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.
Blastaar wrote: I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.
Better off? Without Epic and Blood Bowl? What a narrow view you have.
I meant it would be beneficial if he left GWnow. And from what other posters have said, it does not seem that Jervis was necessary for Blood Bowl and Epic to exist.
Both games were designed by him, so I would think he was fairly necessary. Without Jervis, I doubt we'd have seen Fanatic / Specialist Games, so both games wouldn't be doing nearly so well even if something like them had been published in the late 80s. Also, I'm glad there's still someone pushing the idea that games don't need to be always serious cut-throat challenges. I don't think I'd want him to be the only designer, but I'm glad he's there to poke things in the way I want every now and then. And he's not afraid to try something rather experimental (Epic 40,000 and then Epic Armageddon, right down to the little game he was showing off at a Games Day a few years ago that it looked like he'd cooked up on the way into work. It eventually turned into one of those ones on the back cover of a White Dwarf).
Blastaar wrote: I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.
Agreed. And you can see his attitude seeping out into the narrative gaming community via the GW-adjacent bods in stuff like INQ28, where some folk seem actively hostile to the idea that games should have any functionality or complexity to them beyond "move your dudes around, RP a bit, and maybe chuck a 4+ now and again if you fancy getting spicy". Suggest that in fact structured force selection & crunchy rules are entirely compatible with - and in the opinion of many, substantially enhances - narrative play, and the sound of monocles shattering is loud enough you can practically hear it IRL.
And to be 100% clear - if your jam is making pew-pew noises and rolling on random tables all night long, have at it, you do you. The problem is Jervis & his acolytes cannot conceive that there are other ways to enjoy narrative gaming, and many are actively hostile to even the suggestion that other ways could exist at all.
I think you’re both projecting quite a lot here. Let’s not forget that he’s written a couple of books on the ‘crunch’ side of the rules, and is largely responsible for one of GWs most rules-tight and games systems - Blood Bowl.
It’s certainly true that he thinks there’s a place for a bit of randomness and imagination, and that it’s perfectly fine to come up with house rules or just ignore them when it’s cooler - the ‘RPG’ side of gaming. Maybe at some point he became the only one in the design studio who still wanted to make sure that stuff was there.
‘Hatred of points’
‘Actively hostile to alternative suggestions’
You wanna prove any of that or do you just prefer it to be that simple? The idea that he’s a nefarious anti-rules representative of a largely made-up ‘stupid casual gamer’ straw man is a load of over simplistic rubbish.
Whilst I’m currently rehydrating due to extreme salt poisoning from this thread, and don’t agree Jervis should QUIT NOW like some of the bizarre posts here, Jervis did write a quite famous article on why points were bunk and tournaments were anathema to the spirit of the game. Hoisted by his own petard, here. He’s still helped shepherd this universe we love for over 30 years and created some games we’ve played for that whole time. The hatred is silly.
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Whilst I’m currently rehydrating due to extreme salt poisoning from this thread, and don’t agree Jervis should QUIT NOW like some of the bizarre posts here, Jervis did write a quite famous article on why points were bunk and tournaments were anathema to the spirit of the game. Hoisted by his own petard, here. He’s still helped shepherd this universe we love for over 30 years and created some games we’ve played for that whole time. The hatred is silly.
Mad isn't it, I can appreciate that some people will not like him but saying he should leave now when they dont even know what he is doing at the moment its ridiculous, its a real shame that some people are only capable of seeing in black and white.
Whilst I’m currently rehydrating due to extreme salt poisoning from this thread, and don’t agree Jervis should QUIT NOW like some of the bizarre posts here, Jervis did write a quite famous article on why points were bunk and tournaments were anathema to the spirit of the game. Hoisted by his own petard, here. He’s still helped shepherd this universe we love for over 30 years and created some games we’ve played for that whole time. The hatred is silly.
Can this article be found online? Or can you tell me which magazine it was in? Not that I doubt you, I just want to read it.
You can see the sort of games he likes by the way he organised the official Warhammer / Warhammer 40,000 tournament in the mid 90s; points awarded for winning games, sportsmanship*, painting, army composition** and the Saturday night pub quiz. winning games was less than 50% of the final score.
