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.

Anybody read this?

Jervis says he thinks that ulta-refined examination of cost benefit analysis in list building is overrated, and only worth a win or two in twenty games.

Anybody else find this a bit ridiculous for a game designer to be saying?

It's fine to not obsess over the nuances of list building as a player, but if you're in charge of writing the actual rules, shouldn't you be the sort of person who takes that stuff VERY seriously?

Does Jervis seriously think he can make the entire community "more laid back" just by smiling a lot, and taking Scouts in his Marines army?

The view from the Ivory Tower is rather distorted, I'm afraid...

Again, get ready for the return of JervisHammer 40K (i.e., 3rd edition).

That's not actually what he said. It's very close. And he wasn't speaking as a designer...he was speaking as a player.

And FWIW, I'd argue a designer would want CBA list building to be overrated...it would mean he is doing his job. I don't necessarily agree with him. I think tourney play is a bad example, because it deals with experienced players, for whom the benefits are less substantial.

Statistically speaking, I don't buy his assumption without further evidence because, although he looked at lots of games, they were all within a pretty tightly controlled environment with primarily veteran players.

What he is actually stating is that experience is more valuable than list optimization, on average. And then he said that list nuts should continue to enjoy that part of the game. But they might be a bit misleading when telling the non-list nuts than list optimization is the most important part of the game.

I hate to say it, but I actually might agree with Jervis' comments. I haven't read the article yet, so I'm not sure, but in my experience, most games come down to some combination of who is a better player, who knows their army better, and who can adapt better to missions and bad luck. Good players will bring good army lists, but if you look at who win tournaments, it's often the same guys, but rarely the same lists.

That all said, even if it's only a factor in 10% of games, that's a big factor.

Worth a win or two in twenty games means a 5-10% discrepency.

As a player this might be acceptible, but Jervis must speak as a designer, or at least a monkey who meddles with the design. The designer has an obligation to balance as closely as possible, its for the players to decide whether to accept an imblance as a community.

It sounds like an unquantifiable statement to me. I wonder how many 'sub par' units are sold on the back of such statements that would not otherwise be sold, 5-10% more perhaps?

I hear that Falcons have a 16.6% chance of being damaged by multi-lasers. Now that's real maths!

That's a load of hooey.

When you make an army for competitive play, there are two things you have control over. How good a player you are by knowing the rules and how to apply them; and how good an army you have by bringing a competitive list. You don't have control over opponents or over terrain so I'd say that army selection matters somewhat more than 1-2 games in 20.

I think the point he's making is that unless you're making 100% DAFT choices, it's not going to matter much. I happen to agree.

Doesn't he have the longest losing streak in 40k Bat reps in WD in GW history?

1-2 games out of twenty would have let him win 1-2 times.

Perhaps he should have done it....

It'd be alot better if he just got it right out there and told all of the drooling tournament mongrels (you know.. all the special kids with their Dakkafexes and Falcon Eldar lists that screamed like sh-t flinging howler monkeys until the CSM were nerfed into the floor.) to get bent and go play Warmachine.

Because CSM killed Dakkafex and Falcon dead.

I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes. This means they're able to design sets of cards that will appeal to BOTH groups of players, without privileging or discriminating against one or the other. They’ve had problems in the past with printing cards that are ludicrously overpowered, but importantly they’ve LEARNED from their mistakes. It’s this level of playtesting that allows them to have a cash-prize pro tour - something I can't see gw ever pulling off

I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.

Phryxis wrote:Anybody read this?

Jervis says he thinks that ulta-refined examination of cost benefit analysis in list building is overrated, and only worth a win or two in twenty games.

Anybody else find this a bit ridiculous for a game designer to be saying?

It's fine to not obsess over the nuances of list building as a player, but if you're in charge of writing the actual rules, shouldn't you be the sort of person who takes that stuff VERY seriously?

Does Jervis seriously think he can make the entire community "more laid back" just by smiling a lot, and taking Scouts in his Marines army?

The man's changing the rules and army books becuase his stated reason is his kid has trouble knowing things and understanding different weapons.

The rules he and other other designers are full of errors and loopholes and such.


He's a moron.

I think it's rather daft to say that he's changing everything because his kid couldn't tell A from B.

Every game has errors, mistakes, etc.

What I hold at fault is the company's lack of concern with a product once it's out in printed form, like releasing FAQ's to address common misinterpretations.

That and seeing themselves as the grand company of miniature making, meaning most of their stuff comes out at a premium while hardly justifying it quality wise. The amount of products I've bought that desperately need GStuffing is simply amazing.

Another problem with this article is that Jervis says that his Space Marines haven't really changed that much over time, but that is a bad example to use because Space Marines have pretty much always been powerful. If he played with an army that has had its ups and downs (like CSM), he might be telling a different story...

carmachu wrote:

Phryxis wrote:
Does Jervis seriously think he can make the entire community "more laid back" just by smiling a lot, and taking Scouts in his Marines army?

