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 short while ago, I posted an interview I did with Jervis from way back when. I have dug up another interview I did shortly after, this time with Gav Thorpe. It is from the 3rd edition days, but may be of interest to the Warhammer Scholars among you...

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2018/10/04/an-interview-with-gav-thorpe/

The Fifth Element is a favourite movie?! Well, I guess we were all young once....

Excited to read this, I loved the Jervis one!

Also just wanted to pop in to say that I absolutely love your blog - it's one I've been following since I got back into the hobby and it's made for some great comfort food lunchtime reading for me for the past couple of years. Thanks!

This bit:

We may have a Sisters Codex, then one for crusaders and the Ecclesiarchy for another project. We will get there!

is why they don't like to reveal things too far in advance, I think. Obviously, none of that happened in 3rd edition - or the next five so far!

"Once it gets into close combat, it can easily kill two Marines per turn. "

Ahahaha! And the funny thing is that wasn't actually that bad kill rate for a model...how lethality has gone up!

Great interview! Any Andy Chambers ones?

Describe the spirit of the game for us. . .

It is when you were a kid and you played with your friends – if you picked up your toys and started hitting each other with them, your mother would come along and say, if you can’t play nice, don’t play at all. Play nice, basically. It is a game – it has to be enjoyed. People can get so wound up at times – you must remember, this is your hobby. It is only a game. The spirit of the game is not about winning, it is about enjoying yourself. But different people enjoy different things – some people only like to win. I find that to be very unfortunate for them. Winning at all costs is just wrong. What sense of victory can you get if no-one enjoyed the game? The golden rule is to play nice and don’t do stuff that you would not want to have done to you.

This is my favourite. Really shows the GW mentality back then in the day and even today. "Double Lash Prince is OP? Huh, I guess it is, never thought someone would take two of them!"

 NurglesR0T wrote:

Spoiler:

Describe the spirit of the game for us. . .

It is when you were a kid and you played with your friends – if you picked up your toys and started hitting each other with them, your mother would come along and say, if you can’t play nice, don’t play at all. Play nice, basically. It is a game – it has to be enjoyed. People can get so wound up at times – you must remember, this is your hobby. It is only a game. The spirit of the game is not about winning, it is about enjoying yourself. But different people enjoy different things – some people only like to win. I find that to be very unfortunate for them. Winning at all costs is just wrong. What sense of victory can you get if no-one enjoyed the game? The golden rule is to play nice and don’t do stuff that you would not want to have done to you.

This is my favourite. Really shows the GW mentality back then in the day and even today. "Double Lash Prince is OP? Huh, I guess it is, never thought someone would take two of them!"

Then again if GW designers did as professionals the issues wouldn't be so glaring.

Now if GW designers don't ask for salary ie are doing it for fun as in amateurs do fine. But if they ask for salary one would expect them to do at least basic level of professionals they claim to be.

NurglesR0T wrote:

Describe the spirit of the game for us. . .

It is when you were a kid and you played with your friends – if you picked up your toys and started hitting each other with them, your mother would come along and say, if you can’t play nice, don’t play at all. Play nice, basically. It is a game – it has to be enjoyed. People can get so wound up at times – you must remember, this is your hobby. It is only a game. The spirit of the game is not about winning, it is about enjoying yourself. But different people enjoy different things – some people only like to win. I find that to be very unfortunate for them. Winning at all costs is just wrong. What sense of victory can you get if no-one enjoyed the game? The golden rule is to play nice and don’t do stuff that you would not want to have done to you.

This is my favourite. Really shows the GW mentality back then in the day and even today. "Double Lash Prince is OP? Huh, I guess it is, never thought someone would take two of them!"

Yes, playing the game should be fun first and foremost. However some people have fun playing to win. In a game, it is perfectly fine to "do stuff that you would not want to have done to you." If someone doesn't like a particular strategy or unit, that is their problem. It's easy to dislike something that is an obstacle in the path to victory. It's only a game, so why get wound up about it?

