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.

Last I saw of him, he was talking about 40k 7th edition. I haven't see him mention much in the latest White Dwarf while they were covering Adeptus Titanicus, and I would have thought there would at least be some kind of introduction from him. I mean, he is the Godfather of Epic. Is he still around?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/08/01/1st-aug-pitched-battles-in-the-mortal-realmsgw-homepage-post-2/

With games of the new edition of Warhammer Age of Sigmar being played across the world, and events organisers planning matched play tournaments, Jervis Johnson and Ben Johnson (no relation) from the Warhammer Age of Sigmar design team join us to talk about the game’s optional rules and how they fit into organised play.

Yes he's still with Games Workshop.

Whenever you're reading a GW rule book and it directs you to roll in a table to see which table you roll on to determine which random thing happens, Jervis is there..

Who do you think created power level?

I suspect he was the driving force behind much of the oversimplification as well.

Azreal13 wrote:Whenever you're reading a GW rule book and it directs you to roll in a table to see which table you roll on to determine which random thing happens, Jervis is there..

Blastaar wrote:I suspect he was the driving force behind much of the oversimplification as well.

Jervis Schroedinger - simultaneously overcomplicating AND oversimplifying the game since 1987




.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:Whenever you're reading a GW rule book and it directs you to roll in a table to see which table you roll on to determine which random thing happens, Jervis is there..

Blastaar wrote:I suspect he was the driving force behind much of the oversimplification as well.

Jervis Schroedinger - simultaneously overcomplicating AND oversimplifying the game since 1987




.

Ah, a student of the Jervis Design School, in which randomness and complexity are considered equivalent

Had to go digging to find this old post of mine:

Jervis [Jer-viss] Jer-vised, Jer-vis-i-fy, Jer-vis-i-fied, Jer-vis-i-fi-ca-tion
–verb
1. to remove options inherent in a list. // 2. to reduce existing sub-lists into a single list. // 3. To triple (or more) the amount of Special Characters in a Codex. // 4. To take away. // 5. To give what isn't wanted nor needed.

Origin: Mid-1980's, England, Nottingham

Synonyms: Bland, Blandify, Codex: Dark Angels (4th Edition)

Antonyms: Codex: Chaos Space Marines (3.5 Edition)

 ArbitorIan wrote:


Jervis Schroedinger - simultaneously overcomplicating AND oversimplifying the game since 1987.

Indeed, Jervis seems to be simultaneously both dead and alive at least when it comes to GW.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Had to go digging to find this old post of mine:

Jervis [Jer-viss] Jer-vised, Jer-vis-i-fy, Jer-vis-i-fied, Jer-vis-i-fi-ca-tion
–verb
1. to remove options inherent in a list. // 2. to reduce existing sub-lists into a single list. // 3. To triple (or more) the amount of Special Characters in a Codex. // 4. To take away. // 5. To give what isn't wanted nor needed.

Origin: Mid-1980's, England, Nottingham

Synonyms: Bland, Blandify, Codex: Dark Angels (4th Edition)

Antonyms: Codex: Chaos Space Marines (3.5 Edition)

Pretty accurate!

Then again he's also author of one of the best games GW has made(epic armageddon). (and has the sensible idea that tournaments aren't all there is about miniature games like many seem to think...)

tneva82 wrote:
Then again he's also author of one of the best games GW has made(epic armageddon). (and has the sensible idea that tournaments aren't all there is about miniature games like many seem to think...)

Yup. And Blood Bowl. And pretty heavily involved in Necromunda. Amazing games.

I appreciate that he’s made some wrong moves, and his style of ‘here’s some guidelines, play silly games’ doesn’t really work with the current tournament-focused online world, but he’s also one of the key figures responsible for the games we all play and the popularity of the hobby as a whole.

Aye, he was responsible for a lot of the games I picked up in my teens and still play 20 odd years later... and thoroughly enjoy. He’s responsible for genius and randumb alike. Shame the internet polarisation machine can only consider him deity or demon... no middle ground permitted, guys!

We could have Nigel Stillman incorporating his philosophy into the rules...

Despite it being a joke, I still believe in about half of the Stillmania rules.

Blastaar wrote:
Who do you think created power level?

I suspect he was the driving force behind much of the oversimplification as well.

I owe Jervis a beer then. Best thing to ever happen to 40k.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Despite it being a joke, I still believe in about half of the Stillmania rules.

The only bit I can fault is the gloss varnish.

As far as I know he doesn’t have much to do with 40k these days. He mostly does AOS.

 judgedoug wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
Who do you think created power level?

I suspect he was the driving force behind much of the oversimplification as well.

I owe Jervis a beer then. Best thing to ever happen to 40k.

Agreed. 40K is the best it's been in a long time.


Nice to see people still remember Stillman too he was a bit of a nutter but man did he have a passion for the hobby! Last I heard of him he was a mailman. Go figure.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Despite it being a joke, I still believe in about half of the Stillmania rules.

The only bit I can fault is the gloss varnish.

Duncan would say "two thin coats" is enough...