The man's changing the rules and army books becuase his stated reason is his kid has trouble knowing things and understanding different weapons.

As someone pointed out in another thread, that's not actually what he wrote. He said his kid had problems telling different weapons apart because there weren't proper pictures telling what's what.

cerebaton wrote:I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.

Because when you have a Zombie fan base that will buy pretty much anything you put out (even when you charge more for plastic models than some game companies charge for metal) you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.

Goodness you all whine so much :-p

If its that "easy" to write "balanced" rules without any loop holes and such, well- yeah- I challenge you too

Bignutter wrote:Goodness you all whine so much :-p

If its that "easy" to write "balanced" rules without any loop holes and such, well- yeah- I challenge you too

Some Dakkites have done just that.

Blade4Hire wrote:

cerebaton wrote:I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.

Because when you have a Zombie fan base that will buy pretty much anything you put out (even when you charge more for plastic models than some game companies charge for metal) you can do whatever you want, whenever you want.

Braaaains... brains...

cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes. This means they're able to design sets of cards that will appeal to BOTH groups of players, without privileging or discriminating against one or the other. They’ve had problems in the past with printing cards that are ludicrously overpowered, but importantly they’ve LEARNED from their mistakes. It’s this level of playtesting that allows them to have a cash-prize pro tour - something I can't see gw ever pulling off

I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.

I think it's a number of differences in the competitive and casual ideologies of the game, not to mention regional ideologies i.e. US vs. British. The attitude I get is that it's more about the game and laid back than about the win and defeating your opponent. I have the same belief as Patton when it comes to this, Americans like winners and don't like losing.

I agree with Destrado. If GW took their customers and business more seriously our game systems would hold up more to other skirmish/army games.

And they definately need actual dyed in the wool editors/proofreaders to review text before it goes to print.

cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes. This means they're able to design sets of cards that will appeal to BOTH groups of players, without privileging or discriminating against one or the other. They’ve had problems in the past with printing cards that are ludicrously overpowered, but importantly they’ve LEARNED from their mistakes. It’s this level of playtesting that allows them to have a cash-prize pro tour - something I can't see gw ever pulling off

I don't understand how gw can get away with being so much less efficient.

Completely agree.

While GW is a company that produces miniatures first, and rules are a distant secondary or tertiary concern, it makes no sense as to how they can get away with being so negligent with the games they produce.

Better rules and not solely pretty models sell more games. Privateer Press' example is why the above is correct.

Rackham is a very small company, and they have easily managed to not only learn from their own mistakes, but from the mistakes of others, and present to consumers a very fine ruleset for sci-fi squad based wargaming. With much smaller personnel and capitol than GW utilize I might add.

No, GW have no excuse for the current state that their games are in. Pure unadultered negligence along with a healthy dose of passing the blame to anything not related to themselves.

I havent read the standard bearer article in question in this thread, but it does seem to me like an easy excuse, suggesting people to accept lackadaisical rules design and playtesting.

The wargaming world is far more discriminating nowadays, and GW needs to get up to snuff. People just dont want to hear that kind of excuse anymore. More than that, they don't want to be patronized any longer.

Sgt_Scruffy wrote:That's a load of hooey.

When you make an army for competitive play, there are two things you have control over. How good a player you are by knowing the rules and how to apply them; and how good an army you have by bringing a competitive list. You don't have control over opponents or over terrain so I'd say that army selection matters somewhat more than 1-2 games in 20.

Exactly. Discounting that is patronizing the older, more knowledgeable consumer.

Perhaps thats why GW are gearing their products towards children, because they are so easy to patronize. Most kids lack the capacity to be discerning regarding pure BS on matters they no little about, like rules mechanics.

[edit horrendous sloppy spelling]

I second the need of better editing! And not just GW. Though PP is about seven-hundred lightyears ahead of everyone else, can Rackham, at the very least, not have FRENCH WORDS in English products? I'm not lookign for perfect grammar here, people. Just English words.

Though at least Rackham has their own forum where you can post rules questions. GW is so scared of knowing what we really think of it, that they don't even have a forum anymore.

I can't speak to the rules, but I thought the Karman and
Templars books from Confrontation were pretty good. At
least, they're better than the horror show that was the
Cadwallon RPG guide.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:Doesn't he have the longest losing streak in 40k Bat reps in WD in GW history?

1-2 games out of twenty would have let him win 1-2 times.

Perhaps he should have done it....

Polonius wrote: I haven't read the article yet, so I'm not sure,

Perhaps some kind soul will provide a link to the text here?

cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes.

No, the MtG team has the advantage of literally printing money. Their profit ratios for cards are immense. If having MtG-level rules quality were important to you, would you be willing to spend $200-$500 per year on GW paper product that is nearly pure profit for GW (i.e. WD and rulebooks)? Because that's what MtG card spend looks like.

Not to mention that MtG development the luxury of being able to reset or tweak the game engine every 2 years, if need be, with new new base set being released. MtG is on 10th Edition, despite not being released until 1994. With a cycle time almost 3 times as fast as 40k, it's no doubt that MtG would be better.