Ginjitzu wrote:

 NurglesR0T wrote:
[spoiler]

Describe the spirit of the game for us. . .

It is when you were a kid and you played with your friends – if you picked up your toys and started hitting each other with them, your mother would come along and say, if you can’t play nice, don’t play at all. Play nice, basically. It is a game – it has to be enjoyed. People can get so wound up at times – you must remember, this is your hobby. It is only a game. The spirit of the game is not about winning, it is about enjoying yourself. But different people enjoy different things – some people only like to win. I find that to be very unfortunate for them. Winning at all costs is just wrong. What sense of victory can you get if no-one enjoyed the game? The golden rule is to play nice and don’t do stuff that you would not want to have done to you.

This is my favourite. Really shows the GW mentality back then in the day and even today. "Double Lash Prince is OP? Huh, I guess it is, never thought someone would take two of them!"

And I couldn't agree more with them. I'll never understand why people get mad at Games-Workshop when their opponent brings cheesy armies. If your opponent wants to pretend that Warhammer is a sport instead of a game, that's hardly Games-Workshop's fault.

Yes it is. The folks at GW write the rules, therefore anything that can be done within those rules, both good and bad, is their fault. If someone plays their lovingly painted, lore based army and gets stomped by broken army X, that is because GW wrote poor rules that allow these kinds of situations to occur.

Err if you get stomped by someone, it isn't because GW write poor rules and you opponent exploited something to make his army OP.

It is because YOU didnt plan to counter, or make a similar meta based army.

Don't blame GW for your own lack of insight.

In a game like this, there is always something better, you just gotta be creative.

Or play for fun, just like the guy said.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

Then again if GW designers did as professionals the issues wouldn't be so glaring.

Now if GW designers don't ask for salary ie are doing it for fun as in amateurs do fine. But if they ask for salary one would expect them to do at least basic level of professionals they claim to be.

But they do reach this basic level; in fact they exceed it quite significantly. Sure it's not perfect, but it is still hands down the most successful franchise of its type in the entire world!

Blastaar wrote:

Spoiler:

Yes it is. The folks at GW write the rules, therefore anything that can be done within those rules, both good and bad, is their fault. If someone plays their lovingly painted, lore based army and gets stomped by broken army X, that is because GW wrote poor rules that allow these kinds of situations to occur.

I completely disagree. Saying that Games-Workshop is to blame for bad actors abusing their product is like saying that Ford is responsible when someone decides to drink and drive in one of their cars. That sort of rationale relieves unsportsmanlike players of their responsibility in a way that is frankly, ludicrous.

BUDFORCE wrote:

Spoiler:

Err if you get stomped by someone, it isn't because GW write poor rules and you opponent exploited something to make his army OP.

It is because YOU didnt plan to counter, or make a similar meta based army.

Don't blame GW for your own lack of insight.

In a game like this, there is always something better, you just gotta be creative.

Or play for fun, just like the guy said.

I would only agree with this logic of both players had an understanding that the game was intended to be competitive, but if the agreement or understanding was for a nice, casual game, then it would be obnoxious to start bringing your filthiest netlist.

It seems to me that the most important thing to consider when playing Warhammer is whether you and your opponent are of a similar mindset. Warhammer is several different things to many different people, and if your interpretation of how to enjoy it differs too widely from that of your opponent, then it can lead to a lot of disappointment.

The solution? Get to know your opponents. You may just make a friend or two.

BUDFORCE wrote:
Err if you get stomped by someone, it isn't because GW write poor rules and you opponent exploited something to make his army OP.

It is because YOU didnt plan to counter, or make a similar meta based army.

Don't blame GW for your own lack of insight.

In a game like this, there is always something better, you just gotta be creative.

Or play for fun, just like the guy said.

