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.

I got done my last game at the WHFB tournament pretty early at GamesDay last week, and from talking to my friends who didn't play in the tourney they had the Dark Elf book for free viewing at the show and I figured I'd walk around for that last half hour and take a look.

End up finding the book, wait my turn, and start reading. Stood there literally for about 5 minutes, with surprizingly no one else around in that section, just reading the book until the Red Shirt whose been behind the table the whole time starts talking to me about my Street Fighter shirt and how much he likes the game and how he was playing it the night before. Then the guy pulls out a joke label done in the GW style that someone created and threw under a model in the display cases that said "Phil Kelly likes the hair on Zangief's shins".

Turns out it was Phil Kelly standing there the whole time I was reading the book! No one was around for a bit so I started talking to him for a while. He was a really nice guy, first thing I did was shake his hand and say "Thanks for the Ork Codex". After a bit some other people came over when they realized it was him and started asking questions about the Chaos Mortal list in WD and their next book. I figured I'd take the time he was talking to other people to look at the DE book more but I overheard him speaking about new Plastic Chaos Knights that will be released, so that was pretty cool to hear.

Then he started talking about Playtesting the Chaos book for WHFB with the other guy and when I could I managed to ask exactly how much playtesting they did at the studio. He said that it varies depending on the project; for things like Space Marines that they know are pretty solid, they don't have to do a whole lot of playtesting, but when he's working on something radical like Ogre Kingdoms they playtested the hell out of that to make sure there wasn't anything that slipped through, and that he was afraid that he may have been too conservative with what he did for the Ogres because they were afraid they'd be too powerful based on the playtesting they did.

Eventually people weren't around and I started talking to him again and I couldn't resist the chance to ask "Why are your 40k codex's so much better than the other developers?" He asked what I meant by "Better" and I clarified "much more powerful".

His response was that he resents hearing that, and the other Codex's are on the same power level, then he asked what armies I see on the top tables at Tournaments, I started to respond about how I just played in the WHFB tournament and my friends from the same shop are on the top tables for 40k right now still playing, and that it's mostly Nidzilla; and that most times I see Nidzilla & Eldar, now with Orks coming up too. He said that he plays in 4 major tournaments a year and it's always Marines, Chaos Marines, and Tau that are on the top tables at Warhammer World, etc etc.

At that point I wanted to point out that from talking to my friends who were done 40k, out of the top 8 tables for 40k there were 6 Nidzilla armies playing, but he went on to say that he's played against the "minimal troops, all Dakka Fex's, etc" army with his Chaos Marines and wiped them out, but he lost to the balanced Nids army that had a lot of gaunts and troops in addition to the Dakka Fex's and other big bugs".

I pointed out that "yes, Nidzilla gets much better when you combine it with other good support" but he said then it's not some pure Big Bugs army. I wanted to come back with more stuff, but I didn't want to turn what was a nice conversation into something pedantic, so I figured it was best to just agree to disagree.

After that we spoke about Eldar and he went on about how he wanted to make Eldar an army that relied on eachother for mutual support, etc; but he said the one thing he does regret about Eldar was that he overlooked how bad the Holofields+Spirit Stones combo was. I told him it was nice to hear that, since I've had to fight against that kind of army a lot and that it was pretty annoying, at which point he actually looked a little down and to be honest I felt bad; I told him that I work in Engineering and that there are things that you just can't see that slip through design where you eventually are forced to live with it because it's too expensive to fix. I also said that it looks like the combo is mostly going to be fixed with 5th Edition and he agreed.

Then we started talking about Orks, which I told him I played. He asked what I thought was over powered about that and I told him "well Ork Shoota Boys are absolutely amazing for their points" and he pointed out that this was 100% intentional and asked me if I knew why.

I said "because they were absolutely worthless in the last book?" and he then proceeded to tell me how that was part of it, but the other part was that they were upset with the kind of armies they were seeing at tournaments. "You would see people take these super elite armies, with only 40-50 models in a game, and they would just dominate. It was all about Lascannons and Plasmaguns being the best weapons all the time because they killed the expensive elite armies."

