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

I still buy WD when I can find an article in it that might give me inspiration or actually be of practical use, but then I always find myself hunting through it for something more substantial than the ususal pieces flogging the new releases and don't seem to come up with much for my trouble.

One of the current staples is Jervis Johnson's column "Standard Bearer", in which he spends two pages talking about an aspect of the hobby.

Now I have read this thing on many occasions and realised that in the space of those pages the guy seems to be very adept at talking a lot and really saying nothing.

Has anyone else noticed that when you finish reading the thing there's no moment of thinking: what a good point he made there?

Sometimes I even have to glance back over the article to remind myself what the point he was getting at was.

He asks people to write in at the end of it, but I can't say that I've ever seen him make reference to a letter he's received and so the sense in sending him a letter in the first place is lost on me.

The one time that I can recall "Standard Bearer" being of any use to me was when it was handed over to John Blanche and he spent the entire column talking about actual aspects of the hobby such as modelling and painting.

Would a rotating columinst for this feature be a better idea, a new member of GW staff each month?

Its the standard nonsense from Jervis. Recent 'highlights' have included such luminary topics as 'painting your armies is nice', 'playing on a board with terrain is good' and so on and so forth. And yes, he usually takes 2 or 3 pages to say it.

I can't honestly remember the last time I read something from him that I thought was genuinely thought provoking.

filbert wrote:Its the standard nonsense from Jervis. Recent 'highlights' have included such luminary topics as 'painting your armies is nice', 'playing on a board with terrain is good' and so on and so forth. And yes, he usually takes 2 or 3 pages to say it.

I can't honestly remember the last time I read something from him that I thought was genuinely thought provoking.

That was my general experience of the column.

It's not that I want him to change the world every month, but there must be something that goes on at GWHQ that would be more interesting than his chuntering on about how much fun he had updating an ancient WHFB campaign scenario for the modern rules.

I mean the amusing thing is that it's only the fact that WD has stopped publishing stuff like scenarios in recent years that such an article has any kind of relevance.

I get the impression that Jervis is given 2 or 3 pages and told to go fill it every month regardless of quality, because that is then 2 or 3 pages of the magazine that the team don't have to scrabble around trying to find content for.

filbert wrote:I get the impression that Jervis is given 2 or 3 pages and told to go fill it every month regardless of quality, because that is then 2 or 3 pages of the magazine that the team don't have to scrabble around trying to find content for.

In magazine that often features whole page images of armies with no real explanation or captions to link them to an article, the need to fill pages with this kind of irrelevant rambling text does somewhat make the mind boggle.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:Now I have read this thing on many occasions and realised that in the space of those pages the guy seems to be very adept at talking a lot and really saying nothing.

Has anyone else noticed that when you finish reading the thing there's no moment of thinking: what a good point he made there?

Which makes it very similar to most conversations I've ever had with wargamers.

I do think that every second or third column going to another voice would raise the value of the piece. I'd be up for a bit of Blachitsu, Nelson's Column, Merrettocracy, Kelly's Heroes, Goodwin's Law etc.

Holdenstein wrote:I do think that every second or third column going to another voice would raise the value of the piece. I'd be up for a bit of Blachitsu, Nelson's Column, Merrettocracy, Kelly's Heroes, Goodwin's Law etc.

So would I.

I read the daily blog on the GW website and am surprised that so much interesting and original stuff pops up there when there's a dearth of good material in WD monthly.

For those of us who refuse to buy WD, anyolneot a copy of it for posting here?

There's a scan on GW's website:

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=12900011a

i thought this months Standard Bearer was a good read, but I think it's been the only one. Must be if it's the only one I can recall liking.

oni wrote:i thought this months Standard Bearer was a good read, but I think it's been the only one. Must be if it's the only one I can recall liking.

I am genuinely interested to hear if people have read and enjoyed the column and what they got out of it.

I avoided the latest WD because there was nothing in there to interest me and I'd be amused to know if the one thing that might have interested me was the column that I'm here venting my spleen about!

What was the column about this month?

I like reading it, even if the content isn't usually that stellar. So yeah, much like WD itself. It's the only recurring content in the magazine that is just general and I don't lose out on if I don't play a certain game.

This month's column was about disassociated game mechanics i.e. universal rules applied to a unit (such as Fleet, Scout, Regeneration etc) as opposed to rules developed specifically for that unit based on their background.

So to use a crude example, an associated game mechanic for Necron Warriors would be "We'll Be Back" but a disassociated game mechanic for the same unit would be "Feel No Pain."

DGM have the benefit that it is easier to learn the rules and there are less clashes such as what happens when you apply rule x against rule y, because universal rules can clearly state what happens in such circumstances e.g. ASF vs ASL imposed due to Great Weapons.

AGM give more character to a particular unit and were more prevelant in earlier editions of both 40K and Fantasy. However, they did create endless debates of what happens when... An excellent example here would be the Monolith's Living Metal rule which was very characterful, but there were too many weapons with their own special rules that weren't covered clearly in the Monolith's entry such as Power fists.

Given that he seems to come down in favour of AGM in his article, it seems a bit odd that the current editions of 40K and Fantasy are built on on DGM. Maybe he was being nostalgic

Errm.
Wasn't it that dissociated game mechanics are added in purely for game play and associated game mechanics are tied in to the written background or the miniature?

USRs can certainly be associated mechanics, for example Space Marine Scouts getting infiltrate to reflect the fact that they infiltrate in the background.

IMO the worst offenders for dissociated game mechanics are found in the Psychic powers, which often have no precedents set in the background, and indeed end up being most controversial.

