Last winter I sent a letter into Phil Kelly detailing some (okay, not "some", it was 20 pages long) things I felt needed to be addressed for Sisters. While I'm working on doing another submission, it won't be for Sisters (I can only beat a dead horse so much) and am approaching this with a more broad scope this time because I feel it might be the best way to tell the dev team what we really want and why as I don't think they know what we're looking for or how our game differs from the way they play. I can't promise results, just that I'm making the attempt anyways.
I'm trying to hit are the rules issues, units people want to see and things people want to see improved or debuffed. Because I don't play everything I'm looking to hear what people have to say, and please give me some evidence to work with as to craft a convincing argument I can't really say things like "it feels underpowered". We don't have to go full mathhammer, but something to back up the problems would be great.
So to start off here's what I've got in mind thus far:
Chaos Marine Cult Terminators (I think they know this one, but it can't hurt to reinforce it)
Chaos Marine Cult Calvary (Berzerkers on Juggernaughts, that sort of thing)
CSM Legion tactics
Shadows in the Warp having an impact on Psykers outside of Perils (it's supposed to make it harder to use psychic powers, not just increase your chance of perils. Possible solutions include: -1 to die rolls for attempting to manifest powers for Psykers in the SitW bubble, or not counting the Mastery Level of any Psyker inside the SitW bubble)
Khorne having some actual psychic defense (he hates sorcery and the like being used for combat, and it should really be reflected on some level, such as Adamantium Will on models with his mark)
Serpent Shield nerf (I'm looking at 24" Range and One Use Only to balance the thing out)
Close combat feeling so futile (I don't really have any solutions for this right now, but I do want to explain the feeling to them at least)
So anyone else have something they want to toss in?
I doubt they'll ever read it, though I really hope they do - with that in mind:
Allies. Can we just have a list that makes sense that isn't borked? - Imperial allies have a massive advantage due to being able to ally to cover all their bases with no issues - for instance, AM can ally for, say honour guard. What can Tau ally for? On the same level? Nope... nothing.
Superheavies and GCs in normal games? Apoc only,
please. Same for D weapons (which are largely part and parcel anyway). Revenant Titans throwing D at my Mechanised IG isn't a fun matchup for me.
Assault needs fixing. If you threw up a poll, how many people are taking Khorne Berserkers over Plague Marines? Or Noise Marines?.
Less random overall - random objectives are a BIG no to most people I've spoken to. There's enough of us on Dakka that can testify to this.
Getting it read, and maybe even getting a reply isn't hard. It's getting anything proposed implemented that will be the true challenge.
That said I don't think you're going to see SH/GC go away liquidjoshi.
And something I forgot earlier: Daemonfactory needs to go. Yes it's legal, and it might even be fluffy, but it's not fun to be the person facing down and army that goes from 2k to 4k in a single turn.
ClockworkZion wrote: Getting it read, and maybe even getting a reply isn't hard. It's getting anything proposed implemented that will be the true challenge.
That said I don't think you're going to see SH/GC go away liquidjoshi.
And something I forgot earlier: Daemonfactory needs to go. Yes it's legal, and it might even be fluffy, but it's not fun to be the person facing down and army that goes from 2k to 4k in a single turn.
Would a recommendation of Pink Horrors not being able to spawn work or perhaps summoned daemons can't summon? (or perhaps both)
Regardless of whether it is good or not, the concept itself is too outrageous.
Might wanna reread the Psychic rules for blessings, you already can't stack the same blessing, only different blessings that have similar effects.
Beyond that, could you define those a little more by what you mean? I need to explain things clearly in a letter and I'm not going to guess what you mean by "IC combo" or "horrible broken combo".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
60mm wrote: Mail yourself a blank page. The impact will be the same, and you'll receive their exact response far far quicker.
Odd, because mailing Phil Kelly got me a written response, and his work email account.
Seriously, getting an actual response isn't hard. Getting them to understand why I'm proposing what I am and accepting the proposed changes as something that should happen on some level is.
I'll give some generic advice for writing correspondence like this. Don't rant or let emotion creep into the writing, they're unlikely to read it if it sounds like you're yelling at them. Keep it short and to the point, be vicious in editing; keep it to one page, two at the most. Back up everything you say and avoid use of anecdote; they have access to sales figures, statistical analysis software, and other metrics that you don't, so don't say things like "people want" or "many people agree that..." Avoid criticizing things that are matters of opinion, and remember that on some points they may simply have a different opinion.
I'd really suggest holding off for a few months until the dust from seventh has a chance to settle. For one thing, they're going to be busy right now supporting the new edition and might not have time to read your letter, and for another there may be more things down the road that aren't apparent yet that need to go in your letter.
Above all, ask yourself: if I was to receive a letter like this, from a stranger discussing my job, on top of all the other tasks I'm expected to perform in a work day, would I stop to read it?
ClockworkZion wrote: Serpent Shield nerf (I'm looking at 24" Range and One Use Only to balance the thing out)
Wooaa now, lets not get ahead of ourselves. If this was made, then there would be next to no reason to run serpents. For 145 points, they would be quite bad. I think 24 inch range and not ignores cover would be a better fix.
60mm wrote: Mail yourself a blank page. The impact will be the same, and you'll receive their exact response far far quicker.
Odd, because mailing Phil Kelly got me a written response, and his work email account.
Seriously, getting an actual response isn't hard. Getting them to understand why I'm proposing what I am and accepting the proposed changes as something that should happen on some level is.
I don't mean that you will not get a response, I mean that your letter will have the same impact as mailing yourself a blank page. How much of your input on the SoB found their way into 40k? It's not like GW is unaware of the state of 40k as a game, your letter isn't going to be any news to them. I can mail a letter to the DoD about why war harms our own country and I'll bet you anything I'll receive a response thanking me for my input and that it gives them food for thought. Which obviously isn't true. If GW was willing to listen to customers, you wouldn't have much to write to them about in the first place.
office_waaagh wrote: I'll give some generic advice for writing correspondence like this. Don't rant or let emotion creep into the writing, they're unlikely to read it if it sounds like you're yelling at them. Keep it short and to the point, be vicious in editing; keep it to one page, two at the most. Back up everything you say and avoid use of anecdote; they have access to sales figures, statistical analysis software, and other metrics that you don't, so don't say things like "people want" or "many people agree that..." Avoid criticizing things that are matters of opinion, and remember that on some points they may simply have a different opinion.
I'd really suggest holding off for a few months until the dust from seventh has a chance to settle. For one thing, they're going to be busy right now supporting the new edition and might not have time to read your letter, and for another there may be more things down the road that aren't apparent yet that need to go in your letter.
Above all, ask yourself: if I was to receive a letter like this, from a stranger discussing my job, on top of all the other tasks I'm expected to perform in a work day, would I stop to read it?
Don't worry, this isn't my first time writing them, and I've got several years experiance in writing professional correspondence under my belt. As for being busy, I think it's safe to say that they're always busy these days (I know a person who used to work at GW and plays the occasional game with Kelly now and then and last I heard he was looking pretty damn tired. It's safe to say the Devs are at full tilt all the time anymore).
Be polite, be professional, don't sound like I'm trying to verbally fellate the reader and I'll do fine.
Neither will anything else. Their goal is simple: pump out rules that have their dwindling number of customers buying more models.
You're making assumptions about the dev teams goals. What you're describing is the goals of a suit, not the goals of any of the dev team. I've never heard anyone describe any of the devs (and from my emailing with Kelly I'd have to agree) as being anything but passionate about their jobs. That doesn't mean they're perfect, nor are their rules, but they do try.
ClockworkZion wrote: Serpent Shield nerf (I'm looking at 24" Range and One Use Only to balance the thing out)
Wooaa now, lets not get ahead of ourselves. If this was made, then there would be next to no reason to run serpents. For 145 points, they would be quite bad. I think 24 inch range and not ignores cover would be a better fix.
So using a skimmer transport as a transport and not a frikkin heavy tank and having the ability to turn penetrating hits into glancing ones which also counts as a weapon that may not even be destroyable isn't reason to use it? Let's be serious here, making the weapon one shot only with no regen afterwards makes it the situational weapon the fluff describes instead of adding even MORE dakka to what is supposed to be a transport. Wave Serpents do not need more Dakka than an Ork Battlewagon.
60mm wrote: I don't mean that you will not get a response, I mean that your letter will have the same impact as mailing yourself a blank page. How much of your input on the SoB found their way into 40k?
We'll see when they get their next codex.
60mm wrote: It's not like GW is unaware of the state of 40k as a game, your letter isn't going to be any news to them.
Perhaps, but they also play a different kind of game than their customer base does (when's the last time you've seen a Swarmlord make it into combat? They apparently see it.)
60mm wrote: I can mail a letter to the DoD about why war harms our own country and I'll bet you anything I'll receive a response thanking me for my input and that it gives them food for thought. Which obviously isn't true. If GW was willing to listen to customers, you wouldn't have much to write to them about in the first place.
From an economics and technological standpoint war actually helps the country. P
Also, you're confusing the ability and willingness of a few employees to listen with a corporate policy that says the company don't need forums or Facebook.
Besides, what's the harm in trying? Is the concept of actually doing something so wrong? I could sit on my ass and bitch on the internet like any other person or I could try something. And frankly I'm just not that good at just sitting on my ass.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're making assumptions about the dev teams goals. What you're describing is the goals of a suit, not the goals of any of the dev team. I've never heard anyone describe any of the devs (and from my emailing with Kelly I'd have to agree) as being anything but passionate about their jobs. That doesn't mean they're perfect, nor are their rules, but they do try.
I'm drawing conclusions about the company based on the evidence. It's great that the dev team may be passionate; they don't run the company. The suit with the goals you referenced does.
