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 keep hearing a lot of references towards Jervis's kid and this poor little guy being responcible for the streamlining of 40k.
Fill me in on the background.

He replaced Tom Kirby as CEO.

Jervis Jr. is the poster boy for the total newbie coming into the hobby, with no gaming experience.

Jervis Sr. mentioned that his son came into "the GW hobby"(tm), and was having difficulties with it.

Considering this was at the height of 40k3/40k4 Codex and rules complexity, when GW was releasing variant lists like crazy, naturally, his son was overwhelmed by the environment. Despite Tom Kirby's mantra that pre-teen kids are "the GW target market" (tm).

He probably asked his dad a lot of really innocent questions about the game that Jervis Sr. (and the rest of the dev team) didn't have a good answer for.

So Jervis got to ask the killer question why, if the GW target market was for newbie pre-teens, why were all of the products designed for veterans with at least 5-years experience?

And then Tom Kirby got involved...

... and it all started to go wrong.





Not that they were perfect before this.

It also gave him a view of what any people new to the hobby might encounter. The layout of most of the books was ok for most of the veterans, but to new people it was a jumbled mess. Things most of us really wouldn't notice.

gdurant wrote:I keep hearing a lot of references towards Jervis's kid and this poor little guy being responcible for the streamlining of 40k.
Fill me in on the background.

To sum up:

1-2 years ago his young boy gets interested in the game. Like a proud father he mentions it in his standard bearer.
Over the past year and half, GW begins "simplifying" the game.
At some point JJ mentions the difficulty his kid has with some of the rules.
This becomes over time a rallying point for people who are irate about the changes to the game. (Jervis' kid isn't smart enough to play becomes the theme)
It's easy to be meanspirited online, in particular when given a target.


To be fair:
Jervis's parenting skills are suspect at this point, as is anyone else who would position thier child in such a position.
People are jerks. I suspect the kid is no brighter or dumber than any other kid out there.
The game is complicated. But it's being sold to people younger then should be playing it. The rules are being dumbed down at a time when the fluff and internal art are not meant for children. (For example the Dark Elf Army book themes include- murder, incest, bdsm and snuff, as well as art which is disturbing and features undeeded nudity. That ain't for a general audience and I doubt it'd hit PG 13).
Not all of us want the game to become a series of glorified apoclypse styled megafight.

Toreador wrote:It also gave him a view of what any people new to the hobby might encounter. The layout of most of the books was ok for most of the veterans, but to new people it was a jumbled mess. Things most of us really wouldn't notice.

Although new players are as annoyed and frustrated by the splitting up of the description of units and points costs as they were by having everything in the same section. The change was an ego change as far as I can tell.

To be very honest and very blunt, to my eye it seems as if many of the changes Jervis is making are all turn back the clock choices erasing what Chambers did and returning it to the pure form of his second edition books.

Jervis Jr couldn't for the life of him figure out the difference between a plasma gun and a meltagun. GW is a social game, couldn't he just have asked someone?

Jervis's son has become the undeserved defacto whipping boy for people who have issues with Jervis's design philosiphies.

Even in this very thread where people are trying to explain the supposed back story, we have considerable embelishment upon the actual truth.

The actual truth is much more simple. Jervis never said his son had trouble understanding the rules. He told two stories (via his 'standard bearer' articles in WD and at appearances he has made in person) about his son getting into the hobby (and I heard them both several times at the last Adepticon. . .man does he like to tell the same stories over and over again):


1) Jervis's son is new to the hobby, he buys a SM codex and starts to assemble his models. Since the codex doesn't actually tell you what all the weapons and wargear look like his son has to ask Jervis what the different pieces of equipment on the sprues actually are. Jervis has an epiphany that GW has gotten to the point where they naturally assume that players know what certain units and equipment look like, an assumption which makes it more difficult for new players to enter the hobby.

2) Jervis's son is unsure of what models to purchase to start his Blood Angels army so he asks his dad for advice. His dad suggest "sensible" choices like a Tactical squad or other components needed to start an army but his son really wants to buy Mephiston just because he likes the way it looks. Jervis has (another) epiphany that special characters, if done right, epitomize the 'character' of their army better than pages of fluff ever can. As such, Jervis decides that players shouldn't feel penalized or dirty for using special characters but rather they should become something that can be used by any player should they so wish.


