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.

Well, I talked to Dave Taylor a bit. He is in charge of the US GTs now, so I had some questions for him.

He said that they are still going to have a team tournament on Friday night before the Las Vegas GT. I believe it will be 2 on 2.

He also said that they (GW) are trying to negotiate a lower rate with a hotel in <st1:city><st1:place>Las Vegas</st1:place></st1:city>.

Jervis Johnson was the guest GW speaker at Adepticon. They have reduced the window of news from the studio from 6 months out, to 3 months. So all he was able to talk about was Dark Angels, Harlequins, and the Warhammer terrain...and that is it, absolutely nothing else. He would not even talk about the Blood Angels which are expecting to get an update in next months White Dwarf. He would not even confirm the next army book/codex. I hope that Adepticon did not pay to fly him out, if they did, it was a total waste of money.

Wow. That does sound like a waste of money...

So nothing for GW. Ho-hum.

Well how about other companies that are doing stuff, like GF9?

I heard there was supposed to be oodles of new stuff to expect from them.

Any news on that front?

The 6 month window was tight enough. This 3 month window is rediculous, epecially when there's nothing on the horizon in the next three months.

I am curious what he had to say about Dark Angels (or whether any rotten tomatos were slung his way).

I guess that explains why it is all quiet of the GW rumor front right now...

So, all he could talk about where the things that we already know about?

Yay?

 

Plus, I'm a big fan of Dave Taylor's work with GW.

 

Now that he's in charge of GTs, I'm concerned for his future with the company!

So what exactly is the point of the 3-month rumor window?  To keep people in a constant state of unexcitement, to keep them from getting pumped up for new releases, so they buy less?

Or is it just so they can shirk responsibility when they push the Ork codex back another year?

The rumors would go a little something like this:

Month 1: Next month we'll be pre-release sign ups!
Month 2-3: Alliance posts preorders on the web.

Fun!

Heh. Not saying the following is true, but if it is, Jervis needs to be punched in the head.

I have my doubts regarding the veracity of this rumour though.

Stolen from warseer:

---

Alright, I was in my local GW tonight for the weekly fantasy night and one of employees waves me over and tells me he's got something for me to look at. What he then proceeded to hand me was a list of everything GW is planning on putting out for the rest of the year. The list was at least 10 pages long with entries for every week/2 weeks, sku numbers, cost, GW number.

I was suprised he was showing it to me but apparently the new policy is to go ahead and share this info with regulars. He let me know that it was all subject to change and that sometimes they push back due dates/change prices(for instance the apocalypse products didn't have prices yet).

The list included everything you'd expect to see such as the foundation paints, re-release of blood angel characters in june/july, the high elves in the fall, orks as the christmas release. Some suprises for me included what looked like either a re-release or resculpt of some IG models(commissar and ogryns(there was even a bone-ead model on the list)), that orks were the christmas release army box, the fact that the shadow king is back for high elves, plastic terminators for Chaos, and a couple of cool sound chaos characters.

I'm really kicking myself right now for not taking notes on when exactly stuff was coming out, but I was really only browsing the list. In a lot of circumstances all that I had to go on was the name, like in the case of the apocolypse stuff it didn't say what was in the box, it just named it. Some of the names were: Necron Phalanx, Emperor's First Tank company, Tau Rapid Deployment Force.

I'll go back and take some very detailed notes in the next few days, I just didn't see any refernce to this information on the rest of the board and wanted to share.

Cya

---

This could be just the average run of the mill GW disinformation plant though, so who knows?

I attended both of Jervis's seminars at Adepticon and both were fairly disappointing. He was on full 3 month 'lockdown' mode at wouldn't commit to revealing absolutely anything, even as a tongue-in-cheek reference.

That said, what he could talk about was his role in games workshop and the overall direction the company is moving with regards to its games.

Jervis is now the product and hobby strategist for GW. While this doesn't mean he runs any of the rules design teams for any of the 3 core games, it does mean he is responsible for making sure the overall design of the games stays on a specific course.

