PDA

View Full Version : Why i miss Andy Chambers



Killgore
14-08-2007, 15:02
40k has changed alot since 4th ed, the biggest change to me was the removal of Chapter Aproved from the pages of WD

A few days ago i was flicking through my old Chapter Aproved 02 compilation book and read a few paragraphs of the editoral by Andy C

heres the paragraph that hit home how much 40k has changed since his departure

"The warhammer 40,000 universe should remain a galexy-sized sandpit to encourage and exercise the imagination of its players and not become straitjacketed into a chess board for tournament play."

he then goes on to describe how CA articles got split up into optional rules, recommanded optional rules and offical chapter aproved additions to the 40k game



do people beleave that 40k is turning into the vision that andy c tryed to avoid?

i know we'r getting expansions now every half year, but to me thats to little and to late.

Crube
14-08-2007, 15:09
I appreciate what you're sayong, and I do actually agree with you, but the way i look at it is that 40K is bigger than just 1 man's vision.

Ultimately, eventually 40K was going to evolve beyond Andy. Either (as happened) he left, or he passed away, or he went mad or....

I still quite enjoy the game. More so now more expansions are being released (Apocalypse :D).

It will always devcelop, and evolve, Bits I wont like, bits I do.

Plus, how much of what was printed in that book was actually ewhat AndyC said, and how much of it was editted and allowed to be printed by GW?

Hellebore
14-08-2007, 15:11
I think that 40k is turning into the vision that we the fans have forced.

People will no longer accept a game as fun, these days it has to be absolutely balanced and airtight otherwise someones doodle will shrivel because of the embarrassment of defeat.

Andy C wasn't the only person at the helm of 40k back then - Jervis Johnson, Gav Thorpe, and Rick Priestley were and still are part of 40k.

I love the deification people perform on someone - it's just like what happened to the Emperor...

Point is, AC wasn't the only one advocating that stance, nor was he the prodigal son and free from fubar either. The fact that he left lends him an artificial air of moral superiority.

He was not responsible for much of the 'beloved' 2nd ed codicies (in point of fact, Rick and Jervis wrote most of them) and he was the main driving for in the 40k division when 3rd ed came about (thus to be impartial you have to blame him for 3rd if you are also going to laude him for everything else).

I think that GW have gotten fedup with the whinefest that is the tournament circuit and are ruthlessly streamlining everything as much as possible. Once that is done, then they will leave it and continue with the supplements that they've been cooking up, namely Apocalypse which is going to be doing precisely what AC said in the quote you give.

Hellebore

King Thurgun
14-08-2007, 15:16
I didn't know he had left... too bad, I always liked those chapter approved articles.

Hellebore has got it right though. 40k and Fantasy are growing to a point where we can have our cake and eat it to: Balanced in-codex rules for tournaments, and wacky, fun, unhinged rules for casual gaming. Its not there yet, but with supplements like Mighty Empires (assuming this is expanded) and Apocalypse along with all the constant army book retooling, we may just get a chance to have it both ways.

Iracundus
14-08-2007, 15:16
Andy C at least wanted to keep the background moving forward, and I seem to recall one of his complaints post leaving GW was their backing away from the original promises of EoT campaign having ramifications. Even though huge massive upheavals in background were not necessarily expected, in 2nd ed. there was some crawling forward of the chronology and change in characters and character development. In the process I think such small changes open opportunities for other loose ends or even whole new swathes of background development, such as the Tyranids blossoming into a full fledged race or Tycho going from nameless BA to character to dead special character.

Instead GW seems to have mostly settled on rehashing an endless static year 999 right before the 42nd millenium, because it's "safer" and less effort in terms of the status quo.

lord_blackfang
14-08-2007, 15:23
If we're going to have a "cult of personality" one could also point out that Andy Chambers was all that was wrong with the chapter-of-the-month cheesefest of 3rd edition. But let's be fair and admit that the whole studio was in on it, even if he was the Overfiend.

He did personally muck up the Orks and Nids, and most unforgivable or all, brought Pete Haines into the Studio to ruin the last shreds of game balance. All this while Jervis Johnson was the one-man-band of Specialist Games who was the only Dev ever to utilise public playtesting and player feedback, resulting in the gem that is Epic Armageddon.

Then again, JJ was the one who mucked up the first Chaos Codex of 3rd edition, and who came up with Blood Angels' special rules.

And the lesson is? Hero worship is stupid.

Hellebore
14-08-2007, 15:27
Instead GW seems to have mostly settled on rehashing an endless static year 999 right before the 42nd millenium, because it's "safer" and less effort in terms of the status quo.

The problem is here again, the fans. GW is not loved by them to any degree, and even were they do bow to their wishes the results would be more complaining and cries of foul.

Changing the story changes the armies - despite the theoretical ideal of continual story the effects would be to remake many armies every couple of years, and although they do this now, in order for the story to go forward SACRIFICES will have to be made.

There is no way every race can continue to achieve its goals without stepping on the toes of others. People love story changes, character deaths etc, so long as they aren't theirs.

And thus, because every army is a favourite of someone, they will scream because GW killed off their uber character, obliterated their home planet, or whatever.

People complain enough as it is about codex updates, they would scream bloody murder if their lists were destroyed completely.

As unsatisfying as a status quo is, it keeps everyone in a state of equal unhappiness. Advancing the timeline will shift that amount of unhappiness onto a single demographic rather than all of them.

EDIT: Besides, I would not be in the least bit happy if the army list I used was changed under my feet because someone else fought a battle and won. My enjoyment of the game should not be dictated by other people, which is what will happen if worldwide game results affect story and armies.

Hellebore

sigur
14-08-2007, 16:10
@lord_blackfang: Well said.;)

Again, I have to say that "moving the background forward" would be the greatest mistake GW could ever make and luckily they know that. The 40k universe is a setting in which the actions you take or make take place. It's not a story. And you can not change it in any way, live with that fact. Myself, I don't feel the urge of doing so at all. I enjoy the setting greatly and there are more than enough possibilities to add to it. Possibilities for you or GW to add stuff or re-read stuff and get inspired by it.

I think that the problem of people feeling that "nothing ever happens" and calling out for new Golden Crusades (a thing that would go totally against all and every basics of 40k) or similar "big events" is based in their games themselves. 40k has become sterile, not much that isn't planned happens and excitement can only happen if you don't expect something to happen.

You get together, roll a mission from the rulebook, set up the terrain in a tournament-like "I go you go" fashion with each player trying to "make the terrain work" for him and game away. Maybe the reintroduction of a GM might not be the worst idea in the world.

People's attitudes and level of information have changed greatly too. The average gamer nowadays is familiar with many different systems and has a doctor's degree in metagaming and what I like to call "optimizing systems". Of said games systems, not a single one is a pen&paper roleplaying game. Instead, almost everyone is familiar with at least one of the big trading card games which aren't dependant on the background or anything like character development (which in fact does NOT mean to get stronger, fellas). Instead, creating a deck is about synergies and raw chances of winning, powerful combinations of cards and so on. It's basically the same with MMORPGs, especially after the hype about WoW. The system isn't about "WAAC" but throw a few thousand people together and 10% of them are ...well....arses and we know that one foul cherry can spoil ...food that's made of lots of cherries. Cherry pie or whatever.

