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.

ccs wrote:

So type yourself up some fluff as to why your assault squad only has that 1 hammer.
If you can make up stories about your models - that no-one else will ever know or care about - to reflect pts spent/no spent, surely you can still make stuff up in the absence of pts.

It's very easy to say "because of resource limitations, the assault squads were issued as many hammers as possible".

It's very hard to say "because he's an donkey-cave, the Devastator sergeant kept his hammer despite receiving a direct order to hand it over to the Assault Squad"

 LunarSol wrote:
That's fair certainly. I think there's definitely armies that have less interesting Wargear where GW has leaned on a Grunts/Grunts+ model differentiated by points. Those armies running into the problems I mentioned are why I think its more interesting when you simplify the points and instead focus on making units serve distinct roles. I've been impressed how often I've seen players swap in a unit of Incursors over their second Infiltrator slot as they find the value in their unique roles which is only possible because they cost the same but have important differences in what they do. GW being forced to rework its wargear in a similar way

The thing about points is that its always perfect hypothetically and I think a lot of faith in points comes from the idea that they can be perfected. I'm personally of the belief that changing points doesn't lead to meaningful decisions. If two things fill a similar role one is always going to supplant the other and you can flip the points back and forth to decide which one you want, but you're never going to make the choice of which one to take interesting. When you make things the same cost, you have to focus on making things serve different roles and makes choosing between them more interesting. I don't feel that points makes this more interesting.

That's not to say that I don't see a purpose to points. They're very useful for giving a list framework and general "this tank is worth X units" kind of big picture structure. Deciding what shares a cost is how you narrow down what needs to be a parallel choice. It's the obsession with whether a power sword should cost 3 points or 5 where I feel like points get in the way of creating interesting list building decisions rather than making those choices more compelling to try.

Yeah, as I've said before I like sidegrades. 'What do I want this squad to do' is a much more interesting question than 'Can I afford a plasma gun'. And I don't mind squads having some level of innate wargear because I can't see an Ultramarines sergeant imploring his brothers to leave their special weapons at home so that they can, I dunno, get better gas mileage in the Rhino or whatever.

I just have two issues: #1, that the fixed unit sizes and lack of pointed upgrades make it a pain in the ass to build lists, and I find that while the math is simpler it's been replaced by a more annoying puzzle of figuring out what I can fit in the army.

And #2, that there are so, so many upgrades that were never intended to be sidegrades and still aren't and can't be made sidegrades without significant game-wide redesign. 'Do I spend 3pts on a power sword' was never a particularly interesting choice, but it still beats the non-option of just defaulting to a power sword because there's no reason not to take it, and at least provides compensation for people who haven't built all their sergeants with power swords. And it's doubly frustrating because the game does still have minor points differences between otherwise very similar datasheets, but within a datasheet the power of a unit could vary wildly with no effect on cost.

FWIW Age of Sigmar addresses #1 by letting you buy command points with whatever leftovers you have. There's still some annoying shuffling if you want to replace a unit with a slightly more expensive one, but there's some compensation for not bringing the full allotment. And it's a system that has been designed around sidegrades from the start, with one-off models like command models just being innate to the unit, so it doesn't have #2 to begin with.

I don't need points to be perfected, I don't need every decision to be interesting, I don't need meaningful choices at every step of listbuilding. I just don't want non-options masquerading as options, and I'd like some compensation for legacy models that aren't kitted out with every bell and whistle on the datasheet.

I don't really think it's a big ask or any kind of radical paradigm shift, just walk back the dogmatic principle that only differences between datasheets are worth accounting for. Not everything needs to have a points cost, but some things really should.

 LunarSol wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

You're stuck on value. A unit's role and design space is part of it's value. You want units with interesting and diverse values. That's good. I'd like that too. But this is a discussion of cost. How to accurately cost that value. You can loose some granularity in cost and the game would probably be ok. 10th edition lost too much granularity on cost. So now, options of widely different value have the same cost. In which if you don't pick the better value for the cost, you are bad at playing games. Or play games for entirely different reasons than I do.

That's literally always been how points in 40k work. The loss in granularity hasn't changed that one bit unless you insist on not taking the "optional" wargear because you technically do not have to. Personally I feel like 10th's choices in unit options are more compelling because they are more driven by the purpose they serve than the cost they've been assigned. I feel like I have more interesting choices now than I have under any prior points system.

