Big Community Survey 2019
Today, you have the power to make the Warhammer hobby better than ever!
Take a few minutes to fill out the survey and help us create the games, models and events you want to see. In the past, our survey showed us a groundswell of support for a redesigned Adepta Sororitas army in plastic, among other things. Well, guess what?
This year, as a show of thanks for your feedback, one lucky participant will win* a plastic Sisters of Battle army once they’re ready for release! 10 more will win themselves a squad of the new plastic Battle Sisters.
As awesome as that prize might seem, it’s not even the best reason to take 2019’s Big Community Survey. Your comments, suggestions and feedback go directly to the teams that need to hear it. You’ll have a hand in shaping the future of the hobby we all share. How cool is that?
This year, we’d like you to tell us your best ideas about events, Warhammer-Community.com and codexes, battletomes, boxed games and other books. You never know – we might soon be making that amazing thing you’re about to tell us about!
The survey is up, time to let GW know what you want fixed and what they are doing well.
Man, they weren’t kidding about it being a big survey. That thing too forever. Did anyone else see the question of “How many?” With our an indication of how many what?
BrianDavion wrote: they're really asking a lot about events. I don't know how many times I answered "not really intreasted in playing in WAAC tournies GW"
If you could participate in events where no models were actually placed on the table but instead everyone just math-hammered various lists into being for 6 hours (3 opponents x 2 hours each)...
Would you do that
Every week
Twice a week
Every night
Multiple times every day
EDIT: I complimented them overall for the past 2-3 years overall but let 'em have it for Necromunda's handling this time around
Narrative gaming is my focus at the moment, so I asked for greater guidance on setting up narrative battles - I feel like more people would play narrative games if they felt they were more balanced. I get that narrative games are designed to be asymmetrical, but not everyone has the experience in playing them (nor the trust in their opponents) that they might need in creating a battle that's fun for both sides.
Planetstrike is a good example. I love the game mode, but how do you know whether the defender has enough fortifications? The attacker's army should be bigger than the defender's, but by how much? Few people have the time to playtest it to come up with a good rule of thumb, and so you never see Planetstrike missions being played.
If narrative game modes like this felt more balanced, I think more people would be interested in playing them. As it is, it seems to be a case of "who can roll more mortal wounds than the other".
For Matched Play, I suggested a nerf to CP farms, and a tweak to how Character targeting rules work. Those are my biggest bugbears for Matched at the moment.
my answers were no, no, no, I dont game, for most of the questions. but I suggested an individual parts service for kitbashing and converters. not gonna hold out hope but maybe. if they could offer that service in the days of mail order, I dont see why they couldnt do it now with the aid of the internet.
AduroT wrote: Man, they weren’t kidding about it being a big survey. That thing too forever. Did anyone else see the question of “How many?” With our an indication of how many what?
The indication was the question just before it.
“Have you ever introduced any friends into the hobby?”
The awkward thing was it moved onto the next page for the How Many one
Honestly it felt like it spent waaayyyy too long on tournaments, and should have just accepted inevitability and had a set of five boxes at some point for you to say what you wanted them to make, since that's all anyone who fills out the last box will do.
BrianDavion wrote: they're really asking a lot about events. I don't know how many times I answered "not really intreasted in playing in WAAC tournies GW"
I think you missed an opportunity there. I made comments about the return of Games Days and more outreach and interaction- seminars and lore talks and the like. Tournaments didn't seem high on this list of events they were actually talking about.
The Phazer wrote: Honestly it felt like it spent waaayyyy too long on tournaments, and should have just accepted inevitability and had a set of five boxes at some point for you to say what you wanted them to make, since that's all anyone who fills out the last box will do.
It's a compromise. You slog through the stuff they want to know more about for your chance to tell them you want Tomb Kings back.
Can't fault them for that, and it's a nice touch that they further incentivize participation with a couple of plastic Sisters to win.