Holdenstein wrote:
USRs can certainly be associated mechanics, for example Space Marine Scouts getting infiltrate to reflect the fact that they infiltrate in the background.

Yes, but if every army has a unit with access to the same rule, it less reflective of any one unit's background. Infiltrate might sound appropriate for any kind of scout, but USR's like Furious Charge and Feel No Pain are just thrown at any old unit.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:

He asks people to write in at the end of it, but I can't say that I've ever seen him make reference to a letter he's received and so the sense in sending him a letter in the first place is lost on me.

Check my signature--my letter was presented in it's entirety in the Standard Bearer.

But yes, Holdenstein, the definition of disassociated mechanics you present is correct.

It goes w/o saying that Jervis is a vet in the industry with close to 30 of experience. From what I've read in GW articles I see pure cheerleading. I've seen him recally his early days in some articles - My take on this is that he's trying to...I don't know...bring players of different ages together. Telling the "newbs" how it was, making the "vets" recall there old experiences as well. Cheerleading, because if Jervis can't do it...

I think his article in WD should be passed around to other shop veterans to change the pace up a bit. Maybe two months of Jervis then a guest writer.

I get the idea that Jervis usually is trying to inspire people. As in "Standard Bearer." He's up there waving the flag. He's not the 2nd Lieutenant in the Command Tent who is telling you how to win the battle. Instead, he's the guy who is up there telling you why it is worth fighting.

Solorg wrote:I get the idea that Jervis usually is trying to inspire people. As in "Standard Bearer." He's up there waving the flag. He's not the 2nd Lieutenant in the Command Tent who is telling you how to win the battle. Instead, he's the guy who is up there telling you why it is worth fighting.

That is very beautifully put.

This column is always the worst part in the WD. Hands down.

I can't imagine that it's worse than Nigel Stillman's old irregular column. I think in one he advocated not painting your metal knights, because nothing looks more like metal armour than metal...

I like the column, but I agree with those saying the content is light. What really bugs me is the need for him to always tie in trying to sell the latest GW product in his pages - there's the rest of the mag devoted to that let Jervis talk about what he likes, or what he's been up to without making him act like another sales monkey.


I wonder if he'll ever have his own blog where we could get his thoughts without his employer's requirements getting in the way?

wuestenfux wrote:This column is always the worst part in the WD. Hands down.

Agreed. Read it and wanted to wash my eyeballs in bleach.

wuestenfux wrote:This column is always the worst part in the WD. Hands down.

Are you serious? It's the one part of the magazine that isn't a blatant advertisement. It's also not fraught with grammatical errors like most articles are.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:I still buy WD when I can find an article in it that might give me inspiration or actually be of practical use, but then I always find myself hunting through it for something more substantial than the ususal pieces flogging the new releases and don't seem to come up with much for my trouble.

Well, first of all, thats what the internet is for. White Dwarf is for your hobby fix when there is no computer around, like late at night when the GF is asleep next to you, or when you're on the can. Buying it for inspiration or practical use is just setting yourself up for disappointment.ing nothing.

Carmine the Wolf wrote:Has anyone else noticed that when you finish reading the thing there's no moment of thinking: what a good point he made there?

Sometimes I even have to glance back over the article to remind myself what the point he was getting at was.

He asks people to write in at the end of it, but I can't say that I've ever seen him make reference to a letter he's received and so the sense in sending him a letter in the first place is lost on me.

I think you're being far too utilitarian in your view. The point of the article is the same as having a yarn to someone at the local games club. It's just about idling the time away in a hobby related matter. And the point of writing a letter would be the same. Simply saying "Hey Jervis, liked that last article! Ps, thanks for Bloodbowl!"

It doesn't need to be any more than that.

Meaningless waffle. Almost as bad as the 'What's on Sale Today' part of the GW site.

H.B.M.C. wrote:Meaningless waffle. Almost as bad as the 'What's on Sale Today' part of the GW site.

+1 to this. You can’t have a decent article without meaningful content. Sad to see how bad WD has become in comparison to 5-10 years ago.

I like the standard bearer column only because its the only part of the magazine which somewhat resembles actual content, even if it is really shallow, poorly written, and really not worth reading.

IMO, Solorg's perception of what it means to be the standard bearer in this case is wrong. The impression I have always had while reading JJ's articles is that he is defending the decisions of the company and the design studio. For example, his article on DGM to me came across as being pro-DGM. While the AGM is fun and cool, it leads to gameplay issues whereas DGM doesn't. That was my take anyway. Certainly, JJ has been a champion of the DGM concept in the past (Dark Angels codex for one, most of that book is pretty much all DGM). Another previous issue I can recall was his reasoning for having images of all the weapons placed in the codecies (his kid didn't know what a bolter looked like). In other words, as the standard bearer he isn't waving the flag to inspire us, he is waving the flag to rally us behind what GW thinks is best.

Most of his articles aren't memorable enough for me to recall, nor can I be bothered to look them up, but more than once I have read his article and thought to myself that he is completely out of touch with what seems to be the general consensus of the community and as such is simply pushing the company line and trying to justify it. I seem to recall there was even an 'angry standard bearer' article where he ranted about something or other and why he was right and we were wrong.

Personally I like JJ's articles, at least for me it reminds me that there at least some people left in the company that aren't totally profit-driving yes-men for the almighty Mr Wells. I enjoy it because he talks about the hobby actually as a hobby, not about selling things like the rest of the magazine.

And hey, it's better than another 2 pages of photographs of LotR units

As for the whole AGM/DGM mechanic argument, I perceived that JJ was pro-AGM (hence the title 'avoid dissociative game mechanics, but mindful of the fact that you need a balance of the two to create a game that is actually playable.