Note that I did not feel this way about Power Level because Power Level unit configuration was still built on loadouts that were meant to be limited by points. Weapons did not have any sort of parity to avoid one clearly being the best choice. That certainly still exists in the new system, but more than ever before I feel like wargear options are interesting and not just fat to be trimmed.

You do know that a lot of armies in this game have limited options in a lot of roles right? Like if you want to kill tanks in this edition, there's like 2 or maybe 3 options for some armies. You have to build around them and army construction is Tetris now. So instead of reducing the size of a unit by model, or taking a less optimal weapon set, you are forced to re-organize several units in the army to make it fit. This creates situations where to get Option A and B in the list, you cannot ever fit option C. This is not more interesting choice, this is less choice.

Sometimes working around constraints if fun and interesting, until the Eldar army that took all the free "optional" upgrades tables you on turn 2.

 catbarf wrote:

Yeah, as I've said before I like sidegrades. 'What do I want this squad to do' is a much more interesting question than 'Can I afford a plasma gun'. And I don't mind squads having some level of innate wargear because I can't see an Ultramarines sergeant imploring his brothers to leave their special weapons at home so that they can, I dunno, get better gas mileage in the Rhino or whatever.

I just have two issues: #1, that the fixed unit sizes and lack of pointed upgrades make it a pain in the ass to build lists, and I find that while the math is simpler it's been replaced by a more annoying puzzle of figuring out what I can fit in the army.

And #2, that there are so, so many upgrades that were never intended to be sidegrades and still aren't and can't be made sidegrades without significant game-wide redesign. 'Do I spend 3pts on a power sword' was never a particularly interesting choice, but it still beats the non-option of just defaulting to a power sword because there's no reason not to take it, and at least provides compensation for people who haven't built all their sergeants with power swords. And it's doubly frustrating because the game does still have minor points differences between otherwise very similar datasheets, but within a datasheet the power of a unit could vary wildly with no effect on cost.

FWIW Age of Sigmar addresses #1 by letting you buy command points with whatever leftovers you have. There's still some annoying shuffling if you want to replace a unit with a slightly more expensive one, but there's some compensation for not bringing the full allotment. And it's a system that has been designed around sidegrades from the start, with one-off models like command models just being innate to the unit, so it doesn't have #2 to begin with.

I don't need points to be perfected, I don't need every decision to be interesting, I don't need meaningful choices at every step of listbuilding. I just don't want non-options masquerading as options, and I'd like some compensation for legacy models that aren't kitted out with every bell and whistle on the datasheet.

I don't really think it's a big ask or any kind of radical paradigm shift, just walk back the dogmatic principle that only differences between datasheets are worth accounting for. Not everything needs to have a points cost, but some things really should.

I guess I'm just not overly concerned about it. I've had more Hunter Killer Missiles fired at me from Rhinos this edition than ever, but it doesn't really bother me that they're not actually modeled. Most units, even without a modeled power sword, have a guy that stands out as the Sgt and I'm fine with it just not being prominantly featured. I'm not going to notice how many sponsons are actually modeled on a Russ, particularly in a game where every Russ has the same number of sponsons. Going forward it just creates more fun models. All my cool bits are in the box. I'm way more excited to see them on the models.

Dai wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do

Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.

JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?

Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.

Have you read their interviews? If their logic were applied anywhere else they'd be fired for incompetence, but they get a pass thanks to GW not being held accountable.

 LunarSol wrote:
I've had more Hunter Killer Missiles fired at me from Rhinos this edition than ever, but it doesn't really bother me that they're not actually modeled. Most units, even without a modeled power sword, have a guy that stands out as the Sgt and I'm fine with it just not being prominantly featured.

But what about special and heavy weapons troopers? Or banner bearers, medics, and vox operators for command squads?

I mean, even if you don't enforce WYSIWYG it's still a pain in the ass to track who has which free upgrade, and if you don't allow those non-modeled upgrades then across an entire army that can have a substantial impact.

Plus there are squads where I don't feel it's thematically appropriate to take every upgrade. Eg for Tyranid Warriors, right now the objectively correct choice is for each squad to be 1/3 Venom Cannons, 1/3 Barbed Stranglers, and 1/3 some other weapon. Having 2/3 of the squad carrying heavy weapons is weird, and doesn't track with the art, the studio armies, or how the army has worked in the past.

