I keep hearing a lot of references towards Jervis's kid and this poor little guy being responcible for the streamlining of 40k.
Fill me in on the background.

He replaced Tom Kirby as CEO.

Jervis Jr. is the poster boy for the total newbie coming into the hobby, with no gaming experience.

Jervis Sr. mentioned that his son came into "the GW hobby"(tm), and was having difficulties with it.

Considering this was at the height of 40k3/40k4 Codex and rules complexity, when GW was releasing variant lists like crazy, naturally, his son was overwhelmed by the environment. Despite Tom Kirby's mantra that pre-teen kids are "the GW target market" (tm).

He probably asked his dad a lot of really innocent questions about the game that Jervis Sr. (and the rest of the dev team) didn't have a good answer for.

So Jervis got to ask the killer question why, if the GW target market was for newbie pre-teens, why were all of the products designed for veterans with at least 5-years experience?

And then Tom Kirby got involved...

... and it all started to go wrong.





Not that they were perfect before this.

It also gave him a view of what any people new to the hobby might encounter. The layout of most of the books was ok for most of the veterans, but to new people it was a jumbled mess. Things most of us really wouldn't notice.

gdurant wrote:I keep hearing a lot of references towards Jervis's kid and this poor little guy being responcible for the streamlining of 40k.
Fill me in on the background.

To sum up:

1-2 years ago his young boy gets interested in the game. Like a proud father he mentions it in his standard bearer.
Over the past year and half, GW begins "simplifying" the game.
At some point JJ mentions the difficulty his kid has with some of the rules.
This becomes over time a rallying point for people who are irate about the changes to the game. (Jervis' kid isn't smart enough to play becomes the theme)
It's easy to be meanspirited online, in particular when given a target.


To be fair:
Jervis's parenting skills are suspect at this point, as is anyone else who would position thier child in such a position.
People are jerks. I suspect the kid is no brighter or dumber than any other kid out there.
The game is complicated. But it's being sold to people younger then should be playing it. The rules are being dumbed down at a time when the fluff and internal art are not meant for children. (For example the Dark Elf Army book themes include- murder, incest, bdsm and snuff, as well as art which is disturbing and features undeeded nudity. That ain't for a general audience and I doubt it'd hit PG 13).
Not all of us want the game to become a series of glorified apoclypse styled megafight.

Toreador wrote:It also gave him a view of what any people new to the hobby might encounter. The layout of most of the books was ok for most of the veterans, but to new people it was a jumbled mess. Things most of us really wouldn't notice.

Although new players are as annoyed and frustrated by the splitting up of the description of units and points costs as they were by having everything in the same section. The change was an ego change as far as I can tell.

To be very honest and very blunt, to my eye it seems as if many of the changes Jervis is making are all turn back the clock choices erasing what Chambers did and returning it to the pure form of his second edition books.

Jervis Jr couldn't for the life of him figure out the difference between a plasma gun and a meltagun. GW is a social game, couldn't he just have asked someone?

Jervis's son has become the undeserved defacto whipping boy for people who have issues with Jervis's design philosiphies.

Even in this very thread where people are trying to explain the supposed back story, we have considerable embelishment upon the actual truth.

The actual truth is much more simple. Jervis never said his son had trouble understanding the rules. He told two stories (via his 'standard bearer' articles in WD and at appearances he has made in person) about his son getting into the hobby (and I heard them both several times at the last Adepticon. . .man does he like to tell the same stories over and over again):


1) Jervis's son is new to the hobby, he buys a SM codex and starts to assemble his models. Since the codex doesn't actually tell you what all the weapons and wargear look like his son has to ask Jervis what the different pieces of equipment on the sprues actually are. Jervis has an epiphany that GW has gotten to the point where they naturally assume that players know what certain units and equipment look like, an assumption which makes it more difficult for new players to enter the hobby.

2) Jervis's son is unsure of what models to purchase to start his Blood Angels army so he asks his dad for advice. His dad suggest "sensible" choices like a Tactical squad or other components needed to start an army but his son really wants to buy Mephiston just because he likes the way it looks. Jervis has (another) epiphany that special characters, if done right, epitomize the 'character' of their army better than pages of fluff ever can. As such, Jervis decides that players shouldn't feel penalized or dirty for using special characters but rather they should become something that can be used by any player should they so wish.


And that's it.


But as you can see from this thread, the lore has already spread to the point where people are blaming the percieved "simplification" of the game on Jervis's son.

And while Jervis has certainly made a point to say that the games need to be designed in a way to accomodate new players better there has never been any evidence that this is somehow due to his son having trouble with understanding the actual rules of the game.

Bah, you with your logic and facts. We have no use for these, this is the internets!

Tazok wrote:Jervis Jr couldn't for the life of him figure out the difference between a plasma gun and a meltagun. GW is a social game, couldn't he just have asked someone?

Yep, he could and that's exactly what he did (he asked his dad who plays the game).


But each codex should tell you what each weapon and piece of equipment looks like. There just isn't any concievable reason why that information shouldn't be included.

And that is why Codex: CSM has a whole section of pretty pictures of weapons and equipment...

yakface wrote:
Jervis's son has become the undeserved defacto whipping boy for people who have issues with Jervis's design philosiphies.

Even in this very thread where people are trying to explain the supposed back story, we have considerable embelishment upon the actual truth.

The actual truth is much more simple. Jervis never said his son had trouble understanding the rules. He told two stories (via his 'standard bearer' articles in WD and at appearances he has made in person) about his son getting into the hobby (and I heard them both several times at the last Adepticon. . .man does he like to tell the same stories over and over again):


1) Jervis's son is new to the hobby, he buys a SM codex and starts to assemble his models. Since the codex doesn't actually tell you what all the weapons and wargear look like his son has to ask Jervis what the different pieces of equipment on the sprues actually are. Jervis has an epiphany that GW has gotten to the point where they naturally assume that players know what certain units and equipment look like, an assumption which makes it more difficult for new players to enter the hobby.

2) Jervis's son is unsure of what models to purchase to start his Blood Angels army so he asks his dad for advice. His dad suggest "sensible" choices like a Tactical squad or other components needed to start an army but his son really wants to buy Mephiston just because he likes the way it looks. Jervis has (another) epiphany that special characters, if done right, epitomize the 'character' of their army better than pages of fluff ever can. As such, Jervis decides that players shouldn't feel penalized or dirty for using special characters but rather they should become something that can be used by any player should they so wish.


And that's it.


But as you can see from this thread, the lore has already spread to the point where people are blaming the percieved "simplification" of the game on Jervis's son.

And while Jervis has certainly made a point to say that the games need to be designed in a way to accomodate new players better there has never been any evidence that this is somehow due to his son having trouble with understanding the actual rules of the game.

True. What is important to note is that those initial points lead people to the, potentially unfair, conclusion that the new players who Jervis was referring to was referring to in justifying the simplifications were actually his son. The changes that were made, have as a whole, I think not impressed long term players, leading them to the unfair position of attacking the child, rather then the father.

In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

yakface wrote:

Tazok wrote:Jervis Jr couldn't for the life of him figure out the difference between a plasma gun and a meltagun. GW is a social game, couldn't he just have asked someone?

Yep, he could and that's exactly what he did (he asked his dad who plays the game).


But each codex should tell you what each weapon and piece of equipment looks like. There just isn't any concievable reason why that information shouldn't be included.

You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

efarrer wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I don't really see how he is reversing the game to 2nd edition. 2nd edition had a metric ton of equipment and unit options. If anything, he seems to be moving it closer to how the game was in 3rd edition before the codices were released (the rulebook army lists).


But even that is an unfair comparison IMHO because the new lists in some cases (like Eldar, Chaos & Orks) allow players to make very different army types (should they choose) all from the same central army list without requiring additional rules (like Clan rules) or sub-army lists (like the Craftworld lists).

Obviously you cannot create an exact replica of the armies you could make with those additional rules and sub-army lists but I think for the most part they have done an admirable job with making a simplified army list that still allows for a wide variety of different army types should the player want to do so.

The DA and BA codices are much more focused but that is because they are focused on only a single army sub-faction already.



Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

efarrer wrote:
You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

Yep, but that is only a tiny selection of the weapons in 40K and that doesn't even attempt to cover what the common wargear looks like. You could put it all in a central location (like the rulebook) but I personally think it is better located in a codex, that way if they redesign the way weapons look when making a codex it is very easy to update it.

Thank you guys for all the info. I'm surprised no one has made a wiki entry yet. i gues I'll get on that.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

Yep, but that is only a tiny selection of the weapons in 40K and that doesn't even attempt to cover what the common wargear looks like. You could put it all in a central location (like the rulebook) but I personally think it is better located in a codex, that way if they redesign the way weapons look when making a codex it is very easy to update it.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that it would make playing other people with codexes you don't own easier. I've played a number of nid and eldar players and still can't tell which weapon is which. The presence of the weapons in both main rule book and in the codex would be helpful.

efarrer wrote:

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that it would make playing other people with codexes you don't own easier. I've played a number of nid and eldar players and still can't tell which weapon is which. The presence of the weapons in both main rule book and in the codex would be helpful.

Agreed. It couldn't help to have them both in the rulebook and the codex.

But to be fair to those Tyranid and Eldar players you mention, the Eldar codex only has a partial diagram of their weapons and the Tyranids have even less.

The whole 'weapon/wargear' diagram really got started with the DA codex.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I don't really see how he is reversing the game to 2nd edition. 2nd edition had a metric ton of equipment and unit options. If anything, he seems to be moving it closer to how the game was in 3rd edition before the codices were released (the rulebook army lists).

Agreed!

I loved 2nd edition, and really didn't like 3rd.

I think 5th is going to be a lot closer to 3rd than I'd like, but, them's the breaks!

yakface wrote:
Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

I think Efarrer is correct, you dont involve you children in your professional life. It has led to threads such as these. While Jervis is to blame, he has involved his son in his redesign aspects of the game. In many ways, Jervis is admitting that his son is basically changing the face of 40K through him.

Thats not to say that adding diagrams isnt a bad idea concerning what is what. It was done early on in 3rd ed as well (re: DE codex). But changing it to his mollified version of a game and pandering to people who really have no business playing anyways is where many find the Fault in the Jervis' New Plan.

I gave it a chance, but after three codexes worth of his resdesign (read: Failure) I am fed up. Bigger and better fish to eat out there than to waste more of my money with 40K.

While you cannot wait for the whole game to reflect his philosophy, I cant wait for GW's revenue to reach such an all time low that GW are FORCED to reformat their entire Development department, starting with giving Jervis the business end of the ax.

Now that GW's stock is less than 160 pence a share (yes, you read that right), I dont think it will be too far away. This isnt Dead Cat Bounce either.
Apocalypse wasnt such a huge windfall that they expected. Thats because while its fun, people arent so stupid as to recognize lazy rules design. And Apocalypse is certainly a lazy fix. "Buy more models, use whatever you want! BUY MORE MODELS" doesnt make a game better, but in 40K's case, you can only go up.

[edit]
Recall the days where in 3rd ed when a new codex was released. The BBS's would explode in banter regarding whats going on with the new thing. Ever since the DA codex, the banter has died to a trickle. No one cared about the new Chaos dex. Hell, the Witchhunters codex and Sisters of battle got more airtime than the new chaos dex. Why? That seems pretty simple, People hate Jervis design strategy for the most part.

But not so for the Ork codex. it hasnt even been released yet and people still chatter on about it. Again, why? Because Jervis doesnt have his dirty fingers in it. Phil Kelly does.

I started playing Star Wars CCG when I was 10 and my brother started when he was 6. He kicked my ass all the time. In SWCCG, Chess, and Go. To this day.

Why couldn't my brother have been Jervis' son? If his son is as slowed as the internet says he is, I'd also rather not have my brother be him.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I don't really see how he is reversing the game to 2nd edition. 2nd edition had a metric ton of equipment and unit options. If anything, he seems to be moving it closer to how the game was in 3rd edition before the codices were released (the rulebook army lists).

But not unit sizes. They were locked in stone for several armies. The strongest armies of that edition were, not suprisingly, the armies which were more customizable.

yakface wrote:
But even that is an unfair comparison IMHO because the new lists in some cases (like Eldar, Chaos & Orks) allow players to make very different army types (should they choose) all from the same central army list without requiring additional rules (like Clan rules) or sub-army lists (like the Craftworld lists).

Which being reasonable people, both of us can agree could be done with the old armylists for chaos and Eldar (Orks are another case entirely). Eldar got a huge power boost with the new book, but honestly the armylist did not change substaintially. I can't speak on the new Ork codex as I don't download illegally.

yakface wrote:
Obviously you cannot create an exact replica of the armies you could make with those additional rules and sub-army lists but I think for the most part they have done an admirable job with making a simplified army list that still allows for a wide variety of different army types should the player want to do so.

The DA and BA codices are much more focused but that is because they are focused on only a single army sub-faction already.

Ironically the fluffiness which toerdor proclaims so loudly in relation to 5/10 squads is ignored entirley in chaos book, resulting in the slannesh lords leading Khorne units.