I'd suggest that the little gimp licking Typhus's floor horn on his base should be considered a spell familiar added to his profile. Typhus is way too taxed for what little he brings, and I hate that little gimp.
They don't play the game differently than their customers, they just don't care about the game. I'm not sure how it could be more obvious without proclaiming it on the cover of WD.
Also, I think our recession and the trillions sunk in the middle east would very much like to disagree with you on war helping the economy.
I sent a lengthy email to customer service asking it get sent to someone who could actually respond that expressed my feeling (I also requested a replacement to the Finecast Bretonnia dude I got a long time ago that has a curled sword and bent banner... ). It wasn't hateful, spiteful, but a kind of "I'm your target demographic in every sense. I make cool models, I paint 40k stuff for competition, I play the game like it's going out of style and I'm pretty upset about how you're running the game into the dirt."
Response?
They told me I could try warm water on my banner guy. That's about it.
60mm wrote: They don't play the game differently than their customers, they just don't care about the game. I'm not sure how it could be more obvious without proclaiming it on the cover of WD.
Also, I think our recession and the trillions sunk in the middle east would very much like to disagree with you on war helping the economy.
Our recession was tied more to housing bubble and the way loans were being handled (with things like not requiring collateral for the loan) than the war. Seriously, go take a Macroeconomics class.
You have to think of it from a GW perspective. They release a codex, and someone finds a broken combo to use i.e. Screamer Star, O'Vesa Star or even plain spam ( Riptides, Wraithknights and Serpents ). If people want to play them they have to buy the models. GW might get thousands of FAQ messages asking them to fix it, but they don't care when wave serpents and riptides are flying off the shelves and they are getting loads of cash. When people stopped buying tides and tzeentch daemons they killed the deathstars, sort of makes them look they the good guys for a change.
So basically they probably will ignore your letter, but there is no harm in trying.
I sent a lengthy email to customer service asking it get sent to someone who could actually respond that expressed my feeling (I also requested a replacement to the Finecast Bretonnia dude I got a long time ago that has a curled sword and bent banner... ). It wasn't hateful, spiteful, but a kind of "I'm your target demographic in every sense. I make cool models, I paint 40k stuff for competition, I play the game like it's going out of style and I'm pretty upset about how you're running the game into the dirt."
Response?
They told me I could try warm water on my banner guy. That's about it.
They may have passed on the email you sent, but there isn't much Customer Service can do for you directly beyond telling you how to fix the model and offering you a replacement.
If you're going to bark up trees you have to pick the right ones.
Seriously now, no more talk about futility or wasting my time or how useless it is please. I don't care about your opinions on how I spend my time I'll spend it how I like and if I want to spend it attempting to engage the people who make the rules for the game I play then I'll do just that. If you have something to add to the list, cool, otherwise your wasting your time and mine here.
60mm wrote: They don't play the game differently than their customers, they just don't care about the game. I'm not sure how it could be more obvious without proclaiming it on the cover of WD.
Also, I think our recession and the trillions sunk in the middle east would very much like to disagree with you on war helping the economy.
Our recession was tied more to housing bubble and the way loans were being handled (with things like not requiring collateral for the loan) than the war. Seriously, go take a Macroeconomics class.
War didn't cause the recession, but if we had 6+ trillion dollars still in our pockets the recession would have been pretty easy to deal with.
You are free to use your time however you wish but most people are gonna tell you this endeavour will prove fruitless. You openly asked opinions about a letter you plan to write and people have been giving theirs.
ClockworkZion wrote: Chaos Marine Cult Calvary (Berzerkers on Juggernaughts, that sort of thing)
Thousand Sons on screamers... Surfers of the Webway! Ahriman Slater ftw
Sacrifice should be a WC 3 power (any future conjuring power as well), while Summoning shouldn't be the primaris. Aside Divination and Sanctic, all other disciplines have Witchfires as Primaris. Dark Flame or Infernal Gaze should have been Malefic's primaris. These 2 changes would help a lot holding back daemon factory. Mail them this, if you're still up for that.
60mm wrote: You are free to use your time however you wish but most people are gonna tell you this endeavour will prove fruitless. You openly asked opinions about a letter you plan to write and people have been giving theirs.
Someone didn't use their time to actually read what I was asking for did they?
ClockworkZion wrote: I'm trying to hit are the rules issues, units people want to see and things people want to see improved or debuffed. Because I don't play everything I'm looking to hear what people have to say, and please give me some evidence to work with as to craft a convincing argument I can't really say things like "it feels underpowered". We don't have to go full mathhammer, but something to back up the problems would be great.
Because THAT is what I was asking people to post. Not opinions on how useful this endeavor is, not snark about me wasting my time or other nonsense, but things they felt should be passed onto the devs in an ATTEMPT to see if we could actually get some improvements pushed through rather than just bitching about it into the void that is the internet.
So if you don't have something topical to add, such as issues you think need to be addressed with the game, the rules or just something that you feel needs to be FAQ'd please don't bother posting anymore, you're just wasting people's time.
ClockworkZion wrote: Chaos Marine Cult Calvary (Berzerkers on Juggernaughts, that sort of thing)
Thousand Sons on screamers... Surfers of the Webway! Ahriman Slater ftw
Sacrifice should be a WC 3 power (any future conjuring power as well), while Summoning shouldn't be the primaris. Aside Divination and Sanctic, all other disciplines have Witchfires as Primaris. Dark Flame or Infernal Gaze should have been Malefic's primaris. These 2 changes would help a lot holding back daemon factory. Mail them this, if you're still up for that.
Oh I'm still up for it. I don't fold to peer pressure that easily. I really don't know if we could get the summoning powers moved around, at least not -this- edition. The best we can hope for is getting it limited to HQ models I think.
The Wave Serpent is just fine the way it is right now. Phil Kelly said he wanted it to be similar to the one in Epic Space Marine and it is. The problem with the Wave Serpent now isn't what it can do, instead, it is the fact that for some reason GW made the Wave Serpent the main transport vehicle of the Eldar instead of the Falcon. The Falcon was the main transport in Epic and that should have carried over to 40k. Wave Serpents were somewhat limited in availability and were mainly used only to transport the super specialized Howling Banshees and Harlequins into battle.
What I want out of 40k is for GW to make the things from Epic Space Marine in 40k scale and make them work very similar to Epic. The Wave Serpent does that nicely. Trying to get them to nerf it down will just make the Eldar community very angry as Eldar are supposed to have that sort of power level. They did rule the galaxy for quite a few million years after all.
If they instead, went to making the Falcon the dedicated transport again and made the Wave Serpent a specialized transport like in Epic then that would limit the power level of serpent spam.
They Eldar USED to rule the galaxy until they mucked it all up with too many orgies and drugs and lost most of their really good tech in the birth of Slaanesh. Seriously, that's been their fluff since like 3rd.
The Wave Serpent has been the go to transport for Eldar for a few editions now. Not to mention is the one with the larger transport capacity making the Falcon really pointless if you're taking a unit of say, 10 Dire Avengers.
And I really don't care if people get butthurt if it gets nerfed. If they aren't going to restrict the Wave Serpent (and let's face it, they won't be) then it NEEDS to be toned down. Right now it's more ridiculious that the Heldrake used to be in terms of what it can do in terms of damage and how hard it is to kill.
ClockworkZion wrote: They Eldar USED to rule the galaxy until they mucked it all up with too many orgies and drugs and lost most of their really good tech in the birth of Slaanesh. Seriously, that's been their fluff since like 3rd.
The Wave Serpent has been the go to transport for Eldar for a few editions now. Not to mention is the one with the larger transport capacity making the Falcon really pointless if you're taking a unit of say, 10 Dire Avengers.
And I really don't care if people get butthurt if it gets nerfed. If they aren't going to restrict the Wave Serpent (and let's face it, they won't be) then it NEEDS to be toned down. Right now it's more ridiculious that the Heldrake used to be in terms of what it can do in terms of damage and how hard it is to kill.
Ok, if that's the way you feel about it, that's fine but don't expect everyone to agree with what you personally think needs nerfed. I learned a long time ago that requesting things to get nerfed just pisses off the dev team and they do things like purposely mess with the player base. The latest instance was the Helldrake having its mouth mounted flamer turned into a 360 degree weapon just to spite the whiners.
So I totally expect the Serpent to get more powerful now. cool.
ClockworkZion wrote: They Eldar USED to rule the galaxy until they mucked it all up with too many orgies and drugs and lost most of their really good tech in the birth of Slaanesh. Seriously, that's been their fluff since like 3rd.
The Wave Serpent has been the go to transport for Eldar for a few editions now. Not to mention is the one with the larger transport capacity making the Falcon really pointless if you're taking a unit of say, 10 Dire Avengers.
And I really don't care if people get butthurt if it gets nerfed. If they aren't going to restrict the Wave Serpent (and let's face it, they won't be) then it NEEDS to be toned down. Right now it's more ridiculious that the Heldrake used to be in terms of what it can do in terms of damage and how hard it is to kill.
Ok, if that's the way you feel about it, that's fine but don't expect everyone to agree with what you personally think needs nerfed. I learned a long time ago that requesting things to get nerfed just pisses off the dev team and they do things like purposely mess with the player base. The latest instance was the Helldrake having its mouth mounted flamer turned into a 360 degree weapon just to spite the whiners.
So I totally expect the Serpent to get more powerful now. cool.
So, cool story bro. Because I don't recall anyone asking the Heldrake to get nerfed BEFORE it fired like a turret. Infact when the new CSM codex came out people were calling the Heldrake "useless".
So yeah, your claim isn't holding water.