This argument just goes in the same circle.

A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.

I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

You do know that a lot of armies in this game have limited options in a lot of roles right? Like if you want to kill tanks in this edition, there's like 2 or maybe 3 options for some armies. You have to build around them and army construction is Tetris now. So instead of reducing the size of a unit by model, or taking a less optimal weapon set, you are forced to re-organize several units in the army to make it fit. This creates situations where to get Option A and B in the list, you cannot ever fit option C. This is not more interesting choice, this is less choice.

Sometimes working around constraints if fun and interesting, until the Eldar army that took all the free "optional" upgrades tables you on turn 2.

I do and I think there's a lot of armies that would be better served by normalizing unit costs and giving their units more diverse rolls to alleviate that. I also don't think its that different than before, simply because filling points with Wargear was almost always a trap and rarely actually worth taking unless it was good enough that it was a mistake not to take. Unit sizes are probably the more contentious issue, but I also get that they're providing a lot of value to the Blast keyword by avoiding the ability to build around it.

Honestly, I'm not sure if there's a great solution to leftover points in general. I have yet to run across a "filler" upgrade system that really works, simply because like the models themselves, they're either worth taking and therefore must be taken or not and its better to rework the rest of the list to use the leftover points more efficiently. Even if you buy some kind of resource like AOS's command point buy, you often need to do so with purpose for the same reason.

There's definitely armies with badly design point layouts. Tetris is fine and all, but some of them are Tetris 2 with the offset blocks that don't fit correctly. This is why I don't like granular points as I'd just rather have simple shapes that fit together well and units built to fill those roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
I've had more Hunter Killer Missiles fired at me from Rhinos this edition than ever, but it doesn't really bother me that they're not actually modeled. Most units, even without a modeled power sword, have a guy that stands out as the Sgt and I'm fine with it just not being prominantly featured.

But what about special and heavy weapons troopers? Or banner bearers, medics, and vox operators for command squads?

I mean, even if you don't enforce WYSIWYG it's still a pain in the ass to track who has which free upgrade, and if you don't allow those non-modeled upgrades then across an entire army that can have a substantial impact.

Plus there are squads where I don't feel it's thematically appropriate to take every upgrade. Eg for Tyranid Warriors, right now the objectively correct choice is for each squad to be 1/3 Venom Cannons, 1/3 Barbed Stranglers, and 1/3 some other weapon. Having 2/3 of the squad carrying heavy weapons is weird, and doesn't track with the art, the studio armies, or how the army has worked in the past.

Some of that just requires new models. I have yet to see an edition change that didn't create some form of this problem. Usually its in the form of "all my missiles need to be replaced with plasma now" or whatever is now the cost effective option.is. I don't really consider it a new issue at all. Theoretically if you've thrown out all your bits its an issue, but that's an issue GW was going to nail you with in one form or another. If you've got bits its pretty easy to either hack up old models or worst case, buy a unit and just make them all heavy weapon options to swap into the rest of your army.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
This argument just goes in the same circle.

A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.

I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.

There's some abstractions that are required, I agree sponsons are maybe too far but "ignore wysiwyg" is an easy work around in the current environment. Did your modelling choices inform your army list or did the rules inform your modelling previously out of interest?

Dudeface wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
This argument just goes in the same circle.

A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.

I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.

There's some abstractions that are required, I agree sponsons are maybe too far but "ignore wysiwyg" is an easy work around in the current environment. Did your modelling choices inform your army list or did the rules inform your modelling previously out of interest?

I was being hyperbolic. I like to make my best effort to play an army that is accurately modeled. I will re-build or buy units to get there over time. I do this because I think it's a major part of the hobby. If I didn't care about modeling and painting, there are many other very good games I could be playing with my free time. And I would just build gundam models for my own edification. I like 40k because it a nice convergence of modeling and gaming. Two things I like.

Look, even if my armies where 100% magnetized and swappable I'd still have an issue here because of the obvious gameplay problems it creates

 CaulynDarr wrote:
This argument just goes in the same circle.

A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.

I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.

At no point have I said the new system doesn't have problems, I just prefer these new problems to the old ones.