If they had kept the power level constant I'd not complain as much about the BA/DA books (despite my hate for the 5/10 structure), but these two lists are just plain weak, (ignoring the agrivation of Crusaders driving around 1/2 full in both armies). It will, I think be hard to see if very similar lists come from BA and DA, as I don't believe htey are good enough to warrent much longterm attention. As it stands the game is going to be the Eldar show for the forseeable future.

yakface wrote:
Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

I'm honestly no longer sure I'm going to be along for that ride. Which is a pity, given my investment in time and money in the game. It makes me very sad when I think of the game.

Hellfury wrote:

yakface wrote:
Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

I think Efarrer is correct, you dont involve you children in your professional life. It has led to threads such as these. While Jervis is to blame, he has involved his son in his redesign aspects of the game. In many ways, Jervis is admitting that his son is basically changing the face of 40K through him.

Thats not to say that adding diagrams isnt a bad idea concerning what is what. It was done early on in 3rd ed as well (re: DE codex). But changing it to his mollified version of a game and pandering to people who really have no business playing anyways is where many find the Fault in the Jervis' New Plan.

I gave it a chance, but after three codexes worth of his resdesign (read: Failure) I am fed up. Bigger and better fish to eat out there than to waste more of my money with 40K.

While you cannot wait for the whole game to reflect his philosophy, I cant wait for GW's revenue to reach such an all time low that GW are FORCED to reformat their entire Development department, starting with giving Jervis the business end of the ax.

Now that GW's stock is less than 160 pence a share (yes, you read that right), I dont think it will be too far away. This isnt Dead Cat Bounce either.
Apocalypse wasnt such a huge windfall that they expected. Thats because while its fun, people arent so stupid as to recognize lazy rules design. And Apocalypse is certainly a lazy fix. "Buy more models, use whatever you want! BUY MORE MODELS" doesnt make a game better, but in 40K's case, you can only go up.

But not so for the Ork codex. it hasnt even been released yet and people still chatter on about it. Again, why? Because Jervis doesnt have his dirty fingers in it. Phil Kelly does.

First I should note. I don't know or care if Jervis's son is a part of Jervis's reasoing. I just think it's a shame he gave the people a target, for the sake of a a bit of press. I hate it when parent's dangle thier kids out of the window (so to speak), and that's what I think he has done. I wish the cyber bullies would quit targeting the poor kid.

Secondly, I agree with you Hellfury. Jervis has had three chances to impress the fans. I don't think he's succeeded. Time to change horses, since this one's lame. We all know what needs to done with a lame horse, don't we?

I think the ork codex is getting so much press because it was prereleased. I'll wait until I see the actual one, and actual response to it (ie. sales).

Hellfury wrote:

I think Efarrer is correct, you dont involve you children in your professional life. It has led to threads such as these. While Jervis is to blame, he has involved his son in his redesign aspects of the game. In many ways, Jervis is admitting that his son is basically changing the face of 40K through him.

Thats not to say that adding diagrams isnt a bad idea concerning what is what. It was done early on in 3rd ed as well (re: DE codex). But changing it to his mollified version of a game and pandering to people who really have no business playing anyways is where many find the Fault in the Jervis' New Plan.

Again: There is no evidence that any of the rules have been simplified because of Jervis's son. Any such speculation is simply unfounded. And both examples that Jervis has mentioned with his son I have seen several times over the years with grown adults.

I have had friends start the game and I had to sit down and explain to them exactly which physical weapon model was actually what weapon in the rules.

I have seen many people love the special character models but feel like they can't use them beause they were only usable with your "opponent's consent".


All other aspects of any new design philosiphy have aboslutely no tangible connection to Jervis's son. You may hate what Jervis has implemented in the game but you can't just assume any of it was done because of his son (well you can, but you have no proof).

Recall the days where in 3rd ed when a new codex was released. The BBS's would explode in banter regarding whats going on with the new thing. Ever since the DA codex, the banter has died to a trickle. No one cared about the new Chaos dex. Hell, the Witchhunters codex and Sisters of battle got more airtime than the new chaos dex. Why? That seems pretty simple, People hate Jervis design strategy for the most part.

But not so for the Ork codex. it hasnt even been released yet and people still chatter on about it. Again, why? Because Jervis doesnt have his dirty fingers in it. Phil Kelly does.

Jervis had as much to do with the Chaos codex as he did the Ork codex. . .in other words: nothing.

Jervis doesn't isn't making codices besides the (DA/BA ones). He simply sets the ground rules for the design teams to work with. And both the Chaos codex and the Ork codex both follow his same design tennets:

One army list that allows different army types.

No special rules for the sake of having a special rule; use existing special rules or basic stats that can accomplish the same task instead.

Give the unit upgrades and options that they should have based on the fluff (including standard equipment).

Don't give items/equipment that should just be decorative their own rules which would prevent or force players to make their models a certain way.

So if you feel that the Chaos codex is a failure and the Ork codex is a success, blame/laud the authors: Gav Thorpe/Alesso Cavatore and Phil Kelly. Both were working under Jervis's design tennents but neither was written by Jervis.

efarrer wrote: You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

This would be one of the worst recommendations someone has ever made. You do not need them in the rule book due to material being outdated after the newest codex release. Glad to see that GW doesn't follow this poor line of thinking.

Weapons pictures need to be kept in each individual codex. For those who do not have all of the codices, maybe GW can post the pics of weapons in the newest codices online. This way, the rule book does not need to be updated and yet players such as yourself can have pics of your weapons.

yakface wrote:

So if you feel that the Chaos codex is a failure and the Ork codex is a success, blame/laud the authors: Gav Thorpe/Alesso Cavatore and Phil Kelly. Both were working under Jervis's design tennents but neither was written by Jervis.

Ultimately that is one and the same. The design tennets are the core of the designs. It's like excusing Joe Q for the mess that is Spiderman "one More Day" because JMS is the writer. The person who sets the rules for the design/story is responsible for the outcome. With the design tennets established by Jervis the Chaos book that was released was a steaming pile. Not having the Ork book i don't know if it was an actual success, or just a success based on how bad the preceding book was.

I've never read this (I have the old one somewhwer), but a cynical person might think that they've deliberately left out weapon descriptions from the codices

They should'nt need to dumb down anything, me and my mates started just before the eldar release and we never needed help if you can't cook get out of the kitchen (so to speak)

efarrer wrote:
Ultimately that is one and the same. The design tennets are the core of the designs. It's like excusing Joe Q for the mess that is Spiderman "one More Day" because JMS is the writer. The person who sets the rules for the design/story is responsible for the outcome. With the design tennets established by Jervis the Chaos book that was released was a steaming pile. Not having the Ork book i don't know if it was an actual success, or just a success based on how bad the preceding book was.

That is completely, totally false.

Jervis is responsible for the "sandbox" for the designers to work with but the writers themselves are responsible for what they create within the "sandbox". Two people can work in the same sanbox and one person can make a simple sand castle while the other person can make a giant beautiful sculpture. Both people had the same tools its just that one of them used them with more ingenuity and talent.


Many people like the Ork & Eldar codex but dislike the Chaos & DA/BA codex. However all five were written under Jervis's command.

He only wrote Dark Angels & Blood Angels.

CSM was written by Gav/Alesso

Orks and Eldar were written by Phil Kelly.


You cannot blame Jervis's overall tennents if you like any of those codices. They were all produced under them.

Jazz is for Losers wrote:I've never read this (I have the old one somewhwer), but a cynical person might think that they've deliberately left out weapon descriptions from the codices

The Wargear book has some diagrams, but it doesn't even come close to the old Wargear book back in the day (which pretty much had an image for every weapon).


I see the Wargear book more as a stop-gap since at one point early in 4th edition you had a whole bunch of codices with different rules for the same piece of wargear. The book was an attempt to give a single wargear entry for these items.

As for diagrams, it actually contains very few.

yakface wrote:Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

Won't happen. The new designer incoming will revamp his half of the game system.

Oh, and the changes Jervis is making make me less likely to buy 40K product and more likely to seek life elsewhere.

Jervis is digging a hole he can't get out of.

Sales aren't plummeting through the floor because of anyone else's decisions.

Screw the 10 year olds. I don't want to play them, and their parents don't like the fluff one bit.

They obviously aren't making GW money, probably as a result of not having any.

Am I bitter about the changes? Yes. The only interest I have is in variant armies. A book with 1 army in it? I'm not interested in buying that crap. It's too confusing? Don't play.

You won't be missed.

efarrer wrote:I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

Do you recall 2nd Edition? The whole system as a lot more complex, with multiple sizes of Blast and Flamer Templates, whole pages of rules for individual wargear items.

For example, do you recall the 2nd Ed Eldar Codex? I do. Avatars were immune to "heat-based weapons". BS5 Exarches could take Jetbikes with 5-pt Shuriken Cannons to make pop-up attacks. Warp Spiders had a far more involved movement mechanic, and their spinners were Large Flamer Template, which tested against enemy Initiative. Wraithguard were vehicles with W2 and a table of results for their Wraithcannons.

No Jervis isn't making 40k5 into 40k2. He's restoring the thematic elements that shouldn't have been removed in the first place, and reworking them for 40k5. To that end, things like Combat Squads are good.

An interesting side-note are the repeated conversations that come up in the Historical Gaming community, where there seems to be a real struggle between old-timers who came up on games with a lot of bookkeeping, chits, paperwork etc. and newcomers/younger players who are looking for a streamlined gaming experience. Now, what they mean by streamlined is a bit different from what we mean in the sci-fi/fantasy gaming world, but it's sort of fascinating to see this as a 'cross-cultural' phenomenon (as it were). When you see people talking about Flames of War as "WWII 40k", what they're alluding to is the whole discussion of simplifying rules.

yakface wrote:
the new lists in some cases (like Eldar, Chaos & Orks) allow players to make very different army types (should they choose) all from the same central army list without requiring additional rules (like Clan rules) or sub-army lists (like the Craftworld lists).

Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

QFT.

Stelek wrote:

Won't happen. The new designer incoming will revamp his half of the game system.

Oh, and the changes Jervis is making make me less likely to buy 40K product and more likely to seek life elsewhere.

Jervis is digging a hole he can't get out of.

Sales aren't plummeting through the floor because of anyone else's decisions.

Screw the 10 year olds. I don't want to play them, and their parents don't like the fluff one bit.

They obviously aren't making GW money, probably as a result of not having any.

Am I bitter about the changes? Yes. The only interest I have is in variant armies. A book with 1 army in it? I'm not interested in buying that crap. It's too confusing? Don't play.

You won't be missed.

What new designer? Do you have some inside information or are you just speculating?


GW's sales have been declining long before Jervis took over the design studio so I think the only thing we can say for certain is that his changes have not contributed to halting that slide.


I understand that there are players who love variant army lists and are very unhappy to see them go. But remember that there are players out there (like) me who actually do like the direction the game is going quite a bit.

You like the blandification of 40k? I'm so disillusioned.

I don't see elegant rule design as bland. That said, 40K has a long way to go before it's "elegant," but I think it's moving in the right direction.

Yak, thanks for injecting some sanity into the bash-fest. I've been dreading for months the day when Jervis' kid decides to join Dakka, only to find out that his "reputation" has preceded him.

The Power Cosmic wrote:You like the blandification of 40k? I'm so disillusioned.

Sorry.


But seriously, I don't see the current direction the game is moving as "blandification". It is a reduction of specialized rules and army lists to be sure, but I find there to be plenty of variety in the new codices. I certainly enjoy the freedom that is once again give to players to shape an army to their imagination rather than to a set of restrictions set down by a variant list.

For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

I don't think 40k will ever reach the rarified beauty of BFG or Epic (latest version), but it's getting a lot cleaner. That's for sure!

My hope is Jervis Jr. asks his dad what a 'magic cylinder' is one day.



I'd be overjoyed if the Jervis philosophy was applied to the main Rulebook. Maybe that's why we're getting 5th edition so soon?

This is your 'Magic Cylinder'...



This is your "Magic Cylinder' filled with beer...



Any questions?

yakface wrote:For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

or is it because the 1Ksons have the best rules in the codex?

Sorry but the example you gave just asked for that.

syr8766 wrote:An interesting side-note are the repeated conversations that come up in the Historical Gaming community, where there seems to be a real struggle between old-timers who came up on games with a lot of bookkeeping, chits, paperwork etc. and newcomers/younger players who are looking for a streamlined gaming experience. Now, what they mean by streamlined is a bit different from what we mean in the sci-fi/fantasy gaming world, but it's sort of fascinating to see this as a 'cross-cultural' phenomenon (as it were). When you see people talking about Flames of War as "WWII 40k", what they're alluding to is the whole discussion of simplifying rules.

I'm too young to be a grognard. I don't even play historicals!

yakface wrote:

Stelek wrote:

Won't happen. The new designer incoming will revamp his half of the game system.

Oh, and the changes Jervis is making make me less likely to buy 40K product and more likely to seek life elsewhere.

Jervis is digging a hole he can't get out of.

Sales aren't plummeting through the floor because of anyone else's decisions.

Screw the 10 year olds. I don't want to play them, and their parents don't like the fluff one bit.

They obviously aren't making GW money, probably as a result of not having any.

Am I bitter about the changes? Yes. The only interest I have is in variant armies. A book with 1 army in it? I'm not interested in buying that crap. It's too confusing? Don't play.

You won't be missed.

What new designer? Do you have some inside information or are you just speculating?


GW's sales have been declining long before Jervis took over the design studio so I think the only thing we can say for certain is that his changes have not contributed to halting that slide.