I don't want to point my finger at said systems and cry that they are evil, I just want to mention that these are factors in the thinking of many gamers that weren't present back in the late 80ies and up until the late/mid 90ies. Back then, gamers were cosim players (mostly greatly interested in staying true to the background), modellers and pen&paper RPG players (used to playing characters, not numbers) and boardgaming groups. I guess that people now are smarter in that way that they realize how something works, at spotting the mechanics behind a game and using said mechanics.

The biggest factor might be the Internet itself though. People can talk about the games 24/7 which leads to the possibility of getting really, really involved. Some people are able to use that for positive things like fanzines, houserules, additions to the games and so on but if you aren't that dedicated or lack that special gene or whatever, you'll fall for all that negativity that floats around. Maybe, gamers as a whole should become a bit more laid-back in general. (This also goes for taking time to play a game. Holy Emperor, what's up with those people who get pissed if a game takes longer than two hours?!:p)

A bit back on topic of tournament gaming - yay or yay (which is an off-topic in here already;)):
Apocalypse isn't that appealing to me to be honest but it's a step into another direction, away from tournament gaming and back to gaming for fun but in a new (and financially profitable) form. And just maybe, we'll also see a set of more sensible rules for smaller skirmishes some time in the future.

bertcom1
14-08-2007, 16:23
Games Workshop moved the background of the Squats forward. And you can see how well that worked.

Suppose there was some kind of campaign that was to make a difference, and it involved a couple of Tyranid Hive Fleets assaulting the main Tau worlds, and the results were that the Tau were defeated. Tau loses their core worlds, and cease to be a force in 40k events. That sort of thing isn't going to be popular, is it?

What about the Necrons? They complete their great work, and the Warp is sealed from realspace. End of game for every other faction in 40k.

blongbling
14-08-2007, 17:11
do people not think that anything that Mr C said was agreed by GW before hand, he was told his brief and then had to do it...the same as most design teams, they cant just run off and do what they want.

40K has and will evolve exactly how GW wants it to, it isnt one mans dream that pushes it on, its the companies decision on how it wants it to go.

Sarevok
14-08-2007, 17:16
I think that 40k is turning into the vision that we the fans have forced.

People will no longer accept a game as fun, these days it has to be absolutely balanced and airtight otherwise someones doodle will shrivel because of the embarrassment of defeat.


Games Workshop sucks at balancing. The people who write the rules have very, very little idea about game balance.
The guy in charge of 40k, Jervis, makes rules on what he "feels" rather than silly things like statistics and other people's opinions.

Before we had poor balance but at least some character. Now we have maybe a little increase in balance but very, very little character.

Just remember, it's this sort of blandifing of rules that killed Epic 40K. Which Jervis co-wrote too. (how do these people stay in jobs?:confused:)

efarrer
14-08-2007, 21:24
All this while Jervis Johnson was the one-man-band of Specialist Games who was the only Dev ever to utilise public playtesting and player feedback, resulting in the gem that is Epic Armageddon.



I think and it becomes more obvious now that he appears to be in charge of 40K that JJ's efforts can best be described as the one man band that was leading the specialist games out to the pasture to be shot and then burned as if they had mad cow. The love the company has shown for epic has included removing it and all other specialist products from the walls of stores where it was selling well and discouraging the employees from trying to sell those games.

I think it's safe to say chambers vision for the game was the driving force for most of third edition. If you liked the game then (and let's be fair it's when the game was most successful) then it's safe to say Andy deserves a fair bit of credit. Mr. Johnson's stewardship of the Specialist Games in that same period and beyond can best be described as a failure.

What I really noticed from the time Andy left until Jervis reappeared was the lack of leadership. The game just kinda drifted. Now we have a new captain, but he proved incapable of turning a buck with specialist and wrote some of the most hated codexes ever.

grickherder
14-08-2007, 21:34
Mr. Johnson's stewardship of the Specialist Games in that same period and beyond can best be described as a failure.

I disagree. It was the best thing to happen to the Specialist games. It has forced dedicated players to take ownership of the games. For example, the Blood Bowl Rules Council talks yearly about the rules to update and fix things and to decide what goes and doesn't go into the next living rulebook. Epic:Armageddon lists are being designed by fans and actually tested and published as legit PDF army lists. The "counts as" rule being clearly defined in Epic:A was great as well.

All in all, Specialist games are better than they ever were because they have been weened from suckling at GW's teet for support.

That said, I'm actually a fan of the latest codexes that have come out under JJ's oversight. The DA, BA and new Chaos Codex do what they were designed to do and undo a lot of the cheese fest that was being done before. It restores tactical flexibility to the BA and returns them to fluffyness (where they only suffer the rage when it actually comes upon them and they join the death company, not randomly throughout a battle). The overspecialization of the Chaos Legions has been reversed as well. It's shocking that there are Emperor's Children that aren't noise marines to seem people, but now you can actually represent them quite well. Those who maxed out on all the options and converted everyone to be noise marines are in a bit of a pickle now though.

efarrer
14-08-2007, 22:46
I disagree. It was the best thing to happen to the Specialist games.
All in all, Specialist games are better than they ever were because they have been weened from suckling at GW's teet for support.


Soooooo, not actually releasing any new products is a success for you.


Wow. That explains soooooooo much. Lower your standards enough and anything is good I guess.

efarrer
14-08-2007, 22:54
That said, I'm actually a fan of the latest codexes that have come out under JJ's oversight. The DA, BA and new Chaos Codex do what they were designed to do and undo a lot of the cheese fest that was being done before. It restores tactical flexibility to the BA and returns them to fluffyness (where they only suffer the rage when it actually comes upon them and they join the death company, not randomly throughout a battle). The overspecialization of the Chaos Legions has been reversed as well. It's shocking that there are Emperor's Children that aren't noise marines to seem people, but now you can actually represent them quite well. Those who maxed out on all the options and converted everyone to be noise marines are in a bit of a pickle now though.

That pickle cost the average person a hundred to a hundred and 50 dollars. Kinda puts it a bit more in perspective if you use the money.

As to the line before my 2 squads of six close combat marines led by twin ligtning claw champs would argue that it always was possible to do. Something most of the people praising the new book tend to ignore is that slaanesh themed marines were possible without the being Emperor's Children, just as Nurgle marines were possible without being Death Guard and so on.

lord_blackfang
14-08-2007, 22:55
Yeah, I'm sure Jervis also assigned his own budget and employees while head of SG. All the resources of the company were his for the taking and he only managed to produce one good game and a bunch of free rulebooks and webzines. And obviously he's also in charge of marketing and ordered SG material to be pulled from the stores. :rolleyes:

grickherder
14-08-2007, 23:18
Soooooo, not actually releasing any new products is a success for you.


From the standpoint of a gamer, absolutely. The bloodbowl league I play in has never been larger and we use all sorts of miniatures, like those from Impact Miniatures as well as converted Reaper Miniatures and whatnot.

As for Epic-- there's also a ton of great sci-fi miniatures out there like the Dark Realm Miniatues line, Exodus Wars, Ground Zero Games.

For BFG, there's all sorts of great space miniatures out there.

I don't care about GW's Specialist Games miniatures. I care about the quality of the rules and from the stand point of a gamer, the fanbase taking ownership of the rules has been a complete and resounding success.

Sarevok
14-08-2007, 23:23
If only GW would use the internets to write rules like Specialist Games do.

