James M Hewitt AMA

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.

**reds8n**

happened quite recently.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

some nice info in there -- he's a very nice bloke IRL too.

Can you shed any light on what’s going on with Adeptus Titanicus? It seemed like it was good to go and now silence.

permalinkembedsavereportreply

[–]NeedyCatJames[S] 27 points 21 hours ago
I can only say what I know!

The game was indeed good to go - the rules have been written for just about a year now, I was going through final edits just before we broke up for Christmas last year. However! Due to the success of Blood Bowl (which came out in November last year), there was a lot of last-minute deliberating. The game had originally been intended as a small-scale (in more ways than one) resin-only production run, something truly specialist; the same sort of people who play 30k and buy those whopping great leather-bound Horus Heresy books with the metal corners that you could legitimately use to kill a man. That's how the game was designed - the rules are a bit more complex than the average, a bit more in-depth (but still approachable - that was the knife-edge I had to walk!).

Once Blood Bowl was out and the forecasting team saw that "small", "niche" products could do crazily well, they realised they had to go bigger. Resin was out, plastic was in! Problem is, that's not a quick and easy job. Due to SCIENCE and TECHNICAL REASONS, the plastic casting process is a lot more complex than resin, and has a lot more limitations - so the miniatures had to be redesigned from the ground up (retooling the Warlord took 2-3 months, if I recall). There were loads of other things that had to change, too - just boring logistical stuff, really.

So yeah, it got pushed back. We actually showed the game off back in February at the Horus Heresy weekender (decent write-up here, thinking it wouldn't be too long before it came out, then it got pushed back again for other reasons (40k 8th edition grabbed a lot of the release schedule).

So I'm not entirely sure when it's gonna be out. I'm half-certain that each time I say the words "Adeptus Titanicus" out loud, they push the release date back another month; another part of me is starting to think that, should the game ever be released, the ninth seal will shatter and the dominion of man shall crumble.

So, like... soon, maybe?

(On the plus side, a later release date means more sculpting time, which means more minis available at or soon after release. Trust me, that's a good thing. I can't wait to see it when it all comes out!)

We all want our Orks! I did some early planning on Gargant rules...

Interestingly, it's set during the Heresy for the same reason the original Adeptus Titanicus was set during the Heresy - because it means you only have to sculpt one set of models, and paint them different colours!

If the game's successful, which I'm hoping it will be, I'm sure there could be expansions that introduce the alien races

Ha! Fair enough then. Thanks for signing up!

The Wraithknights... well, that was a thing. The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs. So D-weapons, right? Because that's clearly what the weapons are. So we did it, and we tested them loads, and the points values shot up (I think the Wraithknight was about 450?). Then they went to review, and someone in a position of authority (who has since left0 said "I love it, but don't increase any points values."

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

So I said "Ok, so I'll put the rules back to how they were," and was told "no, keep them, just don't change the points values".

Makes me wince, just thinking about it.

As I say, though those days are over

**Tyr13**

Huh. So, from the horse's mouth: Kirby was responsible for OP models.

**Lord Kragan**

Tyr13 wrote:
Huh. So, from the horse's mouth: Kirby was responsible for OP models.

Dull surprise.

**warboss**

reds8n wrote:
happened quite recently.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warhammer/comments/7k1tp0/im_james_m_hewitt_freelance_tabletop_games/

Ha! Fair enough then. Thanks for signing up!

The Wraithknights... well, that was a thing. The Eldar codex was designed at a time when we were told to make things a) exciting and interesting and b) reflect the narrative at all costs. So D-weapons, right? Because that's clearly what the weapons are. So we did it, and we tested them loads, and the points values shot up (I think the Wraithknight was about 450?). Then they went to review, and someone in a position of authority (who has since left0 said "I love it, but don't increase any points values."

Because, obviously, that means people need fewer models, see?

So I said "Ok, so I'll put the rules back to how they were," and was told "no, keep them, just don't change the points values".

As I say, though those days are over

And that pretty much describes the 6th/7th edition era of Games Workshop and 40k specifically in a nutshell and the reason I went from being a "new army every year or two" customer/player to buying a new figure every year or two. No one was clamoring to play bloodthirsters in every army, Jervis, unlike your 7th edition WD article claimed when you said the rules were changed to "benefit" the players supposedly. The only person who wanted that was your boss, Kirby, so he could pad his bonus check/dividends at the expense of the game and company long term.

**RiTides**

That was a very informative read, thanks red!

**Galas**

So basically... the problem with GW balance is not about the guys writting the rules... but the marketing team?

To be honest I'm not surprise since that interview where they said that in 3rd edition for 40k, they cut the point costs of everything in half because Marketing said that they wanted people to buy more models.