It can be because of lack of planning, and poor strategy. GW games, however, tend to be so lopsided that some armies or lists are just outright better than everything else, to the point where it doesn't matter what you do during a game at all. That lack of army or list diversity and player agency, where what you put on the table is all that matters, not how you use it, is the fault of the rules "writers".

What "insight" should a new player have, who picks their army based solely on their background and look, and then builds an army that reflects how they operate and makes sense strategically, then as time goes on and they get to playing regularly, discover that said army rarely has a fighting chance, because other units simply have better rules? Throw away another $800-$1000 and hours of painting and modeling to stand a chance until the next rules change? At least in Magic, if a card sucks in standard, or draft, it usually has a place in modern, or commander, or pauper and so on, so you can still enjoy playing with it without it actively handicapping you. With WH games, a unit that sucks with no purpose is the same in narrative as it is in open or matched play. That is pretty poor for a game that rigorously pushes its hobby aspect.

Again, playing to win and having fun are not mutually exclusive concepts. One can be the other. Is your idea of playing for fun mindlessly shuffling minis around the table, trying not to affect the outcome of the game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ginjitzu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

Blastaar wrote:[spoiler]
Yes it is. The folks at GW write the rules, therefore anything that can be done within those rules, both good and bad, is their fault. If someone plays their lovingly painted, lore based army and gets stomped by broken army X, that is because GW wrote poor rules that allow these kinds of situations to occur.

I completely disagree. Saying that Games-Workshop is to blame for bad actors abusing their product is like saying that Ford is responsible when someone decides to drink and drive in one of their cars. That sort of rationale relieves unsportsmanlike players of their responsibility in a way that is frankly, ludicrous.

Except, per your example, the idiot driving the Ford drunk is breaking the rules and not using the product for its intended purpose, sober transportation. In game terms he is cheating. GW writes their rulesets so poorly that jerks can and will take advantage of overpowered units or combos, and it's perfectly legal. It's also a game, not an extremely stupid choice that may very well kill somebody. Context matters.

Gamers do have a responsibility to not be jerks, but some will always be jerks- that's why the rules need to be better written. That's the same reason we have laws, really. Most people will behave decently regardless- the laws are there (ostensibly) to deter the "jerks" and provide a mechanism for punishment and rehabilitation.

And some people who play cheesey lists don't necessarily do it just for easy wins. It might actually be an army they enjoy for other reasons, that is incidentally problematic. "Cheesy" lists aren't always overpowered either- sometimes they just play differently, or do something in a way someone gets annoyed with. Well, it's pretty easy to be irritated when playing against something.

Wait so people who are playing competitive balanced games against each other, and striving to work on getting the game to that place are working against GW's plan?

I think a better example would be a driver speeding. Whos fault is it? Is it the driver with the heavy foot or the manufacturer who built a car that can do 100mph?

Cheers

Andrew

Blastaar wrote:
Except, per your example, the idiot driving the Ford drunk is breaking the rules and not using the product for its intended purpose . . .

"not using the product for its intended purpose"

"not using the product for its intended purpose"

"not using the product for its intended purpose"

I think a lot of older hobbyists sometimes overlook that having a limited collection can really exacerbate balance problems. This is an expensive game to play; getting just one 2000 point army is a very high startup cost for most. So when game balance is so wonky, you really run the risk of players just running into "trap" options for army builds.

Suppose two friends are deciding to start some 40k armies. One looks at the giant T'au mechs and thinks they are crazy cool. They love the idea of highly advanced battle suits flying around and blowing things to smithereens while fanatical alien soldiers take ground in support. They buy some strike teams and riptides along with some commanders because a friend told them they are good. They can't wait to play with their awesome new army!

Meanwhile, the other friend looks at the crazy orks and their wacky mekboyz who create deadly killa kanz and stompy deffdreads. They love the idea of their scrappy, murderous robots closing in on their friend's fancy mechs and ripping them to pieces with buzzsaws and giant dread klaws. They buy up an assortment of dreads and kans with some wacky mek guns or flashgitz along for fire support. Soon enough they will have an awesome time pitting their forces against their friend's T'au!