Remember when Andy Chambers did it for the Trial Assault Rules?
Why they stop that?

grickherder
14-08-2007, 23:30
That pickle cost the average person a hundred to a hundred and 50 dollars. Kinda puts it a bit more in perspective if you use the money.

I get that. 3 months after I got into WFB, 6th edition came out. Bye-bye Rules, Magic Supplement & Army book. I had a huge amount of stuff invalidated switching from 2nd to 3rd edition.

It sucks. It really does. It's been enough for me that at times, i've completely sold off my stuff and stopped playing for a year or more. I get it.

But it's par for the course. GW's been doing it for over 10 years. When one custom converts every model in the army to have equipment not available as is in the purchased boxes, you take the risk that GW is going to change things to make the army invalid. At that point you have the following options:

1) Try to play with the old rules
2) Do counts as
3) Use your models with other (better) rules like 5150
4) Shelve your models
5) Convert them again
6) Split them up into other squads with other models as special/heavy weapon troopers
7) Quit

For my stuff now, I make EVERYTHING magnetic that reasonably can be. You can get really tiny rare earth magnets for quite cheap and I see no reason to not take the time to have my models be interchangeable and easily modified. If such a situation happened now, those terminator arms would simply click off and I'd convert up some replacements. Or I'd do counts as.

sigur
14-08-2007, 23:35
Well, the trial assault rules and trial vehicle rules were more or less a preview to 4th edition and a much-needed update to rules that were the very definition of terrible. It kind of reminded me of the Battle Manual which was released back in '92 IIRC in which the path to 2nd edition was paved.

And they "stopped that" because it confused gamers and a few people complained about having to have more than one book with them when playing. People like compact, pre-done things they rip open and have fun with. They don't have to change it. If something's wrong, complain about it on the internet but keep it as it is. Another reason must be that GW got more cautious and somewhat static when it comes to rules. They have become a miniatures-selling company quite some time ago.

the1stpip
14-08-2007, 23:36
Because GW are god!

Why would they consult mere mortals like us? We should be thankful that they allow us to spend large amounts of money to play the games...

Sarevok
14-08-2007, 23:52
And they "stopped that" because it confused gamers and a few people complained about having to have more than one book with them when playing. People like compact, pre-done things they rip open and have fun with.

They can still use the net to balance/playtest the rules and then only make them official when they are ready for a release.

<----Spam---->

Drogmir
15-08-2007, 00:41
The fact that Cambers move on to Blizzard of all people makes me question his motives.

But I've always been a Rick Priestly guy myself.

grickherder
15-08-2007, 01:16
Not to sound like a conspiracy nutter, but I almost think that the trial rules GW has put out that have been terrible might simply be self-validation by the designers. Like the reactions/stand and shoot rules. They were awful but now the designers can write off the idea by saying "we tried that and it didn't work."

Belisarius
15-08-2007, 01:56
under Andy C's 3rd edition the game saw it's largest growth and success. Further more using things like CA and the like allowed many player to expand out and gave us a reason for liking WD (remember back then it was worth buying and reading, not littering the bottom of birdcages.) The trial rules while confusing at times allowed us the players a say in the game and in the hobby. Something you will not find now. Jervis takes the blandest blah approach which discourages imagination where Andy C tended to encourage it. As a painter and modeler I prefer the later to the former. Furthermore i really feel that GW leadership since Andy's departure has been abysmal to say the least. and for those who fault some of Andy's ideas remember he gave us BFG in the same time period and tried pushing the hobby forward and expanding the boundaries where now i seriously doubt we will see anything like CA pushing xeno mounts, and depleted guard garrison lists. Maybe GW is going to appease the modelers and fn players out there with apoc. as an apology for the horrible direction 40k is heading for. So yeah i miss Andy C.

Hellebore
15-08-2007, 02:50
under Andy C's 3rd edition the game saw it's largest growth and success. Further more using things like CA and the like allowed many player to expand out and gave us a reason for liking WD (remember back then it was worth buying and reading, not littering the bottom of birdcages.) The trial rules while confusing at times allowed us the players a say in the game and in the hobby. Something you will not find now. Jervis takes the blandest blah approach which discourages imagination where Andy C tended to encourage it. As a painter and modeler I prefer the later to the former. Furthermore i really feel that GW leadership since Andy's departure has been abysmal to say the least. and for those who fault some of Andy's ideas remember he gave us BFG in the same time period and tried pushing the hobby forward and expanding the boundaries where now i seriously doubt we will see anything like CA pushing xeno mounts, and depleted guard garrison lists. Maybe GW is going to appease the modelers and fn players out there with apoc. as an apology for the horrible direction 40k is heading for. So yeah i miss Andy C.


Under Jervis, Gav, Rick, AND Andy 3rd ed was a success. Lovely selective reporting there:rolleyes:

Cult of personality indeed...

As for the Specialist Games - it's entirely JJs fault that he was put in charge of a chronically underfunded, short staffed and blatantly ignored division of GW. Yup, yessiree, why if Andy C had been in charge, just by SHEER PERSONALITY ALONE he would have increased funding (and the way some people talk about him on here, gosh darn it! He would have used his OWN money, he's just THAT kind of guy:rolleyes:), made motivational speeches that saw people working at SG for FREE (oh, wait, JJ had that already with the rules councils...) and through sheer charisma, machismo, and balls to the wall bravado he would have made GW NOTICE the SG.

Yep, all of the woes heaped on SG are squarly the fault of the person put in charge of them, it has nothing to do with how GW treated them, and the patron saint of Gamers, messr Chambers would have put it to rights, no two ways about it. Definitely. Cuz he's da best. And infallible. And morally superior to all the others.

yeah..............right.:eyebrows:

Hellebore

efarrer
15-08-2007, 03:04
Under Jervis, Gav, Rick, AND Andy 3rd ed was a success. Lovely selective reporting there:rolleyes:

Cult of personality indeed...

As for the Specialist Games - it's entirely JJs fault that he was put in charge of a chronically underfunded, short staffed and blatantly ignored division of GW. Yup, yessiree, why if Andy C had been in charge, just by SHEER PERSONALITY ALONE he would have increased funding (and the way some people talk about him on here, gosh darn it! He would have used his OWN money, he's just THAT kind of guy:rolleyes:), made motivational speeches that saw people working at SG for FREE (oh, wait, JJ had that already with the rules councils...) and through sheer charisma, machismo, and balls to the wall bravado he would have made GW NOTICE the SG.

Yep, all of the woes heaped on SG are squarly the fault of the person put in charge of them, it has nothing to do with how GW treated them, and the patron saint of Gamers, messr Chambers would have put it to rights, no two ways about it. Definitely. Cuz he's da best. And infallible. And morally superior to all the others.

yeah..............right.:eyebrows:

Hellebore

Andy Chambers was in charge during the period of success. It ended when he left. He is a jerk by many accounts but the game was a success with him at the helm.

Jervis is by all accounts a nice guy. Jervis failed at specialist (No bs about why he failed because it doesn't matter, Specialist games is effectively dead as a doornail, and he was in charge). His codexes have sucked, therefore why should any faith be put in him.

grickherder
15-08-2007, 03:17
under Andy C's 3rd edition the game saw it's largest growth and success.

We don't have this data. GW won't release any information about sales growth by line. We know that there was overall gross and that LOTR makes up 10% of GW's sales now but that's about it. I think we can reasonably infer that 40k grew during 3rd edition though.


