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.

Essentially it seems to me he's saying that while the models are good, the fluff is good, well the game isn't really - but that's your fault. Which I have to say is an absolutely brilliant stance to take.
If interest in the rules is so bad maybe we should just pick up the models, then bash them together while going 'bkow! aaargh! For the Emperor! AAAAArgh!'. He seems to suggest that is the best approach.
FTE

The primary differences I've noticed between tournament players and casual players are obvious. First, casual players are more likely to complain that something has been removed from their army's new codex because it made sense in the fluff, while tournament players are always protesting that something in their favorite army was unfairly weakened or something in an army they already had a bad record against was unfairly made stronger. Also, it seems to me that casual players are much quicker to come to an agreement when they are on opposite sides of a rules dispute. And casual players are more likely to bring snacks for everybody.

We've often had threads which become slanging matches between 'tournament' and 'casual' players because 'casual' players

Nearly everyone agrees that 5e is better written than any previous edition, in the sense of mostly being well explained in text and with diagrams, and streamlined rules, even if there are still many rough patches.

How many 'casual' players would say it is a worse set of rules because it is better?

There is nothing wrong with a clearly written ruleset and codexes with good power balance.

Kilkrazy wrote:There is nothing wrong with a clearly written ruleset and codexes with good power balance.

Who doesn't think that; seriously?

Neconilis wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:There is nothing wrong with a clearly written ruleset and codexes with good power balance.

Who doesn't think that; seriously?

Just the guys writing the rules. No biggie.

Keep in mind that JJ has been playing the same Space Marine since at least third edition, if not second. And I don't mean, "oh, he always plays Blood Angels." I mean, "he has the same grey space marines and just fits them into the new codex." And you're surprised by his attitude because....? Also realize that Europe, and the UK in particular, are significantly different markets than the US. They can sell to the 'hobbyist' the 'painter' and the 'collector', which they see as 3/4 of their audience. The other 1/4 being the 'gamer'.

AGAIN WHAT DID THE ACTUAL LETTER SAY?

Green Blow Fly wrote:I hope JJ is reading this thread. He must be one of the most hated developers ever. I remember him talking at Adepticon.... very rigid and often would talk down to his audience. I thought some of the stuff he said was completely preposterous... He seems like one of those that talks the smack just because he knows he can get away with it. I reckon he has his head way up someone highly placed at GW HQ.

Oh, I don't know about that. In every dealing I've had with the guy, he's been gracious and friendly.

I think the thing with Jervis is that he's on a bit of a crusade and convinced of his rightness. So I don't think anyone's going to change his mind right now, especially in a brief, chance meeting at some event. Think of him as Sybok from Star Trek V, LOL. He's a nice enough guy whose heart is in the right place, but is misguided in his approach. Meanwhile, what lies at the end of his quest isn't quite what he thinks it is.

Ultimately, there's little to be gained by telling people how they should play or pitting different types of gamers against one another. It'd be healthier for the hobby to try to pitch the widest possible tent instead of drawing lines and dividing the customers. The latter may not be what he intends, but it's unfortunately how he comes off to many.

I'm not one of the ultracompetitive types. But if I designed a game/product, I'd take an attitude of "here it is, and I sure hope you have a blast with it, however you choose to use it. Just go have FUN." And then I'd let the thing go and let it take flight. Jervis just struggles a bit with letting it go. He sometimes acts like a helicopter parent.

warpcrafter wrote: Also, it seems to me that casual players are much quicker to come to an agreement when they are on opposite sides of a rules dispute. And casual players are more likely to bring snacks for everybody.

Has that actually been your experience? From what I've seen, most tournament gamers are pretty quick to call a judge, roll a 4+, and simply move on. I wouldn't say they're quicker than casual gamers, but some of my fiercest, nastiest rules debates have been in casual games.

I think that the stakes are higher in tournament games (where there often is some prize on the table, or at least pride), but there is more time and less structure for a casual game. Having a judge or a TO allows debates to end pretty quick.

I guess I'm going to have to read it again, but on first glance, AgeofEgos' gaming group doesn't cast itself in a very good light, I'm afraid.

It might be the overall spin of the article, but it is basically JJ once again thumbing his noses at people 'demanding' that the rules make sense and are balanced. Or as balanced as they can be.

JJ starts the whole thing off by basically mocking the 'this unit is overcosted by 2 points' crowd and then waves his usual "Just have FUN" flag.

Of course, forgetting that you can have FUN and you can have it with well written, clear, and balanced rules too...

Edited for spelling mistakes.

I don't understand the disconnent between FUN! and Good Rules! They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, good rules often lead to more FUN!

Really, how is it fun to show up at FLGS for a game and have an argument about the point cost for a Space Wolf Rhino, or if any of the other issues addressed in INAT FAQ? It's not a WAAC mentality. I mean, if you didn't care at all about winning, you'd show up to a 2,000 point game with only 1,000. Does anybody ever do that?

While I keep hoping that GW 'gets it' and tries to fix the rules, either with the initial draft or with good errata and FAQ support (and personally, I think they've made dramatic improvements over the last 10 years), I also realize that the reality is until they have to do so (which would mean their sales drop and go elsewhere for gaming and/or entertainment) - they won't. If you want them to change, buy PP!

dietrich wrote:Also realize that Europe, and the UK in particular, are significantly different markets than the US. They can sell to the 'hobbyist' the 'painter' and the 'collector', which they see as 3/4 of their audience. The other 1/4 being the 'gamer'.

