 | Main - Tactics - Fiction - Rumours - Army Features | ||||||||||||||||
The Gav Thorpe Interview - Dysartes & Gav Thorpe | |||||||||||||||||
Warhammer 40,000The Eldar family tree and other fluff, is any of this to be released at any point?There goes another little kitty... I assume this is referring to the diagram on page 44 of Codex: Eldar, which I dubbed the 'Eldar Metaphysics Flow Chart'. I've actually been doing a little bit of work on this with Jes Goodwin, and an updated version may see the light of day some time in the future. I still don't think it should be explained, although we hope to publish enough contextual material to make it decipherable. If it doesn't refer to this, then I've got no idea what the question is asking! Codex: Harlequins. Do you still have any connection with this? Will it receive a 4th Ed revision? The Harlequins' fate is still undecided. It's not a question of if, but rather how and when. Could you give us a general idea as to what direction the dev team is planning on taking the Dark Eldar? I'm mainly interested in army background and general playing style (if you guys have even considered that yet). The main thrust will be giving them a full size Codex that allows us to explore more of their history and nature. We worked out quite a bit of detail last time around, but the size and style of the early 3rd edition Codexes precluded us from being able to publish much of it. Really, it's more detail on the Fall, the founding of Commoragh, the evolution of the sects (such as the Haemonculi and Wyches), as well as the disturbing nature of the Mandrakes and Scourges (which are supposed to be a lot darker than they are currently presented). As for the playing style, I would expect them to retain the dynamic they have - fast, fragile and deadly. Without having reviewed the current list in detail yet, we can't point to any specific areas that need revision, although I suspect the most obvious ones have already been widely discussed on the 'net. Did you view publishing VDR as a mistake? Or are there plans to enhance the rules for this in the future? A mistake? Certainly not. When Jervis Johnson wrote the article, it was envisaged that it would allow people to make the wacky vehicle conversions and the deodorant tanks of the Rogue Trader days. The points values were very much on the high side so that the driver (no pun intended) was for the aesthetic rather than gaming angle. At the end of the day, Forge World has built a massive product line out of this simple idea! Having been involved only lightly with 40K for the last few years, I'm not aware of the issues around the Vehicle Design Rules, so I can't really comment. Are there any plans to expand on the whole Sensei, Illuminanti plot line in 40k? No. Dark Eldar are the Shiznit. Agree or Disagree? Agree. When we get back to the Codex in the next few years, I'm looking forward to having the extra space to play around with (not that I'll necessarily write it myself, but you get my meaning). Introducing a whole new race in the 48pp format was very difficult. Are dark angels going to get anything to replace the stuff they lost when the new SM codex and newest DA Q&A came out, (such as specialists in termie command squads and mixing assault and normal terminators)? (ED - I'd assume this means pre-Dark Angels Codex) As far as I'm aware, there's no plans for the various Space Marine Chapters until their Codexes have been revisited properly over the next few years. There has been talk that the vast majority of the design work of the chapter-specific Space Marine codecii was done at the time the main codex was being rewritten. Is this approach likely to become more used when there are armies which are deviations off a main theme, and does this allow you to balance the various books against each other better? A part of the brief was for the revised Space Marine Codex to be compatible with the 'sub-Codexes' that work off its contents. However, this is not to pre-empt any decisions we'll make when it comes the time to address the Codex properly. On the whole, the plan is to make each a self-contained book, close in format to the Space Marines Codex, but no longer dependant upon it. General GWDo you know if there is any desire to bring back the citadel journal (or a publication with similar content) for Warhammer Fantasy/40k?No, but you'll see that WD and the website has been increasing the amount of hobby-related articles and I think this fills the same sort of gap. How often is GW planning on releasing a codex/army book? It seems like it's 2 per year, per system. Is this accurate? There are many factors that go into a release schedule, and one factor is the amount of work required for a particular project. Given that every year our thinking evolves and the scope and style of different sorts of supplements is changing, it's hard to give a definitive answer. I think that we would want to cover a minimum of two armies per system per year, but may well produce more, or less if there were other work-intensive projects such as a new edition or starter set. Could you explain how long it takes to produce a codex and a range of models and how that time breaks down. How many people work on each project? That's a very long answer, and one that varies tremendously on the scale of the project (obviously!). On the whole, we begin work on a project roughly two years before release, and would have been thinking about what we might want to do before that. We're in a constant state of self-evaluation, both as individuals and a Studio as a whole. The longest time frame required is for the design and manufacture of plastics, which takes over 80 weeks from a sculptor starting on the 3-ups to delivery to a store in Australia. This doesn't take into account design time before then, with concept drawings, working out frame breakdowns (i.e. what goes into each set) and such like. I don't really know too much about the detail of miniatures design or art, except for the fact that it takes a long time! We can decrease this a bit by using conversions like head swaps and weapon swaps, but even so a full army from scratch like the Ogres or Tau takes up design time for the best part of a year for a couple of sculptors. With regard to the book itself, we take as much time as possible. Given such extended timescales on a project, a games developer doesn't spend all of this time working on that project exclusively. Whilst writing and developing one army