He said that "the old Ork horde armies were a bit of a joke, and that none of the Horde armies were able to keep pace with the small elite forces" and then he pointed out "that they had a Rock and a Scissors but no Paper, so one of the things he set out to do was to make a Horde army that is tournament viable. And that how hopefully now with the Orks out you'll see people take things like Heavy Bolters instead of Lascannons and Autocannons because statistically that is the best weapon to kill AV10 vehicles that the Orks bring."

I told him that I agreed with what he was saying and that from what I've read it seems in 5th Edition they seemed to try push the game further and further away from things like Lascannons and Plasma Guns being the dominant weapons because with Cover it was just better to go for lots and lots of shots to force failed saves; and that things like templates didn't suck anymore and could reliably pull down a horde if you took them. He said that was part of their goal but not exactly.

However at this point I had to get moving since they were starting to announce the awards so I thanked him again for taking time to chat and for the Ork Codex and headed out. All in all, he was a really nice guy and I was surprised that he would talk to a fan for that length of time about stuff. I appreciated the straight answers on most things, though I didn't agree with some of them it was nice to actually talk to a developer.

Lucky you getting to meet him. I can't beleive he actually admitted that the Shoota Boyz were overpowered for the price. I assumed all Games Developers would say that models are priced just right, to avoid getting shouted at (metaphorically) by players of other armies.
Once again though, licky you for meeting and talking with him

Voodoo Boyz wrote:... he then proceeded to tell me how that was part of it, but the other part was that they were upset with the kind of armies they were seeing at tournaments. "You would see people take these super elite armies, with only 40-50 models in a game, and they would just dominate. It was all about Lascannons and Plasmaguns being the best weapons all the time because they killed the expensive elite armies."

Whilst Phil is 100% correct here, I have to step back and say:

Well who's fault is that?

They write the core rules as well as the Codices. If their core rules are leading to these types of armies, then maybe they'd better do something about that.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:... he then proceeded to tell me how that was part of it, but the other part was that they were upset with the kind of armies they were seeing at tournaments. "You would see people take these super elite armies, with only 40-50 models in a game, and they would just dominate. It was all about Lascannons and Plasmaguns being the best weapons all the time because they killed the expensive elite armies."

Whilst Phil is 100% correct here, I have to step back and say:

Well who's fault is that?

They write the core rules as well as the Codices. If their core rules are leading to these types of armies, then maybe they'd better do something about that.

BYE

Well to be fair, he's saying that's what they're correcting now with the new Ork Codex. Likewise, 5th Edition goes a long ways towards solving this problem as well.

Unlikely. 5th Ed just changes what the hot builds are. It's a reset, not an improvement.

BYE

H.B.M.C. wrote:Whilst Phil is 100% correct here, I have to step back and say:

Well who's fault is that?

They write the core rules as well as the Codices. If their core rules are leading to these types of armies, then maybe they'd better do something about that.

Isn't what he did with the Ork Codex doing something about that? hmmm...

Voodoo, anything on the joy of IG and how they are viewing that? Same to same on their thoughts on the demon codex. Anything on why GW management now looks the same age as my kid? (oh wait thats just me getting old ugh there goes the rumatiz).

jfrazell wrote:Voodoo, anything on the joy of IG and how they are viewing that? Same to same on their thoughts on the demon codex. Anything on why GW management now looks the same age as my kid? (oh wait thats just me getting old ugh there goes the rumatiz).

No, I didn't speak to him about that, pretty much everything we spoke about is what I listed, other than the details when we talked about Street Fighter (apparently he liked T.Hawk in Super Turbo).

I was honestly kicking myself on the drive home because I realized that right next to him was Jervis and I could have had a heck of a lot of fun pointing out "The Voodoo Formation" in the 40kv5 Rulebook they had sitting there and saying "Please FAQ this."

Thanks for the write-up Voodoo, looks like I should have tracked Phil down and at least said hi. I've met most of the design staff but not him, though I will note I had several chances to talk to Jervis but turned them down :S

Has Phil written any warhammer armybooks at this point? Cause his work on the Xenos codexes in 40k have me VERY interested in what he does with Warriors of Chaos. And also has me wondering what you could even do to make warriors work, as it's their M4 and cost that in my mind makes them fall short - neither of which I see changing.

- Salvage

He wrote the Ogre Book; and I contemplated making a comment about how I agreed that he was just a wee bit too conservative with them and how they seem quite underpowered now, but I figured I'd just let it go and said "yeah I just got done using Ogres at the tournament..."