EDIT: Also have you considered that it's about presentation. You never tell someone "this is broken, fix it" you explain the problem (namely that it's promoting armies where people just spam 5 man Dire Avenger squads to bring more Wave Serpents because of their superiority over other options in the army), offer a possible solution but ultimately leave it up to the individual. It gets people to pay more attention to your arguement, understand why you're offering a change and then let them feel ultimately in control of either implimenting that change, finding an alternate change or outright ignoring it. But the first two are far more likely if you present it well, be polite about it and don't try and browbeat people into submission about how you don't agree with them.
Even if you want to argue that it's working as intended and as the fluff from Epic suggests, it's creating a problem on the table. It's not leading to "fun" games, it's leading to horribly lopsided ones dominated by bringing as many of a single model as you can to win.
Regardless of everything else, for the sake of balance it NEEDS to be fixed in one manner or another. You can agree with my idea or not, but it needs a nerf of some kind to get things on an even keel.
ClockworkZion wrote: Might wanna reread the Psychic rules for blessings, you already can't stack the same blessing, only different blessings that have similar effects.
We already talked about that. Casting ten times the same benediction on a unit is not a combo. Casting ten complementary benedictions on a unit is. Unit should be able to get one, and only one benediction on them at the same time.
ClockworkZion wrote: I need to explain things clearly in a letter and I'm not going to guess what you mean by "IC combo"
Many IC joining a unit to give it a bunch of special rules that works very well together. Get less special rules that transfers over to the unit, and maybe let one one IC give his rules (say, the one with the higher Ld for instance).
It's an interesting idea, and I wish you luck with it, but the one thing I don't think has been mentioned here is that, no matter what GW do or don't do with the rules, the issues will be the same. They didn't know things like screamerstar or serpent spam were going to happen when they wrote the codex, as they expect people to play the kind of fluffy, take-what's-cool lists. Ultimately, it's the players that find these combos and exploit them, and there's not a lot GW can do about it; the people that want to break the game will.
So I'd put the focus on what you'd want to see added (like chaos cult termies/legion tactics ect) rather than toning down stuff. I think that's far more likely to be considered than a suggestion that they somehow weaken certain models/combos. I imagine their attitude to the latter would simply be 'don't play it then'.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: The Wave Serpent is just fine the way it is right now. Phil Kelly said he wanted it to be similar to the one in Epic Space Marine and it is. The problem with the Wave Serpent now isn't what it can do, instead, it is the fact that for some reason GW made the Wave Serpent the main transport vehicle of the Eldar instead of the Falcon. The Falcon was the main transport in Epic and that should have carried over to 40k. Wave Serpents were somewhat limited in availability and were mainly used only to transport the super specialized Howling Banshees and Harlequins into battle.
What I want out of 40k is for GW to make the things from Epic Space Marine in 40k scale and make them work very similar to Epic. The Wave Serpent does that nicely. Trying to get them to nerf it down will just make the Eldar community very angry as Eldar are supposed to have that sort of power level. They did rule the galaxy for quite a few million years after all.
If they instead, went to making the Falcon the dedicated transport again and made the Wave Serpent a specialized transport like in Epic then that would limit the power level of serpent spam.
If you get fluff accurate Eldar I get fluff accurate Tyranids.
So I have more models on the field than you have points to spend.
ClockworkZion wrote: Last winter I sent a letter into Phil Kelly detailing some (okay, not "some", it was 20 pages long) things I felt needed to be addressed for Sisters. While I'm working on doing another submission, it won't be for Sisters (I can only beat a dead horse so much) and am approaching this with a more broad scope this time because I feel it might be the best way to tell the dev team what we really want and why as I don't think they know what we're looking for or how our game differs from the way they play. I can't promise results, just that I'm making the attempt anyways.
I'm trying to hit are the rules issues, units people want to see and things people want to see improved or debuffed. Because I don't play everything I'm looking to hear what people have to say, and please give me some evidence to work with as to craft a convincing argument I can't really say things like "it feels underpowered". We don't have to go full mathhammer, but something to back up the problems would be great.
So to start off here's what I've got in mind thus far:
Chaos Marine Cult Terminators (I think they know this one, but it can't hurt to reinforce it)
Chaos Marine Cult Calvary (Berzerkers on Juggernaughts, that sort of thing)
CSM Legion tactics
Shadows in the Warp having an impact on Psykers outside of Perils (it's supposed to make it harder to use psychic powers, not just increase your chance of perils. Possible solutions include: -1 to die rolls for attempting to manifest powers for Psykers in the SitW bubble, or not counting the Mastery Level of any Psyker inside the SitW bubble)
Khorne having some actual psychic defense (he hates sorcery and the like being used for combat, and it should really be reflected on some level, such as Adamantium Will on models with his mark)
Serpent Shield nerf (I'm looking at 24" Range and One Use Only to balance the thing out)
Close combat feeling so futile (I don't really have any solutions for this right now, but I do want to explain the feeling to them at least)
So anyone else have something they want to toss in?
I wouldn't write such a long letter, better to keep it nice and concise. It should be a short letter addressing their design philosophy. If they are willing to change things, then they can easily approach the community to find specifics.
I wouldn't write such a long letter, better to keep it nice and concise. It should be a short letter addressing their design philosophy. If they are willing to change things, then they can easily approach the community to find specifics.
This.
And let them know how much antagonizing FLGSs in North America is killing them.
What I'd most like to hear from the designers is their thoughts on some of the most ridiculous combos. Specifically Screamerstars, grimoired Fateweaver, and Seer Councils.
Did they really intend for a 2+ rerollable to be readily available like this? If so, why? Is an unkillable unit fun? If not, what's going on here? Are their brains not aware of what their fingers are typing? Do they not playtest at all? Are they just really, really bad at probabilities? Do they just not expect people to use these options, and if so, why are they even there?
Maybe, you know, phrase it less condescendingly, but I'd really like to know the thought process behind this.
Since you know more than me, not sure if this will be of any use.
How are you going to contact them? By email? If by email I think it's fruitless, you will not get an answer back from what I read. If you mail them with a self stamped addressed envelope you may get a response back from them. Use Mail. You know the one with the stamp. I say that because a lot of people think of Mail as e-mail not the one post office. Just want to clarify.
It seems GW responds to written letters instead of e-mails. So if you want a great chance at a response, write them a letter and Mail it to GW with a SASE and wait a few weeks or months for your reply.
Roadkill Zombie wrote: The Wave Serpent is just fine the way it is right now. Phil Kelly said he wanted it to be similar to the one in Epic Space Marine and it is. The problem with the Wave Serpent now isn't what it can do, instead, it is the fact that for some reason GW made the Wave Serpent the main transport vehicle of the Eldar instead of the Falcon. The Falcon was the main transport in Epic and that should have carried over to 40k. Wave Serpents were somewhat limited in availability and were mainly used only to transport the super specialized Howling Banshees and Harlequins into battle.
What I want out of 40k is for GW to make the things from Epic Space Marine in 40k scale and make them work very similar to Epic. The Wave Serpent does that nicely. Trying to get them to nerf it down will just make the Eldar community very angry as Eldar are supposed to have that sort of power level. They did rule the galaxy for quite a few million years after all.
If they instead, went to making the Falcon the dedicated transport again and made the Wave Serpent a specialized transport like in Epic then that would limit the power level of serpent spam.
If you get fluff accurate Eldar I get fluff accurate Tyranids.
So I have more models on the field than you have points to spend.
And I'm cool with that. Tyranids should be a beast that is almost unstoppable...almost. good thing we have unbound now huh?
Roadkill Zombie wrote: What I want out of 40k is for GW to make the things from Epic Space Marine in 40k scale and make them work very similar to Epic. The Wave Serpent does that nicely. Trying to get them to nerf it down will just make the Eldar community very angry as Eldar are supposed to have that sort of power level. They did rule the galaxy for quite a few million years after all.
The Necrons consent to your proposal that game power reflect fluff power, and politely ask the space elves to form an orderly queue, ready for execution.
I'm sorry if some of this has been mentioned, but I've decided to skip reading.....we'll say less then unhelpful posts. Also, I've not actually read though the 7th ed rules so if I'm wrong in my understanding about something Please correct me.
Demonology: There is actually a reasonable fix for this. At the end of the turn the demons are summon. Roll d6, on a 5+ they return to the warp. The next turn its on a 3+, then next turn its automatic. Also Summon Creatures shouldn't be counted toward your psychic dice pool.
And PLEASE: Stop turning Warhammer 40K into 28mm EPIC. While its awesome to see Warlord titans on the table, the size of a small child. We already have the apoc rules for when we want to play these Massive super heavy units, and its cool to be able to run some of the smaller superheavies in normal games, not everyone has the money for them.
Combat Patrol needs Official support for people that want to play smaller skirmish games.
There are some ways to make assault better:
Remove random charge distance
Require passing a leadership test before being able to fire Overwatch.
Ultimately though, What Warhammer 40k needs is a ruleset that's designed for the competitive scene. With balanced codexes to go with it. You can then come out with a "Light" rule set for the casual players.
Some of the more codex specific things I'd like to see changed (again, beating a dead horse)
Dark Angels:
Drop the points cost of the DA Jet Fighter by 20 points
Add Access to the Hunter/Stalker ((I know. shush about unbound or allies)
IG:
Hurry up and release the Catchatan supplement you know your going to release. But while your at it, come out with supplements for some of the other regiments. (( This is the only time I'll say codex supplements are a good thing))
Chaos Space Marine:
I'll leave the needs of this to you Zion, You seem to know what it needs better then I do.. BUT other units need to be made better, so Helldrake spam goes away.