And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.

After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment.

Hellfury wrote:While GW is a company that produces miniatures first, and rules are a distant secondary or tertiary concern, it makes no sense as to how they can get away with being so negligent with the games they produce.

Better rules and not solely pretty models sell more games.

Not so.

60% got in because of the minis. Only 15% care about the rules, which is about the same as the Fluff. GW knows it's about the minis, and the rules matter not at all, which is why 40k is in the state it's in.

Hellfury wrote:I havent read the standard bearer article in question in this thread,

And yet you're eminently self-qualified to discuss the topic?

JohnHwangDD wrote:

cerebaton wrote:I don't know how much anyone here loves or hates Magic the Gathering, but its designers seem to have an incredibly good grasp of the game's tournament and casual scenes.

No, the MtG team has the advantage of literally printing money. Their profit ratios for cards are immense. If having MtG-level rules quality were important to you, would you be willing to spend $200-$500 per year on GW paper product that is nearly pure profit for GW (i.e. WD and rulebooks)? Because that's what MtG card spend looks like.

Not to mention that MtG development the luxury of being able to reset or tweak the game engine every 2 years, if need be, with new new base set being released. MtG is on 10th Edition, despite not being released until 1994. With a cycle time almost 3 times as fast as 40k, it's no doubt that MtG would be better.

And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.

After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment.

And yet they still learned from their mistakes and made a better game out of that experience. They produce new core editions for the sole purpose of making money, just like GW, but unlike GW, WotC seem to be able to make a sensible ruleset each edition.

Like I said earlier, other companies on far less funds than GW are able to pull this off, there is no reason for not GW to do the same and do it better.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Hellfury wrote:While GW is a company that produces miniatures first, and rules are a distant secondary or tertiary concern, it makes no sense as to how they can get away with being so negligent with the games they produce.

Better rules and not solely pretty models sell more games.

Not so.

60% got in because of the minis. Only 15% care about the rules, which is about the same as the Fluff. GW knows it's about the minis, and the rules matter not at all, which is why 40k is in the state it's in.

Ah yes. The 57 people who voted thus far in the poll. Yes, youre quite right. You cant argue with that portion of the 40K populace. A poll on a wargames forum is so concise. Thats a truly great reference to base a portion of an argument on there.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Hellfury wrote:I havent read the standard bearer article in question in this thread,

And yet you're eminently self-qualified to discuss the topic?

Its a good thing you didnt quote the whole sentence, because taking my sentence out of context makes you more right.

Having read the article after posting my comment, I still stand by what I posted.

So yes, I do feel "eminently qualified".

Why do you post here again? Ahh yes, so everyone can universally revile you as a forum troll.

That's not actually what he said. It's very close. And he wasn't speaking as a designer...he was speaking as a player.

I would argue that's a distinction without a difference. It's my feeling that somebody who is designing games should enjoy the microanalysis of list building. Both as a player and as a designer.

And FWIW, I'd argue a designer would want CBA list building to be overrated...it would mean he is doing his job.

That, I would totally agree with. But that goes back to my point. If Jervis thinks listbuilding is overrated, it means he thinks he (and his staff) are really knocking it out. It means he thinks they've built lists that are so internally and externally balanced, that it really isn't a big deal what you take.

they were all within a pretty tightly controlled environment with primarily veteran players.

I dunno, I have a lot of questions I'd like to have answered regarding his "statistics."

In fact, I find his use of those "statistics" without giving any insight into how he gathered them. I mean, what is he counting as a real powergamed list? And who is his sample set?

My inital reaction was to wonder if he's not just including in people who think they can just see a powergamed list on the internet, go to the next tournament and win with it. In that respect, he's absolutely right that experience is critical... But that's ALL it's about? First off, no, it's not. Second, as I've said, great attitude for a list designer.

Why does this guy think he can make his big floppy smile at us, and we'll just take his word for stuff? You'd think he'd ENJOY talking about the rules, the thought that goes into it, since he is doing it for a living. Doesn't EVERYONE in the world have a blog? Why doesn't he blog what's going on in his development process?

Phryxis wrote:Why doesn't he blog what's going on in his development process?

So other companies wont copy GW (or rather learn from their development mistakes).

GW Mantra for releasing rules:

"Keep it secret. Keep it safe." *





*along with self congratulatory pats on the back.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
And for reference, 4th Edition MtG was pretty much the low point of the game, coming on the heels of Fallen Empires and Homelands, with Ice Age and Mirage blocks being released prior to 5th Edition.

After 5th came out, we were treated to the Tempest and Urza blocks, combining for an exceptionally powerful (i.e. "broken") playing environment.

you know how I hate to correct you John... but Ice Age came out -before- Homelands.

there was no "Ice Age Block"... it was just "Ice Age"... then Homelands came out... and was sorta never officially attached to Ice Age... and then Alliances.. which was also kinda just there.

There were no real "blocks" until Mirage came out.