And that's it.


But as you can see from this thread, the lore has already spread to the point where people are blaming the percieved "simplification" of the game on Jervis's son.

And while Jervis has certainly made a point to say that the games need to be designed in a way to accomodate new players better there has never been any evidence that this is somehow due to his son having trouble with understanding the actual rules of the game.

Bah, you with your logic and facts. We have no use for these, this is the internets!

Tazok wrote:Jervis Jr couldn't for the life of him figure out the difference between a plasma gun and a meltagun. GW is a social game, couldn't he just have asked someone?

Yep, he could and that's exactly what he did (he asked his dad who plays the game).


But each codex should tell you what each weapon and piece of equipment looks like. There just isn't any concievable reason why that information shouldn't be included.

And that is why Codex: CSM has a whole section of pretty pictures of weapons and equipment...

yakface wrote:
Jervis's son has become the undeserved defacto whipping boy for people who have issues with Jervis's design philosiphies.

Even in this very thread where people are trying to explain the supposed back story, we have considerable embelishment upon the actual truth.

The actual truth is much more simple. Jervis never said his son had trouble understanding the rules. He told two stories (via his 'standard bearer' articles in WD and at appearances he has made in person) about his son getting into the hobby (and I heard them both several times at the last Adepticon. . .man does he like to tell the same stories over and over again):


1) Jervis's son is new to the hobby, he buys a SM codex and starts to assemble his models. Since the codex doesn't actually tell you what all the weapons and wargear look like his son has to ask Jervis what the different pieces of equipment on the sprues actually are. Jervis has an epiphany that GW has gotten to the point where they naturally assume that players know what certain units and equipment look like, an assumption which makes it more difficult for new players to enter the hobby.

2) Jervis's son is unsure of what models to purchase to start his Blood Angels army so he asks his dad for advice. His dad suggest "sensible" choices like a Tactical squad or other components needed to start an army but his son really wants to buy Mephiston just because he likes the way it looks. Jervis has (another) epiphany that special characters, if done right, epitomize the 'character' of their army better than pages of fluff ever can. As such, Jervis decides that players shouldn't feel penalized or dirty for using special characters but rather they should become something that can be used by any player should they so wish.


And that's it.


But as you can see from this thread, the lore has already spread to the point where people are blaming the percieved "simplification" of the game on Jervis's son.

And while Jervis has certainly made a point to say that the games need to be designed in a way to accomodate new players better there has never been any evidence that this is somehow due to his son having trouble with understanding the actual rules of the game.

True. What is important to note is that those initial points lead people to the, potentially unfair, conclusion that the new players who Jervis was referring to was referring to in justifying the simplifications were actually his son. The changes that were made, have as a whole, I think not impressed long term players, leading them to the unfair position of attacking the child, rather then the father.

In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

yakface wrote:

Tazok wrote:Jervis Jr couldn't for the life of him figure out the difference between a plasma gun and a meltagun. GW is a social game, couldn't he just have asked someone?

Yep, he could and that's exactly what he did (he asked his dad who plays the game).


But each codex should tell you what each weapon and piece of equipment looks like. There just isn't any concievable reason why that information shouldn't be included.

You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

efarrer wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I don't really see how he is reversing the game to 2nd edition. 2nd edition had a metric ton of equipment and unit options. If anything, he seems to be moving it closer to how the game was in 3rd edition before the codices were released (the rulebook army lists).


But even that is an unfair comparison IMHO because the new lists in some cases (like Eldar, Chaos & Orks) allow players to make very different army types (should they choose) all from the same central army list without requiring additional rules (like Clan rules) or sub-army lists (like the Craftworld lists).

Obviously you cannot create an exact replica of the armies you could make with those additional rules and sub-army lists but I think for the most part they have done an admirable job with making a simplified army list that still allows for a wide variety of different army types should the player want to do so.

The DA and BA codices are much more focused but that is because they are focused on only a single army sub-faction already.



Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

efarrer wrote:
You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

Yep, but that is only a tiny selection of the weapons in 40K and that doesn't even attempt to cover what the common wargear looks like. You could put it all in a central location (like the rulebook) but I personally think it is better located in a codex, that way if they redesign the way weapons look when making a codex it is very easy to update it.

