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.

A bit early in the day, but on pondering what would be in store for us in the 6th Edition, I've wondered what calibre the pool of talent is for GW to pull from - until it was stairing me in the face (figuratively speaking). Jervis Johnson has so far designed two game systems for Games Workshop - Blood Bowl, which is still a big player despite no support for God Knows how long from GW; and Epic Armageddon, which sported a beautiful ruleset.

What would your feeling be if you discovered it was him at the helm for the next one?

I would be hoping he turned round and said sorry customers your codecies are new useless like the change to third edition as we're going back to system more like 2nd ed with improvements to get rid of the old problems. But the 6th ed rulebook had stop gap army lists to make the cost of the book worthwhile and not just full of a load of pretty pictures so they can charge more.
Then I would be hopeful...

Didn't Jervis present a complete ground-up rewrite of 40K a few years ago and have it refused by senior mgt. ?

Or was that another of the senior designers?

Don't know, wasn't really keeping an eye on the happenings as have been in and out of gaming so often the past decade .
Honestly I think it needs something like armour saves and weapon strength modifiers to it again to help balance a lot of things. Oh and the special/heavy weapons being able to fire at a different unit type (but still closest to the firer) and the old fire arcs on vehicles rules for splitting fire back to make so many things worthwhile imo.

Am I just being nostalgic?

Kilkrazy wrote:Didn't Jervis present a complete ground-up rewrite of 40K a few years ago and have it refused by senior mgt. ?

Or was that another of the senior designers?

Andy Chambers, I believe - it was one of the reasons he and GW parted company.

I had forgot the name but I knew it had been done.

Anyway the point is made. GW Mgt. don't want significant changes to the status quo.

Odd given how they have been changing so much, unless it didn't mesan cheaper paper for higher cost books

Serious note though, I think he is one of the few people who would like to see continued support for games (specialist especially) and get the FAQ's errata etc out fast left so yeah would think he would at least try to do a well done job and look at improving and updating things. At least with that and continued support the product would in the long run yeild more profit into GW I think.

IF Jervis was allowed to write A NEW rule set for 40k.

Who would he write it for?

Corperate want it to be a direct marketing tool for the new releases.

The younger players want lots of rules they can learn (LOTZA AWZOMNEWSPESHULRULZ!!!)and little in the way of tactical challenge.

The older players want a heavier tactical focus and clear concise rules.

The competative players want a fast fliud well balanced system.

The fluff monkies want thousands of options and sod the concequences.

Jervis could write a rule set that covers some but NOT all these.

And guess who has the most sway over Jervis ?

Thats right the people who pay his wages...

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Didn't Jervis present a complete ground-up rewrite of 40K a few years ago and have it refused by senior mgt. ?

Or was that another of the senior designers?

Andy Chambers, I believe - it was one of the reasons he and GW parted company.

Supposedly, wasn't it the system that became Starship Troopers eventually?

Kilkrazy wrote:I had forgot the name but I knew it had been done.

Anyway the point is made. GW Mgt. don't want significant changes to the status quo.

The reasoning was more that Chambers wanted two sets of rules.

One, the 'bare bones' rules and the second being equivalent to Starship Troopers' rule set.

I suspect 6th edition will decrease the points costs on many units, thereby increasing the unit sizes thereby increasing that sales of miniatures.

I guess the only good thing that would come of that is a return to 4'x8' tables as standard.

Alpharius wrote:I suspect 6th edition will decrease the points costs on many units, thereby increasing the unit sizes thereby increasing that sales of miniatures.

I guess the only good thing that would come of that is a return to 4'x8' tables as standard.

And 21 foot tall space marines, which would be action sized model sizes on such a table top.

Alpharius wrote:I suspect 6th edition will decrease the points costs on many units, thereby increasing the unit sizes thereby increasing that sales of miniatures.

I guess the only good thing that would come of that is a return to 4'x8' tables as standard.

That's probably the only thing we will be able to say for certain, and perhaps a nerfing of armoured transports in favour of infantry in the rules.

Otherwise it will be 40k 5th Edition, with a rules change of a couple of minor points, sold as something radical and groundbreaking but in reality pretty much exactly the same game we have been playing for more than 15 years and 3rd edition.

Hopefully a couple of cheaper armies in the new starter set though

MIKEtheMERCILESS wrote:What would your feeling be if you discovered it was him at the helm for the next one?

I'm not sure it would make a difference. My objection to GW lately has nothing to do with their rules, and everything to do with how much their miniatures cost compared to their inconsistent quality. Their rules could be written by 7 year olds in dire need of Ritalin and the "Most Important Rule"(TM) could be nothing more than "line up yur guys and pew pew pew!"and as long as the minis were worth what was being charged I'd be happy. Because let's face it, if I was really all that into the rules, I'd be playing Epic already.

Just bring back overwatch,armour save modifers (watch SM players cry about that one) and remove wound allocation.

For me, what drove me away from 40k and GW in general was the rules.
The models are expensive but the plastics are very competitive with other companies' offerings. Aside from the recent failings of the finecast range, the quality has traditionally been high. ...well, usually.
$45 for a box of 10 models isn't bad, but you don't need 10, you need 80. The game structure is horribly restrictive, forcing you into dozens of infantry you may not want and restricting you out of taking specialist units that may have got you into the army -or buying them, since it's pointless to buy what you can't play.
The core rules are just plain bad. It can be a fun game if no incongruities come up but it only takes one bad argument about some obscure psychic power affecting a unit that gets in a transport works when targeting a tyranid with a certain power when hes out of synapse when your two and a half hours into a game to sour the experience.
Strong scenerios seem to have had a positive impact on the game since I quit. now there are objectives beyond the direct and bloody clash in the center of the board. I'm not sure if things are better now with true los evening the playing field, but my biggest complaint back in the old days of 3 ed was the abstraction of infantry units but the literal use of vehicle models in the game, that double standard always bugged me.