Wellll now. So WoC will be his #2, have to see where he takes it. Atone for the ogres underpowering and jack up the evil guys? Bow to the overpowering of demons and keep mortals down? Apparently take many factors into consideration and craft an all around armybook that can be cheesed up to top tier or played competitively without the cheddar?

We shall see.

- Salvage

I should clarify that I did not hear anything from him about how he was working on the new Chaos Mortals book.

There was another guy speaking about the WD list and asking questions. Phil did say that the guy who writes the book can answer most questions, but the whole team does playtest it so they are aware of what's going on with each faction.

I just don't want to make it sound like he's going to be doing the new book, sorry.

Voodoo Boyz wrote:I should clarify that I did not hear anything from him about how he was working on the new Chaos Mortals book.

Actually I heard elsewhere (Warseer) that he was working on Warriors of Chaos, and it is about time for him to make another smashy sqaure baser armybook.

- Salvage

It seems to me that Phil et al were hoping that the Holofield + spirit stones combo would be too expensive for players to want to take three of them.

The problem was that they are SO good that they are worth the ridiculous points and them some.

Thats why I'm really liking the New Codexes that have Good abilities for reasonable points, rather than UBER abilities for CRAZY points.

CSM and Orks being the two examples of that, good solid armies with good solid abilities, answers to most things, with a playstyle that is supported by the crunch.

Chaos demons is, unfortunatly, an example of Uber for crazy, and it seems like a step back to me.

Phil is awesome. I only got to talk to him for a little bit at Adepticon but he was cool. He ran a 4th ed ork list with 15 burnas.... and did well with it!!

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voodoo Boyz wrote:... he then proceeded to tell me how that was part of it, but the other part was that they were upset with the kind of armies they were seeing at tournaments. "You would see people take these super elite armies, with only 40-50 models in a game, and they would just dominate. It was all about Lascannons and Plasmaguns being the best weapons all the time because they killed the expensive elite armies."

Whilst Phil is 100% correct here, I have to step back and say:

Well who's fault is that?

They write the core rules as well as the Codices. If their core rules are leading to these types of armies, then maybe they'd better do something about that.

BYE

What do you want, HBMC?

You're known for helping make power builds for guard, but you don't like an environment that creates power builds?

It seems like a disconnect to me.

Well, since no one's really talking or asking about it... I assume the DE in question are the Dark Elves and not the Dark Eldar?

Valhallan42nd wrote:What do you want, HBMC?

You're known for helping make power builds for guard, but you don't like an environment that creates power builds?

It seems like a disconnect to me.

I'm not sure how you missed his point (must've rolled a 1...), but here you go: Someone who writes the rules for the armies was making a complaint about how "You would see people take these super elite armies, with only 40-50 models in a game, and they would just dominate. It was all about Lascannons and Plasmaguns being the best weapons all the time because they killed the expensive elite armies." This is inherently funny, because when you're the people who write what armies can do, you have control over, you know, what armies can do.

Actually I heard elsewhere (Warseer) that he was working on Warriors of Chaos, and it is about time for him to make another smashy sqaure baser armybook.

- Salvage

I have to check when i get home but I am pretty sure the WD article with the Chaos mortal get you by list has an intro that states Alessio is working on the official Chaos Mortal list.

bejustorbedead wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:What do you want, HBMC?

You're known for helping make power builds for guard, but you don't like an environment that creates power builds?

It seems like a disconnect to me.

I'm not sure how you missed his point (must've rolled a 1...), but here you go: Someone who writes the rules for the armies was making a complaint about how "You would see people take these super elite armies, with only 40-50 models in a game, and they would just dominate. It was all about Lascannons and Plasmaguns being the best weapons all the time because they killed the expensive elite armies." This is inherently funny, because when you're the people who write what armies can do, you have control over, you know, what armies can do.

And you missed my point. No matter the rule set, someone will try to create a dominant power list.

Unlikely. 5th Ed just changes what the hot builds are. It's a reset, not an improvement.