BrianDavion wrote: they're really asking a lot about events. I don't know how many times I answered "not really intreasted in playing in WAAC tournies GW"
I think you missed an opportunity there. I made comments about the return of Games Days and more outreach and interaction- seminars and lore talks and the like. Tournaments didn't seem high on this list of events they were actually talking about.
Yeah, even though I don't really go to events (and said as much in the survey) I thought it would be good to tick seminars, converting and painting because those are still relevant to my interests.
Oi, listen up ya gitz! Dis is Da Red Gobbo, and I heard you lot was takin a survey of da Kommunity. Im here to giv ya da perspektiv of the Grotletariat on behaff of da Gretchin Revolushunary Kommittee and make shure our voices git herd ova the shoutin and yellin of the Borkgeoisie. Below is our Manyfesto of Demandz:
1. (Re)Introduction of Rebel Grotz as a playable faction on the tabletop - We'z all green, after all, and our revolushunary compatriorks on Vigilus alreddy seemz to be risin up to throw off da shakkles of servitude
2. Bring back the Black Gobbo - As a young snotling new ta da hobby, da red gobbo enjoyed readin his feetured kolumn on yer website every week - betta den da White Dwarf e wuz, bring 'im bak on WarCom!
3. (Re)Introduction of Kroot Mercenaries as a playable faction on the tabletop - Dey may not be Grots, but dey is more dan willin' to take ar teef n' help us fight da Orks! I rekkon day also haz a Revolushun of their own to fight wit dem blueboys on T'au.
4. Additional Auxiliary Races for the T'au - No Taxashun Witout Representashun! Or sumfin' like dat. Dey is under-represented minorities dey is, dey deserv mor' opportoonity on da table, 'speshully since dem blueboys keep tellin' everyone that dey is sum sort of multi-rashul Empire. Allz dey got iz dem poor bird-brained Kroot and the buzzyboy Vespids. We knowz dey got some humies workin' wit dem too, and rumor iz dey got sum rock-krystal peeple in sekret.
5. Rough Riders for Astra Militarum - Kannon to da right o dem, Kannon to da leff o dem, Kannon in front o dem, Volley n Thund'r! Kno' who likes a gud horsey-boy? Da Red Gobbo does, n lotsa Guard playas do too!
6. More unit options for the Militarum Tempestus - Da poor gitz don't even hav a heavy support or fast attack choice, poor ladz cannae take a Brigade Detachment. Howz bout a Snipa Team (wit anti-tank rifles!) or Kombat Enguneers? Or a rite n proppa assault buggy!
7. Plastic Aeldari Aspect Warriors - Hasnt it been long enuff? N DONT FORGET DA FEENIX LORDS!
8. Introduction of Crone World Aeldari and Aeldari Exodites as playable factions - Pointy-ears ridin' lizzards! Pointy-ears ridin' daemons! Do tha thing!
9. Introduction of Agents of the Imperium as a playable faction - MAKE INQUISITORS GREAT AGAIN! Giv' us Rogue Traders too!
11. Give Chaos Daemons access to Daemon Engines - Com on ya gitz, the name "Daemon" is rite their in da title! Da Red Gobbo is very angry dat his collection of forgeworld blood slaughterers, brass skorpions, and blight drones dont fit inta iz daemon armies anymore like dey did in 6th n 7th edishuns.
12. Mutalith Vortex Beasts should be a Daemons unit - Same goes for da Slaughterbrute. What is a creature of da warp if it is not a daemon?
13. New plastic guardsmen minis - Da guard might not a broke, but der planet sure did! Cannae Cadian Shock Troopas witout a Cadia, time for a new regiment!
14. Emperors Children and World Eaters get the Death Guard treatment - Deez blokes deserv der own books wit der own Primarks I rekkon, not fair dat da dusty boyz and bloaty boyz get all da glory! Speakin of dusty boyz...
15. Thousand Sons get the Death Guard treatment (again) - Poor ladz play secund fiddle to da beaky-beastie-boyz in der own codex, wut givz? Da Tousand Sonz need some more karakter and dedicated legion unitz like da bloaty boyz get wit da Plagueburst Crawler n da Bloat Drone.