This new focus imposed by Jervis on the teams means that the core rulebook and the codices/army books are now specifically targeted for pickup games of 1,500/2,000 points (for 40K/Warhammer respectively.

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team) will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an 'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

While Jervis naturally wouldn't go into any details about future expansions, this is the catch-all term for any and all ways that GW will present different ways to play the core games. If GW wants to release campaign rules for their games, they'll put it in a campaign expansion book. If they want to release a small battle game (like 'Kill Team') they'll put those rules into an expansion, etc.

Basically they want to make it clear to the consumer that the core rules are written and balanced for a specific style of game, and while expansions can alter this formula it would be clear that you were using the expansion set/rules in that case.

Another fairly big change (IMO) is the decision that all current armies that have a codex/army book will be supported by the company on timely basis indefinitely. That means no current armies will go away (inlcuding Dark Eldar and Chaos Dwarves, according to Jervis) and they will all start recieving much more regular releases (no more 8 year gap between Ork codices in the future).

The downside of this new mantra is that GW will be much more careful about releasing new armies, as when they do so they are committing to supporting those armies indefinitely. That also means that we will no longer see army sub-lists (like Eldar Craftworld lists, etc) as they have become to numerous for GW to continue to support.

So as for the future of Kroot Mercs, LatD, Feral Orks, etc, while Jervis DID NOT say anything specific about these army types, I am pretty darn certain that you won't be seeing any updated rules ever for these armies.

The only real hope for these armies is either: They include some of the units in the updated version of the parent codex (like the possibility of adding some Feral Ork units into the next Ork codex) or GW decides to make these armies into a full codex release that will then be supported indefinitely. You will definitely not see a 'Feral Ork' sub-army list included in the new Ork codex; those days are now gone.

GW is trying to get to a point where all the codices/army books are fairly balanced at their base point levels (1,500 points for 40k, 2,000 points for Warhammer) and part of that process is eliminating some of the fringe choices that allow players to make wacky powerful armies.

The Dark Angel codex was, to paraphrase Jervis, a way to show the games designers the principles he was trying to hold them to. In many ways the Dark Angels codex is the blueprint for the future of 40k.


I also asked him if a trait/doctrine system was still in the games designers 'toolboxes' (specifically in relation to a possible Chaos codex revision). He responded that the goal of a new Chaos codex would be to incorporate everything into a single army list and, if that wasn't possible, other options (such as traits/doctrines) would then be explored. I then asked if seperate codices were a possibility for a Chaos update, and he said that if they did decide to split them into seperate codices the company would be committing to keeping those armies around as a seperate entity indefinitely, meaning it would be a decision they would only do after very, very careful consideration.


Finally, he also commented that the SM codex was considered a failure within the company because as the codex most commonly purchased by new players, it fails to properly introduce them into the hobby (as it doesn't have the weapon diagrams like the new DA codex does). That gives GW a reason to 'fast track' a new version of the codex into production. When and if this new SM codex is released Jervis said that it will likely incorporate many of the new concepts found within the DA codex.

Now, exactly what a 'fast track' is for a codex is anyones guess. . .

I would find this to be wonderful news if a precedent wasnt already set in 4th edition.

Basically, in the middle of an edition, jervis decides that things should be done X way. While I find balancing the codex to be a great attempt (other than the complete and utter removal of options to make a list distinctive from another list from the same codex) it really seems a "too little too late" type of attempt.

Very curious as to where this takes 40K...or GW for that matter.

I will now relinquish the microphone to the other angry beavers who will follow.

Yak - thanks for the update.

So, did I miss something, or was there any good news in there?

(said with tongue partially in cheek)

I think it's good news that they're trying to reel in the scope creep of the codexes, which is something Yak implied but didn't specifically state. My friend, Joe, was also in the Sunday session and indicated the same message about Dark Angels--Jervis wrote it to "set the tone" for future codex releases, and I think the intent there is balance/reduction of scope creep/codex escalation. So I see that as good news, myself.