Further more using things like CA and the like allowed many player to expand out and gave us a reason for liking WD (remember back then it was worth buying and reading, not littering the bottom of birdcages.) The trial rules while confusing at times allowed us the players a say in the game and in the hobby.

WD was much better with the IA articles, that's for sure. Along with the Kroot Mercs, Feral Orks and all sorts of crazy stuff. As for the trial rules, I'm not sure how much they did actually have a say-- I'd say they were set up to produce a specific reaction from the start. You can find better ideas for some of their experimental stuff right here in Warseer's game design forum. I'm still of the mind that the experimental rules were disengenous and that the designers at GW were going to do what they liked regardless of fan feedback and that if they didn't really like an idea, they didn't give it a proper go when it comes to experimental rules.


Something you will not find now. Jervis takes the blandest blah approach which discourages imagination where Andy C tended to encourage it. As a painter and modeler I prefer the later to the former.

Here I disagree. The army lists should have no bearing on people's painting and converting. In fact, i hope the more generic lists encourages people to differentiate their army by converting and painting rather than relying on rules and equipment combinations that become bland because everyone takes them.


Furthermore i really feel that GW leadership since Andy's departure has been abysmal to say the least.

The actual leadership of GW (Kirby et al) is the same as then.


and for those who fault some of Andy's ideas remember he gave us BFG in the same time period and tried pushing the hobby forward and expanding the boundaries where now i seriously doubt we will see anything like CA pushing xeno mounts, and depleted guard garrison lists.

This I can only agree with.

efarrer
15-08-2007, 03:30
We don't have this data. GW won't release any information about sales growth by line. We know that there was overall gross and that LOTR makes up 10% of GW's sales now but that's about it. I think we can reasonably infer that 40k grew during 3rd edition though.


It's been stated a large number of times. By a wide variety of sources.

Hellebore
15-08-2007, 04:09
It's been stated a large number of times. By a wide variety of sources.

GW made a loss during 3rd ed.

It's been stated a large number of times. By a wide variety of sources....

Hellebore

efarrer
15-08-2007, 04:31
GW made a loss during 3rd ed.

It's been stated a large number of times. By a wide variety of sources....

Hellebore

But not thier annual reports. Or anyone who can read. Throughout 3rd they were making money. In fact to my knowledge the first time GW has ever reproted a loss was this year.

1998 7.4 million
1999 8.0 million
2000 3.5 million (as 3rd ed drops off and fantasy begins)
2001 5.7 million
2002 8.5 million

I'll take the annual reports. The relevant stat is the Annual Profit predividend.

Hellebore
15-08-2007, 04:36
See, there you go, it wasn't hard. Evidence says alot more than a statement.

Hellebore

efarrer
15-08-2007, 05:08
See, there you go, it wasn't hard. Evidence says alot more than a statement.

Hellebore


I did not believe it was worth rehashing money stuff again.

There is/was a very long thread on that.

You knew I was right and so did everyone else. It was that success that drove GW's successful LoTR run.

feeder
15-08-2007, 05:12
Andy gave us BFG. For that he will always be loved.

Hellebore
15-08-2007, 05:13
And where is your evidence that ACs control over 40k at that time was the reason for that success?

It could just as easily have been their expansion of retail stores, or increase in plastic components.

Certainly there is no evidence that AC himself was personally responsible for their growth and/or success. Equally, JJ was around, as was Gav and Rick - perhaps their presence was what made GW a success?

EDIT: JJ made Blood Bowl. He rewrote EPIC into EPIC Armageddon which was much more popular. People are selectively providing positive evidence for AC and none for others.

Hellebore

Grimshawl
15-08-2007, 05:56
Andy Chambers was great, no he wasnt an island, others were involved in GW at the same time, but I do think alot of what Andy wrote and advocated would have been preferable to what we have today without him. And IMO advancing the storyline occasionally wouldnt prove to be universe ending "IF" enough thought was put into which direction the story went. However currently I have zero faith that GW could get it right or put the time and creativity in that such a move would need. GW is in a rut and have aparently went creativity bankrupt at this point so I guess it is better to just huddle around the embers of past great fluff and hope the last flames dont die for awhile longer.

whitemagikmarker
15-08-2007, 09:20
wow this is classic stuff, just when i thought i had seen it all.

i did not buy third edition because i knew that andy chambers was involved, i did not buy WD or the frist chapter apporved compendium because of andy chambers. i bought these t hings cus i love warhammer 40k, i liked 3rd, i like 4th edition and i will like 5th edition. there are many people like me who dont need to idolize someone inorder to play a game instead we like the actual game rules, fluff, models, artwork. if u dont like the direction JJ is taking stop playing with 4th ed and go back to 3rd or 2nd or rouge trader and stop wasting time with threads like these, this thread does indeed need to be reported as spam

Billpete002
15-08-2007, 09:31
a note on how the story does not "evolve" I was thinking for awhile about this but why does GW make an expansion about it?

I think it would be fun as a sort of "what if?" expansion set. Each codex (or 1 big book) shows what the army would be like after the Eye of Terror campaign.

Another set of codices I'd love to see are w40k 'historical' these could expand the game greatly with the Great Crusades, the 1 and 2nd War for Armeggedon , Tyranid invasions of Kraken etc. also the Horus Heresy would be a must :D

these would give the changes to armies, provide fluff, and flesh out the armies of those times. The Imperium was vastly different in the great crusades just as tyranids did not have all the hybrids they have now in some of their old invasions.

remember doom of the eldar board game? what about that as a 4th ed. codex? I think there is unlimited potential to expand this game if GW would do it.

Remember the main army codexs are for tournament play and balance, apocalypse if for fun and fluff. now all what's left is skirmish play. then you have all of the bases covered and are ready for fluff :D

EDIT: forgot to mention people can always just make up the rules. But from a business standpoint why wouldnt GW step in on this cash cow ;)

fwacho
15-08-2007, 10:11
i still remember the trial assault rules foundly. I remember testing them in the store I used to play in. I like the fact that the test rules were then cleaned up and changed for 4th edition (which we were NOT surprised by) The trial assault rules were just that. a test. it was a wonderful way of seeign what poeplw would complain and moan about the worst before they set something in stone for 4th ed. (I still miss stand and shoot as a guard player) but it was a smart move.
VDR in 3rd was a great idea. it just had a few things that got a bit... stupid if taken to the extreme.

Winimperial
15-08-2007, 15:37
I think AC, As well as all the GW devs that were around at the time all contributed their fair share to improve and mess up the game. I think a good thing about him was he was really hobby minded and not so much money minded as a lot of the devs are today. Although, as someone said before, he did bring in that complete ***** Pete Haines, and I don't need to explain how much of a jerk off he was.

efarrer
15-08-2007, 16:10
wow this is classic stuff, just when i thought i had seen it all.

i did not buy third edition because i knew that andy chambers was involved, i did not buy WD or the frist chapter apporved compendium because of andy chambers. i bought these t hings cus i love warhammer 40k, i liked 3rd, i like 4th edition and i will like 5th edition. there are many people like me who dont need to idolize someone inorder to play a game instead we like the actual game rules, fluff, models, artwork. if u dont like the direction JJ is taking stop playing with 4th ed and go back to 3rd or 2nd or rouge trader and stop wasting time with threads like these, this thread does indeed need to be reported as spam

Being as bright as you are your are aware that Chambers was one of the two principle designers on 40K v4 right?