list, they will be spending time in the early stages of a future project, or more likely providing support material in the form of WD and web articles. On the whole, an army gets about six months dedicated development and testing, plus whatever could be done before the project goes 'mainstream'. Is there any chance of going back to 5-piece multi-part, instead of the trend toward 2 or 4 part cookie-cutter plastics? And why did GW start making those awful elbow joints. They really kill creative poses. Any chance new plastic boxes will ship with all unit options (unlike Bretonnian Men at Arms and the new Chaos Warriors, both of which shipped without all their weapon options but with bunches of extraneous bitz, on the sprues.) One of the things that we had noticed about 'creative posing' was that many of the possible poses were simply gawky or lacked any kind of unit dynamic. In Warhammer, the basic visual element (like the game) is the unit. It is important that these units are striking yet coherent (except gobbos of course, who could be all over the place). This is why we've paid particular attention to the weapons and heads, giving variety where possible, because these are the parts that are most visible on the tabletop. Each regiment set fulfils different criteria, but the important ones are how long it take to assemble a unit of 16-20 models, and how those units can be made to look different from each other when on the tabletop. There's no perfect solution (not least because of the restrictions of plastic tooling) and we'll continue to try to make these kits functional and flexible. As to the weapon combinations, the main limiting factor is the size of the frame, but also posing is also a factor. For example, the Chaos Warriors combinations break down into two natural categories - those with a thing in each hand (weapon and shield or two weapons) and those held in both hands (great weapons and halberds). To avoid having awkwardly posed models that would probably look unnatural with every combination, we decided to split the weapons and will eventually have two separate Regiment sets. Since the largest costs of plastic minis are moulds and design, why have the # of sprues per box dropped from 5 to 4 in most of the new plastic sets? (i.e. Skellies get 5 sprues per box, for a total of 20 models, but Chaos only gets 4 sprues for 16 minis.) Although there is no strict formula is this regard, there is a relationship between the number of models in a regiment set and the size of units people are likely to take, based vaguely on size and points value. On the whole, most regiments are sixteen-strong. Smaller, weedier troops such goblins, Skaven and such come in twenty-strong regiments, while harder units such as Chaos warriors come in smaller units, and cavalry comes in half-strength units (i.e. Eight silver helms compared to sixteen High Elf spearmen). These days the largest cost is in packing 100,000+ boxes, where the difference between putting five frames and two frames in a box can make a considerable difference to the profitability of a product. Our plastics strategy, like so many other aspects of the range management, is constantly being updated in light of new technologies, demand and planning, and so too are the numbers of models produced in plastic. How technical is the design of miniatures, in terms to usage of computers, especially in plastics? Are they used to works out the layout for plastic pieces on sprues, where air vents are required and such, or is that all done by other means? It is very technical in some respects, particularly the constraints of the plastics tooling process. We're currently investigating the way technology can be used to improve the manufacturing process (such as rapid prototyping machines, 3-d scanners and the like), as well as investigating various design tools. Ultimately, we don't want to remove the skill and craft in miniatures design, because it is from that individuality and the manual process of sculpting putty that much of the character derives, but it is certainly and area GW is doing some R+D with at the moment. There are always a lot of wacky rumours knocking around on the Internet these days, be it about release schedules, new armies or whatever. What is your view on this, as to whether its a good thing or a bad one, and would you like to do anything about it if you could? I have no issues with rumours, and in fact some of the more outrageous speculation just has me giggling. What I object to is the way that some people treat rumour as fact, and then go on to moan about GW (or individual members of staff) based on something that is untrue. Wargaming is a social hobby, and it is to be expected with the style of product that we do, that our work creates speculation amongst the community. As long as this remains interested or light-hearted speculation, there should be no problem. At best, I can simply click the "next thread" button and move along, at worst I have to resist the urge to respond to such slanderous rumour-mongering, some of which is blatantly nonsense or deliberately antagonistic. I do resist the urge though, because what we'll get judged on is the final product we release, not what people thought it might be. What are your thoughts on the impending "Adjustment" of the Specialist Games Studio? Do you see it as a positive or negative step for the games involved? Having been a colleague of the Fanatic guys, it was difficult to separate my personal feelings on some of my mates moving on (although most are still with GW), and my professional opinion. Time will tell, is where my head is at for the moment. It will take some adjustment, but I can see some of the positive sides - a greater focus on the existing range and supporting that, as well as the hobby elements. It's too easy to get caught up in rules rather than gaming, and particularly with new releases. It remains to be seen what sort of resource we can dedicate to new miniatures beyond next summer, but I don't think it's as bleak as many people are imagining at the moment. It will also mean that we can focus on the quality of those releases and ensure they are top notch Citadel miniatures. It's hard to comment further because the decision has been made by the ongoing support plans and other details are still being worked out, and these will ultimately be the basis of any judgement. The change has different implications for different games systems, because of the scope of the