Thank you guys for all the info. I'm surprised no one has made a wiki entry yet. i gues I'll get on that.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

Yep, but that is only a tiny selection of the weapons in 40K and that doesn't even attempt to cover what the common wargear looks like. You could put it all in a central location (like the rulebook) but I personally think it is better located in a codex, that way if they redesign the way weapons look when making a codex it is very easy to update it.

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that it would make playing other people with codexes you don't own easier. I've played a number of nid and eldar players and still can't tell which weapon is which. The presence of the weapons in both main rule book and in the codex would be helpful.

efarrer wrote:

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that it would make playing other people with codexes you don't own easier. I've played a number of nid and eldar players and still can't tell which weapon is which. The presence of the weapons in both main rule book and in the codex would be helpful.

Agreed. It couldn't help to have them both in the rulebook and the codex.

But to be fair to those Tyranid and Eldar players you mention, the Eldar codex only has a partial diagram of their weapons and the Tyranids have even less.

The whole 'weapon/wargear' diagram really got started with the DA codex.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I don't really see how he is reversing the game to 2nd edition. 2nd edition had a metric ton of equipment and unit options. If anything, he seems to be moving it closer to how the game was in 3rd edition before the codices were released (the rulebook army lists).

Agreed!

I loved 2nd edition, and really didn't like 3rd.

I think 5th is going to be a lot closer to 3rd than I'd like, but, them's the breaks!

yakface wrote:
Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

I think Efarrer is correct, you dont involve you children in your professional life. It has led to threads such as these. While Jervis is to blame, he has involved his son in his redesign aspects of the game. In many ways, Jervis is admitting that his son is basically changing the face of 40K through him.

Thats not to say that adding diagrams isnt a bad idea concerning what is what. It was done early on in 3rd ed as well (re: DE codex). But changing it to his mollified version of a game and pandering to people who really have no business playing anyways is where many find the Fault in the Jervis' New Plan.

I gave it a chance, but after three codexes worth of his resdesign (read: Failure) I am fed up. Bigger and better fish to eat out there than to waste more of my money with 40K.

While you cannot wait for the whole game to reflect his philosophy, I cant wait for GW's revenue to reach such an all time low that GW are FORCED to reformat their entire Development department, starting with giving Jervis the business end of the ax.

Now that GW's stock is less than 160 pence a share (yes, you read that right), I dont think it will be too far away. This isnt Dead Cat Bounce either.
Apocalypse wasnt such a huge windfall that they expected. Thats because while its fun, people arent so stupid as to recognize lazy rules design. And Apocalypse is certainly a lazy fix. "Buy more models, use whatever you want! BUY MORE MODELS" doesnt make a game better, but in 40K's case, you can only go up.

[edit]
Recall the days where in 3rd ed when a new codex was released. The BBS's would explode in banter regarding whats going on with the new thing. Ever since the DA codex, the banter has died to a trickle. No one cared about the new Chaos dex. Hell, the Witchhunters codex and Sisters of battle got more airtime than the new chaos dex. Why? That seems pretty simple, People hate Jervis design strategy for the most part.

But not so for the Ork codex. it hasnt even been released yet and people still chatter on about it. Again, why? Because Jervis doesnt have his dirty fingers in it. Phil Kelly does.

I started playing Star Wars CCG when I was 10 and my brother started when he was 6. He kicked my ass all the time. In SWCCG, Chess, and Go. To this day.

Why couldn't my brother have been Jervis' son? If his son is as slowed as the internet says he is, I'd also rather not have my brother be him.

yakface wrote:

efarrer wrote:
In the interest of full disclosure, I loathe the current direction of the game (as embodied by the DA, BA, and Chaos books), and I place the blame soley on JJ's shoulders, just not his sons. I think Jervis is doing everything he can to reverse history to what it was in 2nd edition. I detest this and think it will only hurt the playerbase. But I don't think it's his son's fault.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion but I don't really see how he is reversing the game to 2nd edition. 2nd edition had a metric ton of equipment and unit options. If anything, he seems to be moving it closer to how the game was in 3rd edition before the codices were released (the rulebook army lists).

But not unit sizes. They were locked in stone for several armies. The strongest armies of that edition were, not suprisingly, the armies which were more customizable.

yakface wrote:
But even that is an unfair comparison IMHO because the new lists in some cases (like Eldar, Chaos & Orks) allow players to make very different army types (should they choose) all from the same central army list without requiring additional rules (like Clan rules) or sub-army lists (like the Craftworld lists).

