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'm loving the homoerotic subtext going on with that Zagstruk figure.

Hellfury wrote:Nice to hear Rick Prietly taking the heavy hand and just saying that dreck isnt good enough to put the GW name on it.

I see you never tried to play Rogue Trader or 2nd edition. Love Priestly's fluff, love his universe, but the rules he actually worked on... Not exactly playable, or fun.

Oh come on, RT was the

Kinda like the 50s. Everyone remembers it as some kind of golden age...but it really wasn't.

I'm liking the orc and gobbo diorama and the Azhag model, looks like about the most detailed monster yet.

As to the WD news that they are going to be pulling their fingers out and improving it... about time!

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Hellfury wrote:Nice to hear Rick Prietly taking the heavy hand and just saying that dreck isnt good enough to put the GW name on it.

I see you never tried to play Rogue Trader or 2nd edition. Love Priestly's fluff, love his universe, but the rules he actually worked on... Not exactly playable, or fun.

This is the biggest thing I got out of the OP. I didn't know Rick Priestley was such a big player in the design process now...I wonder if this is an internal shake-up or he's just becoming more public? Regardless, he's stating some pretty solid strategy changes...

Rick Priestley did the Warmaster Ancients rules which are pretty good.

If his work on early 40K was rough, either that's because the strategic direction was different back then, or maybe he's learned a lot about designing over the years.

Stelek wrote:No, HBMC. I just don't care about you or your need to argue.

Don't listen to Stelek, HBMC. He doesn't know what he's talking about! I care about you and your need to argue.

lol

Kid_Kyoto wrote:


I see you never tried to play Rogue Trader or 2nd edition. Love Priestly's fluff, love his universe, but the rules he actually worked on... Not exactly playable, or fun.

The opposite is true for a lot of people. I had much more fun playing 40K during RT and 2nd edition, I don't consider the short bus editions fun to the point I have completely given up on the game. As awkward as some of he mechanics were I enjoyed worrying about 30 different types of guns, running through overwatch kill zones, vehicles that could run over and squash you and did more than put a couple of pieces of dry ice in a bucket of water when they exploded, I miss actual armor modifiers, shooting modifiers, psychic powers that were actually useful, and last but not least the non-dominance of 3+ armor save armies.

lol, is stelek always such a debbie downer?

I <3 the collector's diorama of the two orks fighting! And Ahzag looks amazing! And I don't even play orks!

Also, the way this SM codex is heading looks *very* positive.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

Hellfury wrote:Nice to hear Rick Prietly taking the heavy hand and just saying that dreck isnt good enough to put the GW name on it.

I see you never tried to play Rogue Trader or 2nd edition. Love Priestly's fluff, love his universe, but the rules he actually worked on... Not exactly playable, or fun.

Why is that laughable?

I actually did play a fair amount of RT. The rules were horrendous to resolve. But they were fun, if for no other reason than the background was the bomb.

[edit] After thinking about it, RT wasnt intended to be the game we all know and love right now anyways. it was basically a TTG that had a roleplaying element to it. A gamemaster resided over how the game was played and what randome elements found their way into any conflicts. (which considering how unwieldy the RT rules were makes sense that a GM was required). 40K is a totally different beast now, and for the better I think.[/edit]

That said, its not like it was very polished, being a extension of laserburn. Not much of a chance to refine things being the first edition of the game.

They have had years to polish their systems, sometimes with glorious success and sometimes with annoying failure.

Priestly is the guy behind the LOTR engine, and it is a very good engine (I hate the LOTR game, but have to admit that the gameplay is one of the more sound rules systems GW has ever made). Its why it has been ported over to so many other games, such as Legends of the Old West / High Seas. (which I do play and enjoy immensely)

I'll take his word regarding quality over anyone else in GW currently, thank you very much.

What IS laughable is how GW has slide down the hierarchy of good games. Priestly is a shareholder (pretty high shareholding IIRC), and it seems that he is using some of the muscle to protect his investment and ensure that his baby gets proper attention.

I see Priestly's return as nothing but the best thing to happen to 40K in recent memory.