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Aye, he was responsible for a lot of the games I picked up in my teens and still play 20 odd years later... and thoroughly enjoy. He’s responsible for genius and randumb alike. Shame the internet polarisation machine can only consider him deity or demon... no middle ground permitted, guys!

He was better as a designer in the past. But really his only sole work of a major game was Blood Bowl. Epic Armageddon has his name on it but is in effect a rehashed combination/ideas from 1st edition (Rick Priestly) and Epic40K (Andy Chambers). When you compare what Jervis has done RP and AC have been much more prolific and generally produced better games (IMHO). The current 40k is basically AOS advanced if you see what I mean and hence I don't really count them as two independent game designs. I think people don't like Jervis because he effectively went 'corporate' whereas RP, AC got out to go and do something they love and be able to drive that, rather than the company drive the agenda.

I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.

Agreed. And you can see his attitude seeping out into the narrative gaming community via the GW-adjacent bods in stuff like INQ28, where some folk seem actively hostile to the idea that games should have any functionality or complexity to them beyond "move your dudes around, RP a bit, and maybe chuck a 4+ now and again if you fancy getting spicy". Suggest that in fact structured force selection & crunchy rules are entirely compatible with - and in the opinion of many, substantially enhances - narrative play, and the sound of monocles shattering is loud enough you can practically hear it IRL.

And to be 100% clear - if your jam is making pew-pew noises and rolling on random tables all night long, have at it, you do you. The problem is Jervis & his acolytes cannot conceive that there are other ways to enjoy narrative gaming, and many are actively hostile to even the suggestion that other ways could exist at all.

 Yodhrin wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.

Agreed. And you can see his attitude seeping out into the narrative gaming community via the GW-adjacent bods in stuff like INQ28, where some folk seem actively hostile to the idea that games should have any functionality or complexity to them beyond "move your dudes around, RP a bit, and maybe chuck a 4+ now and again if you fancy getting spicy". Suggest that in fact structured force selection & crunchy rules are entirely compatible with - and in the opinion of many, substantially enhances - narrative play, and the sound of monocles shattering is loud enough you can practically hear it IRL.

And to be 100% clear - if your jam is making pew-pew noises and rolling on random tables all night long, have at it, you do you. The problem is Jervis & his acolytes cannot conceive that there are other ways to enjoy narrative gaming, and many are actively hostile to even the suggestion that other ways could exist at all.

I think you’re both projecting quite a lot here. Let’s not forget that he’s written a couple of books on the ‘crunch’ side of the rules, and is largely responsible for one of GWs most rules-tight and games systems - Blood Bowl.

It’s certainly true that he thinks there’s a place for a bit of randomness and imagination, and that it’s perfectly fine to come up with house rules or just ignore them when it’s cooler - the ‘RPG’ side of gaming. Maybe at some point he became the only one in the design studio who still wanted to make sure that stuff was there.

‘Hatred of points’
‘Actively hostile to alternative suggestions’

You wanna prove any of that or do you just prefer it to be that simple? The idea that he’s a nefarious anti-rules representative of a largely made-up ‘stupid casual gamer’ straw man is a load of over simplistic rubbish.

He presided over 6th.

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.

Better off? Without Epic and Blood Bowl? What a narrow view you have.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.

Better off? Without Epic and Blood Bowl? What a narrow view you have.

I meant it would be beneficial if he left GW now. And from what other posters have said, it does not seem that Jervis was necessary for Blood Bowl and Epic to exist.

My own personal dislike of him is completely anecdotal and hugely specific, but it does tie into other people's criticism of him as being 'corporate' or 'only seeing his way on things'.

This is years ago at a Game Day in the US, when the (then) most recent Codex dropped (maybe SM or DA), and removed the option for Librarians to take Power Fists, and the option for Terminators to deploy via Drop Pods. I believe this was his 5th edition Codex (don't quote me on that as I don't have it to reference)?. I was a bit upset about both, as I had just such a model, and plans for just such a deployment (this was all before I fully embraced the one true way of Orks).

I cornered JJ and asked him about the removal of both options. I pointed out that the conversion offered GW the opportunity for sales of two products (a Librarian, and some SM kit which contained a Power Fist), and the Drop Pod option gave GW the opportunity to sell models (they may have been FW only at that point) to people who may not use them otherwise. It seemed counterproductive, to me, to remove the option, since it didn't appear unbalancing AND it could result in extra model sales.

Jervis gave me a earnest, friendly explanation that the Force Weapon was the iconic weapon of Librarians and it was important to cultivate that iconic imagery and weaponry. He explained that Drop Pods for Terminators were not really well established in the background and their iconic, representative method of deployment was through Deep Strike Teleportation, and it was important to reflect that in the game.

I showed him the picture in the Codex that was just released of Deathwing deploying from Drop Pods. I showed him the metal Chaplain model (great one) with the ''iconic'' Rosarius and Power Fist for sale, and, I believe, featured in the same Codex in a photo. He blinked, asked me if I was sure that the painting depicted a Drop Pod, and moved off.