I understand that there are players who love variant army lists and are very unhappy to see them go. But remember that there are players out there (like) me who actually do like the direction the game is going quite a bit.

Yes.

Correct.

It isn't variant army lists, Yak. It's VARIATION in an army list.

Let me see:

Dark Angels, I take a 100-200 point HQ; premade with no options. Sorry, taking a power weapon or a fist is not a damn option.

I take Elite marines, but I can only have 5 so giving them 5 weapons is for retards.

Troops, I *must* spend 200 points to get a lascannon but I can get TL Las on elite dreads or las on the elite marines and I'm right back at min-max 5 man squads which the very concept of MUST take 10 to get a lascannon is supposed to stop....

Fast attack, well I can bring EVERYTHING, or assault marines. Gee, really? I can run bikes/big bikes/floating bikes? WOW Original.

Heavy, I can run...marines or tanks, tanks or marines...or really BIG tanks with marines inside.

Did you even PLAY 40k when every effing army was BLUE, RED, YELLOW, OR BLACK Space Marines man? That's where we're going, that's some real boring s**. I quit for a LONG time because GW couldn't make decent armies to play with. Now they have them, and they're not making BLAND rules. They're making rules for stupid 10 year olds that wouldn't know tactics from whining.

Do YOU play 10 year olds where you game? Do YOU enjoy it? Do YOU enjoy playing 10 year old compatible army lists?

I know I don't like any of it.

If 40K is somehow too complex for a person, they need to go back to middle school and GRADUATE to high school.

Bloody simple game, and the only real fun is having ALOT of different pieces to try and make neat AND DIFFERENT armies with.

This 'everyone plays pawns' crap will not save 40K, it will drive it right into Wal-mart, and then the hobby DIES.

That isn't the kind of simplication and price drop people want, is it?

How fun will the games be then? Walmart sells 'em, Hasbro makes the rules?

GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hellfury wrote:

yakface wrote:For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

or is it because the 1Ksons have the best rules in the codex?

No wai! TS aren't as good as generic CSM for general play. TS are only good against MEQ at close range.

How do I know this? Because I've always wanted to play a Hyper-Puritan SM army that's so far gone, they're CSM, but the rules and Fluff didn't allow me to do so until recently. Now I can create the army based on my own personal Fluff and preferences of what my army should be, rather than being shoehorned into some narrow variant army list.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Hellfury wrote:

yakface wrote:For example, I've always wanted to play a 1Ksons army, but I'm more tempted than ever with the new codex to do so simply because I can create the army based on my own personal interpretation of what a 1Ksons army should be rather than exactly what was dictated by the old 1Ksons variant army list.

or is it because the 1Ksons have the best rules in the codex?

No wai! TS aren't as good as generic CSM for general play. TS are only good against MEQ at close range.

How do I know this? Because I've always wanted to play a Hyper-Puritan SM army that's so far gone, they're CSM, but the rules and Fluff didn't allow me to do so until recently. Now I can create the army based on my own personal Fluff and preferences of what my army should be, rather than being shoehorned into some narrow variant army list.

Why were you shoe-horned? You were always free to ignore the variant lists / traits / doctrines and just field your army with the basic list regardless of colour scheme.

No one ever forced you to play your Khorne army as World Eaters. If you wanted to, great. If you didn't, that was cool too. Now the option and choice are gone.

Asmodai wrote:
Why were you shoe-horned? You were always free to ignore the variant lists / traits / doctrines and just field your army with the basic list regardless of colour scheme.

No one ever forced you to play your Khorne army as World Eaters. If you wanted to, great. If you didn't, that was cool too. Now the option and choice are gone.

Like I said before, once GW gave each faction its own sub-list there suddenly were a good amount of players who would get genuinely annoyed or angry at you if you chose not to use that faction's army list if you painted your minis in that paint scheme. There even were (are) tournaments that technically required you to use that faction's rules if you painted your models that way.

Stelek wrote:It isn't variant army lists, Yak. It's VARIATION in an army list.

Dark Angels

Did you even PLAY 40k when every effing army was BLUE, RED, YELLOW, OR BLACK Space Marines man? That's where we're going, that's some real boring s**. I quit for a LONG time because GW couldn't make decent armies to play with. Now they have them, and they're not making BLAND rules. They're making rules for stupid 10 year olds that wouldn't know tactics from whining.

From what I see, we have very nearly as much variation the CSM and Eldar lists as before. Chaos, in particular, has far more combinations than ever before. I think this can be proven pretty clearly by combinatoric mathematics.

As for the Dark Angels, isn't the point that they are specialized versions of Space Marines? So shouldn't their options be narrow and more restricted precisely to differentiate them from generic Space Marines? I don't understand that portion of your rant. As I see it, DA (and SM) is about making choices. Do you want to spend your 3 Elite slots on 5-man Las/Plas teams, or do you want uber Termies or Scouts? Choosing between Devs and Tanks seems normal for HS. Same with choosing between AM and Bikes / Speeders for FA. If every army could take every option without restriction, that would be a hallmark of poor design, because the armies wouldn't be well-differentiated.

So yeah, I remember when SM were mostly only differentiated by color. And that is most definitely NOT where Jervis is going. BA, BT, and DA are all clearly different armies, but it's OK if they share some common characteristics beyond the basic statline and ATSKNF.

I thought shiney, chromey rules were passe.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
Ultimately that is one and the same. The design tennets are the core of the designs. It's like excusing Joe Q for the mess that is Spiderman "one More Day" because JMS is the writer. The person who sets the rules for the design/story is responsible for the outcome. With the design tennets established by Jervis the Chaos book that was released was a steaming pile. Not having the Ork book i don't know if it was an actual success, or just a success based on how bad the preceding book was.

That is completely, totally false.

Jervis is responsible for the "sandbox" for the designers to work with but the writers themselves are responsible for what they create within the "sandbox". Two people can work in the same sanbox and one person can make a simple sand castle while the other person can make a giant beautiful sculpture. Both people had the same tools its just that one of them used them with more ingenuity and talent.


Many people like the Ork & Eldar codex but dislike the Chaos & DA/BA codex. However all five were written under Jervis's command.

He only wrote Dark Angels & Blood Angels.

CSM was written by Gav/Alesso

Orks and Eldar were written by Phil Kelly.


You cannot blame Jervis's overall tennents if you like any of those codices. They were all produced under them.

Then let me put it as bluntly as is humanly possible. I do not like any of these books. I find them bland uninspired pieces of excrement. I feel that the quality has dropped and I am really thinking about dropping my 5,000 dollar investment and finding new games to play. Why? Because I play BA and Chaos (which was 4 distinct armies for me) and those armies are no longer the armies that I have worked on for the last 10 years. I don't mind change, but this set of changes has set my teeth on edge and I don't think it's been balanced (in particular in light of Codex Eldar). I no longer have faith in the design team, and suspect the good designers are all long gone, and we have been left with the ones not good enough too have migrated.

The only game I feel is still good that GW still produces new material for is the LotR which does have a solid system which was well updated.

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always wanted to play a Hyper-Puritan SM army that's so far gone, they're CSM, but the rules and Fluff didn't allow me to do so until recently. Now I can create the army based on my own personal Fluff and preferences of what my army should be, rather than being shoehorned into some narrow variant army list.

Why were you shoe-horned? You were always free to ignore the variant lists / traits / doctrines and just field your army with the basic list regardless of colour scheme.

No one ever forced you to play your Khorne army as World Eaters. If you wanted to, great. If you didn't, that was cool too. Now the option and choice are gone.

Not so. 40k3 WYSIWYG was interpreted in many tournaments that an army in World Eaters colors & heraldry *must* be played as WE, and an army in Dark Angels colors & heraldry *must* be played as DA. For a while, the only armies that had options would be custom armies.

In the case of CSM, those armies would have had to have been played as MoCU renegades, rather than a Legion, because all of the Legions had specific color, etc. In any case, the excess of 0-1 restrictions was stifling to army concept, and the ridiculous point costs for certain CSM units made many concepts totally nonsensical.

With the current CSM book, there are far more options expressly given to the player, so I don't have to be some guy who's twisting the fluff unnaturally to field my army.

Stelek wrote:

Yes.

Correct.

It isn't variant army lists, Yak. It's VARIATION in an army list.

Let me see:

Dark Angels, I take a 100-200 point HQ; premade with no options. Sorry, taking a power weapon or a fist is not a damn option.

I take Elite marines, but I can only have 5 so giving them 5 weapons is for retards.

Troops, I *must* spend 200 points to get a lascannon but I can get TL Las on elite dreads or las on the elite marines and I'm right back at min-max 5 man squads which the very concept of MUST take 10 to get a lascannon is supposed to stop....

Fast attack, well I can bring EVERYTHING, or assault marines. Gee, really? I can run bikes/big bikes/floating bikes? WOW Original.

Heavy, I can run...marines or tanks, tanks or marines...or really BIG tanks with marines inside.

Did you even PLAY 40k when every effing army was BLUE, RED, YELLOW, OR BLACK Space Marines man? That's where we're going, that's some real boring s**. I quit for a LONG time because GW couldn't make decent armies to play with. Now they have them, and they're not making BLAND rules. They're making rules for stupid 10 year olds that wouldn't know tactics from whining.

Do YOU play 10 year olds where you game? Do YOU enjoy it? Do YOU enjoy playing 10 year old compatible army lists?

I know I don't like any of it.

If 40K is somehow too complex for a person, they need to go back to middle school and GRADUATE to high school.

Bloody simple game, and the only real fun is having ALOT of different pieces to try and make neat AND DIFFERENT armies with.

This 'everyone plays pawns' crap will not save 40K, it will drive it right into Wal-mart, and then the hobby DIES.

That isn't the kind of simplication and price drop people want, is it?

How fun will the games be then? Walmart sells 'em, Hasbro makes the rules?

GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Unless you care to share more information about the upcoming design team shake-up we really can't discuss more on that topic. If that does happen then certainly things will be different by I'm under the basic premise that the current design concepts are going to be in place for the forseeable future, simply because I haven't seen any actual evidence to the contrary (not saying you're wrong, just that I don't have the same information you apparently do).

I've played 40K since Rogue Trader, so I've seen and played it in all its forms.

I just couldn't disagree with you more. I find the game fun to play. I do enjoy army list construction but it isn't my sole enjoyment. In fact, sometimes (often) I actually play with sub-optimal army lists just to challenge myself to see if I can beat my opponents with units I consider not the best of choices. I'm not saying this way of playing is for everyone, but just that if you don't find the actual playing of the game very fun then it certainly makes sense to me why the removal of sub-army lists would be frustrating.


I believe your use of Dark Angels as the example of the new style of codex isn't very fair simply because Dark Angles are easily the most specialized (i.e. limited) of the new codices, which was clearly intentional. It isn't like the Eldar, Chaos or Ork codices which do allow for a pretty nice array of different army types.

Alpharius wrote:

I think 5th is going to be a lot closer to 3rd than I'd like, but, them's the breaks!

by "breaks" are you referring to people like me that shelved things like their CSM armies and went out and got into Flames of War?

I will be the flip side of your coin then Efarrer. Our group has gained a lot larger following, and things are growing. People have hope about the new books and systems, and see a sort of balance to a lot of it. There are still problems, and some people moved on from the new Chaos books, but others picked it up with gusto. You can't make everyone happy, you just try to make the most of them relatively happy. The new changes have been doing that around here. 40k was thriving 4 years ago here, and last year it was almost dead. The release of the new books and Apoc has brought it back from the dead. It's not perfect, but a lot of people have a new sort of hope.

Been playing for 27 years, and I don't even want to add up what I have spent throughout it. Will probably be here for many more. It's just a game after all.

In a vacuum I love the DA dex. I think it represents the DA better than any list ever has. There are always a few knee jerk items that must be chosen, but overall there is a lot of competition of what to field in each slot. Each HQ choice has it's benefits and it's penalties. Do I take a full squad of 10 to get a heavy, or do I field a squad of 5 with a lazor razorback. Maybe a dread with las, or a dev with the same. They are all around the same cost in points, and all give you the AT you need, but each choice has it's pros and cons that are very different. The book is a lot of give and take, and can make a lot of different styles of lists. Almost all of the gear is there also, it's just balanced by choice. The standard Captain has almost all of the options previously available to him, and can still be kitted out very differently depending on need.

And yeah, the I get to play against the 11 year old that lives in my house. To negate the youngens you also kill the future of these games. We like to bring them in and teach them, not make fun of them. We were there once, and so were you. Done right they grow up to be good gamers.

And it is all your opinion. We differ on that. I feel the quality is getting better. (can't get much worse than it has been the last few years). If they could only do a main rulebook correction or FAQ to fix some things, and I think our group would be quite content.

syr8766 wrote:An interesting side-note are the repeated conversations that come up in the Historical Gaming community, where there seems to be a real struggle between old-timers who came up on games with a lot of bookkeeping, chits, paperwork etc. and newcomers/younger players who are looking for a streamlined gaming experience. Now, what they mean by streamlined is a bit different from what we mean in the sci-fi/fantasy gaming world, but it's sort of fascinating to see this as a 'cross-cultural' phenomenon (as it were). When you see people talking about Flames of War as "WWII 40k", what they're alluding to is the whole discussion of simplifying rules.

but FoW isn't "WW2" 40K.

The rules make sense, they have clear rules and they put out well worded FAQ's.