...Only they play their first game and it's a stomp. The T'au blow the ork dreads to bits long before they reach combat. Anything that gets to charge learns about T'au overwatch the hard way., and if it somehow makes it in and kills something, it's never enough to slow them down. They play a few more games, thinking it may just be a fluke and they will find new counters as things go on and it will even out. But it doesn't. Each time they play, the dread mob spends the game packing up all their models.

The T'au player can't tone down their list really because these are the only models they have. Either player would have to practically buy a new army before they have an army on equal footing with their friend's.

Pick-up games are likely similar. The T'au player can grab a match with most anyone and get a good game where they may not win all the time, but can dish out some damage regardless and have a fun time. The Ork player finds that unless the grey knight player shows up this week or someone happened to bring a fun list, their trip for a game was mostly wasted, because they get little satisfaction taking all their models out and then putting them up again.

The above situation is not fun, an is lousy game design. Nobody involved was being a cheesy WAAC player who decided to play against the spirit of the game. People just starting getting models they thought were cool (as they should) and the game is very often just not fun that way from a game perspective. it's way to easy to spend a bunch of money in a "trap" starting army where you find out you have to invest a whole lot more money before you can run the one or two semi-decent play styles their codex offers.

Asking that the game be designed with competitive balance in mind (both internal and external) is not demanding that the whole hobby cater to the netlist tournament crowd. It's just smart game design. The fact is that it's not just a couple of gamey netlists that are the problem; balance between armies and between units in the same codex is just all over the board, which hurts newer, casual players the most, much more than the competitive, victory-focused players (who may have focused on looking up the "stronger" units and factions to buy before committing) as well as veteran beer&pretzels players (who have large enough collections that they can tune up and tone down their armies as needed).

ManTube wrote:

Spoiler:

I think a lot of older hobbyists sometimes overlook that having a limited collection can really exacerbate balance problems. This is an expensive game to play; getting just one 2000 point army is a very high startup cost for most. So when game balance is so wonky, you really run the risk of players just running into "trap" options for army builds.

Suppose two friends are deciding to start some 40k armies. One looks at the giant T'au mechs and thinks they are crazy cool. They love the idea of highly advanced battle suits flying around and blowing things to smithereens while fanatical alien soldiers take ground in support. They buy some strike teams and riptides along with some commanders because a friend told them they are good. They can't wait to play with their awesome new army!

Meanwhile, the other friend looks at the crazy orks and their wacky mekboyz who create deadly killa kanz and stompy deffdreads. They love the idea of their scrappy, murderous robots closing in on their friend's fancy mechs and ripping them to pieces with buzzsaws and giant dread klaws. They buy up an assortment of dreads and kans with some wacky mek guns or flashgitz along for fire support. Soon enough they will have an awesome time pitting their forces against their friend's T'au!

...Only they play their first game and it's a stomp. The T'au blow the ork dreads to bits long before they reach combat. Anything that gets to charge learns about T'au overwatch the hard way., and if it somehow makes it in and kills something, it's never enough to slow them down. They play a few more games, thinking it may just be a fluke and they will find new counters as things go on and it will even out. But it doesn't. Each time they play, the dread mob spends the game packing up all their models.

The T'au player can't tone down their list really because these are the only models they have. Either player would have to practically buy a new army before they have an army on equal footing with their friend's.

Pick-up games are likely similar. The T'au player can grab a match with most anyone and get a good game where they may not win all the time, but can dish out some damage regardless and have a fun time. The Ork player finds that unless the grey knight player shows up this week or someone happened to bring a fun list, their trip for a game was mostly wasted, because they get little satisfaction taking all their models out and then putting them up again.

The above situation is not fun, an is lousy game design. Nobody involved was being a cheesy WAAC player who decided to play against the spirit of the game. People just starting getting models they thought were cool (as they should) and the game is very often just not fun that way from a game perspective. it's way to easy to spend a bunch of money in a "trap" starting army where you find out you have to invest a whole lot more money before you can run the one or two semi-decent play styles their codex offers.