I really don't know what Jervis has done for gw in the last few years but if he was allowed to make some big changes, the shake up would probably be great for the game and it's future (but bad for existing codices and armies). I do miss the grim dark galaxy some times, I'd at least like an avenue back in if the time was right for me.

He wrote the Dark Angels Codex, I don't want him anywhere near my rulesets ever again.

He made Epic Armageddon, therefore I will always love him.

I think it's enough that he is within the hobby. I heard when I was a staffer that he was responsible for saving the Specialist Games range practically by himself (promising to do all of the work for it), when it was being set up for being removed entirely. Yes SG have been neglected, but at least they are still available in some form on the official website.

He has helped with some of the most beloved of GW's older games, including Blood Bowl and Necromunda, and arguably writes the only 2 pages of WD that aren't thinly disguised marketing tosh. Those of us who remember WD back in it's days as a worthy collection of articles and hobby community magazine remember him fondly for his contributions.

He gets a lot of bad press for the DA and then Chaos Codex (although Alessio Calvatore went on record to say that most of that codex was him), but for those of us who have been in the hobby for a long time, and are able to look at the wider picture, it will be a sad day indeed when he packs up his gaming dice. Right now I think he is one of the few of the 'old guard' (the rest having since passed on, even Priestley for crying out loud) who have enough clout within the company to hopefully reign in some of the more daft decisions by the board, and hopefully still put the interests of the hobbyists in front of shareholder returns.

Tronbot2600 wrote:He made Epic Armageddon, therefore I will always love him.

I'll take second ed Space marine with titian legions. I tried Epic 40k, it just wasn't as good to me.

Platuan4th wrote:

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Didn't Jervis present a complete ground-up rewrite of 40K a few years ago and have it refused by senior mgt. ?

Or was that another of the senior designers?

Andy Chambers, I believe - it was one of the reasons he and GW parted company.

Supposedly, wasn't it the system that became Starship Troopers eventually?

Apparently so. I haven't played Starship Troopers and it didn't too particularly well commercially, so I have no idea if it was a good ruleset or not.

To be honest, the only JJ game I have actually enjoyed has been Blood Bowl, and even then, the ruleset was significantly expanded and amended from his original design with the concept of living rulebook.

filbert wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

filbert wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Didn't Jervis present a complete ground-up rewrite of 40K a few years ago and have it refused by senior mgt. ?

Or was that another of the senior designers?

Andy Chambers, I believe - it was one of the reasons he and GW parted company.

Supposedly, wasn't it the system that became Starship Troopers eventually?

Apparently so. I haven't played Starship Troopers and it didn't too particularly well commercially, so I have no idea if it was a good ruleset or not.

To be honest, the only JJ game I have actually enjoyed has been Blood Bowl, and even then, the ruleset was significantly expanded and amended from his original design with the concept of living rulebook.

It wasn't a bad rules set. It was very in-depth with some things that if adopted for 40k would be kind of nice.

The "Priority Level" aspect for missions as well would be nice too.

Ratbarf wrote:He wrote the Dark Angels Codex, I don't want him anywhere near my rulesets ever again.

And as much as I hate the Dark Angels Codex, he wasn't responsible for it solely. Alessio Cavatore was on the same general level of "seniority", with Cavatore having been a "relevant" figure while Jervis was considered a bit of a dinosaur or Specialist Games guy. Cavatore's ideas got more clout than Jervis' and Cavatore wanted to push a "brand new direction!" and then got distracted in doing it for the rest of the codices.

Lanrak wrote:IF Jervis was allowed to write A NEW rule set for 40k.

Who would he write it for?

Corperate want it to be a direct marketing tool for the new releases.

The younger players want lots of rules they can learn (LOTZA AWZOMNEWSPESHULRULZ!!!)and little in the way of tactical challenge.

The older players want a heavier tactical focus and clear concise rules.

The competative players want a fast fliud well balanced system.

The fluff monkies want thousands of options and sod the concequences.

Jervis could write a rule set that covers some but NOT all these.

And guess who has the most sway over Jervis ?

Thats right the people who pay his wages...

He could alternatively write a modular series of rules all set in the WH/40K background. The core concepts would overlap and different sets of special or exceptional rules would be used in different supplements depending on the style of game you wanted to play.

For example, Leadership and Morale could be ripped out of the basic rules, and a more detailed set of Command and Control rules could be published in a supplement.

That is exactly the sort of effort I would like to see from a $200 million dollar company. In fact, as a wargame consumer, I don't see the point of a $200 million dollar company if it can't make those kind of efforts. Much smaller companies manage to do it.

Hi Killkrazy.
Oh I agree that much more could be done as far as game devlopment at GW towers.
And that Jervis IS capable of writing much better rule set(s).

But the corperate managment belive there is no need to wast time and effort on rules development due to the fact only 1/3 of the customers actualy play the games.

Jervis will just follow the company line , and keep taking his pay.
All the other game developers with any real talent left GW behind and are making better games elswhere.(Poor old Jervis is left behind in purgatory. )

And concidering the circular development and inclusion of 'quick fixes for the next editionitis.'
I predict little actual change over the next editions, untill GW stops being a 'plc'.