@ pariah press:
I had no idea about warmaster. I will have to check that out.

Those vets... plastic or metal?

*prays to the gaming gods for plastic*

Metal. Those are resin versions of metal models.

RT was the ****. Especially since that's all there was at that time. Makes me nastolgic thinking about all those cool advertisements in Dragon Magazine.

Hellfury wrote:I see Priestly's return as nothing but the best thing to happen to 40K in recent memory.

Chambers and Johnson both had their shining moments with other game lines. Both have been hated by the internet while in charge of 40K.

If Priestley takes a high profile position in the future development of 40K, I suspect people will come to moan about him in turn.

sebster wrote:

Hellfury wrote:I see Priestly's return as nothing but the best thing to happen to 40K in recent memory.

Chambers and Johnson both had their shining moments with other game lines. Both have been hated by the internet while in charge of 40K.

If Priestley takes a high profile position in the future development of 40K, I suspect people will come to moan about him in turn.

I doubt it, simply because his last name is Priestley. The internet is a very quickly-judging and non-sensible entity, and if you have a cool or respectable sounding last name, you're gravy.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm loving the homoerotic subtext going on with that Zagstruk figure.

I stared at the pic for seven minutes and I can't see it.

Please explain.

Mr. Bombadidaloo wrote:I doubt it, simply because his last name is Priestley. The internet is a very quickly-judging and non-sensible entity, and if you have a cool or respectable sounding last name, you're gravy.

Not even a cool name can save you from the internet when a codex is revised and a special rule is slightly altered.

Andy C did a great job most of the time, but ofc if you make some bad stuff you will get heat for it. Priestley also mostly done great job and will get heat for the bad things he will do and he will do some bad things for some pepole too. Everyone cant agree with everything done but when a mayority almost hates your son maybe you should start thinking how bad you really do your thing?

Another thing is, R.P. will be picking up the leftovers that are really just junk (White dwarf) and rebuild it, even if he just gets 1 extra article in the mag it will be better then it is now. Can only be a positive thing and Priestley have done good work before, so have a little faith.

Loosing Andy and the core of old guys who created the game is GWs biggest loss and it shows. Like many pepole wrote before in this thread, the old editions were fun, extremley fun even. Not balanced, not competative but really fun. Nowdays JJ talk about making it a fun game again but removes even more indiviual rules, bah humbug I say.

Kallbrand wrote:Andy C did a great job most of the time, but ofc if you make some bad stuff you will get heat for it. Priestley also mostly done great job and will get heat for the bad things he will do and he will do some bad things for some pepole too. Everyone cant agree with everything done but when a mayority almost hates your son maybe you should start thinking how bad you really do your thing?

Another thing is, R.P. will be picking up the leftovers that are really just junk (White dwarf) and rebuild it, even if he just gets 1 extra article in the mag it will be better then it is now. Can only be a positive thing and Priestley have done good work before, so have a little faith.

Loosing Andy and the core of old guys who created the game is GWs biggest loss and it shows. Like many pepole wrote before in this thread, the old editions were fun, extremley fun even. Not balanced, not competative but really fun. Nowdays JJ talk about making it a fun game again but removes even more indiviual rules, bah humbug I say.

I don’t think we really need to have another Jervis conversation.

My point was more that GW is more than just the figurehead promoter. Its strengths and weaknesses are the product of more than a single designer, but a combination of many individual elements.

Bringing in one guy isn’t going to fix everything. And if changes get directly attributed to him, there will be people who won't like those changes, and in turn he'll be criticised just as everyone else was.

Actually, I think Sebster makes some really good points.

But then again, people in perceived positions of authority are naturally reviled at some point or another in the role.

I don't think Priestly ever really left 40K, but rather, removed himself from being openly seen as someone who runs policy.

So when I say I am glad he returned to 40K, what I really mean is that I am glad to see someone taking actions to assert quality.

I suppose it could be argued that Jervis did the same thing in the middle of 4th edition, and I can respect the attempt, but I don't believe that he followed up on his idea of quality that well.