Being as bright as you are you are aware that not capitalizing makes you not look that smart, right?

Not many of us are interested in going back but we aren't always happy with what is coming forward. It's the difference between a right turn and a left turn. I will say, even if I don't agree with the direction, JJ's direction is preferable to the lack of direction the game has suffered from in the intervening period.

Oh and please do report this as spam. If the thread is killed as spam, it's kinda gone the way of the unlamented GW boards here.

efarrer
15-08-2007, 16:21
I think AC, As well as all the GW devs that were around at the time all contributed their fair share to improve and mess up the game. I think a good thing about him was he was really hobby minded and not so much money minded as a lot of the devs are today. Although, as someone said before, he did bring in that complete ***** Pete Haines, and I don't need to explain how much of a jerk off he was.

I honestly don't think that it's the developers at all.

It's the successful business problem writ large.

In the early phases everyone is about the project. As time goes by the product becomes a success. The early years have pssed and the money issues are now far too complicated for the creative people, so they hire a money person. Assuming continued success more money people are hired.
Gradually the creative people are pushed aside from the decision making end, and their percentages bought by the money people or sold on the advice of the money people. Now nearing the end of the cycle, the money people own a controlling share and are making most of the economic decisions, including product viability. Everything is reviewed for viability and if the money men don't think it's worth it you won't see it. Eventually the money men, who are anything but creative (as a group, not individuals, don't get too upset with me, accountants) will become more and more risk adverse, trying to limit potential losses by releasing only things which have proven successful previously. The company may get some shocks at this point which will force more risks to be taken, but they will be limited risks, that might not help (change creative people, limited deals)

Kriegsherr
15-08-2007, 16:43
To me, the BG-Story of 40k is the Setting in which the Story of your personal army can unfold.

The Setting is immutable. This has to be an invariant for several reasons:
- As already said, changes mean sacrifices. It would be ridicolous ones (and I don't want such story changes) or grave ones (I wouldn't like If the Tau just get wiped out :P )
- A moving timeline suggests that everyone has to set their game in the "current time"... historical games and dead characters are so much more of a hassle if all people are woried about the "current time" than when its clear that the games can be placed anywhere in the 10.000 years timespan of the imperium (or even beyond).

Your own personal story is not immutable, and thats what I wanted to add. Instead of focusing on the big, galaxywide events, and waiting for GW to come up with ideas and stories for them, people should start making up their own stories, and drive the timeline forward on a microscale instead of complaining that the macro-scale timeline, that is in fact more of a setting than a real timeline, is not advancing.

Really, people, if your into 40k enough to get mad about the fact that there is no timeline Advance, you should know enough about the setting to get creative with your own stories.

Even though some people seem to have a lot of creativity but no common sense or taste, its better to try and find a middle way between his story and yours than just SAW (Story As Written :) ) things...

thats one of the reason why I dislike special characters... they hinder creativity of people more than they help it.

Back OT:
I for one really liked AC, and shared most of his views... 3rd ed was the only thing he did really mess up in my book, and I don't know who came up with the idea (maybe it was just the greedy managers driving him mad)... And although I really hated 3rd ed, I can see in which way it was an improvment over 2nd ed (even though there were a lot of other spots where it was clearly inferior)

Fact is, 40k is not made by one man... and if there is an election on the man that is responsible for the way 40k looks today, my vote goes to John Blanche.... but thats just me

Bjorn Stormwolf
15-08-2007, 17:21
I liked Andy Chambers, the only 'contact' I had with him was through the games he helped design and White Dwarf. He always seemed to be encouraging 'home brew' gaming with the trial rules, variant army list and at one point ran a series of articles with RULES suggestion from WD readers and what he thought of them. A nice range too from the polite responses to 'out there' suggestions and encouraging good ideas. I always liked to see his armies and tales of the story led games he played.

Now WD (and many hobbyists) seems more concerned with the win, it's nice to remember a guy who advocated the fun.

blongbling
15-08-2007, 17:26
I go back to my previous comment that.......it wasnt AC that was doing it, but GW telling him what to do????? and that even if he was here now with the changes in WD he wouldnt be doing it anyway

Bjorn Stormwolf
15-08-2007, 17:57
I agree, blongbling, that he wouldn't get a look in now, that wasn't my point. White Dwarf was different then and much more open to article ideas from staff rather than the editors/moneymen dictating what should be in it to sell more minatures.

I was merely reminiscing rather than demanding the 'good' old days come back.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
15-08-2007, 18:36
I think people expect too much in the way of story line advancement....

For example, the Eye of Terror campaign. This left Cadia pretty much in the hands of Chaos, whilst the Imperium still hotly contest the control of Space. Net result, Chaos have a better foothold for the (ultimately inevitable) 14th Black Crusade. This is a huge step forward. Additionally, the Tau have noticed a general de-militirastion of their surrounding systems, and have the seized the opportunities given to push forward with the 3rd Sphere Expansions.

These ARE plot lines. And as Andy C said in the above quote, the Galaxy is ours to play with.

As for the results being a draw, well, what the hell do you expect? Something of that scale cannot help but become a law of averages. 40% win, 40% loss, 20% draw. Thats what happens when you look at something on a global scale!

So until then, stop mourning your fallen figure head (who was sacked for being a knob, according to my reliable source) and take up the mantle yourself. Stop being told what to do! It's very liberating!

Cacodemon
15-08-2007, 18:54
I hold Andy personally responsible for making 3rd edition the crud it was (quite literally being the "****" edition). 2nd edition only needed the slightest of overhauls, mainly in close combat, psychic powers, vehicle and wargear rules. Instead he threw the baby with the bath water, and as a result I never had as much fun with 3rd edition.

The main wrongs done by 3rd ed:
- Taking away shooting and armour modifiers (why does your gun's range halve if you move? Or why doesn't Autocannon punch through Power Armour?)
- Friendly units don't block shooting! You can shoot through your own troops without a worry, how wack is that?
- Standardizing movement and random movement bonus for fast units.
- The removal of ovewatch and keeping the IGOUGO system instead of implementing alternate activation.
- Making psychology so marginal that it was almost of no consequence.

efarrer
15-08-2007, 20:09
I hold Andy personally responsible for making 3rd edition the crud it was (quite literally being the "****" edition). 2nd edition only needed the slightest of overhauls, mainly in close combat, psychic powers, vehicle and wargear rules. Instead he threw the baby with the bath water, and as a result I never had as much fun with 3rd edition.

The main wrongs done by 3rd ed:
- Taking away shooting and armour modifiers (why does your gun's range halve if you move? Or why doesn't Autocannon punch through Power Armour?)
- Friendly units don't block shooting! You can shoot through your own troops without a worry, how wack is that?
- Standardizing movement and random movement bonus for fast units.
- The removal of ovewatch and keeping the IGOUGO system instead of implementing alternate activation.
- Making psychology so marginal that it was almost of no consequence.

Wow. You must just love fourth ed.

Even though I feel he was a key to the successes the company had. I don't honestly believe he was responsible for all failures and successes during that period.
I don't see a good reason to address your specific points unless you can point out why Chambers should be the sole target of your hatred. I suspect JJ's love of simplicity might be an equal target for all of your rage.

Hellebore
16-08-2007, 00:46
I don't see a good reason to address your specific points unless you can point out why Chambers should be the sole target of your hatred. I suspect JJ's love of simplicity might be an equal target for all of your rage.

