Interview with James M Hewitt, Part 1: Age of Sigmar and 40k

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.

**auticus**

Yep. They were an army that was not competitive largely. Thats why it was rare to see them.

**Geifer**

Not to mention that even for the time many of their models were of pretty dodgy quality.

**Yodhrin**

stonehorse wrote:
Thanks for sharing.

I do like that he mentioned the combat being a bit odd in Titanicus. I was ready to jump on board the game, but after seeing that a Knight can use their melee weapon to hit a Warlord titan's head, I just couldn't get past how bad that was. Reading that the game designer wanted to add a system that would prevent such a thing from happening makes me sad that we didn't get that version. Oh well... I guess we are stuck with Knights drop kicking the weapons on Warlord's carapce, until a new edition fixes that issue.

It was a very insightful interview. I have said it before and I'll say it again. James wrote one of the best games that GW have ever made, a game that sadly no one played...Horus Heresy, Betrayal At Calth. If he were to ever use that system for a miniatures game outside of the 40k universe, I'd be all over it.

That's...kind of a small reason to discount a whole game system out of hand, especially given how good it is in all other regards and how easy it is to headcanon away the abstraction(chain reaction, damaged vital power conduit, grabbed and threw a chunk of pavement etc etc etc). It only has to mean "Knights can literally Naruto-run into a leaping 360noscope melee attack to a Warlord's face" if you choose to interpret it that way.

**stonehorse**

auticus wrote:
Yep. They were an army that was not competitive largely. Thats why it was rare to see them.

I strongly disagree, Dark Eldar where terrifying in 3rd edition. 100pts warrior squad with 2 dark Lances were great anti-tank/Terminator, Raider squads with the unit leader having an Agoniser and Combat Drugs where combat blenders, and Ravagers that could melt most things in one turn. It was more than most armies could handle. Sure they had very little in the way if defense, so died in a stiff breeze however they were fast, and cover back then really helped.

This is now fueling my desire to go back and play 3rd edition 40k.

Yodhrin wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
Thanks for sharing.

I do like that he mentioned the combat being a bit odd in Titanicus. I was ready to jump on board the game, but after seeing that a Knight can use their melee weapon to hit a Warlord titan's head, I just couldn't get past how bad that was. Reading that the game designer wanted to add a system that would prevent such a thing from happening makes me sad that we didn't get that version. Oh well... I guess we are stuck with Knights drop kicking the weapons on Warlord's carapce, until a new edition fixes that issue.

It was a very insightful interview. I have said it before and I'll say it again. James wrote one of the best games that GW have ever made, a game that sadly no one played...Horus Heresy, Betrayal At Calth. If he were to ever use that system for a miniatures game outside of the 40k universe, I'd be all over it.

That's...kind of a small reason to discount a whole game system out of hand, especially given how good it is in all other regards and how easy it is to headcanon away the abstraction(chain reaction, damaged vital power conduit, grabbed and threw a chunk of pavement etc etc etc). It only has to mean "Knights can literally Naruto-run into a leaping 360noscope melee attack to a Warlord's face" if you choose to interpret it that way.

Not really a small thing. Being a large lumbering behemoth should offer a modicum of protection against smaller enemies. It may seem a minor issue to you, bit for me it broke the imursion and aim of the game. Allowing melee attacks to target anything regardless of size reduces the tactical choices a player needs to be aware of. No amount of head cannon can justify it for me... not sure what Naruto is.

**LunarSol**

Google Naruto run and enjoy!

**Racerguy180**

I couldnt imagine a Questoris doing that, but a Cerastus, fo sho

**Yodhrin**

stonehorse wrote:

Yodhrin wrote:

That's...kind of a small reason to discount a whole game system out of hand, especially given how good it is in all other regards and how easy it is to headcanon away the abstraction(chain reaction, damaged vital power conduit, grabbed and threw a chunk of pavement etc etc etc). It only has to mean "Knights can literally Naruto-run into a leaping 360noscope melee attack to a Warlord's face" if you choose to interpret it that way.

Not really a small thing. Being a large lumbering behemoth should offer a modicum of protection against smaller enemies. It may seem a minor issue to you, bit for me it broke the imursion and aim of the game. Allowing melee attacks to target anything regardless of size reduces the tactical choices a player needs to be aware of. No amount of head cannon can justify it for me... not sure what Naruto is.