Nevermind that a Panzer from 1942 is always going to be a Panzer from 1942 and won't change from a "Close Combat Death Machine" to a "Gun Platform of Doom" overnight in the writers next great idea to drive sales.

You mean Warhammer WW2?

And it is in a lot of ways. It is older style, but a lot of the same. Things have changed dramatically quite a few times since they started long ago. But with something historical, there is a lot less leeway.

Been there done that, I also play Hordes, doesn't mean they are great games either. Most games have problems, it's just how you let it get to you.

FAQs are nice, and I really wish GW would get off their bum and do em. Makes no sense. But I hate the flip side that has happend with WM and old 40k. Having to keep up to date and carry around reams of paper worth of rules changes. It's hard to keep up if they are too quick to release them.

yakface wrote:


I understand that there are players who love variant army lists and are very unhappy to see them go. But remember that there are players out there (like) me who actually do like the direction the game is going quite a bit.

then I hope all of the rest of the Eldar and Tyranid players can make up for everyone else.

Toreador wrote:You mean Warhammer WW2?

Been there done that, I also play Hordes, doesn't mean they are great games either. Most games have problems, it's just how you let it get to you.

Translation: "I play Tyranids".

And Orks, don't forget the orks, and Tau who always have been around.

I used to play nids, but sold most of them off, still wish I hadn't done that.

I play mostly DA, Orks, Eldar and SOB. With the eldar I like to play a mostly foot army. My tourney lists and takes are much different than my normal "fun" play lists. But that includes most of the other games I play. You just don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Jervis has made a series of changes to the game. I happen to like the changes (finding it a more mobile, objective oriented game, rather than just deploying twinked out stand and shoot uber-units), but that’s besides the point. It’s a constantly changing game, and this is just the latest evolution.

Some people didn’t like the changes. Some people liked being able to play around with the old codices, producing list after list of interesting armies that they never played. Other people used the old codices to produce really, really powerful armies like Iron Warriors. These people started to use terms like ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ to describe the new books. These are excellent for internet criticism because they sound like scathing criticisms without actually meaning anything.

While that criticism was continuing, Jervis mentioned his son in the context of a couple of things that had been missed in the codices. This was brought up to show how GW and its customer base had become quite insular, a little daunting to a potential new player like his son. The boy was used as an example, related to the completely non-contraversial ideas of including pictures of gear in the books and making the books easier to reference.

People then used Jervis’ kid as the poster boy for the ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ rules. Jervis’ kid had nothing to do with the rules changes, but that didn’t seem to matter. This is the internet, people never let reality get in the way of a rant.

How this has morphed into people being critical of Jervis for using his son in his business is, well, just another one of those ridiculous internet things.

Blackheart666 wrote:but FoW isn't "WW2" 40K.

Except it really does play a hell of a lot like 40k. The same basic strategies work well in each game, with same bias towards offensive actions.

The only really marked difference is FoW having strict limits on force composition, to try and shoehorn armies into looking like something close to a realistic company size force. Which is ironic, given the level of venom you see around the place for 40k pulling back on the level of options available in army creation.

Toreador wrote:
You just don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

Unless you wear a G.F. mask...lol
It's really a bit odd, that you say something like that and use a picture of V as avatar.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not so. 40k3 WYSIWYG was interpreted in many tournaments that an army in World Eaters colors & heraldry *must* be played as WE, and an army in Dark Angels colors & heraldry *must* be played as DA. For a while, the only armies that had options would be custom armies.

Then it's the tournaments that are at fault, not the variant lists themselves. What about people who don't play tournaments? Why should everyone else suffer because of the rules at a few tournies?

The problem with having one big flexible list is that theming your army makes it weaker because you don't gain anything from doing so.
e.g. with the old Codex you take a cult army, you get free Aspiring Champion upgrades. Now by "theming" an army you are just limiting your choices with no benefit, so many players won't do it. You will see less and less variety on the tabletop.

I'm on the fence, honestly. I agree that in some ways 3rd/4th became more complicated than 2nd ever was, so some streamlining was necessary.

HOWEVER, I remain skeptical whether the design team will improve the game. The three big reasons:

1) Backward compatibility. It's the last way anyone would ever choose to design a game. I fully understand the business reasons, but all it does is handcuff the designers.

2) Past performance. This is just a lack of execution. I've seen them fail to fix things properly too many times. And as we've seen from recent codices, some designers are simply more talented than others.

3) History of mid-edition changes. They've happened in every edition of the game so far, and I have a hard time being convinced that it won't happen again if the winds change direction (especially the winds of sales).

I HOPE things improve and I want them to do a great job. But with this many years of experience with 40K and GW, I'm firmly in the "wait-and-see" camp. Anything more and I'd just feel incredibly naive. Fool me once...

sebster wrote:Jervis has made a series of changes to the game. I happen to like the changes (finding it a more mobile, objective oriented game, rather than just deploying twinked out stand and shoot uber-units), but that’s besides the point. It’s a constantly changing game, and this is just the latest evolution.

Tell ya what I've played batletech for over 15 years now. The game has seen three or four editions and at least 2 owners. Guess what the basic rules remain the same. A game doesn't need change to make it good, unless it's bad. The move to a fifth edition indicates to me the designers have yet to get it right.
Amd to judge from the games top two armies your wrong about the games overall strategy as well. Mech Eldar and Godzilla are exactly what you are complaining about.

sebster wrote:
Some people didn’t like the changes. Some people liked being able to play around with the old codices, producing list after list of interesting armies that they never played. Other people used the old codices to produce really, really powerful armies like Iron Warriors. These people started to use terms like ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ to describe the new books. These are excellent for internet criticism because they sound like scathing criticisms without actually meaning anything.

For the record some of us liked producing list after list of interesting armies we did play. I love how this always comes doen to saying the old way was bad because of the Iron Warriors. You can make a much more powerful list using Codex Eldar. That is going to be around for years now. The brokenness hasn't ended with Codex chaos, but I do not like it's execution, or the fluff logic used to explain the changes (the worst of which is needing 10 guys for a heavy weapon).

sebster wrote:
While that criticism was continuing, Jervis mentioned his son in the context of a couple of things that had been missed in the codices. This was brought up to show how GW and its customer base had become quite insular, a little daunting to a potential new player like his son. The boy was used as an example, related to the completely non-contraversial ideas of including pictures of gear in the books and making the books easier to reference.

People then used Jervis’ kid as the poster boy for the ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ rules. Jervis’ kid had nothing to do with the rules changes, but that didn’t seem to matter. This is the internet, people never let reality get in the way of a rant.

How this has morphed into people being critical of Jervis for using his son in his business is, well, just another one of those ridiculous internet things.

I am critical for how Jervis used his son because it was fairly predictable what would happen to the poor kid once the changes started. As special characters went from forbidden to almost required in the DA and then the BA lists people decided this change was what Jervis meant when he was talking in wd319. It was then further generallized to be any change= Jervis's son. I feel that it was simply put a very bad idea to bring his son into the conversation, in particular as an example of a young gamer at a time when he began making some contreversal changes to assist young players. My feelings are justified by the existance of a thread about his son, and this is one of the nice ones.

the new lists in some cases (like Eldar, Chaos & Orks) allow players to make very different army types (should they choose) all from the same central army list without requiring additional rules (like Clan rules) or sub-army lists (like the Craftworld lists).

Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

QFT.

I started playing a couple months back. Since I've started I've seen the new Dark Angels, new Blood Angels, New Chaos Space Marines and now the New Orks. Chaos, BA and Orks strike me as improvements. I've never seen an old style DA codex, so I can't speak to that. What I really can't wait for is a new codex for my crons, in the new style.

JohnHwangDD wrote:So yeah, I remember when SM were mostly only differentiated by color. And that is most definitely NOT where Jervis is going. BA, BT, and DA are all clearly different armies, but it's OK if they share some common characteristics beyond the basic statline and ATSKNF.

Ok JohnHwang, I'm going to have to call bulls#!t here. BA, BT, and DA are most certainly NOT all clearly different armies. They could all easily be subsumed into a revised vanilla SM list. Take the DA for example. Why the hell do DA need a separate codex? How different will DA be after the SM codex gets Jervisified? When every SM tac squad comes in multiples of 5? When terminators can only take 1 heavy? When scouts are moved to Elites? Will we really need a separate codex just to give DA bikes and termies Fearless? 1ksons used to have Fearless termies too ya know...

The same goes for BA and BT. You want Death Company? Just use assault marines and a chaplain with "counts as" (look - your favorite thing, JohnHwang!). You want neophytes? Just use scouts with "counts as"! Emperor's Champion? "Counts as"! Veteran assault squads? "Counts as"!

The only reason why DA and BA and BT get separate codexes is because they're spase marienz (hurr!) and spase marienz (hurr!) don't have to follow the rules like everybody else. So while Jervis' new philosophy requires Ork klans, Eldar craftworlds, and Chaos legions to be "standardized" and absorbed by their generic parent lists, spase marienz (hurr!) get split into a bazillion unnecessary separate codexes with only superficial differences.

You are very correct. All marines could be in one codex, but the game really is based around the popularity of the Space Marines, so more of the unique chapters have a full on book. They don't have to do it, but they can, and they are very popular. I don't think that will change any time soon.

What the generic dexes do allow them to do with the other armies though, is use them as building blocks. The Chaos dex is wide open, and a lot of different themed lists can be made from them. The purists don't like that they can't make Legion lists like they used to, but you can come close. But it really opens them up to build upon this if they choose to, and come out with legion books like marines have. It really depends on what they can do in the constraints of time, money and popularity.

sebster wrote:The only really marked difference is FoW having strict limits on force composition, to try and shoehorn armies into looking like something close to a realistic company size force. Which is ironic, given the level of venom you see around the place for 40k pulling back on the level of options available in army creation.

The difference is in the game itself. Artillery, aircraft, dedicated anti-tank units, smoke, tanks...all are viable.

Not so in 40K.

Also, the basic army lists if you apply them to 40k would be like this:

Jump troop army.
Rhino army.
Predator army.
Infantry army.

Etc etc...which means you really do have lots of different army variants, given the weapon and corp support choices available to most armies.

Yak, glad we can disagree.

I'll just throw in my 2 cents, I only started playing WH40K properly(As in bought my army,Painted and played regularly) with the release of the new Chaos codex. I had played some games with old Chaos and Tyranid and I have to say while on closer inspection of the last Chaos codex I miss some of the flavour, Thrall Wizards, Specialised Dreds,Demagogues and so on I still really prefere the new one.

It is a shame some of the stuff the fits with Chaos got chopped but the old Codex was bewildering the first time I picked it up, Its only after I got to grips with the new one I can honestly say I have an understanding of the rules.

Ahwell not sure what I accomplished with this post but screw it

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Asmodai wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I've always wanted to play a Hyper-Puritan SM army that's so far gone, they're CSM, but the rules and Fluff didn't allow me to do so until recently. Now I can create the army based on my own personal Fluff and preferences of what my army should be, rather than being shoehorned into some narrow variant army list.

Why were you shoe-horned? You were always free to ignore the variant lists / traits / doctrines and just field your army with the basic list regardless of colour scheme.

No one ever forced you to play your Khorne army as World Eaters. If you wanted to, great. If you didn't, that was cool too. Now the option and choice are gone.

Not so. 40k3 WYSIWYG was interpreted in many tournaments that an army in World Eaters colors & heraldry *must* be played as WE, and an army in Dark Angels colors & heraldry *must* be played as DA. For a while, the only armies that had options would be custom armies.

In the case of CSM, those armies would have had to have been played as MoCU renegades, rather than a Legion, because all of the Legions had specific color, etc. In any case, the excess of 0-1 restrictions was stifling to army concept, and the ridiculous point costs for certain CSM units made many concepts totally nonsensical.

With the current CSM book, there are far more options expressly given to the player, so I don't have to be some guy who's twisting the fluff unnaturally to field my army.

To be honest, you need to stop playing in tournaments with crappy house rules.

The Space Marine Codex for instance specifically states that you can use the regular list to represent White Scars, Imperial Fists, etc. The Guard Codex likewise specifically states that you can use the regular list to represent Cadians or Valhallans if you don't like messing with doctrines. The fact that some tournaments invented nonsensical house rules is no excuse to reduce the options available to the vast majority of players who didn't play at those tournaments.

Not all renegades needed to be MoCU either. It was perfectly feasible to have Khornate Renegades or Slaanesh Renegades that weren't WE or EC. The 0-1 restrictions are just poor army design, and have nothing whatsoever to do with variant lists.

BA, DA, BT are quite different because they're entirely different Codexes. It's understandable you couldn't field DA with SM rules for the same reason who can't field Tau with Tyranid rules.

Since there is no requirement anywhere making you use the variant lists and all they do is add variety for expert players, I don't think that removing them simplifies the game for new players. In the past new players would probably start with the generic list maybe using the variant as a guide to what's fluffy, and then after playing a few hundred games move on to the variant list when things started getting stale. Now when things start getting stale they'll move on to... the XBOX360 probably.

I am very disappointed with the new codexes, especially Orks and Chaos.

I have an Emperor's Children army. The majority of my army was made invalid with the new codex. Models I own simply have no rules anymore.

I play Kult of Speed. I'm hard-pressed to make a 2000 point army with my existing models because of change to where things fit in the force org, drops in points, and, again, models that I own being deemed invalid in the new codex.