He's Cacodemon's sole target for hatred just as he is your sole target for praise.

Why is it ok to praise someone as the main benefactor, but not ok to abuse them for the opposite reason? It seems to be more of a bias in favour of AC than any actual rational reasoning.

All the GW staff have done good and bad things in their time. ALL of them.

What we have here is a "grass is greener" "what could have been" situation. As AC is no longer around, and his face and name (as Archfiend of 40k) are remembered, people just assume he would be a better choice than what is available at the moment.

Not from any logical perspective, but simply because he isn't here to screw up and have people bitch. He's being romanticised, and it's really easy to do because he hasn't done anything.

"What if" AC was here, the things he would do.... Well you don't know what he would do, precisely because he isn't here doing them.

The other GDs ARE here, and thus have actual product to complain about. All AC has is a rose tinted look at the past, and then a pathetic illogical projection into the future where he is quite safe from any scrutiny because he's done nothing to scrutinise.

I have no doubt that if JJ had left instead of AC we'd probably be seeing the same thing.


I have not once said I dislike AC, or any of the other GDs. I am only disagreeing with the premise that he is the sole reason GW was a success. He was a good developer, as are many of them.

That doesn't make him the messiah on earth or the prodigal son. Nor does it make any other GD a black hearted bastard (or vice versa).

Hellebore

efarrer
16-08-2007, 02:13
He's Cacodemon's sole target for hatred just as he is your sole target for praise.

Why is it ok to praise someone as the main benefactor, but not ok to abuse them for the opposite reason? It seems to be more of a bias in favour of AC than any actual rational reasoning.


Actually I was stepping back and trying to be more objective. He made some plenty boners, but on the whole I was much more satisfied with the game.


JJ does get abuse from me right now. I find his standard bearer articles to be cloying bs. I understand it. but I don't like it. I can't think of a codex he was principle on I have liked and I've played for years. And to top it off I really do feel that he was given the ball to run with at Specialist and he blew it.

Chaplain Mortez
16-08-2007, 05:38
2nd edition only needed the slightest of overhauls, mainly in close combat, psychic powers, vehicle and wargear rules.


Two phases, half the units in the game (vehicles), and the way characters work? That's hardly what I call a slight overhaul... :eyebrows:

I do agree with you in some respects, Cacodemon, armor save modifiers and psychology are something that need to be re-implemented back into 40k. If we don't go through your armor, we'll put a dent in it. Likewise, I think psychology is one of the coolest game mechanics in Fantasy. Shame to see it go in 3rd. But this is off-topic and could be another thread.

Looking at some of the rules of 2nd. edition (I own quite a few codexes. I like reading the background stories), I notice a lot of problems. Some things just stand out as broken. Entire armies wiped out the first turn due to a lucky Splatta Cannon? I mean, 2nd. obviously didn't need a slight change, it needed a massive improvement. I think 3rd. was the designers taking a step back and saying "Okay, that was a little too overboard. How can we improve things?" They were trying to tone things down. They did their job.

I started playing 40k just right before the trial assault rules. I haven't been too up-to-date on the actions of Mr. Chambers, but I do know this: the game designers are just people. They are not machines or computers who pump out exact numbers and products. They make mistakes. They have successes. I think Hellbore has it right. Perhaps 3rd. was a mistake in some respects. It was also a success. But to blame/praise one guy, this is kind of ridiculous. Andy Chambers moved on. That's that. For whatever reason, he is no longer a part of Games Workshop. He gave us some laughs. He made some of us cry. But at the end of the day, he was just another employee. His career has changed.

One thing I did like, however, and the reason I brought up trial assault rules, was that it did something GW should do more of--it play tested. It used a huge amount of people to get it done, too. Wouldn't it be nice if Blood Angels got an official book, and they used this as a great opportunity for feedback and to test things out? I think the current assault rules are very well done, and one of the better parts of 4th. edition's rules. This was brought by a giant brainstorm. One big problem of GW: designers never see the game like players do. It's a fact that Richard Garfield isn't a great player at a lot of his games. He's much better at Scrabble. But to seriously say the entire company was better/worse with Andy Chambers is ridiculous. It's not like he was the president of the company.

P.S. Stand-and-shoot are great for Gaurd, but completely destroy Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, and some Tyranids. One of the reasons it was NOT put into 4th. "I go, you go" not so great as opposed to overwatch? Yes, because everyone knows overwatch didn't create static, unfun games.

Grimshawl
16-08-2007, 06:07
Actually I was stepping back and trying to be more objective. He made some plenty boners, but on the whole I was much more satisfied with the game.


JJ does get abuse from me right now. I find his standard bearer articles to be cloying bs. I understand it. but I don't like it. I can't think of a codex he was principle on I have liked and I've played for years. And to top it off I really do feel that he was given the ball to run with at Specialist and he blew it.

I mostly agree with you except about JJ blowing SGs, he did real well with then I thought and them GW steped in a screwed everybody working on SGs,including Jervis, despite that many gamers have kept playing, If anything I see Jervis as just another victem of Games Workshop. Although his articles are horrible drek.

Cacodemon
16-08-2007, 06:16
Wow. You must just love fourth ed.

I love Warzone, but as the game is nothing short of dead and if I want opponents to play against it's 40k (and I love the background also).



I don't see a good reason to address your specific points unless you can point out why Chambers should be the sole target of your hatred. I suspect JJ's love of simplicity might be an equal target for all of your rage.

I have no rage or hatred against people, I just don't see why 3rd ed. wasn't built on the strenghts of 2nd, instead of creating something new with it's own inherent weaknesses. Why I blame Andy Chambers? As far as I know, the 3rd ed. was a team effort true enough, but AC was the 'over fiend' or the lead project designer, so it was his decisions at the end of the day that made or broke the game (broke it in this case).

JJ is taking the game to the right direction (as much right as it can go anymore) by taking out the most heinous combos and cheese lists, and more importantly, putting the atmosphere and feel back to 40k. (kudos also for the makers of the new Chaos Codex, by looking through it I can say it's got best feel since RT Realms of Chaos although I can't understand why they put John Blanche "art" in it, but that's another topic entirely).

Cacodemon
16-08-2007, 06:30
Two phases, half the units in the game (vehicles), and the way characters work? That's hardly what I call a slight overhaul... :eyebrows:

Comparing it to creating a whole new rules system, it really is a slight overhaul. Imagine that if they only changed the aspects that I mentioned (close combat to what we have now, vehicles shooting differently but the armour like it's now, psychology with terror tests, panic etc. and wargear built in to lists like we have now), it would not taken as long, but more importantly, it would have played on the strenghts of the last edition and removing its weaknesses, thus making the game better.



P.S. Stand-and-shoot are great for Gaurd, but completely destroy Orks, Eldar, Dark Eldar, and some Tyranids. One of the reasons it was NOT put into 4th. "I go, you go" not so great as opposed to overwatch? Yes, because everyone knows overwatch didn't create static, unfun games.

Warzone has both alternate action and overwatch, and I can tell you that it works like a dream.

efarrer
16-08-2007, 15:06
Comparing it to creating a whole new rules system, it really is a slight overhaul. Imagine that if they only changed the aspects that I mentioned (close combat to what we have now, vehicles shooting differently but the armour like it's now, psychology with terror tests, panic etc. and wargear built in to lists like we have now), it would not taken as long, but more importantly, it would have played on the strenghts of the last edition and removing its weaknesses, thus making the game better.