Tau:
Make the Ion Accelerator a more expensive Upgrade, so Riptide Spam is less attractive. (( If it was a 20 or 35 point upgrade, instead of a 5 point upgrade We'll either see more HBC, or fewer Riptides))
Pathfinders are scouts. Take the Ion Rifles and Rail Rifles away, and put them into a "fire support team" unit, similar to devastators, or Eldar Rangers, even if you don't want to give the Tau Sargent the option to take them as an upgrade.
Okay: I'm running out of Unique things to say. So I'm going to end it hear.
I'd wait until the dust is settled from 7th before writing the letter. If we have learned anything from 6th, it's that nothing is as it apears at first.
Still, I'd just like to point out some of there common design flaws:
- Too many of their close combat units are an utter failure. Khorne berzerkers, banshees, praetorians, you name it. If they design a close combat unit, they also need to design a way for them to get into combat - and if you don't, getting half or more of them shot to death while crossing the board needs to be factored into their cost. On top of that they seem to have issues getting the right combination of attack, weapon skill, AP and strength. WS4, S4, A1 with pistol and chainsword is not an assault unit. That's a bored space marine who forgot his bolter at home.
- Random effects need to be costed for their average result, not the best result. Currently, if you have something with Strength 2D6, they cost it like a S10 weapon, rather than lie a S7 weapon.
- They really should get someone who knows statistics well. Someone who explains them that having low chance, high reward/penalty rules mess up games in an unfun way (for example SAG, daemonic instabilty, deep strike mishaps). On the other hand, high chance, medium reward/penalty play great and actually are fun (loota shots, Get's Hot, dangerous terrain).
- A jump pack doesn't make a model a lot better like a bike does, so it shouldn't be costed that way. Adding a jump pack to a regular rank and file soldier should not exceed three or four points.
ClockworkZion wrote: Might wanna reread the Psychic rules for blessings, you already can't stack the same blessing, only different blessings that have similar effects.
We already talked about that. Casting ten times the same benediction on a unit is not a combo. Casting ten complementary benedictions on a unit is. Unit should be able to get one, and only one benediction on them at the same time.
There aren't that many powers that have similiar effects though. You're asking them to take away something they intentionally put into the rules but then left very few actual powers in the rules that do the same thing. Heck with them nuking codex powers there are even less now then there were before.
ClockworkZion wrote: I need to explain things clearly in a letter and I'm not going to guess what you mean by "IC combo"
Many IC joining a unit to give it a bunch of special rules that works very well together. Get less special rules that transfers over to the unit, and maybe let one one IC give his rules (say, the one with the higher Ld for instance).
You're going to have to give me an example here because there aren't many rules that specifically carry over from one to the other that I can think of.
I wouldn't write such a long letter, better to keep it nice and concise. It should be a short letter addressing their design philosophy. If they are willing to change things, then they can easily approach the community to find specifics.
This.
And let them know how much antagonizing FLGSs in North America is killing them.
I'm writing the devs, that's more of a thing to write Kirby about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: Since you know more than me, not sure if this will be of any use.
How are you going to contact them? By email? If by email I think it's fruitless, you will not get an answer back from what I read. If you mail them with a self stamped addressed envelope you may get a response back from them. Use Mail. You know the one with the stamp. I say that because a lot of people think of Mail as e-mail not the one post office. Just want to clarify.
It seems GW responds to written letters instead of e-mails. So if you want a great chance at a response, write them a letter and Mail it to GW with a SASE and wait a few weeks or months for your reply.
Good luck.
As I've mentioned I have done this before. And yes, it'll be sent via the post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: I'd wait until the dust is settled from 7th before writing the letter. If we have learned anything from 6th, it's that nothing is as it apears at first.
7th isn't so drastically different from 6th to keep from seeing where the problems still lie. Sure they fixed a few things (Heldrakes are not the spammable monsters the were before for instance) but as you point out in your post there are things we can clearly see that are still issues. And it's not like I can't do another one of these a year from now if I feel the need.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote: I think 20 pages is too much. I would try 3-4 max. That would have a better chance of being read. Less is more.
Oh I don't intend to do 20 pages this time. That's just what it took to cover basically re-writing the entire Sisters codex.
I don't have "Escalation" yet, but to my understanding Orks only get Stompas. If super heavies are going to be included in standard games, I think orks should have rules to play looted super heavies as something other than a "looted wagon". For a looted Baneblade to have the same specks as a looted Leman Russ seems silly to me. Of course, this may all be a moot point in a couple weeks, no?
Orks get full access to all super-heavies made by forgeworld, including the skullhamma battlefortress which is nothing less than a looted baneblade.
The stompa also is a walker chassis that can pretty much be filled with whatever you need, including about everything any baneblade variant could do. So not a lot lost here.
Jidmah wrote: Orks get full access to all super-heavies made by forgeworld, including the skullhamma battlefortress which is nothing less than a looted baneblade.
The stompa also is a walker chassis that can pretty much be filled with whatever you need, including about everything any baneblade variant could do. So not a lot lost here.
Well that's good news. I happen to have a Baneblade I'm orking-up. I've never seen any of the forge world books, but do you happen to know if there is a place with consolidated spec sheets and points, or do I have to buy all the books to determine what battlefortress I'm building with it? (I happen to have a large deffrolla on the front of the baneblade, so I would ASSSSSSSUME the deathrolla battlefortress would be the way to go, but I like to have options).
The rule Czar at GW isn't Phill Kelly its Jervis Jhonson. Phill Kelly seems alright to me. Its when you read about Jervis Jhonson and his design philosophy that you see the guiding hand of the current state of GW games.
Fire JJ. Phill can finally do the job he wants to do.
ClockworkZion wrote: Might wanna reread the Psychic rules for blessings, you already can't stack the same blessing, only different blessings that have similar effects.
We already talked about that. Casting ten times the same benediction on a unit is not a combo. Casting ten complementary benedictions on a unit is. Unit should be able to get one, and only one benediction on them at the same time.
There aren't that many powers that have similiar effects though. You're asking them to take away something they intentionally put into the rules but then left very few actual powers in the rules that do the same thing. Heck with them nuking codex powers there are even less now then there were before.
ClockworkZion wrote: I need to explain things clearly in a letter and I'm not going to guess what you mean by "IC combo"
Many IC joining a unit to give it a bunch of special rules that works very well together. Get less special rules that transfers over to the unit, and maybe let one one IC give his rules (say, the one with the higher Ld for instance).
You're going to have to give me an example here because there aren't many rules that specifically carry over from one to the other that I can think of.
I wouldn't write such a long letter, better to keep it nice and concise. It should be a short letter addressing their design philosophy. If they are willing to change things, then they can easily approach the community to find specifics.
This.
And let them know how much antagonizing FLGSs in North America is killing them.
I'm writing the devs, that's more of a thing to write Kirby about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Davor wrote: Since you know more than me, not sure if this will be of any use.
How are you going to contact them? By email? If by email I think it's fruitless, you will not get an answer back from what I read. If you mail them with a self stamped addressed envelope you may get a response back from them. Use Mail. You know the one with the stamp. I say that because a lot of people think of Mail as e-mail not the one post office. Just want to clarify.
It seems GW responds to written letters instead of e-mails. So if you want a great chance at a response, write them a letter and Mail it to GW with a SASE and wait a few weeks or months for your reply.
Good luck.
As I've mentioned I have done this before. And yes, it'll be sent via the post.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: I'd wait until the dust is settled from 7th before writing the letter. If we have learned anything from 6th, it's that nothing is as it apears at first.
7th isn't so drastically different from 6th to keep from seeing where the problems still lie. Sure they fixed a few things (Heldrakes are not the spammable monsters the were before for instance) but as you point out in your post there are things we can clearly see that are still issues. And it's not like I can't do another one of these a year from now if I feel the need.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Scythican wrote: I think 20 pages is too much. I would try 3-4 max. That would have a better chance of being read. Less is more.
Oh I don't intend to do 20 pages this time. That's just what it took to cover basically re-writing the entire Sisters codex.
Examples of SR spam is a bit restricted but an example I know of is the infamous DA Azrael in a horde of guardsman. They suddenly gain a 4++ save and they shall know no fear.
On a humerous side note, I almost wish that I could see this SoB post
If I'm reading the general gist of most people's complaints correctly, which isn't always easy when you have layers of outrage, indignation, hyperbole and ranting to remove to get to the heart of the complaint (not saying all do this, but some definitely do) then something to prevent recursive daemon summoning and something to prevent 2++ rerolling or to bypass it somehow would remove the majority of gameplay issues now the FAQs have been produced and updated. (Assuming things like SW losing their powers will self correct with a new book, but that's not really an issue with the game, that's players unhappy with the way their army has been altered)
I'd also like Eldar and Tau to be looked at. Waveserpents still need adjusting down in power or up in points, I personally favour reducing the range of the Shield as the easiest way of doing that, Battle Focus should be Snap Shots, not at full BS and Bladestorm needs toning down, perhaps retaining the wounds in 6s regardless, but lose the AP2? Wraithknights could use a small increase in points.
Tau need less IMO, but I'm not as experienced playing against them, and my one local opponent deliberately runs unorthodox lists that don't capitalise on all their advantages, so can't comment as much. Perhaps something to mitigate the way so many units can overwatch at high BS? A LD test for the unit not being charged? Markerlight tokens cannot be used? Not sure.
azreal13 wrote: If I'm reading the general gist of most people's complaints correctly, which isn't always easy when you have layers of outrage, indignation, hyperbole and ranting to remove to get to the heart of the complaint (not saying all do this, but some definitely do) then something to prevent recursive daemon summoning and something to prevent 2++ rerolling or to bypass it somehow would remove the majority of gameplay issues now the FAQs have been produced and updated. (Assuming things like SW losing their powers will self correct with a new book, but that's not really an issue with the game, that's players unhappy with the way their army has been altered)
I'd also like Eldar and Tau to be looked at. Waveserpents still need adjusting down in power or up in points, I personally favour reducing the range of the Shield as the easiest way of doing that, Battle Focus should be Snap Shots, not at full BS and Bladestorm needs toning down, perhaps retaining the wounds in 6s regardless, but lose the AP2? Wraithknights could use a small increase in points.
