finally -- has the "Jervis Model" slipped from 40k?

In 2015 Black Blow Fly wrote a modern response to a 2002 editorial written by Jervis Johnson, entitled "Point Values -- Who Needs 'em?!?" I love beating dead horses, and necromancing old threads, but i also think that such a topic has some new merit. the old article, in case you're interested, is here: [url]http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/08/40k-editorial-rules-rant-jervis-are-you-serious.html[/url]

I think that it's about time, in the shadow of another edition, that we seriously look at that idea again.

Jervis has been a longtime influence on the game, a major contributor and shaper of the things to come. When 4th rolled around and he was given more mainstream things to do while specialist games were gradually shuttered, we saw the Dark Angels get a full codex -- that had stripped-down minimalist units and relied on special characters instead of choice/restrict to play their alternate lists. Having started a few months before that release, i was disappointed with the changes, since "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" is always sound advice. Yet we saw both of those spread to CSM and other armies soon after. When 5th rolled around, that style pulled back somewhat, but appeared again in AoS with the elimination of pay-for-upgrade options on many units.

Essentially, it's a mindset that he propagates. there are many parts. but seeing one part fade may foretell the others being phased out as well. part of his mindset has been that two players should just meet up, agree on what thy are playing, agree on what the parameters are, and just start rolling dice -- which sounds like a fun way to play, but is not for everyone nor does it fulfill the structure need that some people have for their games. someone once described it as "problems are really just features" -- meaning that since he didn't care to fix it (because it would be too hard, because it would be a lot of work, or because it didn't impact his vision of what the game should be like), he could spin it to sound like it was planned that way.

I'm all for this being a part of the game.

Keep in mind that my gaming regulars over the years have included redshirts, soldiers, house-husbands, history professors, numerous english teachers, engineers, software designers, artists, farmers, students, business owners, roller derby bruisers, fencers, behavioral psychologists, journalists, chefs, and all sorts of other backgrounds. few of these people have so much time to devote to the hobby that they can come up with a fun challenge by the simple Jervis agreement -- "what if my units have to hold this position, and you throw... how many?... extra points at us... and if my designated units reach these points, i can stop you from entering play from there..." might sound interesting, and could be a fun afternoon, but agreeing on how to make it less one-sided means knowledge of the system and the changes you are suggesting, so nothing is out of whack so far that it's just not fun.

people play games because they like the experience, but also because they think they have a chance at winning, though what each person defines as a "win" may be different.

His major point in the editorial is best described when he says: "I just don't want them [tournaments] becoming seen as being the pinnacle of the hobby" -- and that what point values affect and influence the most is the competitive side of the product over the narrative side. Much of the article is spent talking about playing pickup games with others where they arbitrarily decide on victory conditions and choose from what's available in an agreeable sort of way. This, he seems to think, is the "pinnacle of the hobby" because it is his chosen favorite way to play. and because he has the experience and knowledge necessary to make it a rewarding experience. this is not true for everyone.

For a moment, I wish to speak as a professional -- a veteran teacher with 15+ years in the field, in a state where education is a primary value and product. From that standpoint, i can easily say... "Jervis, what's wrong with you?" He, as a professional, and as an educated and experienced designer and players has a broader access than most to the raw intellectual side of the game. He can play as he sees fit because he understands how to play that way. many people learn a game (or any other subject) in different ways depending on numerous factors, and not everyone instantly connects with a topic or a style. people who have continued to play 40k throughout the years have done so because something about the game -- play, aesthetics, hobbyism, fluff, or some other part of the experience -- have worked for them. if they like one aspect (such as the strategy), but lack the skill or knowledge of another (such as the comprehensive game-knowledge and sense of how balancing mechanics work), then they may get frustrated with their attempts to implement a Jervis-style adaptation.

Just like i wouldn't assume that playing Operation was like real open heart surgery, but i would trust that a surgeon would have steadier hands than i and thus still be better at the game, i know that a professional who lives and breathes in their career all the ways that these rules interact will be better at modifying those rules even if he is not a good player. his assumptions that others can do what he has the experience to make possible is just unrealistic as applied to the broad field of the player-base.

numerous distractions can waylay someone from putting their time and effort into this kind of game or hobby instead of something else, so holding attention over time is usually due to the experience being valued. if it's the social aspect, then another game can easily take that position. if it's the competition, then a better and more head-to-head-balanced game can easily take that role. Jervis's mindset sells the experience as a unique creative playground where you have all the control and balance is really just a fun extra. It should be able to be that. but it should also, for those who are unsure of its application, be able to be organized and qualified.