4 turn games, stupid misfires, overlong psychic phases where the game actually is decided, random stupidity. Yep I sure miss that. 3rd ed was the tops for me. 4th could have been good, but it felt rushed and the cut and paste was bad.



Warzone has both alternate action and overwatch, and I can tell you that it works like a dream.

Alternating action and overwatch are the only way to make it work, Igougo fails badly with overwatch.

Cacodemon
16-08-2007, 18:34
4 turn games, stupid misfires, overlong psychic phases where the game actually is decided, random stupidity. Yep I sure miss that. 3rd ed was the tops for me. 4th could have been good, but it felt rushed and the cut and paste was bad.

Take them out and you will have a good game. Create a new game and you will have hosts of new problems, that's what I've been trying to say.



Alternating action and overwatch are the only way to make it work, Igougo fails badly with overwatch.

IGOUGO fails, period. :D

I surely don't miss Andy Chambers, as I don't miss Pete Haines or Tuomas Pirinen. They all were designers that made the games more unbalanced.

Hellfury
20-08-2007, 07:30
Indeed. UGOIGO is made of 110% Fail.

alternating action is so much better due to not knowing how the outcome of a tactical action will be played as you see with UGOIGO.

Can I assault that unit next turn with this unit? I might be able to if I make the initiative roll for the unit.

Instead its a gaurantee right now that some actions result in certain outcomes.

Great tactical fun! *rollseyes*

Warzone was a very good game. I still covet my rulebooks. Too bad I cannot use most of my GW models with them, but I can use quite a bit.

Space marines make great bauhaus.

If 5th edition is UGOIGO, it will be just as much fail as we have had to endure the past decade.

That change alone could make 40K a better game.

grickherder
20-08-2007, 08:11
I completely agree with Hellfury. IGOUGO is just the oldest, clunkiest turn mechanic that GW seems almost complete stuck on. It's such a hindrance and a source of majority of the problems with 40k.

Even a simple fix as alternating phases (Player one moves all his stuff, player 2 moves, player 1 shoots, player 2 shoots, player 1 assaults, player 2 assaults, fight close combat, resolve morale as approprite) would be much better. There's probably a thousand different ways to handle turns that are all better than having each player move-shoot-assault with everything while the other guy stands there waiting.

sebster
20-08-2007, 09:08
Fellas, picking one guy out and vilifying or deifying him is just guesswork. There are so many factors beyond the control of the design head; corporate policy, available resources, talent levels among the support staff, pricing, competition, a supportive/combative board, that all effect the quality of final product.

I didnít much like 3rd edition, and I think the changes under 4th edition have improved the game greatly. I think Bloodbowl is one of the great games. Itíd be pretty easy to jump to a big old conclusion and declare Jarvis a design guru, but Iíve worked in project management and I know better. Sometimes you can walk into a particularly talented design team, or a brilliantly supportive board, while other times you walk into a project with too little time allowed for development or a corporate culture that wonít allow you the control you need. Often the most impressive efforts are from people getting good products out despite having everything and everyone working against them.

It isnít useful to go past the games and look at the designers to start guessing which GW personalities were responsible for the good bits or the bad bitsÖ because from the outside you just donít know anything about the internal situation each designer faced, making all the cheering and booing a little pointless, really.

Malorian
20-08-2007, 09:26
I have to say that they are sure taking the options away from a list. I like the full page (if not more) of options to give to HQ and champs. I think every codex should come with as many variants as possible.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 12:30
But the ones in the previous Chaos Codex were hardly ever used.

I think I'm about the only person in my area who bothered to use Daemonic Speed for his Prince. Everyone else used Wings....

Standard load for a Daemon Prince currently : Stature, Strength, Toughness, Mutation, Wings, Daemon Weapon. Oh, and the extra wound.

So what was the point in the other options when they weren't getting used?

f2k
20-08-2007, 13:47
Also, the more options, tha harder it is to balance the codex. And the game is unbalanced enough as it is...

reds8n
20-08-2007, 14:11
But the ones in the previous Chaos Codex were hardly ever used.

I think I'm about the only person in my area who bothered to use Daemonic Speed for his Prince. Everyone else used Wings....

Standard load for a Daemon Prince currently : Stature, Strength, Toughness, Mutation, Wings, Daemon Weapon. Oh, and the extra wound.

So what was the point in the other options when they weren't getting used?


Hmm, well both around my way and at the GTs it was speeding princes all the way because of the fleet move.

I fully agree that some options were rarer than a Liverpool fan who agreed with Mr. Styles "penalty" decision (easy Mike, just breathe !:skull::mad::cries:), but surely the objective should have been to tweak those options not remove them altogether -- people rarely took warp spiders, hawks or shining spears or Avatars before the last revamp but they were kept in the book still.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 14:21
Units are easier to tweak than options.....

Grimshawl
20-08-2007, 14:33
But the ones in the previous Chaos Codex were hardly ever used.

I think I'm about the only person in my area who bothered to use Daemonic Speed for his Prince. Everyone else used Wings....

Standard load for a Daemon Prince currently : Stature, Strength, Toughness, Mutation, Wings, Daemon Weapon. Oh, and the extra wound.

So what was the point in the other options when they weren't getting used?

I see this arguement all the time, it amounts to But Only a Few gamers who liked option X got Screwed! So what, since not everyone chose that option it had to get tossed? I thought the equally loud croud who was always bitching about the no brainer choices everybody took was bad untill I started seeing this arguemnt put forth. The designers should have worked at ballancing options better instead of just throwing so much out.

Nazguire
20-08-2007, 14:56
I think I'm about the only person in my area who bothered to use Daemonic Speed for his Prince. Everyone else used Wings....


Everyone who I've seen play a daemon prince puts Speed on the DP. Fleet move, 12" charge is better then a 12" flight move by a long shot, especially on a Khornate Daemon Prince.

Most people here seem to use Speed, not wings.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 14:59
With the advent of 4th Edition, yeah. But before that, 12" move was pref to 12" assault.

Nazguire
20-08-2007, 15:02
With the advent of 4th Edition, yeah. But before that, 12" move was pref to 12" assault.

How long has 4th edition been in effect? Several years now?

Mad Doc Grotsnik
20-08-2007, 15:21
True, but I am mainly a Warhammer player....

CaseyNoVa
22-08-2007, 20:00
I like Andy Chambers a lot. I've never met the guy but he did make Starship Troopers and I think that's one of the best sets of rules for Sci Fi games out there. It's easily my favorite Sci Fi rules set.

I really enjoy 40k the way it is, though. I'm not sure if the mechanics for SST would work for 40k. I like both for different reasons and I play both.

lomo
22-08-2007, 21:02
I like Andy Chambers a lot. I've never met the guy but he did make Starship Troopers and I think that's one of the best sets of rules for Sci Fi games out there. It's easily my favorite Sci Fi rules set.

I really enjoy 40k the way it is, though. I'm not sure if the mechanics for SST would work for 40k. I like both for different reasons and I play both.

Someone once told me that the Starship Troopers was what 3rd edition 40K was supposed to be. Basically anyway. I dont know how true that is. and I have never actually played the Troopers game.

RevEv
22-08-2007, 21:48
I, for one, do not miss Andy Chambers.

His predaliction towards Chaos, his penchance for over complicating rules, and his inability to accept that 40K was bigger than him really annoyed me.