Tau need less IMO, but I'm not as experienced playing against them, and my one local opponent deliberately runs unorthodox lists that don't capitalise on all their advantages, so can't comment as much. Perhaps something to mitigate the way so many units can overwatch at high BS? A LD test for the unit not being charged? Markerlight tokens cannot be used? Not sure.
Somebody once brought up an interesting request. Swap Falcons with Wavesperents. Does anybody have an opinion on that?
azreal13 wrote: If I'm reading the general gist of most people's complaints correctly, which isn't always easy when you have layers of outrage, indignation, hyperbole and ranting to remove to get to the heart of the complaint (not saying all do this, but some definitely do) then something to prevent recursive daemon summoning and something to prevent 2++ rerolling or to bypass it somehow would remove the majority of gameplay issues now the FAQs have been produced and updated. (Assuming things like SW losing their powers will self correct with a new book, but that's not really an issue with the game, that's players unhappy with the way their army has been altered)
I'd also like Eldar and Tau to be looked at. Waveserpents still need adjusting down in power or up in points, I personally favour reducing the range of the Shield as the easiest way of doing that, Battle Focus should be Snap Shots, not at full BS and Bladestorm needs toning down, perhaps retaining the wounds in 6s regardless, but lose the AP2? Wraithknights could use a small increase in points.
Tau need less IMO, but I'm not as experienced playing against them, and my one local opponent deliberately runs unorthodox lists that don't capitalise on all their advantages, so can't comment as much. Perhaps something to mitigate the way so many units can overwatch at high BS? A LD test for the unit not being charged? Markerlight tokens cannot be used? Not sure.
Somebody once brought up an interesting request. Swap Falcons with Wavesperents. Does anybody have an opinion on that?
In 6th, probably, but it is easy in 7th to make two CA Detachments and have 6 HS slots for WS and WK, heck, prolly 9 within still relatively low points values.
We're not proposing rules, we're proposing things to propose to the Devs. Some of which are rules.
Same thing. You are proposing changes to 40k. That's kind of what the Proposed Rules forum is for. Whether you're going to send it to the devs or not is kind of irrelevant.
StarTrotter wrote: Somebody once brought up an interesting request. Swap Falcons with Wavesperents. Does anybody have an opinion on that?
Falcons don't have the same transport capacity, making the idea not unlike replacing the Rhino with a Razorback (in terms of transport capacity). They'd have to reverse the transport capacity on the two to make it work.
StarTrotter wrote: Somebody once brought up an interesting request. Swap Falcons with Wavesperents. Does anybody have an opinion on that?
Falcons don't have the same transport capacity, making the idea not unlike replacing the Rhino with a Razorback (in terms of transport capacity). They'd have to reverse the transport capacity on the two to make it work.
A much better solution would be to cut the Serpent Shield's range or Ignores Cover, or prohibit Wave Serpents from taking holofields since they have the serpent shield like the 4e book did.
The thing I'm most worried about being abused right now is massively spammabe no-risk Malefic Daemonology on Chaos Daemons armies; restricting the number of summoned models that can be on the table at a time would go a long way towards making that more balanced and turning the game into something a little broader than a Daemons versus GK slugfest.
StarTrotter wrote: Somebody once brought up an interesting request. Swap Falcons with Wavesperents. Does anybody have an opinion on that?
Falcons don't have the same transport capacity, making the idea not unlike replacing the Rhino with a Razorback (in terms of transport capacity). They'd have to reverse the transport capacity on the two to make it work.
A much better solution would be to cut the Serpent Shield's range or Ignores Cover, or prohibit Wave Serpents from taking holofields since they have the serpent shield like the 4e book did.
Oh I agree, it basically needs some kind of nerf, but proposing that got me yelled at earlier.
AnomanderRake wrote: The thing I'm most worried about being abused right now is massively spammabe no-risk Malefic Daemonology on Chaos Daemons armies; restricting the number of summoned models that can be on the table at a time would go a long way towards making that more balanced and turning the game into something a little broader than a Daemons versus GK slugfest.
Yeah, Daemonfactory is on the list. It's one of the few things that NEEDS to be addressed in some manner because I don't think it's working like intended.
First things first, I would like to express my support for this initiative. It may helps, and it is a great idea. Good luck, ClockworkZion.
That being said, I think a lot of people here are aiming at the impossible: asking the developers to balance the game. Powerful armies sell far better, and while some people could point out that a balanced game would boost the quality and get more players and sales in the long-term, it should be pretty obvious at this point that GW is currently aiming for the short-term.
And I seriously doubt Kelly has any real option of changing the company policies. I would like to think he is concerned by the matter. Perhaps I am naive, but I think the developers, or at least some of them, have already expressed their thoughts about how damaged is the image of the company, and talked about the need to keep a quality standard. Because there is no way they can ignore that there is a problem, and I don´t think they imagine themselves in another company in X years.
So what about focusing on changes that would make the game better, yet give GW an immediate boost in sales?
1 Some form of Chaos Legion proper work would sell like painkillers in hell. Chaos players love the Chaos Legions, and they are mostly marines, so it wouldn´t be that complicated. The Black Legion Supplement is an example of how this will not work if it is reduced to a couple of rules and some fluff-butchering.
2 Which brings me to another thing: what about the changes in the fluff? What´s the point? The 7th rulebook butchers its way through the Timeline, giving the "dark millenium" a brighter look, by taking away most of the old fluff and changing it with "some enemy attack, some marines went and won the day". In this case it will take them no effort at all to stop changing things many customers like. This game is played mostly because of the background: they should stop doing significant changes to it that do not attrack new players yet make old players quit.
3 New armies. Imperial Knights is a good sign of a boost in sales (a lot of people got some Knights) with a small effort. People is craving for new stuff. When was the last time a full army was released? Necron and Tau in 3rd?
4 Two armies that could be (re)introduced with nearly zero effort yet be a massive success are The Lost and the Damned and Genestealer Cults. There is always people asking for them, and they are mostly ready to be released, at least in a simplified form. Another obvious one is the Mechanicus, but that would be complicated.
5 What about giving some rules to customize the Sisters of Battle and move them to 7th? Even if there are no new models, a revision will help the army a lot. They do not even have anti-flyer viable options, or flyers, and only a Troop choice.
6 A personal one: what about Chaos Undivided? How it comes we moved from 4 C´tan to many yet we moved from many Chaos Gods to only four? According to the fluff (from Rogue Trader to current days) they are emotions turned sentient. How it comes there are only four emotions in 40k?
If we are talking about balance, the complains are just too many. Re-rollable invul saves and the lack of limits to the psy pool are the most glaring ones, but there are many more things, and it is difficult to reach an agreement about what is really broken.
Also, another vote for making it short and concise. I think you should add a link to this topic to show that it is not one single voice, apologizing in advance for the unnecessary rudeness of some of the people here (sometimes including me).
I know everyone is petrified of daemons right now, but I sincerely believe that a few units could use a tweak, so for no reason than I play the big D and would like to see this..
Give Bloodthirsters Eternal Warrior
Enhance the whole Elite section, nobody even takes Bloodcrushers any more, give them their 3+ or T5 back, Fiends, Beasts and Flamers could all use a small boost - Fiends -1 LD to all units, give Flamers Shred, dunno about Beasts? The Elite section is the weakest in the book, and nothing really got a back door boost from 7th (other than potentially being free)
Let us buy gifts! Make them expensive, nerf their abilities, but let us choose!
But in all seriousness please tell them to change the glancing rule, as people do not look for penetrating hits but go for glancing now and change the random charge distance rule back to fixed distance's, please
Also you seem to have CSM all covered, but tell them to make all the cult troops cheaper and put the CCW back onto the CSM for free to make everything unique again
Well anyone can write GW, it just seems most people don't really want to take the time to do so for one of any number of reasons. So it's not too surprising I've gotten responses back.
happygolucky wrote: But in all seriousness please tell them to change the glancing rule, as people do not look for penetrating hits but go for glancing now and change the random charge distance rule back to fixed distance's, please
I'll bring up the durability thing, and the random charge range thing (as well as assaulting out of transports).
happygolucky wrote: Also you seem to have CSM all covered, but tell them to make all the cult troops cheaper and put the CCW back onto the CSM for free to make everything unique again
Plague Marines don't need to be cheaper hoenstly. They're already at a points cost that makes people take them over standard troopers. Noise Marines aren't bad off at the moment, but could use a tweak. The other two definitely need some work.
azreal13 wrote: Further as in tattooing "random =\= fun" on to the insides of JJ's eyelids?
To be fair not all random is bad but too much random is.
Random is fine to represent an uncertain sequence of events, like how many bullets actually connect sufficiently well to cause casualties when two groups exchange fire, it works less well when a Daemon Prince puts on a suit of armour before the battle, then randomly generates another suit of identical armour on top of it just as the battle starts. (for the record, I've always re rolled it, but in the absence of an FAQ addressing it, RAW a CD DP has to take 2x3+ Armour saves if you roll poorly on the Greater Gift table and have already purchased armour.)
Well anyone can write GW, it just seems most people don't really want to take the time to do so for one of any number of reasons. So it's not too surprising I've gotten responses back.
happygolucky wrote: But in all seriousness please tell them to change the glancing rule, as people do not look for penetrating hits but go for glancing now and change the random charge distance rule back to fixed distance's, please
I'll bring up the durability thing, and the random charge range thing (as well as assaulting out of transports).
happygolucky wrote: Also you seem to have CSM all covered, but tell them to make all the cult troops cheaper and put the CCW back onto the CSM for free to make everything unique again
Plague Marines don't need to be cheaper hoenstly. They're already at a points cost that makes people take them over standard troopers. Noise Marines aren't bad off at the moment, but could use a tweak. The other two definitely need some work.
