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.

Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.

 Kelly502 wrote:
I'm not name calling, he is devaluing a hobby, from a company he "has" worked for in the past. He is not current with what they are doing inside the company, he doesn't go to production meetings any longer, he is an outsider.
He works for another company in a similar market correct? So really he is being unprofessional in defaming GW.

Defaming how? It just seems that your A) really young and haven't seen the stuff GW pulls on people, Or B) just In Love with them so much you will take anything they do and treat it as Gospel.


Its kinda cult like behavior.

I've always been baffled by the level of support the current entity that is GW gets in these sorts of threads. You have:

- A. The "Spots the Space Marine" debacle, where they tried to claim ownership of a concept invented decades before the company existed, as well as the attempted destruction of a children's book

- B. The Chapterhouse suit, which was a only stopped because they got pro-bono defense (imagine what it would have been like if CHS hadn't been able to defend themselves and GW steamrolled them...who would they have sued for concept infringement next?) and 75% of GW's claims were thrown out because they tried to claim ownership of things like roman numerals and further on shoulderpads... THEN coupled with the level of evidence-tampering GW did in trying to take back ownership of works they never even owned, and there's not a single person in the GW vs. CHS thread who can even throw their hands up in defense because the case was such a joke

- C. Continuous movement in the DLC direction of dividing up content, increasing the cost of rules and increasing the number of models necessary to play standard games through unit depreciation

- & D. More and more of the founding fathers of GW coming out and making comments about the current GW, of which really only constitutes Jervis Johnson from the old crew and Tom Kirby pulling a Putin by giving up CEO (since it was looked down upon that he controlled both of the top roles)

But still people come here to ridicule those who dare speak negatively of GW and defame the people who literally created 40k. What, because they're not on the current GW payroll? So who is the lord and father of 40k now, Tom Kirby? The unlisted "creative department"?

I get people love their models and all, they're very nice and I still think some of the best in the market. But let's not get our opinions of their models confused with what the company has become.

 Compel wrote:
Personally, I'm significantly less of a fan of Rick Priestley after the Gates of Antares kickstarter screwup but yeah, it's daft to think of him as anything other than one of, if not the most influential guy who still works in the wargaming hobby out there.

Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.

 Accolade wrote:
I've always been baffled by the level of support the current entity that is GW gets in these sorts of threads. You have:

- A. The "Spots the Space Marine" debacle, where they tried to claim ownership of a concept invented decades before the company existed, as well as the attempted destruction of a children's book

- B. The Chapterhouse suit, which was a only stopped because they got pro-bono defense (imagine what it would have been like if CHS hadn't been able to defend themselves and GW steamrolled them...who would they have sued for concept infringement next?) and 75% of GW's claims were thrown out because they tried to claim ownership of things like roman numerals and further on shoulderpads... THEN coupled with the level of evidence-tampering GW did in trying to take back ownership of works they never even owned, and there's not a single person in the GW vs. CHS thread who can even throw their hands up in defense because the case was such a joke

- C. Continuous movement in the DLC direction of dividing up content, increasing the cost of rules and increasing the number of models necessary to play standard games through unit depreciation

- & D. More and more of the founding fathers of GW coming out and making comments about the current GW, of which really only constitutes Jervis Johnson from the old crew and Tom Kirby pulling a Putin by giving up CEO (since it was looked down upon that he controlled both of the top rolls)

But still people come here to ridicule those who dare speak negatively of GW and defame the people who literally created 40k. What, because they're not on the current GW payroll? So who is the lord and father of 40k now, Tom Kirby? The unlisted "creative department"?

I get people love their models and all, they're very nice and I still think some of the best in the market. But let's not get our opinions of their models confused with what the company has become.

Yes, this exactly. How people could support a business that acts this way is beyond me.
As to the question of younger players: At my FLGS, I seldom see young players (below 20) and usually they're playing MTG.

I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.

I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.

I do think that Rick is very much of a Molyneux squirrel, with lots of constantly changing ideas of all different types going all different directions, but little ability to implement them all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.

I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.

I do think that Rick is very much of a Molyneux squirrel, with lots of constantly changing ideas of all different types going all different directions, but little ability to implement them all.

Warmaster, Hail Caeser, and Black Powder all go against your opinion, I think.

*Looks at the posters railing against Priestly. Looks at their typical posts in regards to GW.*
Ignoring their opinion. White knights gonna knight.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.

What rulesets would that be? Because he sure fethed up 40k with random charts and distances everywhere. That's not playability. You might find it fun, but's gakky rules.

Regardless of whether GW customers ever get round to gaming with their purchases, it's the prospect of gaming with their purchases that draws them in.

Remove the game (or fail to make it good), you lose that draw and people stop buying miniatures.