* Each person nominated their favourite opponent out of the three they faced. 10 points awarded for each person that nominated you.
** As judged by the event organisers.
Not now, but a few years ago when you needed multiple books for the stats and points values, and then another book entirely for the actual army lists was a bit of a low point.
AndrewGPaul wrote: Not now, but a few years ago when you needed multiple books for the stats and points values, and then another book entirely for the actual army lists was a bit of a low point.
Yup, especially when it first came out as an everything in one book game. Then small books released for new models (such as Shadow and Flame for Dwarves (Balin, Dain, dwarf warriors etc.), more goblin heroes, Radagast etc.) which was fine as they were just adding more stuff and you still had a huge chunk of stuff in the main book.
And army composition was "X points, only 1/3rd allowed to be equipped with bows, off you go!" which became "X points, split into Y warbands, each led by 1 hero, with a maximum of Z normal models accompanying them, and 1/3 of your army can have bows (unless it has special rules saying otherwise)"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 09:33:33
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I'll disagree. The supplements were probably some of the best stuff they put out (our group still plays through them semi-regularly). And the war bands just tidied things up in the game. But as ever YMMV.
Yodhrin wrote: I dunno like, it seems to me that all the competent designers who've worked at GW over the years are capable of giving players both, and that players who don't fetishise one side or the other are capable of enjoying both.
....
Yes sure, let me just go and dig through hundreds of issues of WD and the Journal to find Jervis' wee editorials and collate the hundreds of examples over the years of people taking that attitude towards anyone who likes a bit of crunch with their narrative while explicitly referencing Jervis's "philosophy" to address your entirely in-good-faith request for proof that you would totally accept were it presented
And the point people are making is not that he's "nefarious", just that he's pretty much the living embodiment of the "GW Studio bubble" - he has the way he thinks things should be, and cannot fathom why anyone could disagree with that, mostly the prospect anyone could disagree likely just doesn't even occur to him.
The point is that, as you seem to be missing, is that a games designer of 30 years experience might, possibly, know that people have differing expectations of a game (as does ANYONE who plays these games for any length of time) and JJ has proven that he does. You won't find any evidence of your claim because you're setting up a strawman.
In the context of a system that has, over the years, become more rules-heavy and 'competitive', his articles are usually ones that say 'hey, that's all good, but you don't HAVE to play that way. You don't HAVE to use the points system, and if something seems unfair you can just house rule it, or do whatever you want, or roll on a random table'. That's pretty much the gist of his articles, and for a few years, his role in the studio (and WD) was to be the guy reminding people of that. Not that all crunchy gaming is bad, just that there are other ways to play that people tend to forget. That's what you'll find in the articles.
The idea that a guy who has written points-based rules systems (and books about game design that extoll the value of points) somehow hates anyone who wants any crunch at all, and can't possibly understand why anyone would want balance, is a massive, massive exaggeration. You're making it because then it's easier to argue against.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 11:00:12
He was better as a designer in the past. But really his only sole work of a major game was Blood Bowl. Epic Armageddon has his name on it but is in effect a rehashed combination/ideas from 1st edition (Rick Priestly) and Epic40K (Andy Chambers). When you compare what Jervis has done RP and AC have been much more prolific and generally produced better games (IMHO). The current 40k is basically AOS advanced if you see what I mean and hence I don't really count them as two independent game designs. I think people don't like Jervis because he effectively went 'corporate' whereas RP, AC got out to go and do something they love and be able to drive that, rather than the company drive the agenda.
*tyres screech*
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Jervis was the designer of the original Adeptus Titanicus, not Rick.
And he was a co-designer of the Epic 40,000 system. (Along with Andy Chambers, who later borrowed the ruleset for Battlefleet Gothic.)
And the Epic 40K system itself was allegedly based on an older set of rules Jervis wrote way back, called Heresy.