Honestly I would like to write to the dev's but I don't know of any addresses they have and all I have heard is that when you do give them an e-mail they don't respond and delete your e-mail, so I found that surprising
Also could you ask them very, very nicely in the next CSM release to add Dreadclaw drop pods? I have been waiting for them since the 4th ed. Codex and that was the edition I started with
Also a suggestion to make glancing hits back to -2 on the chart I find will make vehicles more durable imo
Also let us know what the dev's response is, I think we all may want to find out about that one
Thanks for asking the community and I hope the best of absolute luck to you and your e-mail
Okay clockwork here is my two cents, take what you will and leave the rest.
I would like all the things you said +1'd
all the old formations and units datasheets re released with a new coat of 7th ed paint. My silver tower of slaanesh has dust on it.
doomrider dataslate
Options for khorne zerkers.
sonic everything just like in the emperor's children warband formation.
a named chaos dreadnought like bjorn but with more rape
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh and marks for vehicles
and fix epidemius even if you make him like the last book but 100 points more
So because I don't like just sending in a list of grievances, but also offer solutions to things here are some things I've cooked up so far (without getting too much into re-costing territory yet):
Assaulting from Transports:
Regular Transports: Only if it was stationary before the unit disembarked
Assault Transports: Even if the transport moved 6" or less unit may disembark and then assault that turn
The logic behind this is pretty simple: It buffs assault units in a very small way that helps rebalance how they work in the game: namely they can actually rely on their transports more in attempting to get across the board without punishing them for it.
Khorne Berserkers: Give them Heavy Chainswords standard that they can trade for Chainaxes for a very small points cost
Thousand Sons: Relentless if the Sorceror is alive, S&P if he isn't. For every 5 models in the unit, one Thousand Sons model may be upgraded to carry a Heavy Bolter that fires at AP3.
Flesh Tearers: Known for being one of the only Imperial armies to use the Chain Axe, let them swap Bolters or Chainswords for Chain Axes on their models (2-3 pts/model)
Warband Tactics (CSM):
World Eaters: Basically give them the BTCT(It's choppy and gives Adamantium Will which is fitting)
Thousand Sons: Rerolls Perils Results (I don't have a second effect for them yet)
Death Guard: Unyielding Advance: Models have a 6+ FnP (Does not improve/replace existing FnP) Characters have IWND; Corrosive Gas: Template Weapons do not count as Flamer type weapons for determining if they're effected by rules that effect flamers. In addition they gain the Shred and Gets Hot special rules.
Emperor's Children: Perfection in All Things: Re-roll to-hit rolls of 1; Perfection Marred: Characters or units that are suffer their first wound or casualty gain Hatred and Preferred Enemy for the Faction that dealt them that first wound/casualty.
Iron Warriors: Imperial Fist CT
Word Bearers: Deamonlogists: Word Bearers only suffer Perils of the Warp on a roll of a double-6 when manifesting powers from Santic or Malefic Daemonolgy Powers; Daemon Bound: Word Bearers gain Daemonic Possession on their vehicles for free, and count Possessed as Troops.
Black Legion: (Not really sure what to give these guys honestly, perhaps the UM CT?)
Alpha Legion: Master Ambushers: Infantry Models have Infiltrate and Shrouded
Night Lords: Lords of Night: Game always begins with Night Fighting which continues each turn on a 4+; Lighting Strikes: Models with Jump Packs may use them in both the Movement and Assault Phase, additionally Infantry models have the Hit and Run special rule
Renegade: Has Access to Drop Pods, Assault Cannons, Razorbacks and Storm Bolters (replaces Combi-Bolter at no additional cost).
On a different note I've been rolling around Terminators in my head, and am considering recommending a 5 point drop in costs just to make them somewhat useful, and am considering bringing up them including possible rules in the future for allowing players to build their own Special Characters (it worked in IA12 and I don't see anyone really hating optional rules to do that outside of IA12).
Or vehicles get an armour save based on what the AV of the side you're shooting is (starts at no save for AV10 and improves by +1 for each point over 10 so AV11 = 6+, AV12 = 5+, AV13 = 4+, AV14 = 3+) and apply AP values as normal (making anti-tank weapons outright ignore the armour save).
I don't hate the idea in isolation, but as we're adding yet more complication to something that really doesn't need it, sticking with something simple is the way forward.
Yeah vehicles rules are fine if they get cheaper or more hull points. I agree with Az on this
Automatically Appended Next Post: iron warriors are siege masters. The way for them would be an all machine list with some kind of barrage piece.
alpha legion are terrorists. We need cheeky traps and gotcha effects. Example: Anticipated movement. Pick a body of water, piece of terrain, or objective at the start of each of your turns. You may choose a result on the mysterious whatever it is table and apply it as though the units inside just triggered its effect.
Quientin wrote: Yeah vehicles rules are fine if they get cheaper or more hull points. I agree with Az on this
Cheaper is really not the way I'd go with it. Mostly because we don't need cheaper Rhinos or Wave Serpents. Adding an extra hull point or two to pretty much everything might do it though.
Quientin wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: iron warriors are siege masters. The way for them would be an all machine list with some kind of barrage piece.
So are Imperial Fists. They're basically the good/bad version of the same concept hence why I would just give them the same exact Chapter Tactics.
Quientin wrote: alpha legion are terrorists. We need cheeky traps and gotcha effects. Example: Anticipated movement. Pick a body of water, piece of terrain, or objective at the start of each of your turns. You may choose a result on the mysterious whatever it is table and apply it as though the units inside just triggered its effect.
There is no Mysterious Terrain table anymore so that really doesn't work.
I do like they idea of them booby trapping terrain before the game starts though (obviously secretly by writing it on a piece of paper). The easiest way to represent that would be it being Dangerous Terrain for units inside of it.
I still think they should be able to mass Infiltrate though as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
azreal13 wrote: I don't hate the idea in isolation, but as we're adding yet more complication to something that really doesn't need it, sticking with something simple is the way forward.
That's totally fair, it was just something that crossed my mind.
There is one last thing before I go to bed. Sonic weapons need the old profile. Extra ccw inish 5 troops are assaulty and their weapons prevent that. We need heavy 3 or assault 2 back on the table.
Quientin wrote: There is one last thing before I go to bed. Sonic weapons need the old profile. Extra ccw inish 5 troops are assaulty and their weapons prevent that. We need heavy 3 or assault 2 back on the table.
Honestly, and I may be unpopular for saying this, I don't think they need to go back. Salvo was clearly intended to replace the dual profiles of weapons like the old Sonic Weapons with something that was more fitting.
If anything Salvo may need a tweak or we may need to look at perhaps changing how we look at Noise Marines. After all, every single unit doesn't need to be able to do every single thing in the game well. That extra attack and the I5 might be better looked at as a counter-punch to being charged instead of charging other units.
No one has made it to assaults with my noise boys...
Automatically Appended Next Post: In 6th ed
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dontcha think mass infiltrate belongs to the night lords a bit more?
Alpha Legion terrorism table d66
Includes
Opponent -1 reserve rolls
fortification is -1 av and cover
target unit blind test -2
target vehicle d3 haywire hits
Target unit break test
hallucination grenade effects as psycho indoctrination as per their fluff
Minefield- roll like orbital bombardment but hits like frag grenade, adds concussion
redeploy a unit of yours
Perils test for target psyker if they cast a blessing on their turn
all units in target piece of terrain take a str 5 ap6 hit
smoke blast. Like 2nd ed blind grenade
Have 10 man cultist unit with autoguns deploy anywhere on board. May move shoot and assault on first turn
warlord table
Wear em down. D3 units take d6-1 wounds before start of game
I wouldn't send them a list of solutions. That's like telling them what to do. People don't like that.
Send them a list of problems, and they can try to fix them in a way they see fit. They managed to fix quite some problems in 7th rather elegantly, so I wouldn't be too worried about them finding a solution, once you convince them that your issue is a problem.
Why do people still think the game developers at GW towers have any control over game development?
PLEASE write to the GW sales department and tell them their obvious short term money grabbing policies are driving you away.
10.000 letters sent to them MAY have an effect.
Telling the game devs the direction the sales department is driving the game is detrimental, is preaching to the choir.(The fact they are gagged choir should tell you something though..)
Opponent -1 reserve rolls
fortification is -1 av and cover
target unit blind test -2
target vehicle d3 haywire hits
Target unit break test
hallucination grenade effects as psycho indoctrination as per their fluff
Minefield- roll like orbital bombardment but hits like frag grenade, adds concussion
redeploy a unit of yours
Perils test for target psyker if they cast a blessing on their turn
all units in target piece of terrain take a str 5 ap6 hit
smoke blast. Like 2nd ed blind grenade
Have 10 man cultist unit with autoguns deploy anywhere on board. May move shoot and assault on first turn
warlord table
Wear em down. D3 units take d6-1 wounds before start of game
A D66 table for their Warband Tactic? That's excessive even for GW.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
da001 wrote: Both Lanrak and Jidmah are hitting the nail.
This letter sounds more and more as wishlisting / proposed rules. I am not even sure this is the right forum.
It's in Proposed Rules already, so where are you trying to make it go now?
I originally put the thread in 40k General because one of the the things I started it for was also rules issues, you know the sort of things that have been ignored by FAQs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jidmah wrote: I wouldn't send them a list of solutions. That's like telling them what to do. People don't like that.