BYE

This game will never be perfect. We can all agree to that. That's where GW fails us. They're partially to blame for the current state of 40k play. But we as gamers should not deny the fact that we're the ones trying to seduce the rules created for us. Already, even though the rules have yet to be officially released, there are probably about 10 threads debating the dominant list structures for the next five years. And that's something GW can't control or be blamed for. The rules are a tool. You're responsible for what you do with them. What's the use of acting like it's failure if the game designers attempt to change the dominant list build in exactly the way we asked them to?!?

People put a lot of work into this thing, and quite frankly, it seems better than 4th so far. I say give it a fair shake before dismissing it out of hand before it's even released.

I never asked them to change the dominant list builds. Those are generally the fun builds in my opinion.

winterman wrote:

Actually I heard elsewhere (Warseer) that he was working on Warriors of Chaos, and it is about time for him to make another smashy sqaure baser armybook.

- Salvage

I have to check when i get home but I am pretty sure the WD article with the Chaos mortal get you by list has an intro that states Alessio is working on the official Chaos Mortal list.

I just checked. Apparently Alessio just made the "get you by" list while Phil is working on the actual army book.

Valhallan42nd wrote:People put a lot of work into this thing, and quite frankly, it seems better than 4th so far. I say give it a fair shake before dismissing it out of hand before it's even released.

We have people praising how good it is before its even released, so why should the opposite be taboo? I heard a pot calling out to a kettle somewhere...

Anyway, I actually do think that 5th Ed will be an improvement over 4th (not that that'd be hard), but I think that anyone deluding themselves into thinking it will balance the game and turn every player in a virtuous paragon of friendly non-competative gameplay is mad. This will simply change the status quo to some other form of power build, and when a designer complains about power builds I find that hilarious, because he's the one writing the rules. If they were so concerned about this type of thing, wouldn't they write the rules in a manner that helps to limit that?

And finally:

Valhallan42nd wrote:You're known for helping make power builds for guard, but you don't like an environment that creates power builds?

It seems like a disconnect to me.

I help people make good Guard lists because they ask me to and I'm good at it. In a perfect world I wouldn't have to help them avoid gakky combinations because any and every combination would work. I know that there are always going to be good units and not-as-good units, but why is it that any one of us can take a Codex the day its released and almost instantly work out which units are completely and utter crap.

Using Guard as an example, everyone with a brain can look at Ratlings, all the Advisors, Ogryn and even Storm Troopers, compare them to the rest of the choices in the book and go 'Why would you take those?'. I would prefer it if when it came to making a list, you left units out because they didn't fit your style or your theme, not because they didn't work in-game.

For instance, I really like the idea of Preachers in my Guard armies. I own every Priest and Preacher model GW has ever made for 40K, plus every Redemptionist model a few times over. I think they're great, fluffy and fit wonderfully with a few army themes I've got. Would I actually take one though? feth no! They're terrible units that hamper the units they're with and don't fit with the rest of the army. And I knew this upon reading their Codex entry for the first time.

So then I see a rules designe complaining about rules that he's been involved in designing being used to create power builds. That's the disconnect right there Valhallan - a person who writes the rules complaining about the outcomes of the rules he's written.

BYE

Valhallan42nd wrote: But we as gamers should not deny the fact that we're the ones trying to seduce the rules...

I've got an awful image of you and a BGB, by a fire place. Barry White softly croons in the background, you're plying it with cheap wine, fumbling at the book's bra-straps. It resists at first, but relents to your will, and you have your wicked way with it.

You bloody saucy sod.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:People put a lot of work into this thing, and quite frankly, it seems better than 4th so far. I say give it a fair shake before dismissing it out of hand before it's even released.

We have people praising how good it is before its even released, so why should the opposite be taboo? I heard a pot calling out to a kettle somewhere...

Anyway, I actually do think that 5th Ed will be an improvement over 4th (not that that'd be hard), but I think that anyone deluding themselves into thinking it will balance the game and turn every player in a virtuous paragon of friendly non-competative gameplay is mad. This will simply change the status quo to some other form of power build, and when a designer complains about power builds I find that hilarious, because he's the one writing the rules. If they were so concerned about this type of thing, wouldn't they write the rules in a manner that helps to limit that?

I think the key difference here is that for once, what the game designers consider powerful builds more more likely resemble what we consider power builds. Large, troop filled armies. It's fun to fear hordes again.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote:You're known for helping make power builds for guard, but you don't like an environment that creates power builds?