Here's the relevant quote from the Battles Book, p112, from Andy Chambers's perspective:
"Epic 40,000 [that's the 3rd edition for those who don't know] started out as a system called Heresy which was penned by Jervis Johnson just after he had written Adeptus Titanicus [that's the 1st, original, invented-the-Horus-Heresy game that eventually evolved into Epic]. I played Heresy when I joined the studio in 1990 and rather liked it in spite of being initially horrified by its apparent simplicity. We spent the following six years developing Adeptus Titanicus instead before realising that the Titanicus system was simply too detailed to handle large scale battles. Some streamlining went on in Space Marine second edition but the game still lumbered like the Titans it was designed to portray and the increasing number of unit types (all with their own special rules) slowed the game down further and further with each successive supplement.
"Titan Legions attempted to clarify the game ... but ... the original Titanicus game had become too much of a quagmire for new players to tackle. When the opportunity arose to do a new Epic game we decided to totally revise the game using the old Heresy rules as a starting point." [And it was a bit of a disaster, but they didn't know that at the time of writing.]
None of this contradicts the other points people have made: that Jervis likes to simplify games and aims for 'clean, elegant' rules that seem basic on the surface but hide tactical complexity underneath. In fact, Epic 40,000 ought to be the poster child for this approach (and its general unpopularity) rather than the DA and Chaos codexes in 40K. It's also very much a scenario-based, pick-your-own-rules toolkit kinda game that isn't terribly tournament friendly, unlike the next edition.
Epic Armageddon was a halfway house between Jervis's design philosophy and that of the playerbase, who wanted some more crunch, chrome and flavour.
According to Tuomas Pirinen, Jervis also wrote the Age of Sigmar rules, which are similarly simple yet (so they tell me) tactically complex.
I'm not entirely sure why we're discussing LotR SBG in this thread though. As far as I know, Jervis wasn't involved with that one. LotR was Rick Priestley and later Alessio Cavatore.
With games of the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar being played across the world, and events organisers planning matched play tournaments, Jervis Johnson and Ben Johnson (no relation) from the Warhammer Age of Sigmar design team join us to talk about the game’s optional rules and how they fit into organised play.
Yes he's still with Games Workshop.
That explains so much, especially given his anti-structure article.
Azreal13 wrote:Whenever you're reading a GW rule book and it directs you to roll in a table to see which table you roll on to determine which random thing happens, Jervis is there..
Or one that either doesn't have points or where Elite units are statted in an ineffective manner yet cost twice as much as basic Troops.
Whilst I’m currently rehydrating due to extreme salt poisoning from this thread, and don’t agree Jervis should QUIT NOW like some of the bizarre posts here, Jervis did write a quite famous article on why points were bunk and tournaments were anathema to the spirit of the game. Hoisted by his own petard, here. He’s still helped shepherd this universe we love for over 30 years and created some games we’ve played for that whole time. The hatred is silly.
Can this article be found online? Or can you tell me which magazine it was in? Not that I doubt you, I just want to read it.
You can see the sort of games he likes by the way he organised the official Warhammer / Warhammer 40,000 tournament in the mid 90s; points awarded for winning games, sportsmanship*, painting, army composition** and the Saturday night pub quiz. winning games was less than 50% of the final score.
* Each person nominated their favourite opponent out of the three they faced. 10 points awarded for each person that nominated you.
** As judged by the event organisers.
I like points, but I can’t disagree that slavishly following rules and points isn’t the exclusive route to fun. People forget this ‘fun’ component. That this article is constantly brought up and ridiculed is kinda sad.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:01:21
Stormonu wrote: For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
Ghaz wrote: We could have Nigel Stillman incorporating his philosophy into the rules...
I wasn't into Warhammer Fantasy Battles when I was younger, so I didn't know a lot about Nigel, nor the impact he had on the game, but I did play Man O' War. I love Man O' War, even after all these years. Its at the top of my list of prized games. I have never had so much fun with so few minis. Nigel wrote that game, and while you can poke holes in the strengths of the various fleets, the game is silly, fun, creative, and no two games are ever the same, especially in the way ships take damage. For whatever faults Nigel may have, I owe him for Man O' War.
(I only recently got into WFB, and I am starting to see his name on a lot of things, but haven't dived in enough to have any issues with anything yet)
Blastaar wrote: I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.