40K has become a far more 'fun' game since his departure, and with the recent increase in involvement for Jervis Johnson and Rick Priestly has seen a vaste improvement in the product now being developed by GW.

Anyone for Apocalypse?

firestorm40k
23-08-2007, 07:37
I love threads like this. They're so pointless... :rolleyes:

Take the following statements, for example.


I hold Andy personally responsible for making 3rd edition the crud it was (quite literally being the "****" edition).


Yep, all of the woes heaped on SG are squarly the fault of the person put in charge of them, it has nothing to do with how GW treated them, and the patron saint of Gamers, messr Chambers would have put it to rights, no two ways about it.

Now, for me, the first statement is fundamentally flawed, because it overlooks a couple of essential points:

1) Games Workshop is a company - decisions about their direction, what gets put in to rules/codexes/etc are not down to one person and one person only; rather, they must be approved by managers and the people at the top. When changes are made, they are not totally the fault/stroke of genius of Andy Chambers, Jervis Johnson, etc etc.

2) The blame for many such changes can in some ways (now I'm playing devils advocate here) be layed at the feet of us, the gamers. Take the changes from 2nd Ed. to 3rd, for example. Now it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of the changes were introduced because people were fielding, or wanting to field, bigger and bigger armies. 2nd Ed. rules were a tad unwieldy for this, hence the streamlining of 3rd Ed. Sadly, because GW does (though not always) pay attention to what players are using in their armies, somethings will be altered or dispensed with. And that's one of the 'problems' with newer Codexes.


Now, the second statement shows more sense (inspite of the sarcasm!), as it acknowledges the first point, that GW operates as a Company, and a larger group of people over the likes of Andy or Jervis have a big sway in decisions. Take, for example, the decline of the Specialist Games. Although some would blame Jervis, this is wrong: the decline was due to GW not wanting to resource or support them properly - not Jervis' lack of ideas or direction (check out the appendix at the Epic:Armageddon rulebook and weep as you see what he had planned for the game, and never got to put in to place, due to GW's withdrawal of support).


Ultimately folks, we are playing a game about made up planets & people & races with little toy soldiers, for frak's sake, it is only a game, so what are we complaining about at the end of the day? :rolleyes:

Cacodemon
23-08-2007, 10:41
I love threads like this. They're so pointless... :rolleyes:

Then why are you posting?



Now, for me, the first statement is fundamentally flawed, because it overlooks a couple of essential points:

1) Games Workshop is a company - decisions about their direction, what gets put in to rules/codexes/etc are not down to one person and one person only; rather, they must be approved by managers and the people at the top. When changes are made, they are not totally the fault/stroke of genius of Andy Chambers, Jervis Johnson, etc etc.


I hate repeating myself, but...


Why I blame Andy Chambers? As far as I know, the 3rd ed. was a team effort true enough, but AC was the 'over fiend' or the lead project designer, so it was his decisions at the end of the day that made or broke the game (broke it in this case).



2) The blame for many such changes can in some ways (now I'm playing devils advocate here) be layed at the feet of us, the gamers. Take the changes from 2nd Ed. to 3rd, for example. Now it is my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that a lot of the changes were introduced because people were fielding, or wanting to field, bigger and bigger armies. 2nd Ed. rules were a tad unwieldy for this, hence the streamlining of 3rd Ed. Sadly, because GW does (though not always) pay attention to what players are using in their armies, somethings will be altered or dispensed with. And that's one of the 'problems' with newer Codexes.

I was never aware that there was such a 'demand' from the player base to have bigger games. More likely it was a conscious decision from GW to escalate the game to sell more models.



Ultimately folks, we are playing a game about made up planets & people & races with little toy soldiers, for frak's sake, it is only a game, so what are we complaining about at the end of the day? :rolleyes:

I'm complaining because the game blows, as the designers made bad decisions with the rule set. Hence game = not as fun :rolleyes:

f2k
23-08-2007, 10:53
I was never aware that there was such a 'demand' from the player base to have bigger games. More likely it was a conscious decision from GW to escalate the game to sell more models.


I, for one, would prefer a return to the squad-based gaming of 2. edition. The rules needed some work though...

The last few editions of both 40K and Fantasy have upped the number of models on the table. Better game or marketing ploy? You decide...

grickherder
23-08-2007, 13:36
They pretty much cut the points in half but kept on talking about the same points values as standard army size. That equals twice the models to buy.

RevEv
24-08-2007, 03:20
Third edition is a vaste improvement on second - I still shudder at the memory of my first game and taking over two hours to do one round of squad based close combat.


They pretty much cut the points in half but kept on talking about the same points values as standard army size. That equals twice the models to buy.


I was working as a key timer when third edition came out - GW were very open about this fact. Come on - it sells models!!! They are a company that relies on profit, not a charity for geeks.

Back on topic - the demise of Andy Chambers saw a rise in originality and an opening up of 40K away from his fixation on Chaos. Miss him? No way!

grickherder
24-08-2007, 06:15
Third edition is a vaste improvement on second - I still shudder at the memory of my first game and taking over two hours to do one round of squad based close combat.

I don't think we want to get too much into a 2nd ed/3rd ed is better debate. 2nd ed was definitely more over the top. As to taking too much time, my first game took four hours, but in the 2nd edition 1700 point league i was part of, no game ever took more than 2 and half hours.



I was working as a key timer when third edition came out - GW were very open about this fact. Come on - it sells models!!! They are a company that relies on profit, not a charity for geeks.

Absolutely they were up front about it. There's also a bit of a conflict of interest going on. Wargamers want good rules and nice models. If a company thinks it should supply poor rules designed to sell models, then eventually it's going to hit a point where people abandon the game due to rules frustration. It's already happening with GW.


Back on topic - the demise of Andy Chambers saw a rise in originality and an opening up of 40K away from his fixation on Chaos. Miss him? No way!

The funny thing about the post-Chambers days is what you'll find in interviews with the designers about new projects. For example, there's an interview about the current nid codex on warpshadow where the designers talk about bringing back as much of the feel as they could of 2nd edition. The Dark Angels and Blood Angels codexes are also definitely a move back towards 2nd edition style army lists (but without the wargear cards) with combat squads, 5 or 10 squad sizes and the like. I started playing 40k during the middle of 2nd edition and I'm finding the feel of the latest codexes to be trying to recreate some of the better points about 2nd edition. A rise in originality? More like a slight returning to what worked to make GW a multi-national publicly traded company in the first place.

RevEv
24-08-2007, 10:13
I agree that the codexes are heading more towards what they were in 2nd Ed, but now they look further afiled than what awaits in the warp.

I started playing during 2nd Ed as well and, the one agreement that my wife and I came to was that we would never play chaos, a predominant feature of 2nd Ed. As a result the only opponents that we could find initialy(plus it was in the box set) was Orks v Dark Angels. We then came across Eldar but were unsuccesful in gaining an army through our wedding list. Away from these two opponents all you had was Chaos.

We now have Dark Eldar and Tau to choose from with the demise of Andy Chambers and the arrival of 3rd Ed.

As to returning to what made them great - of course they will. Maybe they are finally getting the message that many veterans were trying to get through to them via this and similar sites. If it ain't broke don't fix it. It is a pity that they did move towards younger gamers - after all. a gamer with an independant income will spend far more on hobbies than a youngster who has to convince mum and dad of the relative merits of a toy soldier over and above more important things.