**Slayer-Fan123**

It isn't like their rules team is as bad as some of the people here. There was clear manipulation from the higher people like that.

**GoatboyBeta**

Glad to hear something about Titanicus. While waiting longer always sucks, this is overall good news.

**Overread**

Honestly this is really great news in general about Titanicus. Sounds like its going from a super-niche to a near mainstream specialist product, which means great things for gamers as it means a cheaper to get into game (plastics instead of resin) which means way more chance of picking up players at a local level.

Kind of sad to not see resin used as whilst GW has some really fantastic plastic, the resin still holds more detail; but still great to see! Hopefully the expanded market concept means it will be more than just Imperial titans too (heck we could see some Tyranid ones or even see Necron and Tau feature with titanic weapons built to meet the match of the might of the Imperium).

The point regarding previous balance affected by upper management; nice to have confirmation of what many thought was the truth, or part of it. Also gives more faith in the rules writers going forward now into 9th edition and future gamers; ergo that it wasn't the writers but the management/marketing that affected game balance.
Hopefully the new changes at GW coupled to the big surge in sales should keep marketing and management allowing game design/balance teams to keep working as they are and improve upon the rules and balance - as it helps generate more and more sales.

**Monkeysloth**

He called out that upper management rarely affected balance like in the example but stated that the worse offender was they weren't allowed to playtest. He stated that he had to break to rules to sneak someone the rules for playtesting with blood bowel. He also stated that marketing once told them to drop the point values in half so more models could be sold so there were a lot of factors. The names that use to be on the books were the project managers of that specific book and not the writer. They stopped putting names there due to how much harassment people were getting from the community.

Also, apperently it wasn't Kirby that was the worse offender

Second question, there was a management reshuffle (not Tom Kirby leaving, although many people attribute the changes to that) which led to some very different decisions being made. We could tell the moment it happened that it was going to be an exciting time!

not super versed in my GW history but maybe the founder that left that a lot of people here were happy to see go?

**JamesY**

Tyr13 wrote:
Huh. So, from the horse's mouth: Kirby was responsible for OP models.

I'd wager that the person in authority was Merret, rather than Kirby.

**zedmeister**

Monkeysloth wrote:
He called out that upper management rarely affected balance like in the example but stated that the worse offender was they weren't allowed to playtest. He stated that he had to break to rules to sneak someone the rules for playtesting with blood bowel. He also stated that marketing once told them to drop the point values in half so more models could be sold so there were a lot of factors. The names that use to be on the books were the project managers of that specific book and not the writer. They stopped putting names there due to how much harassment people were getting from the community.

Also, apperently it wasn't Kirby that was the worse offender

Second question, there was a management reshuffle (not Tom Kirby leaving, although many people attribute the changes to that) which led to some very different decisions being made. We could tell the moment it happened that it was going to be an exciting time!

not super versed in my GW history but maybe the founder that left that a lot of people here were happy to see go?

My suspicion would be one Alan "Goober" Merritt

Automatically Appended Next Post:

JamesY wrote:
Tyr13 wrote:
Huh. So, from the horse's mouth: Kirby was responsible for OP models.

I'd wager that the person in authority was Merret, rather than Kirby.

I seemed to remember a poster explaining something along the lines on how whole departments would be cleared out when he came to tour to avoid upsetting him as he was that petty

**Voss**

Overread wrote:
Honestly this is really great news in general about Titanicus. Sounds like its going from a super-niche to a near mainstream specialist product, which means great things for gamers as it means a cheaper to get into game (plastics instead of resin) which means way more chance of picking up players at a local level.

Kind of sad to not see resin used as whilst GW has some really fantastic plastic, the resin still holds more detail; but still great to see!

Ugh, no. GW resin is garbage of poor quality. FW resin is generally brittle and easily damaged. Plastic is really their only area of competency.

**Racerguy180**

I whole heartedly agree with the plastics bringing it more mainstream. One would imagine that we aren't going to be limited to plastics tho, Forge World will most likely produce upgrade bits.

I am very interested in Titanicus and the change to plastic just increases my excitement.

**JamesY**

@zedmeister yes they were, everyone except the head of the department. There are only so many wrongful termination cases a company can pay out for and stay profitable.

**H.B.M.C.**

Monkeysloth wrote:
... the worse offender was they weren't allowed to playtest.

Why would they stop them from playtesting?

Monkeysloth wrote:
He also stated that marketing once told them to drop the point values in half so more models could be sold so there were a lot of factors.

That sounds like what happened with the points values at the startd of 3rd Ed.

**MeanGreenStompa**

JamesY wrote:
Tyr13 wrote:
Huh. So, from the horse's mouth: Kirby was responsible for OP models.