Specialist games range, and the issues concerning them vary widely. As I said in response to a similar topic, the gamers themselves will continue to play the games they enjoy, and while they do this, we'll continue to support them. Similarly, were you surprised at hearing that Fanatic Magazine would be cancelled after a mere 10 issues? It's being published online (in some form), not cancelled, which will allow for greater flexibility and obviously the deadlines don't have to take into account any physical printing. How seriously are player-suggestion changes to rules or army books taken? For instance, if a group were to work on and play test a set of changes to the Dark Eldar, then presented them to the Studio, would they be taken seriously or not? They are taken seriously, but to be honest, they're not that useful. We already have plenty of ideas concerning what we would change or keep, based upon the constant discussion and feedback we get from players. Any one individual comment or suggestion is unlikely to be that radical, and when it comes to finding solutions, well that's what we pay Games Dev for! We also work on a very long timescale, so often we'll get suggestions after the book has gone to print, or it's into development and testing. Players should continue to send in their ideas and comments, and we'll answer them, but there are no quick fixes available and players need to be as patient as we do. How many dwarfs does it take to drink a keg of ale in a single night? Half a dwarf, unless it's a particularly big keg. How many play test games is an army liable to be taken through, on average? Between in-studio games and out external play test list, we would aim for around 20-30 games a month, so if we get a full run at something, anywhere between 150-200 games. There tends to be quite a lot of change and evolution in the early stages, so of these, perhaps the first month or two might not resemble the final army list, depending on how new it is and how radical we've been. This might not seem like a tremendous amount, but by this time we've usually reduced the arguments to points of view or small quibbles over particular pieces of wording. In White Dwarf 301, you're described as having written the first faction book for Inquisitor. Can you give us some insight into the content, and what you're attempting to achieve with these books? Well, to tie-in with the earlier question regarding Fanatic's future, this is a bit of a tricky question, because the means by which it might get published are now uncertain. Anyway, the basic idea is to flesh out the history and background of the six main factions from the Inquisitor book. Now that this is online, it might be that we can actually have a more scattered approach than a series of annual, monolithic tomes. I hope that as well as being interesting, this material is inspiring, and leads players to create new characters, warrior bands, scenarios and campaigns around the ideas presented. What I wanted to avoid was 'background for background's sake' - what I've written stays relevant to the tabletop skirmish game and is all applicable in some way or another. Between myself and Andy Hall, we've come up with some basic sections that we want to cover for each faction, including their history, notable characters, their relationships with other factions, as well as more games-related material such as sample characters, new talents and psychic abilities, types of henchmen and so on. There's also an Author's Choice section, although this may well not form part of the overall publication now because it's essentially as standalone section to broaden or deepen the background of the Inquisition in general. Mine, for instance, deals with the organisation of the Inquisition, in regards to recruitment, cells, conclaves and so on. We hope to cover topics such as the Ordos, methodology, symbolism and so on in the future. Black LibraryYour novel Angels of Darkness has provoked a number of debates on the true nature of the Dark Angels. Would you say the view that was presented in the novel is a valid one, or merely an attempt by an unrepentant Fallen to try to corrupt a Chaplain?I leave that entirely up to the reader to decide - it's kind of pivotal to the idea that I don't have an opinion on the matter! Would you share the view of the Dark Angels presented in that book? We've established that there's a link between the Legions and their Primarchs, and I wanted to explore this with regard to the suspicious, secretive nature of the Dark Angels and what it might imply for El'Jonson. It was also at this time that we were laying some of the groundwork for the Horus Heresy CCG and in a discussion with Alan Merrett I got very excited by the idea of the Old and New Legions and what this could mean with regard to the Dark Angels schism. I think that only I (and possibly Graham McNeill) would have been allowed to do what I did, but at the end of the day there is no definitive statements in the book, only viewpoints and even Astelan's opinion on the Lion is voiced as speculation. Are you going to be writing any more novels for the Black Library? I'm currently finishing Grudgebearer, a novel about Dwarfs and then I'm not sure. I certainly won’t be doing another for a while as I want to move house in the first part of this year, and so I'm limiting my freelance commitments. I also want to get back into painting and gaming a bit more, which have been subverted by work and the writing, and so hope to spend more weekends painting and less novelising. Which of your BL novels to date have you enjoyed writing the most? The first Slaves to Darkness book, 'Claws of Chaos'. It's the most character-driven novel I've done, and from people's responses the idea of there being no antagonist, merely opposed protagonists makes it very involving for the reader. Plus it's got the best hidden joke in it. Which of your characters would you say you identify the closest with? None of them, I hope! They're all a bit screwed up really, one way or another. Like any writer, you put different parts of yourself and your experiences into various characters, such as any particular hopes or fears that you may have or had. This only starts them off though, and if all goes well, they take over the story, just like the cliché says. The Conclusion: About Gav | |||||||||||||||||
Want to discuss this? Or anything else? | |||||||||||||||||
Main - Tactics - Fiction - Rumours - Army Features | |||||||||||||||||