16. Another Imperial Primarch - Rowboat Gillyman is a weaklin', Rogal Dorn could pummel im gud wit iz hand cut off! I hear dat El'Jonson bloke is also havin imself a wee bit o a nap, maybe its time for him to wake up? How bout Vulkan? Russ? Khan? Corax? Anybody? Dis ting on?
17. Bring back the Wall of Martyrs terrain line (Firestorm Redoubt, Aquila Strongpoint, Plasma Obliterator, Vengeance Weapon Batteries) - Dey is outta produkshun, but da red gobbo wants em (n doesnt wanna give hundreds o teef to da freebotaz on orkbay!)
18. Balance Necrons - All dem skelly boyz is still overcosted points!
19. Make Terminators more survivable - Da brainboyz suggested the following rule fer termies:
Terminator Armor - Weapons with an AP value of -1 are treated as having an AP value of 0 instead. Units with Terminator armor may re-roll failed saves against weapons with a modified AP value of 0.
20. Make Power Armor more survivable - Da brainboyz suggested the following for mahreenz:
Power Armor - Units with Power Armor may re-roll failed saves against weapons with an AP value of 0.
21. Update Forgeworld rules to bring them in line with the Codexes - No Chapter Traits fer Carcharadons or Minotaurs? Death Korps n Elysians witout Doctrines? No strategems for anyun? Wot givs mate?
22. Better terrain rules - We'z needz betta terrain rules. We want Area Terrain and non-true Line of sight, like in 4th edishun (but betta!).
23. Reintroduction of The Lost and The Damned as a playable faction - Not jus' traitor guardsmen, but mixed forces of renegades n traitors as iz right n proppa!
24. Reintroduction of Eldar Corsairs as a playable faction - Forgeworld did em dirty, bring em back!
25. Give us an app - Jus like the one fer Age of Sigmar, wit datasheets n rulez at ar fingatips n buyable bookz n a built in army builder.
26. Clearer indicators of which products have limited availability - Da Red Gobbo gets confused bout wut he should spend his teef on, sumtimez he tries to buy a box n finds out that the box is out of producshun n innit comin back.
27. Netflix/HBO & Chill - Da Red Gobbo is very sad that Game o Thrones is comin to n end... maybe you lot haz sumfin you can bring to the telly to fill da void?
28. Age of Sigmar - My cuzzin in da Mortal Realms tells me you lot iz doin good there, keep doin what ya doin (and giv them humie gits a cogfort).
29. Battlefleet Gothic - Bring back da spaceshipz!!
30. Man O War - Bring back da wetshipz too!! My cuzzin in da Mortal Realms says dey got plenty of water ta float on.
I asked for all new BSF stuff to stick to the 'lesser seen' parts of 40k. Minor-Xenos being something I'm particularly keen on. Even referred them to the 'teaser' art in the 3rd Ed Rulebook. It seems their natural home, and a way to better distinguish it from the wider 40k galaxy.
Other than that, very keen for Lost and The Damned. After all, a planet may well be in big trouble if a Traitor Legion decides to pay a visit. But the threat of such a thing pales compared to the Cults and Nutters that continue to plague The Imperium, destabilising it from within, and drawing away assets which might otherwise be used to better tackle nominally larger threats. They to me are the true threat of Chaos, destabilising planets, systems and potentially sectors, all without much in the way (if any) of Power Armoured Support. They're off to a decent start via BSF, but we need and deserve more. It'll also even the Soup Playing field somewhat, at least for Chaos.
Speaking of Soup, I asked for something to make Imperial Soup less attractive overall. I mean, I have no issue with those using it - I fully understand it's appeal. But when only on Faction gets that level of 'ooooh, you cheesey swine!' option, it's not fair on everyone else.