The new ork codex, to me, seems like it was designed by someone who had no understanding of how the ork army actually functions. Removing all the rules that made small squads viable is the worst example of this.

I've been gaming over 20 years, and played far more complex games than 40k when I was 9 and 10. Chainmail (original), Car Wars, Battletech, etc. There's no reason to stupify the game to appeal to younger players.

I still say they they should clean house and get rid of most of the game designers and get some fresh faces. Its either that or let Phil Kelly do every codex so then every army has 1-2 unbeatable combos in them.

wow, that was very interesting to read. yaks posts make so much more sense than those from the usual internet-jerks.

and btw. it's Spider-Man, efarrer. with a -

yakface wrote:

Stelek wrote:

Won't happen. The new designer incoming will revamp his half of the game system.

Oh, and the changes Jervis is making make me less likely to buy 40K product and more likely to seek life elsewhere.

Jervis is digging a hole he can't get out of.

Sales aren't plummeting through the floor because of anyone else's decisions.

Screw the 10 year olds. I don't want to play them, and their parents don't like the fluff one bit.

They obviously aren't making GW money, probably as a result of not having any.

Am I bitter about the changes? Yes. The only interest I have is in variant armies. A book with 1 army in it? I'm not interested in buying that crap. It's too confusing? Don't play.

You won't be missed.

What new designer? Do you have some inside information or are you just speculating?


GW's sales have been declining long before Jervis took over the design studio so I think the only thing we can say for certain is that his changes have not contributed to halting that slide.


I understand that there are players who love variant army lists and are very unhappy to see them go. But remember that there are players out there (like) me who actually do like the direction the game is going quite a bit.

Sales are plummetting? I heard they were up 11% this year.

Redbeard wrote:
Removing all the rules that made small squads viable is the worst example of this.

I think this is part of the new design philosophy also. Alot of the whiners whined about 'min/maxing' and people not using full-sized squads. GW listens to whiners and voila...New design philosophy.

Anung Un Rama wrote:wow, that was very interesting to read. yaks posts make so much more sense than those from the usual internet-jerks.

and btw. it's Spider-Man, efarrer. with a -

Glad to hear it was the only thing you thought worth criticizing, as to it meh. I've made worse mistakes (like buying On More Day)

General Hobbs wrote:
Sales are plummetting? I heard they were up 11% this year.

Really, since the last anyone else heard GW posted a loss and I'm pretty sure the sales graphs I have seen showed a slight decline (although it may have been a modest rise not keeping with the costs)

I live in germany, so I'm like a year behind or so of what you're curreently reading, but until now, JMS' Spidey storys were excelent.


back on topic: I don't mind that 40k get's simplified. besides the fact that I have to re-convert about 2 dozen of my current space orks, I'm very happy with the new book and I'm all for pictures of different guns in a Codex. I remember, back when I started 40k, I couldn't tell the difference between a melter and that stupid looking 2nd editon flamer you found on chaos models.

Jervis is merely the latest excuse for people here to whine. I've been posting or lurking since roughly the release of the 3E Nid book, and most of the people who are upset have always been upset.

Abba's my particular favorite for this; he (rightly) bitched for years about how horrible Thousand Sons were, and now that they're awesome, he bitches because they don't have a defined sub-list. Some people just gotta be angry.

I will admit that it's irritating that GW won't issue FAQs to address balance issues, especially since the only things that really need to be rebalanced after the new Ork book are Dakkafexes, Assault Cannons, and Holo-fields, but the game is hardly in the horrible awful no-good very-bad position that people make it out to be.

Anung Un Rama wrote:I remember, back when I started 40k, I couldn't tell the difference between a melter and that stupid looking 2nd editon flamer you found on chaos models.

Hallo - did you ask Jervis' son which weapon was which?

efarrer wrote:Tell ya what I've played batletech for over 15 years now. The game has seen three or four editions and at least 2 owners. Guess what the basic rules remain the same. A game doesn't need change to make it good, unless it's bad. The move to a fifth edition indicates to me the designers have yet to get it right.

I also play Battletech and it’s a cool game, albeit needing a fair few house rules to make it work to my liking.

Your point is misplaced though, I never said anything about 40k needing to evolve or being better for it. Different people will come in to run the game, with different ideas about what makes a game ‘best’. I simply said that it is an evolving game, and will continue to evolve. If you don’t like the current changes you can just wait them out, the winds will soon change and maybe the next design philosophy would be more to your liking. On the other hand, if you can’t handle a game where the rules and design focus change over time, choose a different game.

Amd to judge from the games top two armies your wrong about the games overall strategy as well. Mech Eldar and Godzilla are exactly what you are complaining about.

Your point about Godzilla and mech eldar pretty much came out of nowhere, and had little or nothing to do with anything I was talking about. I can only assume you believe the only changes making the game more mobile are those two codices, which is a particularly strange idea. There’s been a marked and clearly stated push to make the game a more mobile game… objectives are more important, troops can move and rapid fire twice, vehicles are penalized less for moving and firing and benefit less from sitting still (these two rules have not worked well, but the intention was clear), newer codices (DA, BA and CSM) have stopped minimum tactical squads taking heavy weapons, they’ve brought in harlequins (who are lethal to static shooting lists and very vulnerable to anything else). The list goes on.

For the record some of us liked producing list after list of interesting armies we did play.

Except all the variety and depth of the chaos codex rarely ever saw the table. I talked to people at length about all the lists that could be fielded, and I know they spent hours playing with the book and building all kinds of lists, but whenever I played anyone I saw the Iron Warriors safh, or the all-infiltrating alpha legion, or daemon-bomb or one of the other one-dimensional army lists. Whatever you say your personal experience was, I know that most of the depth of that book rarely, if ever saw the table.

I’ve played a fair few games against the new book and each game I’ve found myself re-evaluating my strategy each turn, adapting to the impressive versatility of the new units, as so many units are effective at range and in melee. The codex is nowhere near perfect, or even good, but it’s producing a lot more interesting games for me than the old codex ever did.

I love how this always comes doen to saying the old way was bad because of the Iron Warriors. You can make a much more powerful list using Codex Eldar. That is going to be around for years now. The brokenness hasn't ended with Codex chaos, but I do not like it's execution, or the fluff logic used to explain the changes (the worst of which is needing 10 guys for a heavy weapon).

Dude, I said ‘such as’. Which means it was an example, indicative of a lot of other, similar situations. You really shouldn’t ignore clearly articulated phrases to score cheap points, that’s really lazy. There were several very powerful builds in the old chaos codex, daemon bomb, all infiltrating alpha legion and so on.

You don’t need ten guys for a heavy weapon, by the way. You can take five and give them four heavy weapons, if you take havocs. If you want tactical squads on the board, though, there’s now a rule in place that encourages you to use them as tactical troops, instead of havocs-lite. Tactical troops are now most useful as short range shooters (thanks to the move and rapid fire rule change) and melee fighters (thanks to the grenades and second CCW), instead of being another static shooting unit like the old codex. It’s another change towards a more mobile game.

But all of that is entirely besides the point. Yeah, godzilla was a poor, unbalancing inclusion into the new codex. Same for three holo-field falcon lists. But poorly balanced options are hardly anything new in 40k. You either have to learn to deal with those lists by taking your own cheese, or play against people who are happy to take non-cheesy lists for the sake of a good game.

I suggested people were upset they lost their overpowered army lists but didn’t want to say ‘I don’t like losing my unfair advantage’, and were instead using ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ to complain. When the nerf bat comes around and hammers the godzilla and three falcon lists, expect the same complaints from those players. Expect me and plenty of others to treat the godzilla and three falcon list players with the same level of bemused disinterest we currently have for the people complaining about losing their old chaos lists. As I said earlier, it’s a constantly evolving game, if you want to stay on the knife’s edge of cheese, you should expect to soon get nerfed.

I am critical for how Jervis used his son because it was fairly predictable what would happen to the poor kid once the changes started. As special characters went from forbidden to almost required in the DA and then the BA lists people decided this change was what Jervis meant when he was talking in wd319. It was then further generallized to be any change= Jervis's son. I feel that it was simply put a very bad idea to bring his son into the conversation, in particular as an example of a young gamer at a time when he began making some contreversal changes to assist young players. My feelings are justified by the existance of a thread about his son, and this is one of the nice ones.

No-one can be held responsible for the stupidity of the internet. No-one can predict it, control it or limit it. If someone makes the statement ‘my son didn’t know which weapon was which, and identified more with his army through the special characters’ they are not inviting their family member to be mocked openly. That is the result of that special brand of anonymous loudmouth crap you get from the internet.

And no, the two changes his son was mentioned in relation to were not controversial. We’re talking about including pictures of guns in the book for heaven’s sake. The internet has attached Jervis’ son to the more controversial changes to justify it’s aforementioned stupidity.

Stelek wrote:The difference is in the game itself. Artillery, aircraft, dedicated anti-tank units, smoke, tanks...all are viable.

Not so in 40K.

One game is platoon level, the other is company level. Aircraft and artillery really shouldn’t play that big a part in the small scale engagements of 40k. I think its ridiculous that people can put basilisks on the field.

Besides, you’re listing specific units as a counter to a comment about strategy, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. When talking about strategy, we’re talking about the maneuvers and thought processes that help you win a game. Battletech was mentioned earlier in this thread, learning to play Battletech well involves knowing your weapons and your enemy’s to identify the specific range you should be from the enemy mechs, then using the split movement and your mobility to get as many units as possible at their optimum range. Warmachine revolves around key unit combos and stopping the other guy using his. 10 years of experience in either of those games won’t help you for one second in becoming a good 40k or FoW player.

40k and FoW revolve around similar concepts of matching your weapons with their optimum targets, and making successful assaults under supporting fire. FoW has a superior mechanic for suppression (in that it actually has one), but other than that the two games play pretty much the same. A good 40k player will, after a couple of games, be a good FoW player.

Also, the basic army lists if you apply them to 40k would be like this:

Jump troop army.
Rhino army.
Predator army.
Infantry army.

Etc etc...which means you really do have lots of different army variants, given the weapon and corp support choices available to most armies.

You’ve missed the point. If you take a mechanized company in FoW you are limited to specific support options, you can’t take footslogging infantry, artillery or fixed guns without their own trucks to support them. You can’t take three separate units of heavy tanks to support a conscript army. When I first sat down and started building my Russians, I was surprised how constrictive army selection was.

But when I started playing I loved that every army taking the field was fairly plausible (if you ignore the slightly excessive levels of support weapons). It stood in stark contrast to the 40k armies you can see, with two squads on minimum troops surrounded by full squads of elite troops and heavy support.

People on 40k forums show a lot of love for FoW. But if you ever tried to introduce it’s system of army creation into 40k there would be hell to pay. It’s an interesting little irony.

sebster wrote:And no, the two changes his son was mentioned in relation to were not controversial. We’re talking about including pictures of guns in the book for heaven’s sake. The internet has attached Jervis’ son to the more controversial changes to justify it’s aforementioned stupidity.

In any case where you know a co-worker was beat up for a document he wrote, leaving family out of it is the best choice that can ever be made. The fans of these toy soldier games we play can be mean spirited and stupid. That is a known quantity after Gav got beat up. Even mentioning you have a kid who plays is a bad idea when you are the head designer starting to make major changes. I feel bad for his kid, but I think Jervis is an idiot who should have known better.

Salvation122 wrote:

I will admit that it's irritating that GW won't issue FAQs to address balance issues, especially since the only things that really need to be rebalanced after the new Ork book are Dakkafexes, Assault Cannons, and Holo-fields, but the game is hardly in the horrible awful no-good very-bad position that people make it out to be.

Errata address balance issues.

FAQ's answer questions. Problems arise when FAQ's areused to address balance. FAQ's should answer questions which come up frquently (ie. can I choose to a charge I know will fail?)

efarrer wrote:
In any case where you know a co-worker was beat up for a document he wrote, leaving family out of it is the best choice that can ever be made. The fans of these toy soldier games we play can be mean spirited and stupid. That is a known quantity after Gav got beat up. Even mentioning you have a kid who plays is a bad idea when you are the head designer starting to make major changes. I feel bad for his kid, but I think Jervis is an idiot who should have known better.

Gav got beat up?

I never heard about that. Comments on the internet are one thing. Physical assault is something quite different. I hope that 'fan' is in jail being punished for that right now.

I'd just like to say I got back into Warhammer 40k when I got a look at the latest Codex: Chaos. I'm a big fan of Epic: Armageddon and I really like how Mr. Johnson has brought some of that elegance into 40k. The move away from fiddling around with lists to actually playing the game is a welcome relief to me from previous editions, and I've had the opportunity to re-evaluate how the game is played and how people play the game as a result. It's still kind of clunky, game-wise, but there's a surprising depth to everyone's favourite beer and pretzels game. That is to say it's deeper than I thought it was and I'm pleasantly surprised. Perhaps it's just my experiences with LOTR, and everyone should play about ten games of that just to see what GW when not weighed down by legacy baggage (and fan expectations...), but I've discovered that you can have an exciting game of 40k just with a platoon each of Imperial Guardsmen if you choose the right mission and someone whose tactical expertise isn't limited to doing the obvious.