It just burned me up at the time, and still does now. I mean, I disagree with reasons like "No rules for models we don't make", but they at least are internally consistent (if not actually consistently observed). But for a long-time designer with the company to earnestly explain to a fan something that is directly contradicted by the evidence in the rulebook HE JUST RELEASED, is just grating.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.

Agreed. And you can see his attitude seeping out into the narrative gaming community via the GW-adjacent bods in stuff like INQ28, where some folk seem actively hostile to the idea that games should have any functionality or complexity to them beyond "move your dudes around, RP a bit, and maybe chuck a 4+ now and again if you fancy getting spicy". Suggest that in fact structured force selection & crunchy rules are entirely compatible with - and in the opinion of many, substantially enhances - narrative play, and the sound of monocles shattering is loud enough you can practically hear it IRL.

And to be 100% clear - if your jam is making pew-pew noises and rolling on random tables all night long, have at it, you do you. The problem is Jervis & his acolytes cannot conceive that there are other ways to enjoy narrative gaming, and many are actively hostile to even the suggestion that other ways could exist at all.

I think you’re both projecting quite a lot here. Let’s not forget that he’s written a couple of books on the ‘crunch’ side of the rules, and is largely responsible for one of GWs most rules-tight and games systems - Blood Bowl.

It’s certainly true that he thinks there’s a place for a bit of randomness and imagination, and that it’s perfectly fine to come up with house rules or just ignore them when it’s cooler - the ‘RPG’ side of gaming. Maybe at some point he became the only one in the design studio who still wanted to make sure that stuff was there.

‘Hatred of points’
‘Actively hostile to alternative suggestions’

You wanna prove any of that or do you just prefer it to be that simple? The idea that he’s a nefarious anti-rules representative of a largely made-up ‘stupid casual gamer’ straw man is a load of over simplistic rubbish.

Blood Bowl might be their most random game. Random weather, fields, kick off events, cards, ect.

 ArbitorIan wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:

Blastaar wrote:
I don't know if Jervis went "corporate" or not- I dislike him because he only sees his way, has a very narrow view of things, and doesn't consider what anyone else might like in a game. And he has bad ideas. Like his hatred of points, or his focus solely on "telling a story" and what that means to him alone. It never seems to have crossed his mind that people, both competitive and casual, want a balanced game with meaningful decisions to make, and that points are a useful component of a balanced game. Or that whatever happens during the game is part of the story- making the game highly random and telling people to "forge the narrative" doesn't enhance gameplay in any way. As with Alan Merritt, GW (and the players) would be better off without him.

Agreed. And you can see his attitude seeping out into the narrative gaming community via the GW-adjacent bods in stuff like INQ28, where some folk seem actively hostile to the idea that games should have any functionality or complexity to them beyond "move your dudes around, RP a bit, and maybe chuck a 4+ now and again if you fancy getting spicy". Suggest that in fact structured force selection & crunchy rules are entirely compatible with - and in the opinion of many, substantially enhances - narrative play, and the sound of monocles shattering is loud enough you can practically hear it IRL.

And to be 100% clear - if your jam is making pew-pew noises and rolling on random tables all night long, have at it, you do you. The problem is Jervis & his acolytes cannot conceive that there are other ways to enjoy narrative gaming, and many are actively hostile to even the suggestion that other ways could exist at all.

I think you’re both projecting quite a lot here. Let’s not forget that he’s written a couple of books on the ‘crunch’ side of the rules, and is largely responsible for one of GWs most rules-tight and games systems - Blood Bowl.

I think that might be the first time I've heard Blood Bowl described that way. There's a reason the whole "praise Nuffle" when something actually goes the way you vaguely intended it to go in the game became a meme.

It’s certainly true that he thinks there’s a place for a bit of randomness and imagination, and that it’s perfectly fine to come up with house rules or just ignore them when it’s cooler - the ‘RPG’ side of gaming. Maybe at some point he became the only one in the design studio who still wanted to make sure that stuff was there.

I dunno like, it seems to me that all the competent designers who've worked at GW over the years are capable of giving players both, and that players who don't fetishise one side or the other are capable of enjoying both.

‘Hatred of points’
‘Actively hostile to alternative suggestions’

You wanna prove any of that or do you just prefer it to be that simple? The idea that he’s a nefarious anti-rules representative of a largely made-up ‘stupid casual gamer’ straw man is a load of over simplistic rubbish.

Yes sure, let me just go and dig through hundreds of issues of WD and the Journal to find Jervis' wee editorials and collate the hundreds of examples over the years of people taking that attitude towards anyone who likes a bit of crunch with their narrative while explicitly referencing Jervis's "philosophy" to address your entirely in-good-faith request for proof that you would totally accept were it presented

And the point people are making is not that he's "nefarious", just that he's pretty much the living embodiment of the "GW Studio bubble" - he has the way he thinks things should be, and cannot fathom why anyone could disagree with that, mostly the prospect anyone could disagree likely just doesn't even occur to him.

GW's most rules tight systems were the original incarnations of the LOTR strategy battle game.

Then they bloated it by giving it the codex treatment and making army composition a complicated mess.