Which being reasonable people, both of us can agree could be done with the old armylists for chaos and Eldar (Orks are another case entirely). Eldar got a huge power boost with the new book, but honestly the armylist did not change substaintially. I can't speak on the new Ork codex as I don't download illegally.

yakface wrote:
Obviously you cannot create an exact replica of the armies you could make with those additional rules and sub-army lists but I think for the most part they have done an admirable job with making a simplified army list that still allows for a wide variety of different army types should the player want to do so.

The DA and BA codices are much more focused but that is because they are focused on only a single army sub-faction already.

Ironically the fluffiness which toerdor proclaims so loudly in relation to 5/10 squads is ignored entirley in chaos book, resulting in the slannesh lords leading Khorne units.

If they had kept the power level constant I'd not complain as much about the BA/DA books (despite my hate for the 5/10 structure), but these two lists are just plain weak, (ignoring the agrivation of Crusaders driving around 1/2 full in both armies). It will, I think be hard to see if very similar lists come from BA and DA, as I don't believe htey are good enough to warrent much longterm attention. As it stands the game is going to be the Eldar show for the forseeable future.

yakface wrote:
Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

I'm honestly no longer sure I'm going to be along for that ride. Which is a pity, given my investment in time and money in the game. It makes me very sad when I think of the game.

Hellfury wrote:

yakface wrote:
Personally, the only problem I have is that I cannot wait for the rest of the codices to get the same treatment (especially the SM codex) so that the same design philosiphies are in effect throughout the entire game.

I think Efarrer is correct, you dont involve you children in your professional life. It has led to threads such as these. While Jervis is to blame, he has involved his son in his redesign aspects of the game. In many ways, Jervis is admitting that his son is basically changing the face of 40K through him.

Thats not to say that adding diagrams isnt a bad idea concerning what is what. It was done early on in 3rd ed as well (re: DE codex). But changing it to his mollified version of a game and pandering to people who really have no business playing anyways is where many find the Fault in the Jervis' New Plan.

I gave it a chance, but after three codexes worth of his resdesign (read: Failure) I am fed up. Bigger and better fish to eat out there than to waste more of my money with 40K.

While you cannot wait for the whole game to reflect his philosophy, I cant wait for GW's revenue to reach such an all time low that GW are FORCED to reformat their entire Development department, starting with giving Jervis the business end of the ax.

Now that GW's stock is less than 160 pence a share (yes, you read that right), I dont think it will be too far away. This isnt Dead Cat Bounce either.
Apocalypse wasnt such a huge windfall that they expected. Thats because while its fun, people arent so stupid as to recognize lazy rules design. And Apocalypse is certainly a lazy fix. "Buy more models, use whatever you want! BUY MORE MODELS" doesnt make a game better, but in 40K's case, you can only go up.

But not so for the Ork codex. it hasnt even been released yet and people still chatter on about it. Again, why? Because Jervis doesnt have his dirty fingers in it. Phil Kelly does.

First I should note. I don't know or care if Jervis's son is a part of Jervis's reasoing. I just think it's a shame he gave the people a target, for the sake of a a bit of press. I hate it when parent's dangle thier kids out of the window (so to speak), and that's what I think he has done. I wish the cyber bullies would quit targeting the poor kid.

Secondly, I agree with you Hellfury. Jervis has had three chances to impress the fans. I don't think he's succeeded. Time to change horses, since this one's lame. We all know what needs to done with a lame horse, don't we?

I think the ork codex is getting so much press because it was prereleased. I'll wait until I see the actual one, and actual response to it (ie. sales).

Hellfury wrote:

I think Efarrer is correct, you dont involve you children in your professional life. It has led to threads such as these. While Jervis is to blame, he has involved his son in his redesign aspects of the game. In many ways, Jervis is admitting that his son is basically changing the face of 40K through him.

Thats not to say that adding diagrams isnt a bad idea concerning what is what. It was done early on in 3rd ed as well (re: DE codex). But changing it to his mollified version of a game and pandering to people who really have no business playing anyways is where many find the Fault in the Jervis' New Plan.

Again: There is no evidence that any of the rules have been simplified because of Jervis's son. Any such speculation is simply unfounded. And both examples that Jervis has mentioned with his son I have seen several times over the years with grown adults.