Also, I absolutely care how my stuff is modeled, I just don't care how anyone else models theirs. I care, and I take the time to swap things around as best I can, but I'm not going to hold it against anyone who doesn't do the same. I've never once checked to see if a marine has the grenades they throw modeled on, but I think they're cool to include. If you want to take the time to bolt sponsons on, I admire the effort, but I'm not going to demand your performance suffer needlessly if you don't want to change things, especially since nothing in the game stays the way it is for long.

Dai wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do

Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.

JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?

Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.

Tell that to 4th ed Dark Angels players...

Authored by Jervis "I've gutted this codex as my son cannot seem to understand how to add up wargear costs, so apparently no-one can" Johnson.

 LunarSol wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
This argument just goes in the same circle.

A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.

I do kind of care if a Leman Russ has sponsons. If I didn't care what things were modeled like, I cut out a cardboard rectangle and write "Leman Russ with 1 million lascanon sponsons" on it in sharpie.

At no point have I said the new system doesn't have problems, I just prefer these new problems to the old ones.

Also, I absolutely care how my stuff is modeled, I just don't care how anyone else models theirs. I care, and I take the time to swap things around as best I can, but I'm not going to hold it against anyone who doesn't do the same. I've never once checked to see if a marine has the grenades they throw modeled on, but I think they're cool to include. If you want to take the time to bolt sponsons on, I admire the effort, but I'm not going to demand your performance suffer needlessly if you don't want to change things, especially since nothing in the game stays the way it is for long.

All of the new problems, are just the old problems magnified by a factor of 10!

 LunarSol wrote:
Some of that just requires new models. I have yet to see an edition change that didn't create some form of this problem. Usually its in the form of "all my missiles need to be replaced with plasma now" or whatever is now the cost effective option.is. I don't really consider it a new issue at all. Theoretically if you've thrown out all your bits its an issue, but that's an issue GW was going to nail you with in one form or another. If you've got bits its pretty easy to either hack up old models or worst case, buy a unit and just make them all heavy weapon options to swap into the rest of your army.

This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen other options be added to a codex only to be taken away in the next, I don't have any confidence that GW is going to stick with this everything-for-free model in perpetuity, and just last year we watched GW release the 9th Ed Tyranids codex with no wargear costs, say 'oops', and then add points costs to the heavy weapons to balance them.

At least when the issue was 'missile launchers suck now, take plasma' there was the potential that the costs would be adjusted and missile launchers would be viable again, particularly in an era of quarterly updates. Now? I don't know where this is going, I don't know if GW even recognizes there's a problem, and I'm not about to spend a bunch of time and money to rebuild my armies with that uncertainty.

 catbarf wrote:

This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen other options be added to a codex only to be taken away in the next, I don't have any confidence that GW is going to stick with this everything-for-free model in perpetuity, and just last year we watched GW release the 9th Ed Tyranids codex with no wargear costs, say 'oops', and then add points costs to the heavy weapons to balance them.

At least when the issue was 'missile launchers suck now, take plasma' there was the potential that the costs would be adjusted and missile launchers would be viable again, particularly in an era of quarterly updates. Now? I don't know where this is going, I don't know if GW even recognizes there's a problem, and I'm not about to spend a bunch of time and money to rebuild my armies with that uncertainty.

I just don't have the same faith in that potential. It shuffles the problem around, but doesn't solve it the same way you would if you focused on providing each option more distinct roles to fill. There are times where points are the right dial to turn, but in my experience that's when something is significantly in the wrong bracket more than something that can even things out with a small tweak.

 catbarf wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Some of that just requires new models. I have yet to see an edition change that didn't create some form of this problem. Usually its in the form of "all my missiles need to be replaced with plasma now" or whatever is now the cost effective option.is. I don't really consider it a new issue at all. Theoretically if you've thrown out all your bits its an issue, but that's an issue GW was going to nail you with in one form or another. If you've got bits its pretty easy to either hack up old models or worst case, buy a unit and just make them all heavy weapon options to swap into the rest of your army.

This isn't my first rodeo. I've seen other options be added to a codex only to be taken away in the next, I don't have any confidence that GW is going to stick with this everything-for-free model in perpetuity, and just last year we watched GW release the 9th Ed Tyranids codex with no wargear costs, say 'oops', and then add points costs to the heavy weapons to balance them.

