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.

Pacific wrote:I think again thats something which is really subjective. I have never ever got that impression from his articles, and in any case he is writing what he considers to be the way to do things. Do you read a newspaper article, or editorial, and then question the right to it's existence because it doesn't match with your own opinions?

Not at all. But if it seems foolish or based on false pretenses, then that will shape my opinion of the writer.

Pacific wrote:I think again thats something which is really subjective. I have never ever got that impression from his articles, and in any case he is writing what he considers to be the way to do things. Do you read a newspaper article, or editorial, and then question the right to it's existence because it doesn't match with your own opinions?

Actually, it's not really subjective from what I've read that he considers 'tournament gamers' to be worthy of contempt and derision.

Also, nice strawman. I never questioned his right to write anything. However, if I read a newspaper editorial that is increadibly one sided and bashes the other side, I have an understandble reason to dislike the author and find the attitude that he brings to a conversation harmful. Especially if that writer is touted (Perhaps implying it himself) to be the authority on the subject.

skyth said:

The biggest reason I don't care for Jervis is because of his various belittling of people who play different than he thinks the game should be played.

I think the man did a great deal of damage to the game in general as others have pointed out. As a game designer? He had his moments but he had his failures. And many believe they were great failures. But I believe he is one of Kirby's friends, so he'll be around for awhile.

Recently, I played Warmachines. It is a damn good game. It is a example on how good complex game mechanics, very good edit and review, of a product line that can go far in this hobby. The Game makes you think. To me, 40K is now a simplified power game with cookie cutter army lists.
But I still love to paint GW's models, and will continue to do so until I completely get out of the game all together.

Whether it is believed or real, Jervis is the scape goat for Game Workshop's game mechanics, codex nerfing, unbalanced army woes.

Do I dislike the guy? No, but I don't consider him a game designer anymore.

To place hate on a person that you consider his net worth as a meat shield for a corporation that had so much potential, is simply wasting emotion on someone that you don't need to do.

sebster wrote:Simply that what makes a ruleset better can depend on what you want out of the game.

Uhh... you ninja'd my reply. I was actually talking to the guy above you. Sorry about that.

sebster wrote:... because GW build its rules with the focus on with the tournament mindset.

No they don't...

I suspect that was a typo. Seb's had a few of those recently.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

sebster wrote:Simply that what makes a ruleset better can depend on what you want out of the game.

Uhh... you ninja'd my reply. I was actually talking to the guy above you. Sorry about that.

Fair enough.

No they don't...

Whoops. Typo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:I suspect that was a typo. Seb's had a few of those recently.

Yeah I have, think I probably haven't been paying as much attention.

LMAO.

Jervis is hated for more reasons than I can state here on a thread, that is not tagged "NSFW'.

"Tournement Ruleset" - LMAO - the last GW Tourney in Brisbane, was 4 years ago.

Same as thier estimated Business Growth Model.(Pardoxial terms)

I think it's a bit unfair to blame Jervis for GW's faltering business model. He doesn't hold that much power.

He's in the anti-competitive camp. That's enough to make me dislike him, but he's simultaneously the figurehead of the company. That's enough to cause some fairly serious discomfort.

I'm one of those people who likes to play competitive 40k with functional rules while drunk and sometimes eating pretzels. Does he not understand this? Surely it's not entirely his fault, but he's obviously part of the problem I have with GW at the moment.

You mean their inability to see that either/or needn't be either/or. And you can, in fact, have a game that caters to both tournament and casual play?

Of course you can have a game that caters to both competition and casual play. That is, however, not the game GW sells.

Is Jervis really so hated? He was an important figure in GW when I got into the miniatures gaming hobby, but how much time has he spent writing impotent White Dwarf articles and being kept away from the important decicions? Throne of Skulls is not as much something to hate him for as to cement the image that competitive tournament play isn't something GW wants to support (although it is, of course, a hack job).

I always more had the impression that Jervis was pitied rather than reviled.

@H.B.M.C, pretty much exactly what I want them to do. Make functional, fun and cheesy armies. That's what 40k should be all about.

EDIT: The best example I can think of for this is the card game Magic: the Gathering. That has one of the best design philosophies in the business. It doesn't translate very well to 40k, because you aren't buying random assortments of cardboard crack. But, their concept of 'most cards are useful, and there are a lot of things that work well together, and you can still have fun, and you can still build a stupid deck based around certain mechanics/playstyles and do fairly well' is what makes it such a good game.