It does seem like a minor issue to me, because it is one. Wargames always contain abstractions and outright simplifications, they only become a problem when they go so far they can't be explained by the setting's background and some basic logic, which this easily can in the ways I pointed out, you can simply choose to view it differently; the Knight is not literally attacking the head/carapace/whatever, they struck a vital conduit and caused a power surge to the reactor, or their attacks caused Manifold feedback that damaged a servitor/crewperson etc. Titans are large complex interconnected machines with a mind of their own, the idea that the *only* way the "head" location on the stat card could ever take damage is by being literally struck with the Knight's melee weapon is one you're imposing on the abstracted event, and it's just as arbitrary as the ones I'm proposing as an alternative.

I'm also not sure how making Knights even more of an irrelevance to Titans - in one of the few phases of the game where they can be a genuine threat to them - is somehow increasing the amount of tactical choices on offer. Sounds more like standard issue "this is a game about TITANS, puny little Knights shouldn't be a threat to TITANS!" sentiment tbh.

**Just Tony**

lagoon83 wrote:
auticus wrote:
lagoon83 wrote:
auticus wrote:
Is that inside information or just your own take of it?

I suppose it counts as the former! I'm just clarifying what I said in the interview.

(Sorry, I should probably have made that more clear.)

Thanks (sorry I don't know who people are by their handles)

No worries, it's not like I go out of my way to make it obvious And I'm all in favour of a healthy level of scepticism towards people claiming to Know Stuff with no proof.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Azreal13 wrote:
It's ok, we expect wooly writing from GW writers.

Cheeky sod

Since you're "here" and responding, I'd love some clarity on your reaction to "Warhammer: The Old World". Without any more context, it looks to be about the same temperament as Ron Marz had any time Hal Jordan was brought up during that whole Parallax debacle.

**lagoon83**

Just Tony wrote:
Since you're "here" and responding, I'd love some clarity on your reaction to "Warhammer: The Old World". Without any more context, it looks to be about the same temperament as Ron Marz had any time Hal Jordan was brought up during that whole Parallax debacle.

I'm interested to see what they do with it.

They've set themselves a very high bar. Whatever they do will be measured against a LOT of expectation. Good luck to the designers, I say!

**Just Tony**

Then I certainly misinterpreted your tone. I wish I could be optimistic about it, I really do, but unfortunately nothing about the last 5-8 years of GW design/writing/sculpting has filled me with confidence.

**Corrode**

Vejut wrote:
Dark eldar basically didn't exist at the time, IIRC, like they did, but were unicorns, and I'm not sure Tau did either, though if I'm recalling right they were like Eldar, were involved as a side objective and did fairly well, but I know eldar were in general. Nids I really don't recall, and of course, this is from 17 year old memory, so may be a bit of mixup with the medusa and later summer campaigns

(Edit: side note--Dark Eldar were literally in the starter set at the time. How the heck did they fail so hard I never saw them played until their 5th edition book came out?)

Dark Eldar were in the starter set as 10 Warriors, against 10 Marines and a Land Speeder which they literally couldn't hurt. Any kid who got that starter and was stuck playing the Dark Eldar side was never going to come away from it thinking "I want more of these guys."

**Grimtuff**

Corrode wrote:
Vejut wrote:
Dark eldar basically didn't exist at the time, IIRC, like they did, but were unicorns, and I'm not sure Tau did either, though if I'm recalling right they were like Eldar, were involved as a side objective and did fairly well, but I know eldar were in general. Nids I really don't recall, and of course, this is from 17 year old memory, so may be a bit of mixup with the medusa and later summer campaigns

(Edit: side note--Dark Eldar were literally in the starter set at the time. How the heck did they fail so hard I never saw them played until their 5th edition book came out?)

Dark Eldar were in the starter set as 10 Warriors, against 10 Marines and a Land Speeder which they literally couldn't hurt. Any kid who got that starter and was stuck playing the Dark Eldar side was never going to come away from it thinking "I want more of these guys."

It was 20 Warriors actually. Plus they could hurt the Speeder, but only just with the Splinter Cannons.