As a playtester for EpicA, I agree with a lot of this. However, if it wasn't for the original Adeptus Titanicus and Space Marine, I am not sure I would be interested in wargames. My life would have taken on a completely different path lol. When I first started exchanging emails with him back in the day, I was like, 'this guy has no idea how much he has influenced my life.' I did play 40k eventually, but I always treated 40k as my hobby while Epic was my sport.
I have had far more issues playing 40k than I ever had Epic, and while i like the lore and models, I don't feel like 40k is much of a game over the years. I've dabbled in it, but kept my distance, so I don't really know a lot about what Jervis might have done that I liked or didn't. But EpicA was the final nail in the Epic coffin. I know EpicA has its fans, but you had two systems from him that failed to take hold of gamers, and there isn't many people you can blame for that.
There is no doubt Jervis's attitudes have changed over time, and there is nothing wrong with that. I wish he had listened to the veteran gamers while EpicA was in development. Many of us had been around for a long time, and played the game when it was at its peak. Rather than to try and return the game to those days, he wanted to be creative and come up with something new, or in his own words rather, steal ideas from other games, which gave birth to the ridiculous army lists. It isn't what most of us wanted, but he found a following that was big enough to carry EpicA into a finalized rulebook, and even today I hate flipping through that rulebook.
Whilst I’m currently rehydrating due to extreme salt poisoning from this thread, and don’t agree Jervis should QUIT NOW like some of the bizarre posts here, Jervis did write a quite famous article on why points were bunk and tournaments were anathema to the spirit of the game. Hoisted by his own petard, here. He’s still helped shepherd this universe we love for over 30 years and created some games we’ve played for that whole time. The hatred is silly.
Can this article be found online? Or can you tell me which magazine it was in? Not that I doubt you, I just want to read it.
You can see the sort of games he likes by the way he organised the official Warhammer / Warhammer 40,000 tournament in the mid 90s; points awarded for winning games, sportsmanship*, painting, army composition** and the Saturday night pub quiz. winning games was less than 50% of the final score.
* Each person nominated their favourite opponent out of the three they faced. 10 points awarded for each person that nominated you.
** As judged by the event organisers.
I like points, but I can’t disagree that slavishly following rules and points isn’t the exclusive route to fun. People forget this ‘fun’ component. That this article is constantly brought up and ridiculed is kinda sad.
You know the funniest thing? He was (Parcially) right. In many places, you can only play tournaments or tournament-practice games. Nothing else.
And even in the article he says that he has 0 problems with tournaments or compettiive games and says many of their virtues. But he believes they shouldn't become the end and all of the hobby. But yeah. "Tournamens are horrible and people should stop using points" is much more easy to ridicule and use as a strawman.
And I agree with him. The pinnacle of this hobby (Wargaming) is a long campaing where competitive games, tactical depth and choices both in the campaing and in the battles, beautifull terrain, painting, conversiones, strong narrative, and progresion are mixed to become much more than the sum of his parts.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/04 14:57:36
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
But the reality of wargaming for many is playing isolated games, sometimes with total strangers, where a tight base line and standard format allows for the best chance of avoiding negative play experiences and for the player to influence the outcome of the game more than random factors.
A situation which, as has been stated on so many occasions, doesn't affect the ability of those in a position to run campaigns, but where the reverse very much does hurt those who don't.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I honestly don't see the appeal of 2nd edition Epic over the later editions. Fiddly, slow, complicated and overly reliant on bits on the table. Epic Armageddon is simply the best representation of Space Marines in the setting that GW has ever published. Titans are a bit bland, but that's another story.
Ghaz wrote: We could have Nigel Stillman incorporating his philosophy into the rules...
When you read the Chariot Wars supplement for WAB, you can see that Nigel was pretty hardcore. He uses it as a thesis to dispute the old Egyptian chronology and in support of the new Chronology AND write some rules for Wargaming with Bronze Age and early Iron Age armies.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
Azreal13 wrote: But the reality of wargaming for many is playing isolated games, sometimes with total strangers, where a tight base line and standard format allows for the best chance of avoiding negative play experiences and for the player to influence the outcome of the game more than random factors.
A situation which, as has been stated on so many occasions, doesn't affect the ability of those in a position to run campaigns, but where the reverse very much does hurt those who don't.