I know Joe came out of the session feeling like they had a renewed purpose for 40k--like they actually have a goal for how the game should play, be balanced, etc. And I think they're on trying to get back on track for that goal. So I see that as a positive.

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:24 PM

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team) will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an 'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

Does talk of what's going in to future core rules books mean that fifth edition is under development?

Edit: Or even something like a 4.5e rulebook.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 3:34 PM
I would find this to be wonderful news if a precedent wasnt already set in 4th edition.

Basically, in the middle of an edition, jervis decides that things should be done X way. While I find balancing the codex to be a great attempt (other than the complete and utter removal of options to make a list distinctive from another list from the same codex) it really seems a "too little too late" type of attempt.

Very curious as to where this takes 40K...or GW for that matter.

I will now relinquish the microphone to the other angry beavers who will follow.

While I completely agree (I even said as much to Jervis), he had a pretty good point: You've got to start somewhere.

And besides the SM codex, I still contend that the rest of the 4th edition codices are pretty well balanced.

Posted By Lowinor on 04/04/2007 3:55 PM

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:24 PM

That means sub-army lists and any other wacky rules (like Kill Team) will no longer be found in the core rules/codices. Any interesting sub-divisions of the game instead will be brought out as an 'expansion' (such as Cities of Death).

Does talk of what's going in to future core rules books mean that fifth edition is under development?

I hope so. 4th edition is a wash.

But that wont stop GW from milking that cow until they feel the need to release 5th.

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 3:58 PM

Posted By Lowinor on 04/04/2007 3:55 PM

Does talk of what's going in to future core rules books mean that fifth edition is under development?

I hope so. 4th edition is a wash.

But that wont stop GW from milking that cow until they feel the need to release 5th.

Well, even without a new main rulebook, it sounds like starting with DA we're in 4.5e anyway.

Really, though, cutting short the product cycle on the SM codex after a relatively short amount of time done for the health of the game is something good.

Seriously -- revamp SM and Chaos, then put out new codices for Orks and DE, and 40k as a spectrum of armies is 100% better off than it is now.

And actual support for Chaos Dwarfs will force me to buy another fantasy army, damnit...

I see it as bad news, GW's stable of armies is now set in stone forever and ever and ever. There seems to be little hope that new armies will appear or that less-interesting ones will be put on the shelf for a while to explore new avenues.

For a long-time player like me more rehashing of 80s concepts does little to keep me inteseted.

Hey it's the snotling pump wagon Mk VII!

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:57 PM

Posted By Hellfury on 04/04/2007 3:34 PM
I would find this to be wonderful news if a precedent wasnt already set in 4th edition.

Basically, in the middle of an edition, jervis decides that things should be done X way. While I find balancing the codex to be a great attempt (other than the complete and utter removal of options to make a list distinctive from another list from the same codex) it really seems a "too little too late" type of attempt.

Very curious as to where this takes 40K...or GW for that matter.

I will now relinquish the microphone to the other angry beavers who will follow.

While I completely agree (I even said as much to Jervis), he had a pretty good point: You've got to start somewhere.

And besides the SM codex, I still contend that the rest of the 4th edition codices are pretty well balanced.

Well, he may as well just rewrite the 4th edition rulebook while he is at it.

So basically what he is saying is that everything will be balanced to Dark Angels standards. As in the reference point for everything else afterwards to be balanced from.

To look at it another way, the models you own in all probability may no longer be useful/legal/even in the codex.

Yay?

Cutting down the options for wargear taken/squad options is a very bad move. This the exact reason I lost any interest in playing Necrons- it became very very boring quickly. With more options you are constantly tweaking your lists and thinking about how to make it better. Having the consumer thinking about your products when not using your products is extremely beneficial.

I AM glad to hear about the increased dedication to support on the existing lists. Amen to that.