The only people I ever saw with DE armies* were the parents of kids who had got into the game, leading to the phenomenon known as "Dark Eldar dads".

*Sole exception being a random kid who would walk up to every table and ask "Are dey Dark Eldar?" to every gamer in earshot multiple times. Never found out if he had an army though...

**chaos0xomega**

stonehorse wrote:

Not really a small thing. Being a large lumbering behemoth should offer a modicum of protection against smaller enemies. It may seem a minor issue to you, bit for me it broke the imursion and aim of the game. Allowing melee attacks to target anything regardless of size reduces the tactical choices a player needs to be aware of. No amount of head cannon can justify it for me... not sure what Naruto is.

You need to watch more Star Wars. In the words of Yoda, "Size matters not".

I mean, yes there are some headscratchers with systems being hit by things too small to reach them, but its an abstract game, there are ways to justify such things as others have pointed out (hitting vital secondary systems that are reachable and which impact the performance of the main system itself).

I'm also not sure how making Knights even more of an irrelevance to Titans - in one of the few phases of the game where they can be a genuine threat to them - is somehow increasing the amount of tactical choices on offer. Sounds more like standard issue "this is a game about TITANS, puny little Knights shouldn't be a threat to TITANS!" sentiment tbh.

To be fair, James did more or less imply about as much in the interview. Not quite in those terms exactly, but more that it is a game about Titans and the Knights pull a lot of the focus away from that and they should have been an expansion/separate but compatible game.

**stonehorse**

LunarSol wrote:
Google Naruto run and enjoy!

God that was awful, I now feel the need to pour bleach into my phone to purge that from my history.

chaos0xomega wrote:
stonehorse wrote:

Not really a small thing. Being a large lumbering behemoth should offer a modicum of protection against smaller enemies. It may seem a minor issue to you, bit for me it broke the imursion and aim of the game. Allowing melee attacks to target anything regardless of size reduces the tactical choices a player needs to be aware of. No amount of head cannon can justify it for me... not sure what Naruto is.

You need to watch more Star Wars. In the words of Yoda, "Size matters not".

I mean, yes there are some headscratchers with systems being hit by things too small to reach them, but its an abstract game, there are ways to justify such things as others have pointed out (hitting vital secondary systems that are reachable and which impact the performance of the main system itself).

I most certainly don't need to watch any of that garbage thank you very much.

I know that the Imperium of Man are not known for having the best technology around, but suggesting that a Knight striking at a Warlord Titan's legs from behind can result in the Warlord Titan's head blowing up due to hitting vital secondary systems is a bit much.

The game, like any miniature game is abstract, however if systems can be targeted without any restrictions in melee, it just raises the question of why even have systems? Might as well just have hit points.

**Corrode**

Ok man you've convinced everyone, you are free to miss out on a really good game because you have a weird hang-up about one, not-that-common situation.

**stonehorse**

Corrode wrote:
Ok man you've convinced everyone, you are free to miss out on a really good game because you have a weird hang-up about one, not-that-common situation.

Not trying to convince anyone, merely stated an opinion, which then got challenged. Personally I am not against Knights being in the game. They should be like Swordfish against the Bismarck. Not able to destroy it, but able to damage it so that Titans movability is comprised. Meaning that other Titans can move into a safe position to deliver the killing blow.

Knights should be there to assist and make Titans weary about certain areas of the board.

Even the game's designers talked about it and said it feels weird.

James: And it gets passed around. But basically what happened was during development in the game, the close combat rules were a little bit more complex, in that the maximum scale of the attacker determined where they could hit. The way that worked was that every location on your titan had a scale. So a Warlord was scale 7 at one point, its carapace weapon was at scale 8, it’s arm weapons at 4 or 5 or whatever, the legs were always at zero because they’re on the floor. The rule was you cannot hit a location that is more than 1 scale greater than your titan’s scale. So a Knight is only hitting a Warlord in the legs, which is why Warlords have armoured legs!

Lupe: Makes sense, so Warhounds can take out their knees, but not go for anything higher.

James: A Warhound could take their arms out in combat, but nothing more. A Reaver could uppercut a Warlord in the face. Two problems came up which stopped this, which is what I was talking about in the blog post – the blog post was about compromise in game design. And the big thing was when the command terminals got laid out – and I’d been asking for ages if we could get someone on the design team to do a mockup of the design terminals so I could see if I’ve got the right amount of text on it, and whatever else, and I’d been told yeah yeah, we’ll get round to it. And it didn’t.