Asking that the game be designed with competitive balance in mind (both internal and external) is not demanding that the whole hobby cater to the netlist tournament crowd. It's just smart game design. The fact is that it's not just a couple of gamey netlists that are the problem; balance between armies and between units in the same codex is just all over the board, which hurts newer, casual players the most, much more than the competitive, victory-focused players (who may have focused on looking up the "stronger" units and factions to buy before committing) as well as veteran beer&pretzels players (who have large enough collections that they can tune up and tone down their armies as needed).

That's a very fair point, though I maintain my position, that people calling Games-Workshop "incompetent" for writing an imperfectly balanced ruleset, is a tad dramatic. I agree that it's a fair expectation that most armies that two players bring to a table, ought to have a fairly equal chance of winning, especially if using matched play rules. What I don't agree with, is that a flawed ruleset relieves any player of their choice to intentionally exploit that ruleset in order to bring some overpowered, unfluffy combination in order to just crush their opponent and win at all costs.

While your scenario highlights the fact that sometimes the rules are flawed and out of balance - and that is the fault of Games-Workshop - my scenario highlights the fact that some players are just jerks, and that's not Games-Workshop's fault.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Except, per your example, the idiot driving the Ford drunk is breaking the rules and not using the product for its intended purpose . . .

"not using the product for its intended purpose"

"not using the product for its intended purpose"

"not using the product for its intended purpose"

b-but how are we supposed to know the intended purpose of games workshop's games isn't to build the least fluffy most powerful hyper competitive netlist possible and stomp the local gaming scene until we can't get a game anymore?

They'd need to express the opinion that that playstyle is not the way the game was intended to be played for about 8 editions straight, any time it's asked! They'd need to go out of their way to make FAQs and Errata intended to nullify the purchase of hyper-competitive skew lists on a regular basis!

GW has punished ba jump packs so much in the last three editions, they cant possibly intend for them to be used. At least, that's how I read it.

I think it's interesting that the people that seem the most consumed by 'balance' 'power' and WAAC' are Americans. Not to be down on our American friends of course...

American society has this competitiveness and this "culture of winning" that is reinforced in grade school and makes everyone feel like they deserve to win. Certainly not the worst mindset to have if you're really trying hard to win but it does often come off as whiny entitlement.

I think its so interesting that the people who seem unconcerned with bad game design and equity of opportunity are British. Maybe all that quiet grumbling without outward protest after someone jumps the queue has rubbed off into wargaming and their just more willing to accept a bad situation. Not to be down on our British friends of course...

It's pretty disingenuous to hold up an 18-year-old interview by one guy who doesn't work for GW any more as proof of how GW intends their games to be played today.

Especially if you're also ignoring their official sponsorship of tournaments and the fact that the current edition of the game specifically includes rules for use in tournaments and other organised play events.

 Duskweaver wrote:
It's pretty disingenuous to hold up an 18-year-old interview by one guy who doesn't work for GW any more as proof of how GW intends their games to be played today.

Especially if you're also ignoring their official sponsorship of tournaments and the fact that the current edition of the game specifically includes rules for use in tournaments and other organised play events.

^^^This. GW were still managed by the old regime when this interview was done. Also, it was 18 years ago! The tournament scene in general was nowhere near as lively and all-encompassing as it is now and competition from other games was practically non-existent so GW could basically do whatever they liked. Of the people in the studio in 2000 I think only Jervis remains? It's fair to assume attitudes may not be exactly the same, both on a corporate and individual level.

And yet balance wise, the game is still in about the same place. Playing purely to win ends up with a handful of factions taking lists that fluff doesn't really support and leaves about half the armies in the game in a trash bin.

If that is your thing, more power to you but i've found the game more enjoyable when both players tone it down list wise and then let the dice fall as they may.