This line doesn't make any sense. They can do that in America, too. Or are you suggesting that in Europe, the land where soft scores don't exist, there is no difference between casual and tournament gamers? That somehow European Tournaments are lesser in value or kinder and gentler affairs, despite(or because of) the fact that there is no comp/sports scores, than the American equivalent?

Or are you just saying there aren't as many tournament players in Europe as there are in America(which would be untrue)?

Please, do explain, as I don't see the point you're attempting to make with this statement.

Green Blow Fly wrote:I hope JJ is reading this thread. He must be one of the most hated developers ever. I remember him talking at Adepticon.... very rigid and often would talk down to his audience. I thought some of the stuff he said was completely preposterous... He seems like one of those that talks the smack just because he knows he can get away with it. I reckon he has his head way up someone highly placed at GW HQ.

G

Again I think it's something not there that you are seeing. I've had conversations with him multiple times over 15 years, and I've never found him to be condescending, or preposterous. Perhaps because he doesn't share your same opinion, you've decided he's a nut. As for smack talking, who's worse, him or the wrecking crew?

Perhaps you don't know, but he is one of the high up at GW HQ.. Maybe you need to read your GW histsory and figure out who he really is.. lol

Platuan4th wrote:

dietrich wrote:Also realize that Europe, and the UK in particular, are significantly different markets than the US. They can sell to the 'hobbyist' the 'painter' and the 'collector', which they see as 3/4 of their audience. The other 1/4 being the 'gamer'.

This line doesn't make any sense. They can do that in America, too. Or are you suggesting that in Europe, the land where soft scores don't exist, there is no difference between casual and tournament gamers? That somehow European Tournaments are lesser in value or kinder and gentler affairs, despite(or because of) the fact that there is no comp/sports scores, than the American equivalent?

Or are you just saying there aren't as many tournament players in Europe as there are in America(which would be untrue)?

Please, do explain, as I don't see the point you're attempting to make with this statement.

They can do it in America, but Europe has a bigger 'non-gamer' market. GW sees the 'non-gamer' market being 3/4 their market - because they count number of markets, not number of people in each market, or even the dollars in each market. And this is exactly what JJ esposed at Adepticon a few years ago. In the US, the 'non-gamer' market is not as big. Sure, it's there, but it's just not as big. Further consider that GW sees the gamer market as being split into various subfactions, the 'tourney gamer', the 'casual gamer', the 'APOC gamer', etc. So, in their mind, tourney gamers are a segment of a segment - something on the order of 1/3 of 1/4, or 1/12 their market. Now, maybe GW realizes that 'gamers' are really 50% of their market, I don't know for certain. But, it's clear that they see the 'collector' and 'painter' as big enough market forces to help carry them.

GW doesn't cater to the tourney gamer because they don't need to. Whether that's because the 'collectors' and 'painters' are truly a big enough market, or because we just accept their 90% complete rules and keep playing, it doesn't matter.

two_heads_talking wrote:Again I think it's something not there that you are seeing. I've had conversations with him multiple times over 15 years, and I've never found him to be condescending, or preposterous.

I too have found him to be a true gent in person, but that doesn't absolve him of being an idiot in print.

It wasn't always this way. I remember the J-files, and lots of specialist games writing. Then he got sloppy and preachy.

OddJob. wrote:

two_heads_talking wrote:Again I think it's something not there that you are seeing. I've had conversations with him multiple times over 15 years, and I've never found him to be condescending, or preposterous.

I too have found him to be a true gent in person, but that doesn't absolve him of being an idiot in print.

It wasn't always this way. I remember the J-files, and lots of specialist games writing. Then he got sloppy and preachy.

Well perhaps because I agree with him, I don't consider him an idiot in print. Of course based on that, I suppose now, I'm an idiot in print too.

two_heads_talking wrote:Well perhaps because I agree with him, I don't consider him an idiot in print. Of course based on that, I suppose now, I'm an idiot in print too.

No, you're an idiot on the internet. Which, is how everyone on the internet can be described!

I sat and listened to JJ ramble about GW, mostly 40k, at Adepticon a few years ago. I don't totally agree with JJ, but I think he's led to improvements in the design studio. And he seems like a great bloke too. But, I do think the design team needs to wake up and realize that FUN! and Good Rules! aren't mutally exclusive. I think that they realize it, but they're too willing to hide behind FUN! when it's convenient. I realize that no rule set will be perfect, and while Fifth Ed is better than Fourth, it could still be better.

dietrich wrote:

two_heads_talking wrote:Well perhaps because I agree with him, I don't consider him an idiot in print. Of course based on that, I suppose now, I'm an idiot in print too.

No, you're an idiot on the internet. Which, is how everyone on the internet can be described! .

How can I argue with that? lol

I think that poor rules can negatively impact fun, but good rules will never do anything but enhance fun.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

Da Boss wrote:I think that poor rules can negatively impact fun, but good rules will never do anything but enhance fun.

Well said!

It will fall on deaf ears at GW HQ, but well said!

Very true!

G