Send them a list of problems, and they can try to fix them in a way they see fit. They managed to fix quite some problems in 7th rather elegantly, so I wouldn't be too worried about them finding a solution, once you convince them that your issue is a problem.
I'm not trying to force things in their lap, just pitch ideas to get the ball rolling. Suggesting things at worst will have them shake their heads and do something else, and more realistically give them an idea of the kind of way we're approaching the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lanrak wrote: Why do people still think the game developers at GW towers have any control over game development?
PLEASE write to the GW sales department and tell them their obvious short term money grabbing policies are driving you away.
10.000 letters sent to them MAY have an effect.
Telling the game devs the direction the sales department is driving the game is detrimental, is preaching to the choir.(The fact they are gagged choir should tell you something though..)
Who said anything about being driven away?
And when it comes to rules related things you REALLY can't expect Sales to have any control over it. The goal may get pushed down to make X better but how that's done is left in the hands of the Devs.
Also "money grubbing"? Are we so limited in our complaints that we can only fall back on accusing GW of following the same sort of patterns of nearly every successful company in our capitalist society? Seriously, every company, no matter how benevolent you think it is based on it's public persona, at it's core, wants to make money. Namely a lot of it. Because of that, EVERYTHING they do is all to meet that goal. To complain that GW is trying to make money is like complaining water is wet. It's not a criticism, it's a statement that just describes something we already know.
How about complaining about specific things, like the price of the Limited Edition set, or how some armies wait far too long for updates before seeing them while others get them every edition, or how Finecast was a flop, or how they don't interact with the online community and instead react like a snail to it?
I mean if you're going to gripe the least you can do is pick something that is more specific than something that businesses do as a means to survive. What's next, complaining that Kirby has to breathe?
That's not "pitching" ideas, but rather sending a wishlist to the north pole. Even if they carefully ponder your wishes, they'll never know the reasoning behind them, which is far more important than your actual wish.
If you send them a list of improvement for a Thousand Sons army, chance are high of them discounting them. If you explain to them the issues that you are having with a currently possible Thousand Sons army, they might come up with awesome solutions you haven't thought about at all.
The difference is about getting a Yes/No response or actually getting your problem adressed.
Also note that many gaming company's developers are actively forbidden from ever using (or even reading) any fan-sent suggestions, due to the possibilty of that fan claiming intelectual ownership of those ideas after they've been used. I don't know abaut GW (since they never tell us anything) but, for example, Wizards of the Coast has such a rule in place.
BA codex idea: Give blood angels a mechanic where they can treat squads of only BA jump packers as drop pods for the purposes of drop pod assault, and choose to get some of them in turn 1. It's very unfluffy that I can't make a heavy jump pack deep strike army on the table due to how the reserve rules work.
Also death company jump packs cost waaaay too much.
General rules: Convince them that assaulting out of reserve/special deployment is NOT, in fact, the spawn of the devil that they think it is. I feel just as "helpless and unable to respond" when a squad jumps in and shoots me to death instead, if not moreso, since I don't get to try overwatch or hit back in combat.
Also convince them to take at least some stock in competitive play. Refusing to cater at all to part of your customer base just because you don't like them is hardly a good business move. Even if they're questionable, make a few tournament format rule sets in the vein of "highly limited tournament, sort of limited tournament, and a go nuts tournament." They could even put in the standard "these are just our suggestions" line. It would help a lot of players who want to try out tournament play understand the typical rules behind it from a rulebook rather than scouring the internets and finding 67 different ways to do tournaments. Bonus: ask a few TO's to just send in their tournament rules, and use those.
da001 wrote: Both Lanrak and Jidmah are hitting the nail.
This letter sounds more and more as wishlisting / proposed rules. I am not even sure this is the right forum.
It's in Proposed Rules already, so where are you trying to make it go now?
I originally put the thread in 40k General because one of the the things I started it for was also rules issues, you know the sort of things that have been ignored by FAQs.
I do believe the letter shouldn´t include any proposed rule, so I don´t think Proposed Rules should be the place for the thread. As Jidmah just posted, developers are most probably forbidden to use fan-made material.
40k General sounds better, I think it was moved because it became a wishlisting/house-ruling topic. Anyway, since the Mods have already moved it, I doubt they are moving it to General again.
BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.
Jidmah wrote: That's not "pitching" ideas, but rather sending a wishlist to the north pole. Even if they carefully ponder your wishes, they'll never know the reasoning behind them, which is far more important than your actual wish.
You apparently don't know me very well. I do explain things when I do stuff like this. When I sent in the Sisters stuff everything I changed had a reason why with it. That's the same thing here, only I'll be discussing the problem, offering up and idea and then offering my logic behind it.
Jidmah wrote: Also note that many gaming company's developers are actively forbidden from ever using (or even reading) any fan-sent suggestions, due to the possibilty of that fan claiming intelectual ownership of those ideas after they've been used. I don't know abaut GW (since they never tell us anything) but, for example, Wizards of the Coast has such a rule in place.
GW's policy (which used to be on the website) was that fan submissions become their property once submitted to them. I'm willing to bet that still stands.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
da001 wrote: BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.
You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.
Maybe a suggestion in favor of a Blood Ravens supplement. The DOW community is still quite populated and such a work might bring in more pigeons to buy GW plastic IMO (i bought in following DOW 2's release.
da001 wrote: BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.
You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.
No offence intended, and I have no doubt of your writing skills, but there are many posts suggesting very specific changes. There is no way to write something like that without sounding insulting and/or better than the other person.
Again, that´s just my opinion. I wish you the best and I think it is an excellent initiative.
da001 wrote: BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.
You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.
No offence intended, and I have no doubt of your writing skills, but there are many posts suggesting very specific changes. There is no way to write something like that without sounding insulting and/or better than the other person.
Again, that´s just my opinion. I wish you the best and I think it is an excellent initiative.
"While collecting the input from other people I spent some time thinking about them and have come up with some possible methods of handling some of these changes. They're very rough, and would need some fine tuning from someone more experienced in game design than myself, but I've included them in the pages attached to this letter. I hope they may prove at least somewhat helpful to you."
da001 wrote: BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.
You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.
No offence intended, and I have no doubt of your writing skills, but there are many posts suggesting very specific changes. There is no way to write something like that without sounding insulting and/or better than the other person.
Again, that´s just my opinion. I wish you the best and I think it is an excellent initiative.
"While collecting the input from other people I had some thoughts on possible methods of handling some of these changes. They're very rough, and would need some fine tuning from someone more experienced in game design than myself, but I've included them in the pages attached to this letter. I hope they may prove at least somewhat helpful to you."
I was thinking something kind of like that.
That sounds well, but if you go down to the level of detail showed here:
Spoiler:
ClockworkZion wrote: So because I don't like just sending in a list of grievances, but also offer solutions to things here are some things I've cooked up so far (without getting too much into re-costing territory yet):
Assaulting from Transports:
Regular Transports: Only if it was stationary before the unit disembarked
Assault Transports: Even if the transport moved 6" or less unit may disembark and then assault that turn
The logic behind this is pretty simple: It buffs assault units in a very small way that helps rebalance how they work in the game: namely they can actually rely on their transports more in attempting to get across the board without punishing them for it.
Khorne Berserkers: Give them Heavy Chainswords standard that they can trade for Chainaxes for a very small points cost
Thousand Sons: Relentless if the Sorceror is alive, S&P if he isn't. For every 5 models in the unit, one Thousand Sons model may be upgraded to carry a Heavy Bolter that fires at AP3.
Flesh Tearers: Known for being one of the only Imperial armies to use the Chain Axe, let them swap Bolters or Chainswords for Chain Axes on their models (2-3 pts/model)
Warband Tactics (CSM):
World Eaters: Basically give them the BTCT(It's choppy and gives Adamantium Will which is fitting)
Thousand Sons: Rerolls Perils Results (I don't have a second effect for them yet)
Death Guard: Unyielding Advance: Models have a 6+ FnP (Does not improve/replace existing FnP) Characters have IWND; Corrosive Gas: Template Weapons do not count as Flamer type weapons for determining if they're effected by rules that effect flamers. In addition they gain the Shred and Gets Hot special rules.
Emperor's Children: Perfection in All Things: Re-roll to-hit rolls of 1; Perfection Marred: Characters or units that are suffer their first wound or casualty gain Hatred and Preferred Enemy for the Faction that dealt them that first wound/casualty.
Iron Warriors: Imperial Fist CT
Word Bearers: Deamonlogists: Word Bearers only suffer Perils of the Warp on a roll of a double-6 when manifesting powers from Santic or Malefic Daemonolgy Powers; Daemon Bound: Word Bearers gain Daemonic Possession on their vehicles for free, and count Possessed as Troops.
Black Legion: (Not really sure what to give these guys honestly, perhaps the UM CT?)
Alpha Legion: Master Ambushers: Infantry Models have Infiltrate and Shrouded
Night Lords: Lords of Night: Game always begins with Night Fighting which continues each turn on a 4+; Lighting Strikes: Models with Jump Packs may use them in both the Movement and Assault Phase, additionally Infantry models have the Hit and Run special rule
Renegade: Has Access to Drop Pods, Assault Cannons, Razorbacks and Storm Bolters (replaces Combi-Bolter at no additional cost).
On a different note I've been rolling around Terminators in my head, and am considering recommending a 5 point drop in costs just to make them somewhat useful, and am considering bringing up them including possible rules in the future for allowing players to build their own Special Characters (it worked in IA12 and I don't see anyone really hating optional rules to do that outside of IA12).
Or vehicles get an armour save based on what the AV of the side you're shooting is (starts at no save for AV10 and improves by +1 for each point over 10 so AV11 = 6+, AV12 = 5+, AV13 = 4+, AV14 = 3+) and apply AP values as normal (making anti-tank weapons outright ignore the armour save).