I have had friends start the game and I had to sit down and explain to them exactly which physical weapon model was actually what weapon in the rules.

I have seen many people love the special character models but feel like they can't use them beause they were only usable with your "opponent's consent".


All other aspects of any new design philosiphy have aboslutely no tangible connection to Jervis's son. You may hate what Jervis has implemented in the game but you can't just assume any of it was done because of his son (well you can, but you have no proof).

Recall the days where in 3rd ed when a new codex was released. The BBS's would explode in banter regarding whats going on with the new thing. Ever since the DA codex, the banter has died to a trickle. No one cared about the new Chaos dex. Hell, the Witchhunters codex and Sisters of battle got more airtime than the new chaos dex. Why? That seems pretty simple, People hate Jervis design strategy for the most part.

But not so for the Ork codex. it hasnt even been released yet and people still chatter on about it. Again, why? Because Jervis doesnt have his dirty fingers in it. Phil Kelly does.

Jervis had as much to do with the Chaos codex as he did the Ork codex. . .in other words: nothing.

Jervis doesn't isn't making codices besides the (DA/BA ones). He simply sets the ground rules for the design teams to work with. And both the Chaos codex and the Ork codex both follow his same design tennets:

One army list that allows different army types.

No special rules for the sake of having a special rule; use existing special rules or basic stats that can accomplish the same task instead.

Give the unit upgrades and options that they should have based on the fluff (including standard equipment).

Don't give items/equipment that should just be decorative their own rules which would prevent or force players to make their models a certain way.

So if you feel that the Chaos codex is a failure and the Ork codex is a success, blame/laud the authors: Gav Thorpe/Alesso Cavatore and Phil Kelly. Both were working under Jervis's design tennents but neither was written by Jervis.

efarrer wrote: You mean like page 34-35 of the main rules? Really, that's what should have expanded pictures, but that sort of logic escapes GW. It also does not help that there are major diversions between editions for the apearance of some items (missile launchers and lascannons in particular).

This would be one of the worst recommendations someone has ever made. You do not need them in the rule book due to material being outdated after the newest codex release. Glad to see that GW doesn't follow this poor line of thinking.

Weapons pictures need to be kept in each individual codex. For those who do not have all of the codices, maybe GW can post the pics of weapons in the newest codices online. This way, the rule book does not need to be updated and yet players such as yourself can have pics of your weapons.

yakface wrote:

So if you feel that the Chaos codex is a failure and the Ork codex is a success, blame/laud the authors: Gav Thorpe/Alesso Cavatore and Phil Kelly. Both were working under Jervis's design tennents but neither was written by Jervis.

Ultimately that is one and the same. The design tennets are the core of the designs. It's like excusing Joe Q for the mess that is Spiderman "one More Day" because JMS is the writer. The person who sets the rules for the design/story is responsible for the outcome. With the design tennets established by Jervis the Chaos book that was released was a steaming pile. Not having the Ork book i don't know if it was an actual success, or just a success based on how bad the preceding book was.

I've never read this (I have the old one somewhwer), but a cynical person might think that they've deliberately left out weapon descriptions from the codices

They should'nt need to dumb down anything, me and my mates started just before the eldar release and we never needed help if you can't cook get out of the kitchen (so to speak)

efarrer wrote:
Ultimately that is one and the same. The design tennets are the core of the designs. It's like excusing Joe Q for the mess that is Spiderman "one More Day" because JMS is the writer. The person who sets the rules for the design/story is responsible for the outcome. With the design tennets established by Jervis the Chaos book that was released was a steaming pile. Not having the Ork book i don't know if it was an actual success, or just a success based on how bad the preceding book was.

That is completely, totally false.

Jervis is responsible for the "sandbox" for the designers to work with but the writers themselves are responsible for what they create within the "sandbox". Two people can work in the same sanbox and one person can make a simple sand castle while the other person can make a giant beautiful sculpture. Both people had the same tools its just that one of them used them with more ingenuity and talent.


Many people like the Ork & Eldar codex but dislike the Chaos & DA/BA codex. However all five were written under Jervis's command.

He only wrote Dark Angels & Blood Angels.

CSM was written by Gav/Alesso

Orks and Eldar were written by Phil Kelly.


You cannot blame Jervis's overall tennents if you like any of those codices. They were all produced under them.