And Epic. I want Epic. As a mix of 2nd Ed Epic army organisation (set Companies to choose from, flex and flavour from Support Cards, and Special Card as the cherry on the top) and Epic Armageddon Rules (split weapon profiles for Anti Infantry and Anti-Tank). Gives the game a distinct flavour all it's own by combining those two. Well, I think it does, anyway! You may remain to be convinced, or indeed straight out call me a Loony.
Oi, listen up ya gitz! Dis is Da Red Gobbo, and I heard you lot was takin a survey of da Kommunity. Im here to giv ya da perspektiv of the Grotletariat on behaff of da Gretchin Revolushunary Kommittee and make shure our voices git herd ova the shoutin and yellin of the Borkgeoisie. Below is our Manyfesto of Demandz:
1. (Re)Introduction of Rebel Grotz as a playable faction on the tabletop - We'z all green, after all, and our revolushunary compatriorks on Vigilus alreddy seemz to be risin up to throw off da shakkles of servitude
2. Bring back the Black Gobbo - As a young snotling new ta da hobby, da red gobbo enjoyed readin his feetured kolumn on yer website every week - betta den da White Dwarf e wuz, bring 'im bak on WarCom!
3. (Re)Introduction of Kroot Mercenaries as a playable faction on the tabletop - Dey may not be Grots, but dey is more dan willin' to take ar teef n' help us fight da Orks! I rekkon day also haz a Revolushun of their own to fight wit dem blueboys on T'au.
4. Additional Auxiliary Races for the T'au - No Taxashun Witout Representashun! Or sumfin' like dat. Dey is under-represented minorities dey is, dey deserv mor' opportoonity on da table, 'speshully since dem blueboys keep tellin' everyone that dey is sum sort of multi-rashul Empire. Allz dey got iz dem poor bird-brained Kroot and the buzzyboy Vespids. We knowz dey got some humies workin' wit dem too, and rumor iz dey got sum rock-krystal peeple in sekret.
5. Rough Riders for Astra Militarum - Kannon to da right o dem, Kannon to da leff o dem, Kannon in front o dem, Volley n Thund'r! Kno' who likes a gud horsey-boy? Da Red Gobbo does, n lotsa Guard playas do too!
6. More unit options for the Militarum Tempestus - Da poor gitz don't even hav a heavy support or fast attack choice, poor ladz cannae take a Brigade Detachment. Howz bout a Snipa Team (wit anti-tank rifles!) or Kombat Enguneers? Or a rite n proppa assault buggy!
7. Plastic Aeldari Aspect Warriors - Hasnt it been long enuff? N DONT FORGET DA FEENIX LORDS!
8. Introduction of Crone World Aeldari and Aeldari Exodites as playable factions - Pointy-ears ridin' lizzards! Pointy-ears ridin' daemons! Do tha thing!
9. Introduction of Agents of the Imperium as a playable faction - MAKE INQUISITORS GREAT AGAIN! Giv' us Rogue Traders too!
11. Give Chaos Daemons access to Daemon Engines - Com on ya gitz, the name "Daemon" is rite their in da title! Da Red Gobbo is very angry dat his collection of forgeworld blood slaughterers, brass skorpions, and blight drones dont fit inta iz daemon armies anymore like dey did in 6th n 7th edishuns.
12. Mutalith Vortex Beasts should be a Daemons unit - Same goes for da Slaughterbrute. What is a creature of da warp if it is not a daemon?
13. New plastic guardsmen minis - Da guard might not a broke, but der planet sure did! Cannae Cadian Shock Troopas witout a Cadia, time for a new regiment!
14. Emperors Children and World Eaters get the Death Guard treatment - Deez blokes deserv der own books wit der own Primarks I rekkon, not fair dat da dusty boyz and bloaty boyz get all da glory! Speakin of dusty boyz...
15. Thousand Sons get the Death Guard treatment (again) - Poor ladz play secund fiddle to da beaky-beastie-boyz in der own codex, wut givz? Da Tousand Sonz need some more karakter and dedicated legion unitz like da bloaty boyz get wit da Plagueburst Crawler n da Bloat Drone.