At least when the issue was 'missile launchers suck now, take plasma' there was the potential that the costs would be adjusted and missile launchers would be viable again, particularly in an era of quarterly updates. Now? I don't know where this is going, I don't know if GW even recognizes there's a problem, and I'm not about to spend a bunch of time and money to rebuild my armies with that uncertainty.

Missile Launchers are interesting in that for nearly the entire history of the game it was a safe option when compared to the standard list of imperial heavy weapons. Melta and Plasma waxed and waned based on meta and edition cycle. Heavy Bolters were cheap but limiting and Lascanons often where expensive and redundant. But the good old missile launcher was usually well costed, tactically flexible, and reasonably useful. Now it's just a mid tier heavy that is going to lose out to the Lascannon nearly every time because they pressed 'Del' on the one thing that prevented everyone from just putting lascannons on everything

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dai wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Or it's just that Cruddace and Jervis are bad at what they do

Their insane ramblings about game/rules design in White Dwarf are extremely illuminating.

JJ has been exclusively fantasy since the mid 90s hasn't he?

Still think managements "make it accessible for everyone" demands are probably more influential than any individual designers but who knows. I understand it but modern GW products are just something I am not really interested in, i give them a go but hasnt been a core ruleset i have been that interested in since 7th editions of both main games.

Have you read their interviews? If their logic were applied anywhere else they'd be fired for incompetence, but they get a pass thanks to GW not being held accountable.

Ive read one of Johnsons from some years back and yeah I agree he views wargaming in a very old fashioned way that doesn't really natch with modern gamers. He also loves a feth ton of rules, random charts and a more simulation style of game than modern Warhammer though so not sure. Either way, I do agree with you that Games Workshop for whatever reason make some incredibly odd decisions. They always have but i at least used to be able to understand why or what they were going for.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

A: The current system has problems
B: No it's fine. Everything is fine, it's all just side grades
A: (shows several specific examples of how it's not)
B: LOL, just say your Leman Russ has sponsons, no one cares.

A: but....
B: that game was never balanced, just don't be TFG WAAC player and losing a fun game is much better than winning

Andykp wrote:
So Gert comes in and says he likes the current system (or at least finds it tolerable) and gets harangued out of the conversation with bs comments and attacks. This place really is a vile cesspit.

Why can’t any of you see that something imperfect might work for someone else, or perhaps be better for someone else. Stop being such narrow minded little children.

And if gameworkshop listened to any of your amazing advice on making the game then how come it is in such a state as to make you all so angry?? Get over yourselves and maybe try and be a bit more accepting of other peoples opinions, whether you think they are right or wrong.

Take your own advise and relise while this may work for a tiny minority it dosent work for most of us.

Changing the subject. Would this system work better if games workshop actively promoted doing away with WYSIWYG?

I mean if WYSIWYG were gone than your dudes are always equipped with the best option and you can model them in whatever way looks good to you. The only worry would be if GW then goes back to an older style system with WYSIWYG being important again.

Boosykes wrote:

I mean if WYSIWYG were gone than your dudes are always equipped with the best option and you can model them in whatever way looks good to you. The only worry would be if GW then goes back to an older style system with WYSIWYG being important again.

I think there's value in WYSIWYG but I really love the places where GW has reduced things down to things like "Power Weapon" that covers a wide range of options.

Boosykes wrote:
Would this system work better if games workshop actively promoted doing away with WYSIWYG?

I have a hard time imagining they would, considering the effort spent to limit unit options based on what comes in the kit.

Andykp wrote:
So Gert comes in and says he likes the current system (or at least finds it tolerable) and gets harangued out of the conversation with bs comments and attacks. This place really is a vile cesspit.

Could you quote exactly what these "vile" comments are? Because I haven't seen anything nearly that bad. I've seen people, myself included, questioning his claims but not allowing "I have fun and that's all that matters" to be a conversation-ending trump card does not make a place a vile cesspit.

And if gameworkshop listened to any of your amazing advice on making the game then how come it is in such a state as to make you all so angry??

They didn't listen to our advice, that was the whole point. They went looking for feedback in bad faith and singled out the comments praising Jervis-style STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY attitudes and took them as proof that PL was the correct decision.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Boosykes wrote:
Would this system work better if games workshop actively promoted doing away with WYSIWYG?