Really? There's some OTT stuff in the SM dex but even if they do release a 'redux', there's still alot of relatively unbalanced stuff remaining in other dexes. I mean, do you truely believe the holofield laden skimmer horde is balanced compared to the Dark Angels? Or Nidzilla? Especially at 1500 points?

I have to agree with Hellfury, it just seems too little too late.

So the Space Marine codex is going to get a facelift rather than a redo? Okay, I can sort of accept that.

But having all the codices mimick the DA codex? GAK! While I find the crippling lack of diversity within the DA codex niminally acceptible for a specialty codex, I can't see it working AT ALL for a mainline codex or army book.

This all gives me deep feelings of forboding regarding the upcoming ork codex....

Yak: thanks for the info.

What I'm having trouble balancing in my feeble, twisted mind is the idea that while a) all lines currently extant will be supported b) those 'fringe' units will be eliminated to streamline and focus the armies. Strikes me as two contradictory ideas, but then again I wasn't there.

As Kid_Kyoto posted in the Discussions board some weeks ago, and as has been echoed here: If the DA codex had been the new Codex SM, I don't think we'd be in this pickle. 'Nids Tau and Black Templars have gotten (mostly) high marks for being fairly balanced, and while Eldar suffered from its usual curse ('this sucked in the last edition? Let's make it the R0XX0r!!'), it still had at least some diversity built-in. The problem is they didn't start there. They started with the current Codex: Space Marines, which continued the powering-up from 3rd edition.

Really, I kinda wish Jervis WOULD just put one damn book out with all the army lists (a la 3rd ed.) and all the rules and call it a freakin' DAY. But that's never going to happen for lots of different (some good, some bad) reasons. But it all makes me miss the certainty of 3rd edition, and that makes me sad.

Well, this just sucks...Basically it means don't start any new armies or buy any new stuff because even if the codex just came out, they might issue a new one and void your army...

Posted By yakface on 04/04/2007 3:24 PM

I also asked him if a trait/doctrine system was still in the games designers 'toolboxes' (specifically in relation to a possible Chaos codex revision). He responded that the goal of a new Chaos codex would be to incorporate everything into a single army list and, if that wasn't possible, other options (such as traits/doctrines) would then be explored.

Yup. Just as we thought. Want to play World Eaters? Take Berzerkers and just pretend it's world Eaters. Just like the Eldar Codex and the 'imaginary Craftworlds' you have to use.

Idiots...

BYE

Posted By syr8766 on 04/04/2007 5:15 PM

Really, I kinda wish Jervis WOULD just put one damn book out with all the army lists (a la 3rd ed.) and all the rules and call it a freakin' DAY. But that's never going to happen for lots of different (some good, some bad) reasons. But it all makes me miss the certainty of 3rd edition, and that makes me sad.

Amen Yair. If what we get from the DA codex is what we need to expect in things to come, how is the DA codex any better than the lists we saw in the third edition rulebook.

Both seem very similar in brevity.

80+ pages dedicated to the DA codex is ridiculous when it could have been made into less than 10. yeah I know, "Fluff, art, modelling, etc, yadda yadda..." but when it really comes down to it, we may as well have all the rules for the combined armies in one place.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 04/04/2007 5:26 PM
Yup. Just as we thought. Want to play World Eaters? Take Berzerkers and just pretend it's world Eaters.

Assuming, of course, that the new codex still has such a thing as berserkers and not just CSM painted red.  And even then, you might have to take Kharn in order to make them Troops choices...

All of this does lend credence to the "Space Marine Redux" rumor floating around.

Perhaps the reason for the three month window is because they don't have six months?

Posted By Jester on 04/04/2007 7:18 PM
Perhaps the reason for the three month window is because they don't have six months?

Now THAT is one helluh sick burn, yo!

EXALT!

[edit]  and sigged!

ooh, pessismist much Jester?

I don't know. I moved away from GW because of a few things... I like to hear that they're goingto try something new but new always seems to be bad when it comes to them...
Well not always, there are Harlequins again (with new models) but they're not exactly new.

And what HF said.