Something I strongly recommend is playing a game of 40k with identical armies like a couple of platoons of Imperial Guard each, and scoring it based on objectives (2/3 means win).

sebster wrote:

efarrer wrote:Tell ya what I've played batletech for over 15 years now. The game has seen three or four editions and at least 2 owners. Guess what the basic rules remain the same. A game doesn't need change to make it good, unless it's bad. The move to a fifth edition indicates to me the designers have yet to get it right.

I also play Battletech and it’s a cool game, albeit needing a fair few house rules to make it work to my liking.

Your point is misplaced though, I never said anything about 40k needing to evolve or being better for it. Different people will come in to run the game, with different ideas about what makes a game ‘best’. I simply said that it is an evolving game, and will continue to evolve. If you don’t like the current changes you can just wait them out, the winds will soon change and maybe the next design philosophy would be more to your liking. On the other hand, if you can’t handle a game where the rules and design focus change over time, choose a different game.
.

And you miss mine as well. Mine is I wish GW would write a workable set of rules for the long term for 40K. Fasa did with Battletech. You may need houserules, but the game is solid in general. Gw even managed it with LotR. But they either cannot or will not with 40K and fantasy.

sebster wrote:
Your point about Godzilla and mech eldar pretty much came out of nowhere, and had little or nothing to do with anything I was talking about. I can only assume you believe the only changes making the game more mobile are those two codices, which is a particularly strange idea. There’s been a marked and clearly stated push to make the game a more mobile game… objectives are more important, troops can move and rapid fire twice, vehicles are penalized less for moving and firing and benefit less from sitting still (these two rules have not worked well, but the intention was clear), newer codices (DA, BA and CSM) have stopped minimum tactical squads taking heavy weapons, they’ve brought in harlequins (who are lethal to static shooting lists and very vulnerable to anything else). The list goes on.

The rapid fire rules did not change the game in a substanital way. It's still better most of the time to assault. The (non-speeder) vehicles still are not worth taking in most lists. Removing the las plas doesn't really help the game as much as you think. And I'm wondering what you feel harlies die to, because my experiance is they kill almost everything when they dismount.

sebster wrote:
Except all the variety and depth of the chaos codex rarely ever saw the table. I talked to people at length about all the lists that could be fielded, and I know they spent hours playing with the book and building all kinds of lists, but whenever I played anyone I saw the Iron Warriors safh, or the all-infiltrating alpha legion, or daemon-bomb or one of the other one-dimensional army lists. Whatever you say your personal experience was, I know that most of the depth of that book rarely, if ever saw the table.

Which again shows regional differences. Yes the successful lists were IW in gerenal, but darnit the other lists were fun, and I used them and people I know used them.

sebster wrote:

I’ve played a fair few games against the new book and each game I’ve found myself re-evaluating my strategy each turn, adapting to the impressive versatility of the new units, as so many units are effective at range and in melee. The codex is nowhere near perfect, or even good, but it’s producing a lot more interesting games for me than the old codex ever did.

.

How long have you played against it. Give it time. The good lists will come to the fore in the new year, and the lists which don't cut the mustard will be gone. There will not be as many possible good lists as the old book.

sebster wrote:
Dude, I said ‘such as’. Which means it was an example, indicative of a lot of other, similar situations. You really shouldn’t ignore clearly articulated phrases to score cheap points, that’s really lazy. There were several very powerful builds in the old chaos codex, daemon bomb, all infiltrating alpha legion and so on.

You don’t need ten guys for a heavy weapon, by the way. You can take five and give them four heavy weapons, if you take havocs. If you want tactical squads on the board, though, there’s now a rule in place that encourages you to use them as tactical troops, instead of havocs-lite. Tactical troops are now most useful as short range shooters (thanks to the move and rapid fire rule change) and melee fighters (thanks to the grenades and second CCW), instead of being another static shooting unit like the old codex. It’s another change towards a more mobile game..

That's bull. Heavy Support choices should not be the only ones that can have heavies. A false arguement. I used Havocs always have. The use of chaos marines for a mixture of tactical roles is the point to giving a heavy weapon.

And for at least one of my armies I can no longer use the heavies as heavies, Seeing as I can no longer take a 4 heavy Noise Marines squad.

sebster wrote:
But all of that is entirely besides the point. Yeah, godzilla was a poor, unbalancing inclusion into the new codex. Same for three holo-field falcon lists. But poorly balanced options are hardly anything new in 40k. You either have to learn to deal with those lists by taking your own cheese, or play against people who are happy to take non-cheesy lists for the sake of a good game.

I suggested people were upset they lost their overpowered army lists but didn’t want to say ‘I don’t like losing my unfair advantage’, and were instead using ‘simplified’ and ‘bland’ to complain. When the nerf bat comes around and hammers the godzilla and three falcon lists, expect the same complaints from those players. Expect me and plenty of others to treat the godzilla and three falcon list players with the same level of bemused disinterest we currently have for the people complaining about losing their old chaos lists. As I said earlier, it’s a constantly evolving game, if you want to stay on the knife’s edge of cheese, you should expect to soon get nerfed.
..

Which I call bS on. A large nmber of people enjoyed playing those odd quirky lists, and don't feel the new list represents them. It is not losing an unfair advantage, It's losing what you worked on. THe company appraoches each book as a tabula rosa looking at how best to sell it's models. Not only the knife's edge of cheese got thrown out. So did the poor edge of odd lists. The probelm is those od lists cost money. Tabula rosa works for something without established roots. GW has had 15 years to establish things. There should not need to be massive upheavels at this point.

Asmodai wrote:

efarrer wrote:
In any case where you know a co-worker was beat up for a document he wrote, leaving family out of it is the best choice that can ever be made. The fans of these toy soldier games we play can be mean spirited and stupid. That is a known quantity after Gav got beat up. Even mentioning you have a kid who plays is a bad idea when you are the head designer starting to make major changes. I feel bad for his kid, but I think Jervis is an idiot who should have known better.

Gav got beat up?

I never heard about that. Comments on the internet are one thing. Physical assault is something quite different. I hope that 'fan' is in jail being punished for that right now.

So I was told.

efarrer wrote:In any case where you know a co-worker was beat up for a document he wrote, leaving family out of it is the best choice that can ever be made. The fans of these toy soldier games we play can be mean spirited and stupid. That is a known quantity after Gav got beat up. Even mentioning you have a kid who plays is a bad idea when you are the head designer starting to make major changes. I feel bad for his kid, but I think Jervis is an idiot who should have known better.

Really? I never heard that, got a link?

Should retiring sports stars be banned from saying 'I'm retiring because I want to spend more time with my family' for fear of people hunting their family down? Jervis said, 'my son didn't know which gun was which, so we thought it would be a good idea to put pictures in the book'. People on the internet have run with that to blame some kid they've never met for codex changes that had nothing to do with Jervis' kid, or in many cases, nothing to do with Jervis at all.

efarrer wrote:And you miss mine as well. Mine is I wish GW would write a workable set of rules for the long term for 40K. Fasa did with Battletech. You may need houserules, but the game is solid in general. Gw even managed it with LotR. But they either cannot or will not with 40K and fantasy.

Then we’re talking past each other. I just accept its an evolving game, and use that to dream about the rules changes I think would fix everything. With B’tech I just accept that the games that’s there right now is the game that’ll always be there.

But people right now talk about the current problems with tanks compared to MCs and skimmers as though they’ll be that way forever. Simply put, they won’t be.

The rapid fire rules did not change the game in a substanital way. It's still better most of the time to assault. The (non-speeder) vehicles still are not worth taking in most lists. Removing the las plas doesn't really help the game as much as you think. And I'm wondering what you feel harlies die to, because my experiance is they kill almost everything when they dismount.

No single change altered everything by itself. It is the combination of the changes I listed, in addition to plenty of others.

If you're still playing old style third ed games of two armies slugging it out from the deployment zones, or maybe one of the two armies running up the field as fast as they could, then it sucks to be you. But I've played plenty of third ed and had no interest in more games by the end of that edition, but have enjoyed almost every game of 4th ed I've played. I've won or lost based on decisions made on the field.

Harlies are bread and butter for any mobile unit that can get within VoT range. Or can move away from the assault range of deployment from the stationary skimmer. Mobile units.

Which again shows regional differences. Yes the successful lists were IW in gerenal, but darnit the other lists were fun, and I used them and people I know used them.

I never found the old lists fun to play against. One-trick ponies, where the actions of me and my opponent were set from deployment. Boring, boring stuff. Give me the versatility of the new codex any day.

How long have you played against it. Give it time. The good lists will come to the fore in the new year, and the lists which don't cut the mustard will be gone. There will not be as many possible good lists as the old book.

No, I don't play in tournament competitive environment. I play with mates, with moderately competitive lists. What I like about the new chaos codex is the move towards adaptability and versatility over 'themed' one-dimensional lists. The old lists looked cooler on the page, but were really boring to actually play against.

That's bull. Heavy Support choices should not be the only ones that can have heavies. A false arguement. I used Havocs always have. The use of chaos marines for a mixture of tactical roles is the point to giving a heavy weapon.

And for at least one of my armies I can no longer use the heavies as heavies, Seeing as I can no longer take a 4 heavy Noise Marines squad.

Says you. I like the idea that troops taken as tactical troops play differently to heavy support units.

I don't like the changes to noise marines, though. I agree with you there. Making them a mobile shooting unit was a cool idea, but the execution was terrible.

Which I call bS on. A large nmber of people enjoyed playing those odd quirky lists, and don't feel the new list represents them. It is not losing an unfair advantage, It's losing what you worked on. THe company appraoches each book as a tabula rosa looking at how best to sell it's models. Not only the knife's edge of cheese got thrown out. So did the poor edge of odd lists. The probelm is those od lists cost money. Tabula rosa works for something without established roots. GW has had 15 years to establish things. There should not need to be massive upheavels at this point.

The lists got thrown out for reasons beyond cheese. Even the less powerful lists were pretty boring to play against, being so one-dimensional.

If you don't like the idea of the game continuing to change, don't play. I'm sorry, but that's the nature of 40k.

How did I miss this thread?? Damn holiday season keeping me busy!

Seriously, if you post here a lot you'll know that I, like Toreador, am a fan of the DA codex and the direction 40k is heading. I actually feel I have MORE options playing DA now than I did before. Now I actually have to THINK about what to take in my force rather than taking as many 6-man las/plas and 8-man Devs with 4 ML as possible with some donkey-cannons and Librarians for flavor.

Again, some people just like to complain. And if GW release a perfect rules system with balance and choice and it gave you a happy ending while it was at it, people (Abby....) would still complain.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

General Hobbs wrote:Sales are plummetting? I heard they were up 11% this year.

You heard from who?

The stock market would like to know where your pretend numbers come from.

GW has been posting losses in their core game for 5 years.

By the way, here are GW's own numbers.

http://investor.games-workshop.com/latest_results/Results2007/full_year/fiveyear.aspx

Misinformation elsewhere, please.

Such utter....sigh. Allright, here goes.

sebster wrote:

Stelek wrote:The difference is in the game itself. Artillery, aircraft, dedicated anti-tank units, smoke, tanks...all are viable.

Not so in 40K.

sebster wrote:
One game is platoon level, the other is company level. Aircraft and artillery really shouldn’t play that big a part in the small scale engagements of 40k. I think its ridiculous that people can put basilisks on the field.

Incorrect. 40K IS a company level game now. It has been for quite a while. You think 200 guardsmen, 90 marines, 80 necrons, 80 chaos...that isn't company level? Please buddy, it's company level.

sebster wrote:
Besides, you’re listing specific units as a counter to a comment about strategy, which doesn’t make a lot of sense. When talking about strategy, we’re talking about the maneuvers and thought processes that help you win a game. Battletech was mentioned earlier in this thread, learning to play Battletech well involves knowing your weapons and your enemy’s to identify the specific range you should be from the enemy mechs, then using the split movement and your mobility to get as many units as possible at their optimum range. Warmachine revolves around key unit combos and stopping the other guy using his. 10 years of experience in either of those games won’t help you for one second in becoming a good 40k or FoW player.

What FOW units did I list to counter about strategy? What the H are you talking about?

I guess I assumed someone who played FOW and 40K would understand what I meant, since you don't I'll explain.

If I want to play a TANK army in FOW, I run tanks. To do that in 40K with your REQUIRED troops as tanks--you cannot do it.

Now replace jump pack, bikers, and all the other troop types that exist in 40K with the words above, and there ya go.

I don't really care about battletech or warmachine, both are seriously flawed games I don't have much interest in. Flawed more than 40K is.

sebster wrote:
40k and FoW revolve around similar concepts of matching your weapons with their optimum targets, and making successful assaults under supporting fire. FoW has a superior mechanic for suppression (in that it actually has one), but other than that the two games play pretty much the same. A good 40k player will, after a couple of games, be a good FoW player.

What's the point here?

Also, the basic army lists if you apply them to 40k would be like this:

Jump troop army.
Rhino army.
Predator army.
Infantry army.

Etc etc...which means you really do have lots of different army variants, given the weapon and corp support choices available to most armies.

sebster wrote:
You’ve missed the point. If you take a mechanized company in FoW you are limited to specific support options, you can’t take footslogging infantry, artillery or fixed guns without their own trucks to support them. You can’t take three separate units of heavy tanks to support a conscript army. When I first sat down and started building my Russians, I was surprised how constrictive army selection was.