You say this but it isn't true. Just ask Auticus about his situation. When one style of gaming becomes so prevalent all the rest are non existant that will hurt anybody that want to play something different. Tryng to do a narrative campaing in a "Only tournament all the time" area will be the same as trying to play Kings of War in a Warhammer only store.
The inverse is true too, of course, but by his nature (Competitive style of gaming is much more easy, accesible, and fast to prepare and play), the plausible scenario that happens again and again is competitive gaming taking over all other styles of play, not the inverse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 15:16:49
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Albino Squirrel wrote: That article is completely reasonable and I don't understand how anyone could attack Jervis on the basis of that.
Very easy. Ignore the very reasonable article (I'll point out that is absolutely fine to disagree with the article), make a strawman out of it, put the strawman in place of the article, and burn it while dancing and jumping around screaming about how an horrible CAAC Jervis is.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Interesting article, actually. And, frankly, there's a decent amount of that which I agree with, and if you look at the Warmachine community, you can see that some of the fears presented in that article came to fruition on that game.
Out of curiosity, when was that article published?
Valander wrote: Interesting article, actually. And, frankly, there's a decent amount of that which I agree with, and if you look at the Warmachine community, you can see that some of the fears presented in that article came to fruition on that game.
Out of curiosity, when was that article published?
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
Nothing wrong with that article at all, but I suspect it's the one that the quagmire of ads called BOLS called a "diatribe",. when it's just an opinion piece.
I've a lot of respect for JJ, and have met him a couple of times back in Epic Armageddon playtest/development days. Hating on a games writer because you disagree with his choices, which he'll happily explain is barking mad. I thought the 'Hellblaster Volleygun on the back of a wagon' was bloody awful but I don't wail on Gav Thorpe....
Ditto, I got to meet him back around 2000 or so at a Canadian Grand Tournament, and I really enjoyed chatting with him at the pub after the tournament was over for the evening.
Azreal13 wrote: But the reality of wargaming for many is playing isolated games, sometimes with total strangers, where a tight base line and standard format allows for the best chance of avoiding negative play experiences and for the player to influence the outcome of the game more than random factors.
A situation which, as has been stated on so many occasions, doesn't affect the ability of those in a position to run campaigns, but where the reverse very much does hurt those who don't.
You say this but it isn't true. Just ask Auticus about his situation. When one style of gaming becomes so prevalent all the rest are non existant that will hurt anybody that want to play something different. Tryng to do a narrative campaing in a "Only tournament all the time" area will be the same as trying to play Kings of War in a Warhammer only store.
The inverse is true too, of course, but by his nature (Competitive style of gaming is much more easy, accesible, and fast to prepare and play), the plausible scenario that happens again and again is competitive gaming taking over all other styles of play, not the inverse.
There's no committee meeting to decide what people want to play. If this is the case then there's a reason for it. If there was an appetite for alternate play styles, then they'd be more common. Well, I say appetite, I'm sure there's lots of people who'd be interested in playing a campaign if it wasn't a massive drain on time and resources, but all ways up, if the practical way to wargame for most people is a tournament style, i.e. a self contained one-off game with a well defined set of parameters, then commercially that's what you should cater to, not make something for a niche and then expect everyone else who's unwilling/able to play that style to fit into it or spend vast amounts of time houseruling it.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
MarkNorfolk wrote:Nothing wrong with that article at all, but I suspect it's the one that the quagmire of ads called BOLS called a "diatribe",. when it's just an opinion piece.
I've a lot of respect for JJ, and have met him a couple of times back in Epic Armageddon playtest/development days. Hating on a games writer because you disagree with his choices, which he'll happily explain is barking mad. I thought the 'Hellblaster Volleygun on the back of a wagon' was bloody awful but I don't wail on Gav Thorpe....
Pete Haines.
I say that loud enough to be heard?
Pete Haines was the exact opposite of Jervis Johnson, and his Chaos codex and Dwarfs army book should illustrate that plainly. Nobody on here would bat an eye for saying the guy was bad for the rules, and that the game is a better place for his absence. So how is it any different for Jervis? On one hand you have someone who writes books to spam OP and imbalanced rules solely because they play those armies, and on the other hand you have someone who writes shoddily balanced points values and rules solely to shaft competitive play and to foster to narrative/campaign play which is that writer's preferred method of play.