16. Another Imperial Primarch - Rowboat Gillyman is a weaklin', Rogal Dorn could pummel im gud wit iz hand cut off! I hear dat El'Jonson bloke is also havin imself a wee bit o a nap, maybe its time for him to wake up? How bout Vulkan? Russ? Khan? Corax? Anybody? Dis ting on?
17. Bring back the Wall of Martyrs terrain line (Firestorm Redoubt, Aquila Strongpoint, Plasma Obliterator, Vengeance Weapon Batteries) - Dey is outta produkshun, but da red gobbo wants em (n doesnt wanna give hundreds o teef to da freebotaz on orkbay!)
18. Balance Necrons - All dem skelly boyz is still overcosted points!
19. Make Terminators more survivable - Da brainboyz suggested the following rule fer termies:
Terminator Armor - Weapons with an AP value of -1 are treated as having an AP value of 0 instead. Units with Terminator armor may re-roll failed saves against weapons with a modified AP value of 0.
20. Make Power Armor more survivable - Da brainboyz suggested the following for mahreenz:
Power Armor - Units with Power Armor may re-roll failed saves against weapons with an AP value of 0.
21. Update Forgeworld rules to bring them in line with the Codexes - No Chapter Traits fer Carcharadons or Minotaurs? Death Korps n Elysians witout Doctrines? No strategems for anyun? Wot givs mate?
22. Better terrain rules - We'z needz betta terrain rules. We want Area Terrain and non-true Line of sight, like in 4th edishun (but betta!).
23. Reintroduction of The Lost and The Damned as a playable faction - Not jus' traitor guardsmen, but mixed forces of renegades n traitors as iz right n proppa!
24. Reintroduction of Eldar Corsairs as a playable faction - Forgeworld did em dirty, bring em back!
25. Give us an app - Jus like the one fer Age of Sigmar, wit datasheets n rulez at ar fingatips n buyable bookz n a built in army builder.
26. Clearer indicators of which products have limited availability - Da Red Gobbo gets confused bout wut he should spend his teef on, sumtimez he tries to buy a box n finds out that the box is out of producshun n innit comin back.
27. Netflix/HBO & Chill - Da Red Gobbo is very sad that Game o Thrones is comin to n end... maybe you lot haz sumfin you can bring to the telly to fill da void?
28. Age of Sigmar - My cuzzin in da Mortal Realms tells me you lot iz doin good there, keep doin what ya doin (and giv them humie gits a cogfort).
29. Battlefleet Gothic - Bring back da spaceshipz!!
30. Man O War - Bring back da wetshipz too!! My cuzzin in da Mortal Realms says dey got plenty of water ta float on.
God, I really hope you actually did type all that up and submit it!
Me, I'm simple, plastic Aspect Warriors and consolidated FAQ's is what I want.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I asked for all new BSF stuff to stick to the 'lesser seen' parts of 40k. Minor-Xenos being something I'm particularly keen on. Even referred them to the 'teaser' art in the 3rd Ed Rulebook. It seems their natural home, and a way to better distinguish it from the wider 40k galaxy.
Other than that, very keen for Lost and The Damned. After all, a planet may well be in big trouble if a Traitor Legion decides to pay a visit. But the threat of such a thing pales compared to the Cults and Nutters that continue to plague The Imperium, destabilising it from within, and drawing away assets which might otherwise be used to better tackle nominally larger threats. They to me are the true threat of Chaos, destabilising planets, systems and potentially sectors, all without much in the way (if any) of Power Armoured Support. They're off to a decent start via BSF, but we need and deserve more. It'll also even the Soup Playing field somewhat, at least for Chaos.
Speaking of Soup, I asked for something to make Imperial Soup less attractive overall. I mean, I have no issue with those using it - I fully understand it's appeal. But when only on Faction gets that level of 'ooooh, you cheesey swine!' option, it's not fair on everyone else.