I'd wager that the person in authority was Merret, rather than Kirby.

I'd wager you'd win that wager...

**Monkeysloth**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
Monkeysloth wrote:
... the worse offender was they weren't allowed to playtest.
Why would they stop them from playtesting?

Monkeysloth wrote:
He also stated that marketing once told them to drop the point values in half so more models could be sold so there were a lot of factors.
That sounds like what happened with the points values at the startd of 3rd Ed.

Dono. You'd have to ask James.

GW at the time had a very clear policy forbidding external playtesters, so even though there were lots of people who'd have gladly helped me, I couldn't do anything. I managed to covertly get an ex-BBRC person on board, under the radar, and we came up with a few fixes - but as with anything that doesn't quite get enough testing, they ended up annoying people more than pleasing them!

That said, it's getting better. When I first started, playtesting was a bit of a dirty word; there was a real disdain for "balance" among the higher echelons of management. Silver Tower, for example, was playtested almost entirely in my own time, unpaid, using unpaid volunteers. But now, the are increasing numbers of external playtesters, and it's getting better. Thing is, no matter how rigorously the internal testing is, you're never going to find all the issues; it might seem shocking that a book comes out and the internet finds a dozen errata on day one, but remember that more people are seeing it in that one day than saw it throughout the entire production cycle. The only way to deal with it would be to have open playtesting, getting thousands of people to read the rules before they go to print, and sure enough that's what Forge World sometimes do - but it's not practical for main-range GW, because of their confidentiality rules and that kind of thing.

**Galas**

That said, it's getting better. When I first started, playtesting was a bit of a dirty word; there was a real disdain for "balance" among the higher echelons of management.

*Looks at Jervis Johnson* Oh you... the God of CAAC's players

So, as a designer, you're always pushing for more time. Any game design project has several stages - you do your R&D, your preparation, your grunt work (actually writing the thing), and your polish / testing / proofing. Management are always going to squeeze your deadlines, because they know that your instinct is to push for a good game, but they know that from a business point of view it only needs to be good enough to sell. Unfortunately, the grunt work is the bit that needs to happen, so the bits that get trimmed are R&D (which make things interesting and well-thought-out) and polish (which makes sure there are no mistakes).

This confirms more and more that is not that the GW rules writters are bad, but that GW as a company has many philosophies that go agaisn't a good, clear and balanced ruleset.

He went off sick while the team was rushing to get all the Index books done for Forge World stuff in 40k, and it was already an ungodly quantity of work while he was there; the deadlines were just unrealistic, but there were demands from on high that all 40k FW stuff should have rules available for the day of release.

And this explains the FW's Indexs

RandomGuy:Hunh. Think that's the most damning confirmation of GW ocassionally putting sales of OP models deliberately over balance. I imagine Riptides were something similar.
James:I should stress that that sort of thing didn't happen very often, but when it did it was incredibly frustrating - especially if people find out you were the one who wrote the rules, because the internet has a belief that each codex is written by one person and one person alone with no outside interference whatsoever, and they take it to mean you're incompetent. I mean, not saying I'm perfect or anything! But that can be frustrating.
Thankfully, that was the old days. Things are very different now!
RandomGuy:I haven't been here very long -- didn't codices use to have the name of a single author on the cover, like with the infamous 5th ed Tyranids codex and Robin Cruddace?
James:They did! Problem was, that gave the impression that the person on the cover was solely responsible for everything in the book, whereas they were generally just the project lead. Sadly, the internet being what it is, this led to people being targeted by online hatemobs, which is why books no longer have credits. Basically, we can't have nice things because internet.

Poor guys, now I feel sad for thinking so bad about them

When I joined the Citadel Rules Team, Age of Sigmar (or "Project Stanley", as it was called, because codenames are a thing) had been in development for about eighteen months. I wasn't involved in the core design work, but I was part of a four-man team, so we all mucked in. I did a lot of work on the Warscroll Compendiums, for example, and wrote the rules for the first(ish) five Battletomes (Stormcast, Gorechosen Bloodbound, Fyreslayers, Seraphon, Everchosen). I did a fair bit of playtesting, and we had constant discussions about rules and ideas and things.

Regarding freedom... I've never known a project with quite so much managerial scrutiny. Any project you do in an environment like GW has to meet a lot of different criteria (as I explained here, but this was something else. There were certain people higher up the chain, people who have since left the company, who were insistent on what the game needed to be. Unfortunately, this kept changing. We tried very hard to fight the battles we could and make the game satisfying from a rules point of view, but if we'd had more control I think a lot of the initial drama could have been avoided.