Less badly I suppose, but not by much. You'd at least avoid punishing people for building their models the wrong way but it still wouldn't fix the problem that a lot of choices are objectively incorrect and only a relatively narrow subset of options will ever see the table. It's great that all my LRBTs can have sponsons even if I didn't build the model that way, it's not great that they all have to have sponsons even if lore-wise they shouldn't.

Honestly I'm just glad other people are hating Jervis and how little effort he puts into writing rules.

If by how little you mean Zero Effort because he isn't on the 40K Rules team, then you are right!

 alextroy wrote:
If by how little you mean Zero Effort because he isn't on the 40K Rules team, then you are right!

Maybe not technically but he's still an arrogant ass with a very poor understanding of game design and his narcissistic beliefs about "the right way to play" have been a huge influence on GW's culture. It doesn't mean much if he personally isn't there in any official capacity if the 40k team is still the people he hired because they agreed with his opinions.

Jervis left the company a while ago but his attitude of "I don't have to make an effort to write good rules just because I'm paid to do it, the marks will be happy anyway."clearly has had an effect in the way the 40k team works and keeps having an effect downstream in later editions. I attribute his behavior and that of Crudacce to simply laziness, and I think that overall they have made 40k worse. Their professed views about game design sound just like excuses to do whatever they wanted to, or from another angle the typical pathological lying common in White Dwarf to avoid recognizing any flaw in their products. I enjoy reading old, or not that old, White dwarfs but the lying gets in my nerves.

The idea that competence is more important for professional success than luck or being skilled in office politics is contrary to my experience as a customer and student in many places.

It's not just incompetence by Jervis, it's narcissism. See the article I posted earlier by Jervis, an extended rant about how anyone who enjoys points-based games with stock codex-legal armies and standard missions/terrain is having fun the wrong way and needs True Wargamers like him to enlighten the poor lost souls and allow them to see the One True Way To Play 40k. Making PL the only system is exactly what he would want to do, purely to tell the competitive players that they are not welcome in the community.

Excerpt:

"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."

Well, I said laziness because I think he didn't care, and i have the same view of others with similar arguments, it may be that he was sincere when he wrote that but I think it's just an excuse, because saying "I refuse to make the effort to write good rules" would never fly, no matter how much of a fanboy of GW someone is. This narrative of casual gaming being superior and not needing any balance sounds much better that saying "I don't give a frack". But he may have been sincere, and deluded. I just think that when someone says something absurd that coincidentally gives them a reason to do something that is good for them they probably are lying, and making your job easier is good for you. I really think that most of the reasons that GW has given to explain why they have done something is just spin. I may be too cynical but cui bono works most of the time.

 alextroy wrote:
If by how little you mean Zero Effort because he isn't on the 40K Rules team, then you are right!

He can still exert zero effort elsewhere? That doesn't change my statement on him or Cruddace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:
It's not just incompetence by Jervis, it's narcissism. See the article I posted earlier by Jervis, an extended rant about how anyone who enjoys points-based games with stock codex-legal armies and standard missions/terrain is having fun the wrong way and needs True Wargamers like him to enlighten the poor lost souls and allow them to see the One True Way To Play 40k. Making PL the only system is exactly what he would want to do, purely to tell the competitive players that they are not welcome in the community.

Excerpt:

"Something clearly needs to be done to teach players that tournament style play has its place, but it is a place well down in the pecking order of what constitutes a really good game."

And of course he's the kinda guy that thinks 4 different weapons in a Devastator/Havoc squad is brilliant.

Nothing about the Jervis-era of 40k (this was around 4th Edition) amuses me more than the paradigm shift that saw the introduction of the "wargear" section, a place all the weapons/equipment would be kept along with pictures because his young son didn't know what was what. Now you're probably thinking "What's wrong with that, exactly?", but as always with GW, it's not the concept, it's the execution!

A centralised location that contains all the weapons/wargear for an army is a good idea... and one that many Codices prior to this change had, but whatever (re-inventing the wheel is GW's style afterall)... but the actual result was a wargear section that often contained page references to other parts of the book, as the unit entry sections would often contain something that should have been in wargear. In some cases you had units with their rules spread across three different pages (one in the Marine 'Dex might've even been across 4 pages), which added to the flipping back and forth. The absolute nadir of this concept was the 4th Edition Guard Codex, where the vehicle upgrade section contained more page references to other parts of the book than actual rules entries, and one of those page references was a reference to a different book altogether (the core rulebook).

So much for making it easy for his son...