 Flashman wrote:
Regardless of whether GW customers ever get round to gaming with their purchases, it's the prospect of gaming with their purchases that draws them in.

Remove the game (or fail to make it good), you lose that draw and people stop buying miniatures.

My thoughts exactly.
Take away the game and there is little reason for most people to continue purchasing.
Also, I'm genuinely surprised how the GW apologists are anti - Rick P. The dude basically created 40k.

When Rick Priestly wrote Rogue Trader his name was put on the cover, much like the way a lot of continental board game manufacturers put their designers on the front like authors. There's no sense of pride now, GW have no personalities in their design team. People only know Jervis because he was one of the big names back in the day. The rest have been weeded out leaving it rather anonymous.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
When Rick Priestly wrote Rogue Trader his name was put on the cover, much like the way a lot of continental board game manufacturers put their designers on the front like authors. There's no sense of pride now, GW have no personalities in their design team. People only know Jervis because he was one of the big names back in the day. The rest have been weeded out leaving it rather anonymous.

The way GW wants it.

But having a face of the company that people like, and respect, makes things easier to sell.

theHandofGork wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not much of a Rick Priestly fan. He had some good ideas 20-odd years ago, but none of them translate into the "fast, casual" gaming that I enjoy, nor the "balanced, competitive" ideal that others want. That's why Gates of Anatares failed completely once people realized this was a vanity project.

Warmaster, Hail Caeser, and Black Powder all go against your opinion, I think.

I'm not much of a fan for any of those games, athough I do believe that Warmaster's 10mm is a vastly superior scale for WFB than 28-30mm. They may be good for others, but they're not much for me.
___

WayneTheGame wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.

What rulesets would that be? Because he sure fethed up 40k with random charts and distances everywhere. That's not playability. You might find it fun, but's gakky rules.

Jervis has his fingers in pretty much everything that comes out of GW, but he's my favorite designer because he was behind much of the 40k3 and 40k4 rules cleanup, along with the 40k3 IG and Craftworld codices.
http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Jervis_Johnson

My understanding is that Jervis pushes to streamline things, not add random charts.

I think you're conflating Jervis with Alessio.

If his editorials in WD are accurate, JJ is the living embodiment of "everything should be random!! random is awesome!!" thinking and the "on a 4+ I get to cheat" style of rules authoring.

I dunno, his discussion of BFG relative to the Epic revamp seemed like he was pushing for simplification. It was a long time ago, so maybe I misremember. Sorry.

I do prefer his ethos of casual gaming. That's for sure.

Well, BFG was Andy Chamber's baby, and IIRC he co-wrote epic with Rick.

I'm struggling to think of any core rules you could say were mainly JJ's work...

Maybe Blood Bowl?

nkelsch wrote:

Saldiven wrote:


How is it in your areas? Do you still see lots of school-age kids coming in and playing/buying 40K stuff?

I can't really speak to that. There's only ever been one GW store in all of metro Atlanta at one time. There was a 3-4 year period where there were no stores until one opened up about two years ago. I've only been there a half dozen times or so, and they only have one gaming table, so I cannot speak to how many people of what demographic go there.

However, in the biggest LGS around here, there are about a dozen 4'x6' tables and four 4'x4' tables plus enough card tables to have 120+ PTQ tournaments for MtG. They're pretty busy just about every day of the week. I am sure there are some teenagers that play 40K there (though I honestly cannot think of a single one off the top of my head), but nowhere as many as I used to see when I first moved to Atlanta in 2004 (when at least half of the regular players were in high school; I'm still friends with several of them).

IIRC, JJ was the main guy behind BB. He's the guy who kept SG around for as long as he could, and released the rules to the public. He fights the good fight on behalf of casuals everywhere. I gotta respect that.

Also, he was the one to give players the honest gak about what happened with the Squats.

But, as fun as it is, BB is random dice effect after random dice effect and random table after random table.

I checked, and we're right and he did author (or primary author) BB, and you compare it to current 40K you can draw a lot of comparisons.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm much more of a Jervis fan, based on how he cleans up horrendously messy rulesets and streamlines them for playability.

What rulesets would that be? Because he sure fethed up 40k with random charts and distances everywhere. That's not playability. You might find it fun, but's gakky rules.

Now I never played Rogue Trader but I do remember reading some White Dwarf mags from that period that featured a lot of random tables for Orks (along with make your own Gobsmasha and Baneblade templates). Was that common for all army of the time or were those just to reflect Ork craziness?

Orks were particularly random, but there was a fair amount of it in the rest of the game as well.

The thing is, Rogue Trader was almost as much RPG as wargame, so having whole bunches of stuff out of the players' control wasn't as much of an issue as in later editions.

 insaniak wrote:
Orks were particularly random, but there was a fair amount of it in the rest of the game as well.