It seems like a disconnect to me.

I help people make good Guard lists because they ask me to and I'm good at it. In a perfect world I wouldn't have to help them avoid gakky combinations because any and every combination would work. I know that there are always going to be good units and not-as-good units, but why is it that any one of us can take a Codex the day its released and almost instantly work out which units are completely and utter crap.

Using Guard as an example, everyone with a brain can look at Ratlings, all the Advisors, Ogryn and even Storm Troopers, compare them to the rest of the choices in the book and go 'Why would you take those?'. I would prefer it if when it came to making a list, you left units out because they didn't fit your style or your theme, not because they didn't work in-game.

For instance, I really like the idea of Preachers in my Guard armies. I own every Priest and Preacher model GW has ever made for 40K, plus every Redemptionist model a few times over. I think they're great, fluffy and fit wonderfully with a few army themes I've got. Would I actually take one though? feth no! They're terrible units that hamper the units they're with and don't fit with the rest of the army. And I knew this upon reading their Codex entry for the first time.

Now are we talking would I take them in a tourney, or are we talking take them in a friendly game? Winning isn't the only imperative outside of tourneys. Story and theme are key part for me outside of that tourney environment.

H.B.M.C. wrote:
So then I see a rules designe complaining about rules that he's been involved in designing being used to create power builds. That's the disconnect right there Valhallan - a person who writes the rules complaining about the outcomes of the rules he's written.

BYE

That I can agree with. I think someone mentioned engineers earlier, about how they never thought about how people would abuse their end product? They have an idea in their heads of what an army should look like and build rules around that. They don't reckon on the clever end user, I'm afraid.


_______________________________________________________

Greebynog wrote:

Valhallan42nd wrote: But we as gamers should not deny the fact that we're the ones trying to seduce the rules...

I've got an awful image of you and a BGB, by a fire place. Barry White softly croons in the background, you're plying it with cheap wine, fumbling at the book's bra-straps. It resists at first, but relents to your will, and you have your wicked way with it.

You bloody saucy sod.

'nuff said.

Last year at the LVGT, alot of the American players didn't seem to recognize Phil Kelly by sight.

So I sat and talked with him for about an hour.

Refreshingly for me, we talked about 40k for about 5 minutes then talked non-shop the rest of the time.

See, it's good to crush your opponent in 30 minutes.

Sorry I don't have a synopsis of what we talked about lol he's more than a nice guy--he's quite sharp, and that's pretty much the only way to impress me.

Gav and Jervis...oiy. Poster children for Mensa, they are not. lol

H.B.M.C. wrote:So then I see a rules designer complaining about rules that he's been involved in designing being used to create power builds. That's the disconnect right there Valhallan - a person who writes the rules complaining about the outcomes of the rules he's written.

See, I didn't see that at all from the OP's post. I think there comes a certain point where you become so jaded that you start to project that attitude on everything you read, and at that point it will become impossible for you to be happy unless you take a step back and realize you are at that point. In this case, I don't see complaining at all. I see a designer recognizing that the current rules set creates a dominant type of build that they didn't want to be the dominant type of build. To fix that he realizes he needs to introduce something into the environment to push it out, so that's what he's doing. He's using his power as a designer to fix something he doesn't like about the way the rules are working, and he is explaining that thought process to a curious player.

This is exactly what we want from our games designers isn't it? And yes, I know the argument is that they have been doing this so long now that they should just get it right from the get go for once, but the fact of the matter is that you don't have a consistent group of designers, and you don't have a consistent direction from the company for the last 20 years. Given that, I can accept that things won't be perfect, and am content that things appear to at least be moving in the right direction. In the end, it's already a game I enjoy playing, and one that I think I will enjoy more once fifth ed comes out.

I think the designers want a majority of the units to fit the fluff, and expect people to take the units that are cool and not the units that are good and going to crush everything. I mean with my army I have some units that really are crap, and that a lot of people agree are crap (Arco Flagellants, Penitent Engines, Sisters Repentia) But I use them because they are really neat and I like the fluff for them. Sure I don't win a lot against the armys that are built to just destroy everything, but against people who take fluffy armys I have a decent shot at winning, and those games are more fun anyway.

@Vodoo Boyz
Thanks for he share!