Tournaments are fun, but i will agree that for me they are not the pinnacle of the experience of the game -- and note i distinguish the hobby from the game, as i believe they have become and will continue to be separate aspects of a much larger experience. I have played in, won, lost, and thoroughly enjoyed many tournaments through many editions. A good tournament is a great test of a specific set of skills, but for the sake of its own criteria it must focus on certain skills over others. It is, for instance, hard to come up with tournaments with asymmetric missions that efficiently lead to a scoring system. It is far easier to create equal forces with equal raw odds of achieving goals, and allow the armies and generals to do the heavy lifting. Then, points alone are needed as a balancing between forces. If, that is, the points are accurately a measure of the competitiveness of the army or the value of its components.

The Jervis Argument is that since points are only fully useful in that environment, in order to not allow that one mode of play its full due because it is inferior to others, we shall not therefore concern ourselves too much with points. There is a strong possibility that his argument was meant to be a bit tongue-in-cheek, though it does not read heavy with humor -- and that would really be the only decent defense against an argument that bad.

Essentially, he's saying that "since some people like to race cars, racing uses a lot of unnecessary fuel, and I don't see the point, I would abuse a governmental position to increase gasoline taxes to discourage people from racing regardless of the effect on everyone else."

We all develop our own personal theories, and for a while i've secretly thought that this was a justification of a cop-out: that since he did not know what kind of metric could create a purely balanced game, he figured there was no reason to try. That "could" may be due to complexity, due to someone else (such as the Sales department) calling the shots, or due to time restrictions. After having to play his 4th ed Dark Angels Codex and its failed attempt at stripped-down style for far too many years, i can see his imprint upon the design changes of the game. This all-too-quick acceptance that points are arbitrary instead of useful, and this justification behind barely even throwing a bone to the competitive crowd, has been a major sticking point in the quality of Games Workshop games for a number of years now -- and, in comparison, this lack of professional quality or range in a game is one of the factors that has attracted players to other systems.

Now, I'm a reasonably smart, well-educated guy. I have reasonably smart, well-educated friends. i can find a game that operates under smart, reasonable, and logical modifications to maximize what we each want out of our gaming experience. I am also laid-back enough to be able to "just kinda go with it," even if it's to my disadvantage. But maybe i want a challenging game that will be hard to win. maybe i want a scenario-driven game. maybe i want to see what would happen if my take-all-comers army fought a losing battle against a huge force of enemies. having no system for that means that i have a harder time assessing what happens, or the results. did it go well, if i have a single scout left in round five against twice the number of points of tyranids? points help assess the information. they aren't the only thing, nor are they the sole reason for playing, but they are one aspect of information just as grades are one aspect of information about student performance -- and the one that, if all other parts of the educational process are done with due diligence (curriculum development, instruction, assessment, revision, differentiation... all in a self-reinforcing loop), shows an objective measure of success or failure that can in turn help teachers and students improve.

I know that by now Jervis probably regrets writing this article -- every time someone has an issue with GW products, this gets dragged out and his intelligence is called into question by well-meaning but angry fans. Maybe he should have thought of that before writing this piece, which is equal parts arrogantly dismissive and inconsiderate of desired experience -- since it considers no legitimate counter-answer to a complicated argument. Maybe he has changed -- he did have a hand in the writing of the General's Handbook, which differentiates manners of play instead of simply favoring the one he likes best. but while this mindset is pervasive, there will be many reasons to play other games.

Ironically, building in or even suggesting some tools for balancing games in narrative formats would actually meet a lot of these neglected needs. having a ranking system (or even just points) to use to choose army size, mission, objectives, and the like in order to generally make it more fair would -- if balance was paid attention to throughout, which is a big hope for 8th -- make the game far more versatile and fun. but until the Jervis model of considering his own ideal conditions as the norm, i fear that we will have little attention paid to actual balance issues within the game.