While I do have some serious issues with Jervis' stance on what direction 40K should take, I'd say I don't blame him for blandifying Codex: CSM as much as I do Gav Thorpe. After all, he -is- the one that not only misinterpreted H.B.M.C.'s Ice-cream analogy, but also said "The best Ice Cream shop has all the flavours under one roof." (Or something to that effect)

That works for Ice Cream. It does -not- work for Chaos Space Marines. The black spikey bad-guy marines can not be mixed together with the blue spikey bad-guy marines and the red-and-silver spikey bad guy marines and crammed together under one set of rules under the illusion that being all spikey bad-guy marines makes them identical. not spikey good-guy marines get a codex for each chapter, so the least they could do is release codi for each Chaos God's loyal CSM chapters. And that is why I hate Gav Thorpe. It's also why I made this picture hot on the heels of the Codex: CSM release:

metallifan wrote:While I do have some serious issues with Jervis' stance on what direction 40K should take, I'd say I don't blame him for blandifying Codex: CSM as much as I do Gav Thorpe. After all, he -is- the one that not only misinterpreted H.B.M.C.'s Ice-cream analogy, but also said "The best Ice Cream shop has all the flavours under one roof." (Or something to that effect)

That works for Ice Cream. It does -not- work for Chaos Space Marines. The black spikey bad-guy marines can not be mixed together with the blue spikey bad-guy marines and the red-and-silver spikey bad guy marines and crammed together under one set of rules under the illusion that being all spikey bad-guy marines makes them identical. not spikey good-guy marines get a codex for each chapter, so the least they could do is release codi for each Chaos God's loyal CSM chapters. And that is why I hate Gav Thorpe. It's also why I made this picture hot on the heels of the Codex: CSM release:

+1 for that post and 100% agree. Gav and Alessio I am glad they left GW after what they did to the chaos codex.

It's been posted several times already in this thread: Alessio Cavaltore already admitted culpability for the previous Chaos Marine codex, in an interview posted online.

Why can't JJ be seen in terms of positives and negatives? Surely that is the only fair way, you can't expect every designer to be a god-like figure so when they fart, $1000 dollar perfume comes out of their ass.

Plus points:
Aided in development of several early core game systems, from GW's past as a tiny niche company all the way through to its modern status.
Was an amusing part of old WD magazine and it's 'golden era', and battle reports when they were generally such and not a faked marketing exercise.
Helped develop some of GW's most loved specialist games (although they were sold in store at the time) such as Necromunda, Mordheim, Dark Future, Epic, Space Hulk and perhaps most notably Blood Bowl, which many consider to be GW's crowning moment.
Helped keep specialist games alive, despite there no doubt being pressure from within the company to bury them.
Bothered to write a letter as to why the squats were exterminated and written out of the game (no one else did, aside from a frankly insulting letter in WD, and if it hadn't been for him we would still be wondering)
His current article is the only thing even loosely considered 'journalism' in the current WD that isn't in-your-face advertising of the latest release.
Makes an effort to attend various shows and conventions, and even goes overseas to do so.
Sounds slightly like Mr. Bean.

Negative points:
Has helped design a couple of duff codecies.
His articles are considered offensive/derogatory to those who play competitively.
Sounds slightly like Mr. Bean.

I think the important thing for me is the older specialist games which were such a big part of our lives for some of us growing up, and for which we always think of him fondly about despite the other things he might be blamed for recently.

I don't know much about this whole subject, but it seems to me that jj may not carry that much blame for the current chaos codex and almost all the blame for the da codex.

I find it dubious that someone that is into fluff as much as jj appears to be would make a chaos codex like the one that was published.

It does make sense that the da codex was all fubar'ed due to the 'simplification' of the codex and the removal of options.

Just my 2 cents...

Anyone else here really hate blood bowl? It's some of the most arbitrary crap I've ever played, and I've been at Roulette tables.

The 4th ed (current) Chaos codex wasn't his direct responsibility. And at least it's viable in a competitive environment, unlike the DA codex was until the recent FAQ update.

Jervis was responsible for the most recent DA codex, not responsible for the (viable) one before that (late 3rd ed), and responsible for the totally crap one they originally got in 3rd. He was also responsible for the so-bland-it-makes-the-current-one-look-amazing original 3rd ed Chaos codex.

It is kind of funny that the two codices he designed in 3rd ed were the only ones so poor that they had be re-done before we even got to 4th ed.

I do still love Blood Bowl, though.