The thing is, Rogue Trader was almost as much RPG as wargame, so having whole bunches of stuff out of the players' control wasn't as much of an issue as in later editions.

RT was fun. However there's little joy in GW nowerdays. The mini armies like the forthcoming Admech n Cult armies are too little too late. No mini game like Necromunda or Mordhiem, Nothing beyond 40K and whatever horror Fantasy will become it just makes me truly,truly sad.

People think this 30k game will save GW in 6 months the rules will be gone, and it will be abandoned within 2 years I bet you.

I've known the Games Industry going on 20 plus years now. And not 1 person I talk to who is currently in or has been speaks highly of GW upper management.

I honestly thought WOTC or CCP were kinda grumpy, nothing simply nothing compared to GW

 insaniak wrote:
Rogue Trader was almost as much RPG as wargame,

Wasn't Rogue Trader originally conceived as a SF version of D&D, more RPG than wargame?

When you leaf through the RT rules, there's no treatise on "fighting a battle" like we have in 40k3 onward.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Rogue Trader was almost as much RPG as wargame,

Wasn't Rogue Trader originally conceived as a SF version of D&D, more RPG than wargame?

When you leaf through the RT rules, there's no treatise on "fighting a battle" like we have in 40k3 onward.

Pretty much. The battle aspect seemed almost an afterthought.

It did, indeed, recommend a GM for games.

But RT evolved into 2nd Ed, and that's really the the genesis of 40k as most people would recognise it, and that was categorically an oppositional battle game, albeit with a much lower scale focus and a lot more detail. (Some of which was determined by random generation, but it somehow never felt as inappropriate as the random we have in 6/7th Ed)

Mymearan wrote:
They may be a thing, opinions apparently aren't, and wrong ones deserve to be mocked. Drop the attitude and name-calling.

Differing opinions occur all the time, especially with nerdy pursuits, but the examples I listed rely a special blend of tunnel vision, rationalisation, prickly defensiveness and a hazy grasp of facts, and it's far from the first time I've seen this kind of attitude among obsessive GW gamers. "Who is this Rick Priestly person to say nasty sue-able things about GW?" "Yeah, Alan Merrett sounds like he's saying blatantly daft things, but if you really think about them and squint just so, this is what he actually meant." "No other range of minis comes close to the beauty of this." These are certainly opinions, but do you honestly think they're coming from a position of clarity, and deserving of equal acceptance? Like Migoo said:

migooo wrote:Its kinda cult like behavior.

I watched this documentary a couple of years ago. When the section about Apple's cultlike practises and following came up, I couldn't help but mentally insert GW and GW gamers into the situation.

'GWombie' is cruel, but not entirely inaccurate given the (sometimes aggressive) single-minded focus, and to be honest a sharp needle can be useful to pierce through that obfuscating GW fug.

migooo wrote:Indeed He was asking for a staggering amount though.

In return for a couple of ideas scribbled on the back of a napkin. I remember one of their few big concepts for an alien race was some dude's slightly wonky Slaanesh daemon for a GD competition.

But it's one of the few missteps I've seen connected to Rick Priestly.

MWHistorian wrote:Also, I'm genuinely surprised how the GW apologists are anti - Rick P.

Well once it was apparent he didn't want to toe Iosif Kirby's line, it turned out he wasn't a true revolyutsionnyy after all.

I would like to express my mild surprise that you linked through to Logan Claus and not Pumbagor in that post.

Kudos for taking a path less travelled!

Really don't understand why they'd reduce focus on the gaming aspect.

Everyone loves games.

I wondered whether the fact that I lost interest in GW was because of my age (38), but I rediscovered my passion for gaming with X Wing which is a fantastic rule set.

Just been playing Pandemic with Mrs Flashman (great fun - think cooperative Risk with disease control instead of battles), which was £30 spent on a game rather than GW miniatures.

Azreal13 wrote:Well, BFG was Andy Chamber's baby, and IIRC he co-wrote epic with Rick.

I'm struggling to think of any core rules you could say were mainly JJ's work...

Maybe Blood Bowl?

I think JJ had a hand in a lot of games, although as far as I can remember his input for BFG was to make Eldar nigh on unstoppable, so he could have an Eldar army that actually won things

Think Space Hulk has JJ's name in the credits? I'm not sure.

JohnHwangDD wrote:IIRC, JJ was the main guy behind BB. He's the guy who kept SG around for as long as he could, and released the rules to the public. He fights the good fight on behalf of casuals everywhere. I gotta respect that.

Also, he was the one to give players the honest gak about what happened with the Squats.

Very true. JJ was also the reason that the Specialist Games lines lasted as long as they did, without him they would have disappeared years before.