And Epic. I want Epic. As a mix of 2nd Ed Epic army organisation (set Companies to choose from, flex and flavour from Support Cards, and Special Card as the cherry on the top) and Epic Armageddon Rules (split weapon profiles for Anti Infantry and Anti-Tank). Gives the game a distinct flavour all it's own by combining those two. Well, I think it does, anyway! You may remain to be convinced, or indeed straight out call me a Loony.
I politely emphasised my interest in Epic.
Otherwise, I was quite positive about the general direction being taken.
One point I tried to make a number of times was the possibility of ad-hoc releases over time that weren't necessarily tied to large army updates that would slowly update some of the older plastics to newer kits. Particularly the Rhino, as an example, but bringing certain metal/resin kits up to date, too, like some of the Eldar range.
I asked for live stream flogging of rules developers
I'm fairly sure that's against the Twitch TOS.
queen_annes_revenge wrote:my answers were no, no, no, I dont game, for most of the questions. but I suggested an individual parts service for kitbashing and converters. not gonna hold out hope but maybe. if they could offer that service in the days of mail order, I dont see why they couldnt do it now with the aid of the internet.
That was when they were doing metal bits, and could either cast what was needed or just had a stock of various parts on hand - now everything is on a plastic sprue, it is a bit trickier.
I did suggest doing small sprues of commonly asked for parts (shoulder pads, special & heavy weapons) at a reasonable price point as a way of competing with third party producers, rather than the daft "No model, no rules" policy, but I doubt it'll get me very far
Tyranid Horde wrote:Yeah, I suggested more painting/modelling events for those kind of things, or have a big convention in some place other than Nottingham.
Last time I checked, Coventry isn't in Nottingham, dude
Neither is Birmingham, as they have a reasonable presence at the UK Games Expo (or they did last year, anyway).
Anyone know how they plan on preventing people from "stuffing the ballot" and answering multiple time in order to get more chance to win the SoB?
I wrote this :
My “least favorite things about GW”:
- The lack of transparency, and the lack of sustainability of the various range and armies. No way to know how much support an army is going to get in the support. Some armies may be neglected for decades (Sisters of Battle), some might be completely abandoned (Kroot mercenaries, Dogs of War for WFB), some entire game system may disappear.
- The new 40k lore, which focus way too much on being a story instead of being a setting. I don't want to play subfactions (chapters, regiment, craftworld, …) and characters that were created and designed by GW, I want them to give me rules and inspiration to create my own. All 40k lore should be about fleshing up more different aspect of the setting, not an advancing story with a few characters that influence the whole setting! And I especially dislike the fleshing out and the return of primarchs (old legends are so more interesting as legends than as actual characters), and the return of technological advancement through primaris marine, which remove the quite unique and very interesting theme of technological decay from 40k.
- Please please please stop keeping the name in English in the middle of French texts, at least when the translation already exist in the real world! I don't mind if genestealers stay genestealers, but commissars should be commissaires!!!
- Profile creep, i.e. the profile of new weapons being way stronger than old weapons. For instance, the new Chaos rotor cannon being so much stronger than a heavy bolter, while the weapon is about the same size, even if balanced by point cost, make the heavy bolter seem like a WEAK weapon…
New functionality for Warhammer-Community:
RSS FEEDS!!!!
One thing to make GW stuff more enjoyable:
Take clear engagement and make those explicit about faction support. Be honest if a faction is likely to get dropped in next edition (say, Kroot mercenaries), have a clear (if approximate) schedule about when each faction is getting new models, …
I typed everything up and sent it in, only to realise there was some sort of problem with a script being blocked (or some such) and it never actually did send. Then it updated the page and I had to do the whole thing over again, might try later but I'm a little bitter about it right now.
By the way, where is the FAQ? Stuck somewhere in Gorks Grin?
queen_annes_revenge wrote: my answers were no, no, no, I dont game, for most of the questions. but I suggested an individual parts service for kitbashing and converters. not gonna hold out hope but maybe. if they could offer that service in the days of mail order, I dont see why they couldnt do it now with the aid of the internet.