Then you look at Chambers, Priestley, Pirrinen (Totally butchered the spelling, too busy at work to google), Woods, Cavatorre, and the like, you have people that foster to both play styles without skewing the rules towards one or the other. Anyone who writes the rules differently SHOULD be called out, as it poisons one experience over the other.
Think of it like coffee. You make coffee strong and unsweetened. Why is that? Because you can always water down or sweeten strong coffee, you can't strengthen weak coffee.
...on the other hand you have someone who writes shoddily balanced points values and rules solely to shaft competitive play and to foster to narrative/campaign play which is that writer's preferred method of play.
...Anyone who writes the rules differently SHOULD be called out, as it poisons one experience over the other.
From the actual evidence posted earlier in the thread (itself 15 years old), the worst you can say is that he recognises there's a place for tournament play but prefers narrative play, has written both sorts of rules (including running Tournaments himself), and that some of those rules he wrote are the random/narrative ones that don't work in tournament play.
That's it.
You can absolutely call him out for that. You can call Jervis Johnson out for writing rules you don't like, or rules that aren't tight.
But, again, the argument that he's deliberately trying to shaft competitive play and thus should be called out as bad for the entire hobby is a massive exaggeration, and ridiculously close-minded given the length and variation of his career.
Stop seeing the world in black and white - people aren't usually as bad as you'd like them to be.
.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/05 09:25:48
Blastaar wrote: I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.
While obviously the tournament hardcorer's "tournament's are all, narrative and open shouldn't exists" view is obviously so much better.
Besides Jervis isn't against tournaments. Just the idea that tournaments are all that is holy and right that is alas so common these days.
...on the other hand you have someone who writes shoddily balanced points values and rules solely to shaft competitive play and to foster to narrative/campaign play which is that writer's preferred method of play.
...Anyone who writes the rules differently SHOULD be called out, as it poisons one experience over the other.
From the actual evidence posted earlier in the thread (itself 15 years old), the worst you can say is that he recognises there's a place for tournament play but prefers narrative play, has written both sorts of rules (including running Tournaments himself), and that some of those rules he wrote are the random/narrative ones that don't work in tournament play.
That's it.
You can absolutely call him out for that. You can call Jervis Johnson out for writing rules you don't like, or rules that aren't tight.
Which is what I did. How is this even remotely anything different?
ArbitorIan wrote:But, again, the argument that he's deliberately trying to shaft competitive play and thus should be called out as bad for the entire hobby is a massive exaggeration, and ridiculously close-minded given the length and variation of his career.
You were around for the launch of AOS, right? You were there when a ruleset was released that was so open ended that it gave birth to maybe a half dozen comps to try to fix it, right? You were there when the game almost tanked and was only salvaged by the release of the General's Handbook, which established points levels and attempted to fit structure back into the game (such as it is, currently), right?
THIS is Johnson in a nutshell, right there. Sip a beer and slide toy soldiers around, this should be the focus of the game. Look at all the rulesets he wrote himself, without committee. How many of those are tight rulesets? How many of those make it difficult or impossible to play competitively? If it's consistent, and he's applying the same methodology to the mainline games, then it most assuredly IS an attempt to make the part of the hobby he dislikes difficult or impossible to play.
ArbitorIan wrote:Stop seeing the world in black and white - people aren't usually as bad as you'd like them to be.
Stop seeing everything as grey in an attempt to ignore malign intent where it exists - when people follow patterns of behavior, they tend to keep following it.
tneva82 wrote:
Blastaar wrote: I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.
While obviously the tournament hardcorer's "tournament's are all, narrative and open shouldn't exists" view is obviously so much better.
Besides Jervis isn't against tournaments. Just the idea that tournaments are all that is holy and right that is alas so common these days.
And how many TAAC players have you seen? The issue is whether or not a system is being written in such a way as to cater to all groups involved, or whether it is written to make it difficult OR impossible for one group to play the way they want to play the game. Pre General's Handbook, how would you describe AOS, which is one of Jervis' babies? I rest my case.
winning games was less than 50% of the final score.