I'm really glad that AoS was a total failure when it was released, as a result of being so heavely directed by managment. That showed GW the failures of that style of doing things. To be honest I think all the GW changes have been directly a result of AoS failure when it was first released (And Kirby and Merrit leaving the company of course)

Ey oh! @MagicJuggler, you are here! Talking about getting in the industry and all of that

**shinros**

As I said on TGA.

The inception of AOS was handled by the old management that largely screwed the hobby. They had the wrong idea on how to reinvigorate fantasy and the hobby in general. You notice soon has certain people left there was a change in the company. James AMA sorta confirms it.

The new management letting the designers do their thing is what resurrected AOS(and 40k in a sense). I mean hell if it's getting ADB to considering writing an AOS novel they must be doing something right. All of this is being reflected in how well they are doing now as a public company.

**Kid_Kyoto**

Does anyone know if AoS was a flop?

I know there was fan rage and anecdotes but is there any hard info?

**H.B.M.C.**

Galas wrote:
James:They did! Problem was, that gave the impression that the person on the cover was solely responsible for everything in the book, whereas they were generally just the project lead. Sadly, the internet being what it is, this led to people being targeted by online hatemobs, which is why books no longer have credits. Basically, we can't have nice things because internet.

Then they should'a put the names of everyone who wrote it, not just one person.

**Lockark**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Does anyone know if AoS was a flop?

I know there was fan rage and anecdotes but is there any hard info?

Well. GW would of had to have the following as input I'm guessing.

-Response of public interest to AoS at GW stores. (For example. At the local ones here. You had all the vet players walk away with only brand new players and WAAC munchkins who wanted the abuse the open rule set for "easy wins".)

-Response of FLGS owners to their sales rep, and their changes in ordering patterns.

-WHFB End Time sales vs. AoS sales. It seemed GW was aware that a huge amount of sales at the time were being driven by people wanting to finish their WHFB armies for playing legacy WHFB and 9th age. To the point that they immediately took some of the OOP models from the WHFB to AoS switch out of OOP to do limited runs to meet the demand. Only GW knows what these direct only sales were compared to the sale of Stormcast. But I can only assume it was enough to make them take notice. (Heard some claims that old WHFB kits were out selling storm cast at the time.)

Also around the time GW were getting back into using social media, and I imagine it was easy for them to put two and two together to figure out why the old WHFB kits were selling so well at the time. People weren't buying them to build Age of Sigmar Armies.

**Yodhrin**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Does anyone know if AoS was a flop?

I know there was fan rage and anecdotes but is there any hard info?

No hard info no, GW coincidentally stopped reporting that kind of info right around the time AoS launched. But the preponderance of reliable rumour & anecdote suggests it very nearly died on its arse until GW dropped the whole "Heeeey, maaan, don't, like, harsh my buzz with all this talk of 'balance' and stuff maaaan, just, like, play with whatever you like and, like, roll some dice yeah." nonsense and started engaging with the community.

If only they'd managed to grasp the blindingly obvious before they set off a nuke under one of their best IPs.

**Chikout**

Yeah, the general consensus is that is was a huge flop initially but is doing much better now. The special edition of the early battletomes sold very poorly but they have said the first general's handbook is one of their most successful books of any kind ever.

**Baron Klatz**

Indeed, 2016 was when they put AoS on the right track and insiders like Atia reported AoS bumped up to 30% of their sales. The handbook and grand alliance books were massive steps in the right direction in getting new and old players on board.(the news of points alone made their AoS Facebook explode with approval.

)

All 2015 offered was three pricey armies with no tournament incentive, only needed enough for a skirmish force at that and the free rules meant people with full armies or the horde of Ebay armies didn't have to buy anything as well. No big surprise things weren't picking up.

But that's history and Rountree's giving us a hobby age to be proud of again.

**Silentz**

None of the answers are particularly surprising to me, but very insightful.

His discussion of how the Forge World rules team have struggled to meet very harsh deadlines is quite eye opening. Alan Bligh had the ambition to release Age of Darkness in 8th very quickly, but that got shelved when he passed away.

**Maccwar**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Does anyone know if AoS was a flop?

I know there was fan rage and anecdotes but is there any hard info?

Hard numbers are hard to come by and anecdotes are really all we have. Take up of AoS seems to vary widely region to region, in some areas it does well and in others there seems to be little or no scene.

**Zingraff**

In the Oslo-region, AoS didn't sell at all during the first couple of months, and GW's games tend to be popular in Scandinavia. I don't know how comparable sales in Norway are to sales in the UK and elsewhere, but here it was a huge flop, with droves of players quitting Warhammer and GW (and I don't think they've returned).

**SKR.HH**

So... we're back to anecdotal evidence we discussed for close to two years now? Great leap in topic.