Sorry, I haven't actually missed the point. You actually can take FAR more options in a FOW list than you can in a 40k list.

What you see as limited I see as unlimited.

Say I want to play a Russian tank army, mech infantry army, infantry army, recon army, or any of the other types available?

AND have supporting troops from the other army types available--i.e. I can run infantry with tank support, and vice versa.

I CAN.

Now lets say I want to play a Marine tank army, mech marine army, recon army, infantry army, etc...

CAN I?

Answer: NOT AND BE VIABLE, and if you have your army this year you won't next.

Creating an 'army' system where you can pick and choose from say ANYTHING the Imperium has to offer might make for some funky lists, but if you put in COMMON SENSE restrictions like exist in FOW (sorry, you really can't run 80 tanks it's excessive nor can you run all anti-tank gun units, it's also unrealistic) and apply them to 40K I don't think you'd have 'hell to pay'. You'd gain far more, a robust army list system that gives you your BEST units as your required choices, and anything else you want to bring is really up to you. Unlike in 40K, where your WORST units are your required choices, and EVERYTHING else you bring is there to make up for having to pay 10-20% of your points towards utter crap units.

So, to recap:

FOW combat platoons (required) vs 40K troops choices (required). First are game-winners. Second are force reduction.

40K needs the former, not the latter.

sebster wrote:
But when I started playing I loved that every army taking the field was fairly plausible (if you ignore the slightly excessive levels of support weapons). It stood in stark contrast to the 40k armies you can see, with two squads on minimum troops surrounded by full squads of elite troops and heavy support.

Please see directly above, and try to 'get' what I'm saying. The basic choices forced upon you in FOW are GOOD choices. The basic choices forced upon you in 40K are SH** choices.

By the way, play anything BUT Russians and you'll see pretty much every other army out there with 2 companies, whatever weapons they want, and max support choices (x2 for non-Russians, btw).

sebster wrote:
People on 40k forums show a lot of love for FoW. But if you ever tried to introduce it’s system of army creation into 40k there would be hell to pay. It’s an interesting little irony.

That's because FOW lets us use tanks. 40K doesn't.

Hell to pay from whom? 40K players love FOW. I haven't met one who actually bought into it and played a few games didn't find it an excellent game.

Now put together a similar army creation system for 40K and you'd have a much better system than we have now.

For example:

Take 1 HQ.
Take tactical squads (1-2).

Get 2 of anything else per tactical squad (be it fast, heavy, elite in the current system).
Assign a couple units as 'weapons' choices so they are considered the 'norm' intrinsic support.

Now, instead of the current DA crap where tactical squads are junk...give them a price break, and give them the elite veteran DA squad options instead of what they have now (which is a pathetic joke).

Now you have shooty death or close combat death tactical squads--something that can go into the 'elite' of 40K and kick ass. Instead of 10 wound lascannon squads of do nothing against non-mechanized lists.

That's what I want to see, basic building blocks which aren't minimized because they SUCK complete donkey nut. lol I want units that are basic troops that can serve me a purpose other than 'I filled my basic requirements, and WHEW it only cost me 100 points!'.

Going MORE in that direction is utterly self-defeating for this game. If you can't see it, see you at the Hasbro/Walmart convention in 2010!

efarrer wrote:

sebster wrote:I also play Battletech and it’s a cool game, albeit needing a fair few house rules to make it work to my liking.

Your point is misplaced though, I never said anything about 40k needing to evolve or being better for it. Different people will come in to run the game, with different ideas about what makes a game ‘best’. I simply said that it is an evolving game, and will continue to evolve. If you don’t like the current changes you can just wait them out, the winds will soon change and maybe the next design philosophy would be more to your liking. On the other hand, if you can’t handle a game where the rules and design focus change over time, choose a different game.
.

And you miss mine as well. Mine is I wish GW would write a workable set of rules for the long term for 40K. Fasa did with Battletech. You may need houserules, but the game is solid in general.

FASA also rather spectacularly went out of business. I have never played Battletech, but several of my friends did back in the day, and by all accounts you need a lot of houserules. Considering Battletech was far and away their biggest game - the only other thing they had that was even remotely close was Shadowrun, which always seemed to be perpetually circling the drain (and I frakking love Shadowrun, believe me) - I'd say that their approach was perhaps not the best.

sebster wrote:

efarrer wrote:In any case where you know a co-worker was beat up for a document he wrote, leaving family out of it is the best choice that can ever be made. The fans of these toy soldier games we play can be mean spirited and stupid. That is a known quantity after Gav got beat up. Even mentioning you have a kid who plays is a bad idea when you are the head designer starting to make major changes. I feel bad for his kid, but I think Jervis is an idiot who should have known better.

Really? I never heard that, got a link?

Should retiring sports stars be banned from saying 'I'm retiring because I want to spend more time with my family' for fear of people hunting their family down? Jervis said, 'my son didn't know which gun was which, so we thought it would be a good idea to put pictures in the book'. People on the internet have run with that to blame some kid they've never met for codex changes that had nothing to do with Jervis' kid, or in many cases, nothing to do with Jervis at all.

Being more in the know than apparently most of you are...

The whole Jervis Jr. thing is indeed pretty overblown.

Jervis Sr. made decisions based on a 1 man, 1 kid market survey.

This is what you should NOT ever do. I've told him as much.

Last time ANYONE at GW HQ UK listened to my dumb ass?

Yeah, let's say...not this century?

I'm no genius, I'm not a pro game designer, but I am one damn smart cookie and I know in my heart the way 40K is going (stupid world) isn't good for the hobby.

You want to get your own answers?

Here's a few *I* personally have data on. YOU can find it.

Here we go:

Are overall sales $$ of miniature related items growing or shrinking? What are key economic health indicators of related suppliers and manufacturers?

1. Bankrupcy rate of current leaders (up/down/static)
2. Number of new suppliers and manufacturers each
3. Mergers and buyouts of existing suppliers and manufacturers

Internet presence

1. Forums that are growing with new members and postings
2. Forums that are stagnant, dying or died in the past year
3. New forums this year
4. Same data on 40K blogs

Local, National and regional club health

40K shows per year, attendance and demographics.

If you really think making the game easier to understand will KEEP those young kids, well, I can tell you from first hand experience that the 'kids' that I've watched grow up in my local shop weren't drawn in by the 'easy' rules--they were drawn in by gamers playing with neat toys. They've been driven away by these new rules.

The new rules aren't 'easy', they might seem 'easy' but actually are stupid as any ever written by GW. Don't believe me? Here's some precious quotes from today's youth:

Wait, I need 10 guys to carry a lascannon not 5? why? because old rules were broken? how would I know that? what a f***ing stupid game!

This box gives me 200 points of guys? I need 2000 points though? Are they all this expensive? Holy sh** this is a CHEAP box? Well screw this, my PS3 games I can get for that much...no WAY am I spending 10 PS3 games on this junk.

Wow cool. What do you mean, I can't use the flying bugs with my tanks? It's not allowed? WAAAHHHH. Oh I can? In Apocalypse? You don't want to play 5000 points of my 10 "armies"? Why? I too am good!

Yeah guys, priceless. Keep on telling me how great 40K is going to be once all Codexes are 100% stupid central.

I hope Hasbro sells GW for cheap to PP. Or Wizards, dunno...M:TG inspired psychic cards? Oh my....

Man calling the Battletech rules solid...that's great big brass there.

The Battletech sourcebooks were endless amounts of great bathroom readers, but that was about it.

Play a 'capture the drop pod' mission from orbital down, to capture, then liftoff. Tell me how much fun THAT is.

By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

Then went to work for FASA at Wizkids. So if they are really out of work/action...who knows.

Now if you think the Hasbro/Walmart thing is impossible, tell me who has a foothold in our game stores that is the epiphany of 'evil' in gaming? Hint: Begins with an M.

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

M?

Does anyone see the paradoxon of pricing and rules simplification? Trying to get the youth into a game by simple rules (wich drive away older ones) wich they can't afford? Great concept.

You know, I've always found the basic battletech rules to be pretty solid. Add in weird missions and it might get dicey, but the basic system is pretty solid.

Yes and no.
Battletech was the first tabletop game I ever played and it lacks...or maybe lacked, don't know the game nowadays...variety. So it's also easier to write 'solid' rules. You just don't have to add as many balancing factors in.

Jervis put his kid out there as the reason behind the rules changes, they are all attributed to his kid because of association.

It wasn't like he let it slip, he told the story three or four times in the same time frame as to the rules changes. He didn't comment to the contrary, so everyone who is disgruntled associates the changes to his teaching the game to his son, the son not getting the game, so he goes back and changes the rules to accomidate him.

The first time we heard this, it was cute, the second and third time, it wasn't cute when we had to go back and buy the codex's, yet again. It isn't the first time that He put his son out there in regards to the slaphappy buisness decisions, nor will it probibly be the last.

I'm happy and laughing that Gav the Noob got his clock cleaned. I only wish that I was the one to do it, because he is even more of the reason then Jervis Johnson for the dumbing down and eviceration of the 40k universe.
This is the guy that the well placed blame for weak sauce codex's, plummitting sales, and the general "I can change it because I can" attitude. That he can run willy-nilly around the game after Andy Chamber shadow as the wide eyed new guy for so long makes me almost puke in its insincerity.

I find it funny that you place BATTLETECH in the conversation, yet we see Wizkids bringing out the "Classic" yet again.

The rules are pretty much as we know them, and the fluff isn't going all over the map in the course of four or five years. Of course there were a hell of alot of books for BT, but as for fluff, content, evolution, etc. This has ironicly become the standard for an evolving game.

I first started playing the game with the cardboard mechs, watched as the game evolved, and still know people that play, collect, and are not even the slightest bit phased that the game went full circle. I didn't stick with it, because it wasn't really my thing.
I still laugh that they tried and failed to make the game a CLIX based crapfest, and even after watching people time and again laugh at the idea see them doing the right thing by the players, the sales, and the game by bringing it back in its tabletop form.

That is the basic argument, though. Do you think with the crap that 40k has become that we will ever see a 40K classic? Hell no! They can't even get it right the first time, yet they have ben trying for over 20 years.

If you want to see how GW has evolved, go back and get WD from around Issue 100 or so, or one of the old hard covered books ( Doesn't even matter which one) then go look at how current developments have " Improved". The two are like night and day.

I can agree that Jervis's kid isn't the problem, but it isn't going to help that his old man puts him out there like the preverbial lamb to the slaughter.

Question: How did Gav get his clock cleaned?

But Grot is right. Jervis did bring up the subject of his son and it was kinda expected that people will use Jervis Jr as a scape goat.

Unrelated, but I did hear a few years ago that a MO Troll punched out Gav for hitting on his girlfriend or something.

Chad Warden wrote:Unrelated, but I did hear a few years ago that a MO Troll punched out Gav for hitting on his girlfriend or something.

That's a little different then. Gav was probably just jealous of Andy, who has a very attractive gamer wife.

Salvation122 wrote:

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

The rights to Battletech went with Fasa interactive, not Fasa publishing...and it was not wholly-owned by anyone but Fasa interactive. Not to my knowledge anyway. Got a link?

Grot 6:

Are you saying that the current version of the rules (4th) isn't a re-tread of 2nd?

I mean, really they are.

Stelek wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

The rights to Battletech went with Fasa interactive, not Fasa publishing...and it was not wholly-owned by anyone but Fasa interactive. Not to my knowledge anyway. Got a link?

The video game rights to Battle tech were associated with Fasa Interactive. The universe rights were and remain the property of (Wizkids/Topps). and are currently liscensed to Catalyst games.

Wasn't there a 3rd company the universe rights passed through on their way from Wizkids to Catalyst?

vogelfrei wrote:Yes and no.
Battletech was the first tabletop game I ever played and it lacks...or maybe lacked, don't know the game nowadays...variety. So it's also easier to write 'solid' rules. You just don't have to add as many balancing factors in.

I agree, any mech fielded followed the same rules in the basic ruleset, and I never had an argument over the rules while playing battletech for 6 years (we chose to ignore the clans because of what we saw as 'uberification' and imbalance they brought to the game). That is what made the rules solid, 40k's special rules for each army is what causes problems. Variety does cause complication over time, although even with the basic ruleset for battletech there was a lot of variety in building your own mechs and how terrain and buildings from the city expansion affected the game without causing rules problems.

If 40k would just use the USRs from the main rulebook for unit variety instead of making it up each codex then there would be a lot less problems with the rules since they would be supposedly balanced at the time of the main book being published and only require a single FAQ to fix.

Stelek wrote:

Salvation122 wrote:

Stelek wrote:By the way, FASA went completely belly up in September.

That was FASA Interactive, the branch of the company that made console and PC games, and which was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft. FASA Publishing has been dead for quite some time now.

The rights to Battletech went with Fasa interactive, not Fasa publishing...and it was not wholly-owned by anyone but Fasa interactive. Not to my knowledge anyway. Got a link?

FASA Interactive was purchased by Microsoft in 99. Microsoft shut it down in September. FASA Publishing ceased production in 2001. Battletech and Shadowrun were sold to WizKids, which then licensed Shadowrun and "Classic" Battletech to Fanpro before going to Catalyst. Wizkids, to the best of my knowledge, still produces a clicky version of BT.

(FASA Publishing is properly known as FASA Corp; I'm using FASA Publishing to distinguish between tabletop and videogame divisions.)