 Hollow wrote:
I think it's interesting that the people that seem the most consumed by 'balance' 'power' and WAAC' are Americans. Not to be down on our American friends of course...

Why do you think that is? I think it is a fair observation. I'd like to hear your perspective.

For me I care most about rules being balanced because I know that even between friends - unconscious bias is a huge thing. Basically the only the way the game works right now is for both players to try to make lists that pair well with each other (strength wise). However - it is really hard to do this and it's really not fun. I'd much prefer that GW make the points you pay for things actually balanced to start with. Cause everyone wants a fair chance to win. I'd wager in England - there is a lot less emphasis on winning and much more talking about army themes and stuff (not that that is a bad thing) it's just different here - we mostly talk about the list we make - not why we chose to paint our guys a certain color.

Slipspace wrote:

Spoiler:

 Duskweaver wrote:
It's pretty disingenuous to hold up an 18-year-old interview by one guy who doesn't work for GW any more as proof of how GW intends their games to be played today.

Especially if you're also ignoring their official sponsorship of tournaments and the fact that the current edition of the game specifically includes rules for use in tournaments and other organised play events.

^^^This. GW were still managed by the old regime when this interview was done. Also, it was 18 years ago! The tournament scene in general was nowhere near as lively and all-encompassing as it is now and competition from other games was practically non-existent so GW could basically do whatever they liked. Of the people in the studio in 2000 I think only Jervis remains? It's fair to assume attitudes may not be exactly the same, both on a corporate and individual level.

I still think it's a good resource to see the mindset of their developers at that time, and I would wager that that mindset still prevails as the way that Warhammer is "supposed" to be played by many of their developers now, but recent events have certainly shown that they are making a concerted effort to be more supportive of the more competitive style of play, which is entirely sensible from a revenue standpoint. After all, competitive gamers buy stuff too, right?

Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

 Hollow wrote:
I think it's interesting that the people that seem the most consumed by 'balance' 'power' and WAAC' are Americans. Not to be down on our American friends of course...

Why do you think that is? I think it is a fair observation. I'd like to hear your perspective.

I think Americans have a more competitive nature in general. Consider that America is made up of people who conquered one of the world's last, wild frontiers. Even more recent migrants consist of people who probably thought that they would go there to compete to improve their lot in life.

Xenomancers wrote:

Spoiler:

For me I care most about rules being balanced because I know that even between friends - unconscious bias is a huge thing. Basically the only the way the game works right now is for both players to try to make lists that pair well with each other (strength wise). However - it is really hard to do this and it's really not fun. I'd much prefer that GW make the points you pay for things actually balanced to start with. Cause everyone wants a fair chance to win...

To be fair, I think that the feedback that we receive from the community team, coupled with more frequent FAQs and their commitment to Chapter Approved, show that they are at least trying to do just that. Sure they don't always get it in a way that pleases everyone, but they are definitely being more considerate of such concerns now than ever before.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why do you think that is? I think it is a fair observation. I'd like to hear your perspective.

As others have mentioned, I think it comes down to the super competitive culture Americans have. It also seems as though it isn't just enough to win, others must lose. I suppose if you were to look into it more, it comes from a deep routed insecurity which seems to permeate the American physique. Don't get me wrong, I love the states, have been a number of times (going again this winter) and count Americans amongst my closest friends, I just find it fascinating that Americans are always in a constant state of fear. One driving factor for them seems to be a fear of missing out or 'another' is getting more than them. You see it all the time on the boards, constantly comparing factions to others and crying bloody murder if it seems as though another faction has an advantage they aren't getting.

I'm painting with very broad strokes here, I know.

As an American, I think a lot of it goes back to the idea that we are the land of opportunity and and that anyone who works hard and tries really hard will be successful. Conversely those that aren't successful didn't. Not going go all the way down that political rabbit hole, but this can foster a very aggressive attitude and the idea that winning is all that matters.