And at the last minute when it had all been fully designed we realised we didn’t have room to put the scales on every single location. And there were a few other things that had to come off. Like where the critical damage stuff is now like… princeps wounded. Each one of those was bespoke to the command terminal, and it had a set of rules written on the command terminal. But there just wasn’t room. So that came off and it had to become more generic, and one of the other things that had to come off was scale.

And the other reason was that during testing everyone kept forgetting that was a rule. Which is usually a sign that’s it’s too complex or it’s not intuitive enough and needs to come out. So I didn’t feel terrible about removing it at the time. But now you have Knights kickflipping Warlords’ heads off, and it just feels weird. It’s not a difficult rule to replicate though, you can put it back in pretty easily if you want to house rule it.

**Just Tony**

Grimtuff wrote:
Corrode wrote:
Vejut wrote:
Dark eldar basically didn't exist at the time, IIRC, like they did, but were unicorns, and I'm not sure Tau did either, though if I'm recalling right they were like Eldar, were involved as a side objective and did fairly well, but I know eldar were in general. Nids I really don't recall, and of course, this is from 17 year old memory, so may be a bit of mixup with the medusa and later summer campaigns

(Edit: side note--Dark Eldar were literally in the starter set at the time. How the heck did they fail so hard I never saw them played until their 5th edition book came out?)

Dark Eldar were in the starter set as 10 Warriors, against 10 Marines and a Land Speeder which they literally couldn't hurt. Any kid who got that starter and was stuck playing the Dark Eldar side was never going to come away from it thinking "I want more of these guys."

It was 20 Warriors actually. Plus they could hurt the Speeder, but only just with the Splinter Cannons.

The only people I ever saw with DE armies* were the parents of kids who had got into the game, leading to the phenomenon known as "Dark Eldar dads".

*Sole exception being a random kid who would walk up to every table and ask "Are dey Dark Eldar?" to every gamer in earshot multiple times. Never found out if he had an army though...

My brother built a Dark Eldar army off a couple 3rd Ed. sets, and the memories of having my speeder squadrons blown to shreds by Splinter Cannons has had me leave them in the box for damn near 15 years. In fact, I literally cannot remember the last time I ran them. My daughter ran my brother's Dark Eldar models against my Crimson Fists in a 3rd Ed. game a week or two back, do you know what wound up doing the most damage? Scourges with Splinter Cannons and the Sybarites with Agonizers.

**Henry**

stonehorse wrote:
I strongly disagree, Dark Eldar where terrifying in 3rd edition. 100pts warrior squad with 2 dark Lances were great anti-tank/Terminator, Raider squads with the unit leader having an Agoniser and Combat Drugs where combat blenders, and Ravagers that could melt most things in one turn.

.

You and I must have been playing near identical armies. People's faces when they realised how much death you could produce so quickly was great. And everyone ran from the Archon - that thing killed everything.

6 man raider squad, disembark, dark lance (from raider)and blaster shot then combat drug agoniser. It was glorious.

**stonehorse**

Henry wrote:
stonehorse wrote:
I strongly disagree, Dark Eldar where terrifying in 3rd edition. 100pts warrior squad with 2 dark Lances were great anti-tank/Terminator, Raider squads with the unit leader having an Agoniser and Combat Drugs where combat blenders, and Ravagers that could melt most things in one turn.

.

You and I must have been playing near identical armies. People's faces when they realised how much death you could produce so quickly was great. And everyone ran from the Archon - that thing killed everything.

6 man raider squad, disembark, dark lance (from raider)and blaster shot then combat drug agoniser. It was glorious.

It was indeed glorious, helped as people had this odd impression that Dark Eldar were rubbish, so thought they were going to get an easy win. A few turns later and they had changed their tune.

Warrior squads, Raider Squads, Ravagers, Scourges, and Incubi with Archon. With as much Splinter Cannons, Dark Lance's, Agonisers, Combat Drugs and Blasters as could be squeezed in there. In bigger games I used Reaver Jetbikes, Think I had 30 of them, was fun watching them pour out of a webway portal.