Hmmm thank you. Poor bastards. lol

So who has the rights to the battletech sourcebooks? I see them everywhere, are they just old unsold copies?

An awful lot of them are old and unsold (or used), but as of this moment the rights are owned by WizKids and licensed through Catalyst Games.

Now Catalyst Games, what are they doing with the IP?

I don't know. I don't really follow Battletech; I know FASA because of Shadowrun. It would appear that they released a Battle for Macragge-esque box not too long ago. Their website is here but there's not too much information on it.

As much as I despise the blandness and dumbing down of the Jervis Plan, I am disgusted by people insulting another man's child they have never met from the cowardly safety of internet anonymity. It's just the worst kind of nerdish pettiness, just as bad as offering to physically assault a man over a game of toy soldiers (again, done in this thread) from the same cowardly anonymity of the internet.


I do believe aiming a game stated as "For 12 years+" at 10 year olds is incredibly slowed, but this is not the fault of the 10yr olds.

However I've learnt to stop caring, it is just toy soldiers. All the bitterness does is increase your blood pressure, do the smart thing and stop feeding GW your money.
I've stopped going to tournaments as I've learnt 40k is about as much a sport as Cluedo, and just as slowed for trying to be. Even for a wargame it isn't anywhere near as well-designed and playtesting to be a sport. It really is Listhammer first, Skill a distant second.
I stopped buying WD a long time ago for similar reasons of dumbing down and becoming a glorified catalogue that you pay for.
My model purchases have fallen to a trickle.
I stopped buying Codex's after getting the hilarious DA book.

Your wallet is far louder than your internet whining, and insulting another man's kids puts your opinion below worthless.

P.S. The 'I know something you don't know, I'm on the inside' anonymous posts are pretty funny too, someone claiming to be 'in the know' without verification has their opinion drop in worth too.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:As much as I despise the blandness and dumbing down of the Jervis Plan, I am disgusted by people insulting another man's child they have never met from the cowardly safety of internet anonymity. It's just the worst kind of nerdish pettiness, just as bad as offering to physically assault a man over a game of toy soldiers (again, done in this thread) from the same cowardly anonymity of the internet..

Agreed.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:
I do believe aiming a game stated as "For 12 years+" at 10 year olds is incredibly slowed, but this is not the fault of the 10yr olds. .

Agreed

Shadow Scorpion wrote:
However I've learnt to stop caring, it is just toy soldiers. All the bitterness does is increase your blood pressure, do the smart thing and stop feeding GW your money.
I've stopped going to tournaments as I've learnt 40k is about as much a sport as Cluedo, and just as slowed for trying to be. Even for a wargame it isn't anywhere near as well-designed and playtesting to be a sport. It really is Listhammer first, Skill a distant second.
I stopped buying WD a long time ago for similar reasons of dumbing down and becoming a glorified catalogue that you pay for.
My model purchases have fallen to a trickle.
I stopped buying Codex's after getting the hilarious DA book..

Agreed, although for me it was the BA white dwarf.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:
Your wallet is far louder than your internet whining, and insulting another man's kids puts your opinion below worthless..

Agreed.
P.S. The 'I know something you don't know, I'm on the inside' anonymous posts are pretty funny too, someone claiming to be 'in the know' without verification has their opinion drop in worth too.

BOOO!!!!!!


HISSSSSSS!!!!!!


To dash my hopes against the rocks!!!!!!

It isn't about insulting his kid. Its about a guy that would use his kid as a sales ploy, then when the deal goes sour the kid is left with the WTF look and everyone with nothing but the kid to point at and blame. People arn't cowardly bringing his kid out like " Your Mother " jokes. The guy brought the kid out as the posterboy for new 40K players and changed more then a few things about the game system that just don't work.

Petty, sure. Nerdish... Maybe. But thats what you get when you use your sons and daughters to market to a rabid fanbase that cares about the product, and not so much for the guy that has taken it upon himself to alter the game in such a way that most of the fan base is leaving or at least shelving thier game.

Someone mentioned it earlier, In buisness, the worst thing you can do is to make it personal and parade your family around as a public target.

As for Gav the noob not getting beat up, oh well... I guess there is always next time.

Stelek wrote:Such utter....sigh. Allright, here goes.

Oh please.

Incorrect. 40K IS a company level game now. It has been for quite a while. You think 200 guardsmen, 90 marines, 80 necrons, 80 chaos...that isn't company level? Please buddy, it's company level.

A bare minimum strength company is putting just shy of 100 men on the field.

40k is built for games around the 1850 odd points level. Most MEQ armies are putting 50 odd bodies on the field. Non-meq and particularly troop heavy MEQ are getting up to minimum sized company level. Effectively you're arguing that a game can be defined as company level if one of the two armies will often be around a minimum size company.

On the other hand, FoW games are generally around the 1500 points range. You can put a strelkovy company on the field, 135 men, without spend 1/5 of your points. Suggesting the two games are anywhere near the same scale is plainly stupid.

But more importantly, just stop and think about what you're doing here. I make a point. You immediately type 'nuh uh... the opposite it true'. It doesn't matter if it relates to the topic at hand or nott. I'm happy to talk about this, but you're going to have to do better than just reflexively countering each sentence I post. Form an argument, identify key points and build your argument around those key points, identify the key concepts in the other guy's argument and rebut them... you know - debate.

What FOW units did I list to counter about strategy? What the H are you talking about?

How did you not understand that?

I same basic strategies worked in both games. You argued against that, by pointing out some extra units you can use in FoW. I pointed out that didn't follow, as listing units makes no comment on overall strategy. You could add planes to 40k and it wouldn’t change the basic strategies needed to win.

I guess I assumed someone who played FOW and 40K would understand what I meant, since you don't I'll explain.

Please.

If I want to play a TANK army in FOW, I run tanks. To do that in 40K with your REQUIRED troops as tanks--you cannot do it.

Now replace jump pack, bikers, and all the other troop types that exist in 40K with the words above, and there ya go.

Way to miss the point mate. I said that an area of significant difference in the two games is in army list creation, FoW has a much tighter system, resulting in armies taking to the field that look much closer to real life military forces than 40k. They achieve this by having much tighter control on the core units and support available to each company.

But you've decided to make some random point about being able to take tank companies or infantry companies, and how that's much better than 40k’s open shop approach. Then you've decided I disagree with you or something. Why you've done any of that is beyond me.

For the record, I think the FoW system is terrific. It puts diverse, interesting and plausible forces onto the gaming board (for the most part, you still get some exploitative, goofy stuff). I'd go so far as to say that it's the biggest strength of FoW. The point I clearly made earlier in the thread is that introducing such a system into 40k would most likely be met with tremendous whinging on the internet, from the same people that complain about 40k right now while celebrating systems like FoW.

I don't really care about battletech or warmachine, both are seriously flawed games I don't have much interest in. Flawed more than 40K is.

Congrats for you, whether or not you like a game is beyond irrelevant. Those games are out there, and they have significantly different strategic games to the similar games of 40k and FoW. Your own tastes mean nothing in regards to that basic point.

What's the point here?

Buh? I posted that 40k and FoW are pretty similar, that the same basic strategies will work in both games. You posted to disagree. I spelled out my reasoning and then you wonder what my point was.

Are you following this at all?

FOW combat platoons (required) vs 40K troops choices (required). First are game-winners. Second are force reduction.

For the most part you're right, though the changes in the recent codices to make infantry into useful, versatile units has been welcome. Funnily enough the main reason standard infantry is so useful in FoW is because its so hard to kill... I once suggested on a forum (probably warseer) that infantry could be made most useful, and made to function like real infantry by making them more survivable. The response was not enthusiastic.

Please see directly above, and try to 'get' what I'm saying. The basic choices forced upon you in FOW are GOOD choices. The basic choices forced upon you in 40K are SH** choices.

That has nothing to do with design philosophy.

Why would I be trying to get what you're saying? I made the point about the two system's design differences... which you then tried to rebut with something largely unrelated to my point. Since then I've been trying to pull you back into talking about my point, the one you were apparently trying to rebut.

Hell to pay from whom?

The hell to pay would be from the same internet crowd that pisses and moans about any effort to bring structure or focus to codex lists.

40K players love FOW. I haven't met one who actually bought into it and played a few games didn't find it an excellent game.

Yeah, because they're very similar games. If someone liked the basic ideas behind 40k but found the execution lacking, they'd be pretty likely to find FoW pretty good fun. The two games being quite similar... is exactly what I said in the first place.

Now put together a similar army creation system for 40K and you'd have a much better system than we have now.

(snipped list)

That's still basically working along the lines of the current 40k dynamic, with a small change so the system scales a little better. If an army selection system were to be built along the design philosophy of FoW it'd be very different. You would pick a core company type, such as an infantry company, or a mechanised company or recon company or similar... for vanilla marines you'd have first company, scout company and tenth company. Taking each of these would give a specific type of troops, but then specify the support options you could take. A scout company would have scout units as troops, but wouldn't have access in its support units to heavy siege units like vindicators.

That's what I want to see, basic building blocks which aren't minimized because they SUCK complete donkey nut. lol I want units that are basic troops that can serve me a purpose other than 'I filled my basic requirements, and WHEW it only cost me 100 points!'.

So I'm talking about the actual systems in place, and you're talking about point balance. Sorry to be critical, but your analysis of the two systems is pretty simplistic.

Stelek wrote:Being more in the know than apparently most of you are...

That sounds a little arrogant.

The whole Jervis Jr. thing is indeed pretty overblown.

Jervis Sr. made decisions based on a 1 man, 1 kid market survey.

This is what you should NOT ever do. I've told him as much.

No, Jervis used his kid as an example of how GW might have become too insular. It was a single example, put into a magazine designed for the casula reader. You've decided that means there is no other market research out there. That is isn't at all possible that Jervis' kid might have been a catalyst for extensive market research, or that two years of market analysis built a new business plan, that Jervis decided to articulate through an apocryphal story about his kid. In short, you're making stuff up to support your pre-determined opinion. (Jervis is bad m'kay).

Last time ANYONE at GW HQ UK listened to my dumb ass?

Yeah, let's say...not this century?

Please list the reasons you should be listened to GW.

If the reasons don't extend beyond 'I've played GW games for a long time', 'I talk to people who have played GW games for a long time' and 'I'm smart', then please stop. You're wasting your time and energy.

I'm no genius, I'm not a pro game designer, but I am one damn smart cookie and I know in my heart the way 40K is going (stupid world) isn't good for the hobby.

I see.

If you really think making the game easier to understand will KEEP those young kids, well, I can tell you from first hand experience that the 'kids' that I've watched grow up in my local shop weren't drawn in by the 'easy' rules--they were drawn in by gamers playing with neat toys. They've been driven away by these new rules.

The changes in the rules haven't been to make the game simpler and bring in the kids. That's an assumption people have made. The new rules were introduced to make a better game, one built around mobility and objective oriented play, around games won on the field, not in army selection. It hasn't worked entirely, but its a marked improvement over 3rd ed's stand and shoot and see who cheesed out their list best gameplay.

The new rules aren't 'easy', they might seem 'easy' but actually are stupid as any ever written by GW. Don't believe me? Here's some precious quotes from today's youth:

Wait, I need 10 guys to carry a lascannon not 5? why? because old rules were broken? how would I know that? what a f***ing stupid game!

Your point here is largely incoherent. You're basically listing vaguely related personal anecdotes to argue against a policy decision that doesn't exist. At this point it's basically the textbook definition of disappearing down the rabbit hole.

From reading this thread the conclusion seems to be that Jervis' kid is just another target for nasty stupid people that don't think before they press "Submit".

Sebster: Last time you talked to any member of the design team via any medium was when exactly?

<Insert Answer Here Unless Answer is Never>

Are we still talking about Jervis' Kid?

Nah, we've moved on to the history of Battletech, some FOW stuff and general bitching.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

1850pts is just popular in America.

The game has been quoted as being designed around 1500pts. Hence why the official UKGT is 1500pts.

This amongst other things, makes me believe your talking through your arse.

Ozymandias wrote:Nah, we've moved on to the history of Battletech, some FOW stuff and general bitching.

Ozymandias, King of Kings

History of Battletech seemed more interesting, sorry. Honestly I think the thread has served it's original purpose.

Shadow Scorpion wrote:1850pts is just popular in America.

The game has been quoted as being designed around 1500pts. Hence why the official UKGT is 1500pts.

This amongst other things, makes me believe your talking through your arse.

I know in the part of Canada I live 1700 points is the standard, and I had previously assumed it still was. How much does it vary around the world?

Shadow Scorpion wrote:1850pts is just popular in America.

The game has been quoted as being designed around 1500pts. Hence why the official UKGT is 1500pts.

This amongst other things, makes me believe your talking through your arse.

:stares:

So there's even less troops on the field, making it even less of a company. Bang up job there mate, really put that argument in its place.

Stelek wrote:Sebster: Last time you talked to any member of the design team via any medium was when exactly?

<Insert Answer Here Unless Answer is Never>

So you're just going to try and claim authority? Not even try to defend your claims?

So there's even less troops on the field, making it even less of a company. Bang up job there mate, really put that argument in its place.

It's great that I never mentioned or supported that argument in the first place, it's always best to check the thread before making an ass of yourself.

I think it's about time to lock this thread as it has gone waaaay OT.