Something like that perhaps?
then I don´t think it is gonna work. It takes a lot of time effort to go through it, it is telling them how to do their job and, as Jidmah said, they are probably forbidden to even read such a thing.
It looks like a list of 'solutions and proposals', and I think it would be better to send 'problems and suggestions' instead
You're comparing rough notes to a letter that is not yet written!
Furthermore, what kind of detail do you think I'll need to go to in explaining the issues and why they are issues? Frankly more than I'll be doing pitching ideas that's for sure.
This whole thing is going to be long no matter what I do, just by opening it up to the public I turned this into a fairly sizable thing which I'm going to need to reorganize by book to make it reasonable to read through.
Proper organization will help a lot with something like this, let me tell you.
And you and Jidmah are ignoring two facts: 1) I've submitted something like this before so I'm not unfamiliar with the process, and 2) GW has had a standing submission policy in the past that worked on the bases of the submissions becoming their property. Even if it's not on the website anymore I'm willing to bet that hasn't gone away.
You make assumptions in things you have not done and then use those assumptions to cast judgment on what I'm doing. Frankly it's a bit insulting.
pretre wrote: Out of curiosity, how much change did we get from the last submission?
Considering they haven't given Sisters another codex yet and I wrote that in response to the last one, we'll see.
pretre wrote: I'm not trying to be a dick, but this seems like an exercise in futility. You'd probably be better off just making house rules for people to use.
Been down that road. It's honestly easier to throw things at GW and see if anything sticks than trying to get house rules approved for every single game. Not everyone plays in places that like Homebrew. Heck locally a lot of people don't really want homebrew because it's a greater unknown than FW. They can at least look up FW.
* Better consistency of quality with the Supplements. While some of the supplements are wicked (Clan Raukaan), while others such as Black Legion and Farsight Enclave leave a lot to be desired with mediocre Relics, hit and miss Warlord Traits, and bland or just downright under-powered special rules in comparison to other supplements using the same Codex.
* Dark Angels need more customization the next time they are around. With the direction GW is now going with Supplements, Traits, etc, Dark Angels are horrendously restricted in what they can take and what they can do, to a point where they actually have less customization than most other forces. I'd like to still see Belial and Sammael give bonuses to Deathwing and Ravenwing respectively, but I'd also like the option of being able to make my own Master of the Deathwatch or Ravenwatch using the options and relics present in the book. Speaking of which...
* Dark Angels Relics definitely need work. Most of their relics just seem to be poorly thought out or just under-powered to a point where they're just boring and not worth the points in most cases.
* Dark Angels unique units need a look over, at least in terms of their points cost vs effectiveness in a battle. Most (but not all) of the Dark Angels unique units just aren't worth their points or simply don't bring anything interesting to the table for their points cost that another unit couldn't do better and sometimes for cheaper.
* More non-Imperial Codexs and Supplements. Seriously, including Supplements we're now up around 10+ Imperial Codexs and Supplements. I know the Imperium is GW's cash cow, but their other factions could be potential cash cows too if GW just took the time to take them seriously enough to make them more important in the lore. While I do play Imperium, I know people who aren't interested in the Imperium at all and feel like they are getting screwed because the Imperium is getting all of these awesome new armies and supplements, yet the non-Imperial races are left to just deal with it.
ClockworkZion wrote: You're comparing rough notes to a letter that is not yet written!
Furthermore, what kind of detail do you think I'll need to go to in explaining the issues and why they are issues? Frankly more than I'll be doing pitching ideas that's for sure.
It's the subtle difference between "Khorne Berzerker need a way to get into combat" and "Khorne Berzerkers need to be able to charge out of rhinos". That's all he's saying.
This whole thing is going to be long no matter what I do, just by opening it up to the public I turned this into a fairly sizable thing which I'm going to need to reorganize by book to make it reasonable to read through.
Proper organization will help a lot with something like this, let me tell you.
And you and Jidmah are ignoring two facts: 1) I've submitted something like this before so I'm not unfamiliar with the process, and 2) GW has had a standing submission policy in the past that worked on the bases of the submissions becoming their property. Even if it's not on the website anymore I'm willing to bet that hasn't gone away.
Laws don't work that way. Unless you actively agree to those terms before contacting them, those terms do not apply. If you have Phil Kelly's email address, and you are contacting him this way directly, no law would permit them to use your intellectual property, no matter what their internal policies are. It's fully possible that GW is oblivious to this kind of thing, or are simply ignoring these problems. I just wanted to point it out to you, so your long letter you put so much effort in goes to the recycle bin without being read.
You make assumptions in things you have not done and then use those assumptions to cast judgment on what I'm doing. Frankly it's a bit insulting.
Hey, you asked for input, and you're getting it. If you don't want da001 and me to give you anymore input just say so, we'll stop right away.
Insult requires intention, and there was none. You are, of course, free to feel insulted, but I am merely giving what I think is a valid advice, without any harmful intention. I apologize if it sounded harsh.
I do think it is a great idea to write this letter, and it should be done in the way you think better fits your purpose, since you are the one writing it. But you opened a thread 'looking for input', and this is mine: iIt doesn´t matter how good you are at writing, if you send 20+ pages of specific data, in my opinion it will be ignored.
You make assumptions in things you have not done...
You are assuming I haven´t sent stuff to Submissions too.
There are some advices in the Submissions page, and one of them is to be concise. Instead of sending 10 pages, send one. Following this advice, instead of sending a 104 pages long fan-made Codex: Sisters of Battle, I sent three pages: a short story about Sisters Vs Tau, a new unit (Patronica Squads, a close-combat version of the Seraphim that do not requires a new model) and the background and rules of a named Independent Character (a Dialogus).
Never got an answer, of course.
The Sisters of Battle are the obvious choice for any wannabe game designer, because they currently need a lot of love and have a lot of room for improvement. When (not if) a proper Codex is at least released, I think a lot of people is going to read it carefully trying to spot their suggestions.
Jidmah wrote: Laws don't work that way. Unless you actively agree to those terms before contacting them, those terms do not apply. If you have Phil Kelly's email address, and you are contacting him this way directly, no law would permit them to use your intellectual property, no matter what their internal policies are. It's fully possible that GW is oblivious to this kind of thing, or are simply ignoring these problems. I just wanted to point it out to you, so your long letter you put so much effort in goes to the recycle bin without being read.
Agreement is done by submission as per their policy. And while I do have Phil's email thanks to my previous submission (I had included an email address in the letter for contacting me back without needing to go through the post. Additionally, I just touched base with him and as far as he's aware there is no change to the submission policy, so stuff sent in is consented to be theirs. Not that I won't include that in the letter just to keep legal happy).
Hey, you asked for input, and you're getting it. If you don't want da001 and me to give you anymore input just say so, we'll stop right away.
Your input is off topic. You want to give input, then stick to the input I asked for. Seriously this is the second time in this thread I've had to tell people I'm looking for specific kinds of input, not just whatever opinion they have about what I'm doing that falls out of their heads.
Kain wrote:A Swarmlord who at the least has eternal warrior or something to make him actually badass rather than mindshackle scarab fodder.
If the Tyranids can't roll for BRB powers, they should at least have more than one psychic discipline.
jamesk1973 wrote:BA: bring back "fast" for the Rhino chassis vehicles.
Nightlord1987 wrote:I'd suggest that the little gimp licking Typhus's floor horn on his base should be considered a spell familiar added to his profile. Typhus is way too taxed for what little he brings, and I hate that little gimp.
Now you've got to be careful with the contents of your letter. I scrolled down the first page and found at least three examples of "wishlisting". If you fill your letter with such things, it's going to sound like you complaining something along the lines of "oh, Mr. GWDev guy, my Tyranids get beaten by Tau, make them powerful, waah "
I can't claim to know exactly what GW will listen to, but I know it isn't that. Sensible and fair suggestions (that will still make them money) is perhaps the kind of thing they'll listen to.
At the end of the day though, there is only one thing you should be writing to GW about: getting them to release a tournament supplement for 40k. From GW's point of view, they can still sell loads of Daemons to TFGs using Summoning Spam, and they can still sell everything and anything to little Johnny who wants to use his entire collection in an unbound army but, at the expense of a bit of work, they can sell a £30 book to tournament gamers and stop some whining in the process. Maybe you can convince them that such a move would have long term benefits, with more veterans staying in the game. Heck, they might even bring back some of their own tournaments/campaigns!
So today (June 3 in the US) will be the last day I'm taking submissions. After today I'm going to sort through everything in this thread (skipping things like the BA = Fast thing because they fixed that already) and do what I can to turn it into something they'd be interested in reading. My goal is to have it all in the mail by the end of next week. Possibly with a bribe of cookies or something to encourage them to actually read it (I sent Cadbury Chocolate bars with the last one but I don't think I can trust chocolate to make it anywhere with how warm it's been getting lately).
Okay so I understood you and have trusted you to word and tone down my requests. But as stated earlier most of what I want is what you want too. I also agree with everyone who stayed on topic. But please, put your best art and wordsmithing on the alpha legion special effects of some sort. I care not if it is one of the ideas I pitched or something as simple as grab some strategems we already made worth x... Or a figure it out yerself type request.
Jink saves need to not be compatible with shrouded, Nurgle DPs do not need a 2up cover. This is said by a chaos player.
To solve the woes of IP just preface the letter with a disclaimer that you have no intent to cry about it if they use it.
Send them fancy jellybeans from a nice candy store. They have a much higher heat tolerance. Or a 5 pound bag of haribo sugar free gummybears if you hate them. Read the amazon reviews to understand.
I say that because a lot of people think of Mail as e-mail not the one post office. Just want to clarify. 