That is why I look towards Priestly with a considerable amount of respect. He was around for the old days when bryan ansell ran GW with a rather draconian fist and I think he can utilize that leadership style when required.

Sometimes one needs a big stick to run a company, and Malfred tell me Rick Priestly is rather well endowed in this area, or so the rumours go...

Hellfury wrote:
Sometimes one needs a big stick to run a company, and Malfred tell me Rick Priestly is rather well endowed in this area, or so the rumours go...

Better than you are, at any rate. And minus the open sores.

For those not in the know, Rick Priestly was one of the ‘founding fathers’ of 40k and contributed a lot to first edition. Some folks may bash Rogue Trader but keep in mind it was a skirmish game that was very heavily scenario based. The rules were unpolished but it had fantastic background info and ideas. I still reference it, since it has about 20 pages of great mission ideas.

Rick also developed LOTR , Warmaster, The battle of Five Armies and Warmaster Ancients. All of which are great games with very smooth rules.

Rick is a major shareholder and has been with Games Workshop since it was started in the mid 70’s. IMO, he has the experience, the ideas and the clout to bring good things back to 40k.

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm loving the homoerotic subtext going on with that Zagstruk figure.

I stared at the pic for seven minutes and I can't see it.

Please explain.

He's dressed like a character from a Tom of Finland drawing. I'd post a link, but it's probably against Dakka's "family friendly" policies. Just type "tom of finland" into Google Images and you'll find some big, gay, human versions of Zagstruk.

Pariah Press wrote:

sebster wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm loving the homoerotic subtext going on with that Zagstruk figure.

I stared at the pic for seven minutes and I can't see it.

Please explain.

He's dressed like a character from a Tom of Finland drawing. I'd post a link, but it's probably against Dakka's "family friendly" policies. Just type "tom of finland" into Google Images and you'll find some big, gay, human versions of Zagstruk.

*Shrugs*
*Types Tom of finland in Google*

malfred wrote:

Hellfury wrote:
Sometimes one needs a big stick to run a company, and Malfred tell me Rick Priestly is rather well endowed in this area, or so the rumours go...

Better than you are, at any rate. And minus the open sores.

Hey now, you said you were clean when we last played XBox. Thats the last time I believe you...

It's really good to hear GW say that they know the quality of WD has slipped and the same with how they've handled FAQs.

I'm an eternal optimist, so I'm completely hopeful that this is the start of something new, but the problem is that they've said similar things in the past (Jervis promised new FAQs for 40K two years over a year ago) to the point where many people rightly have the 'boy who cried wolf syndrome' feeling about GW.

So here's hoping they follow through with their declarations this time and we see this new commitment with actual WD content and further FAQ releases.

Hellfury wrote:Actually, I think Sebster makes some really good points.

But then again, people in perceived positions of authority are naturally reviled at some point or another in the role.

I don't think Priestly ever really left 40K, but rather, removed himself from being openly seen as someone who runs policy.

So when I say I am glad he returned to 40K, what I really mean is that I am glad to see someone taking actions to assert quality.

I suppose it could be argued that Jervis did the same thing in the middle of 4th edition, and I can respect the attempt, but I don't believe that he followed up on his idea of quality that well.

That is why I look towards Priestly with a considerable amount of respect. He was around for the old days when bryan ansell ran GW with a rather draconian fist and I think he can utilize that leadership style when required.

Sometimes one needs a big stick to run a company, and Malfred tell me Rick Priestly is rather well endowed in this area, or so the rumours go...

Fair enough. Time will tell.

Pariah Press wrote:He's dressed like a character from a Tom of Finland drawing. I'd post a link, but it's probably against Dakka's "family friendly" policies. Just type "tom of finland" into Google Images and you'll find some big, gay, human versions of Zagstruk.

OK, cool. I'm at work now so I won't type that into google, I'll check it out when I get home. Or possibly I won't... if I'm in the mood for some homoeroticism I'll just watch Top Gun again.

It's not, like, hardcore porn or anything. Just really, REALLY, gay. Like Zagstruk.