Also, it's rude to call someone a moron. I doubt that JJ is making the high-impact decisions, he's just doing his job.

He is the head of the rules department!!! I mean, he is the last line, the grand puba, the chief of GW rules. You read his spots in GW and you see his game design philosophy all over GW games rules. His intros in WD refer to him as a Rules Genius sometimes!!! Don't apologize for Jervis Johnson. He is the one at fault, its OK to blame him.

I don't believe calling a spade a spade is rude. If you do, that's fine. If I don't that is also fine. I will, however, respect the forum rules now that they have been pointed out to me.

dresnar1 wrote:
He is the head of the rules department!!! I mean, he is the last line, the grand puba, the chief of GW rules. You read his spots in GW and you see his game design philosophy all over GW games rules. His intros in WD refer to him as a Rules Genius sometimes!!! Don't apologize for Jervis Johnson. He is the one at fault, its OK to blame him.

What he is not, however, is the guy who makes the financial decisions.

We don't have enough information to know if the amount of work put into each codex release is purely up to the studio (and thus ultimately Jervis' responsibility) or if it is a result of budgetary constraints limiting development time and resources.

I don't believe calling a spade a spade is rude. If you do, that's fine. If I don't that is also fine. I will, however, respect the forum rules now that they have been pointed out to me.

Believing it to be true doesn't make an insult any less rude.

 insaniak wrote:

dresnar1 wrote:
He is the head of the rules department!!! I mean, he is the last line, the grand puba, the chief of GW rules. You read his spots in GW and you see his game design philosophy all over GW games rules. His intros in WD refer to him as a Rules Genius sometimes!!! Don't apologize for Jervis Johnson. He is the one at fault, its OK to blame him.

What he is not, however, is the guy who makes the financial decisions.

We don't have enough information to know if the amount of work put into each codex release is purely up to the studio (and thus ultimately Jervis' responsibility) or if it is a result of budgetary constraints limiting development time and resources.

I don't believe calling a spade a spade is rude. If you do, that's fine. If I don't that is also fine. I will, however, respect the forum rules now that they have been pointed out to me.

Believing it to be true doesn't make an insult any less rude.

So you're saying that the guy who coined the phrase "forge a narrative", believes that games are best when played with a games master, prefers random charts over strategic play (read his articles), removed rules for terrain in exchange for true line of sight, has nothing to do with the game as it currently is?

When will GW apologists wake up? Who is this mystery person you believe is screwing up the game if it isn't Jervis Johnson? Let me tell you, it is Jervis Johnson. Read the guys articles, he spells out his game theory and its on the level of an eight year old.

You feel calling something what it is an insult, the name is appropriate, a perfect use of the word. If you liked something you would rather pretend its something other than the turd it has become rather than face the truth about what is going on and confront it. I find that insulting.

I always thought that jervis guy was just a face. A guy who just justifies the rules and takes the flak etc. While dont doubt he has a lot to do with the rules, he probably just does what those in charge want done but he has to figure the best way of doing it.

I think most people who work probably understand that. I have produced some truly ugly stuff in my time because of the guy above me. Not my intention or will, im just after my pay like Jervis is.

While I wouldn't go so far as to imply insaniak is an apologist or break rule #1 I don't think JJ should be allowed near any ruleset. I don't have the proper reference material in front of me but in the lead up to 7th he was talking in WD about his idea of how a game should be played. Both players discuss why their armies are fighting and what their objectives are. They then roll some dice and at the end discuss which side won. If they can't agree its q draw. That is what he thinks makes a great game.

After reading that I simply can't respect the man in his current role.

Jervis seems to be quite intelligent to me, but comes across as vacillating and tired. He's a company man caught in the GW maelstrom, and as Insaniak said any authority he has comes from above. His lifeless intros to 7th Ed. seemed to me like he knew full well the underlying consequences of 'unbound' and other changes in the game but whether or not he agrees with the game's direction, he still is a professional doing/keeping his job. Who knows what he'll say once he leaves the company, but until then he will tow the party line.

I too skimmed those Jervis articles prior to 7E. I read a few lines out loud to the folks in ear shot and they stopped playing their board game to go "Uh... what?"

While I couldn't call the man a moron because I don't know him, he seems awfully pretentious in his work and has an air of smug about him that's not to my liking. Budget, time crunch, and more can make a rushed product and I don't think everything wrong with the game lays at his feet. However, seeing as almost all the other big names in the rules department have left and started their own endeavors, I would seem to think that the last thing floating in the punch bowl might be the turd.

I'd disagree. Jervis worked with Rick Priestly on Black Powder, and you can see in that ruleset what the guy can do when he's out from underneath the obviously crushing influence of GW.