They used to have this and it was GLORIOUS!!!
I got some cool bitz for my Sisters of Battle this way. No way I could do it now!
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: - The lack of transparency, and the lack of sustainability of the various range and armies. No way to know how much support an army is going to get in the support. Some armies may be neglected for decades (Sisters of Battle), some might be completely abandoned (Kroot mercenaries, Dogs of War for WFB), some entire game system may disappear.
Screaming into the wind with this one. Their level of support is down to level of interest, I'm assuming. If something isn't profitable then it will basically be dropped. I can't really fault them for that, can you?
And, yes, there's a counter-argument to that insofar as lack of support can lead to lack of interest, but a company will ALWAYS cut their losses if they know what's good for them.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: - The new 40k lore, which focus way too much on being a story instead of being a setting. I don't want to play subfactions (chapters, regiment, craftworld, …) and characters that were created and designed by GW, I want them to give me rules and inspiration to create my own. All 40k lore should be about fleshing up more different aspect of the setting, not an advancing story with a few characters that influence the whole setting! And I especially dislike the fleshing out and the return of primarchs (old legends are so more interesting as legends than as actual characters), and the return of technological advancement through primaris marine, which remove the quite unique and very interesting theme of technological decay from 40k.
I mean, sure, you're basically saying you don't like a thing that they're doing, which is fine, but they're going to continue doing it regardless, so good luck with that one.
On the subject of creating your own space within the lore, nothing prevents you from doing that. At all.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: One thing to make GW stuff more enjoyable:
Take clear engagement and make those explicit about faction support. Be honest if a faction is likely to get dropped in next edition (say, Kroot mercenaries), have a clear (if approximate) schedule about when each faction is getting new models, …
Disagree. While I'd love to know how and when my particular armies and factions will be receiving some kind of update, I don't think telegraphing these things months or years in advance would do any good at all. It's a whole load of unnecessary effort on GW's part for people to have even more specific things to complain and be overwhelmingly negative about. Explain to me how a Dark Eldar player's life is made any better by knowing that his army isn't due for any kind of new models at all for a 2+ year period?
I think things are fine as they are. Regardless, I see the Sisters of Battle updates as a rather significant "test" to see if updates on the design and manufacture process does actually lead to any kind of difference in terms of the overall feeling of the community and/or sales. So maybe you will get your wish if GW see some tangible benefits from the updates.
I don't think I'm what they had in mind for this survey. In the Warhammer Events section, I answered:
"Describe your perfect Warhammer event - Where is it? What is being played? What style of game is running?"
with:
"1-4 friends and I, at one of our houses, playing the original Warhammer Quest. Everyone has nice snacks and good beer. We all laugh at each other's antics and maybe get somewhere in the game."
Psychopomp wrote: I don't think I'm what they had in mind for this survey. In the Warhammer Events section, I answered:
"Describe your perfect Warhammer event - Where is it? What is being played? What style of game is running?"
with:
"1-4 friends and I, at one of our houses, playing the original Warhammer Quest. Everyone has nice snacks and good beer. We all laugh at each other's antics and maybe get somewhere in the game."
Was surprised they focused on the supplemental games and didn't specifically ask about 40k. Saw an Age of Sigmar section (but checked no).
I suggested they pursue action figures... I'd buy the hell out of a Revoltech or SH Figuarts line of 40k themed action figures. They could make 1 mold and release it in every color in the rainbow!
One of the things I asked for was Designer's Commentary more akin to what Blizzard does for Overwatch. When GW releases a codex/tome that looks, plays, and - for all intents and purposes - feels broken one has to wonder why they made certain choices. If they are trying to shake a certain meta or promote certain playstyles these commentaries could be used to convey that.
I also would like to know what they are planning to do with lines that don't feel supported like the entire Aelf category in the Age of Sigmar tab.
Eldarsif wrote: One of the things I asked for was Designer's Commentary more akin to what Blizzard does for Overwatch. When GW releases a codex/tome that looks, plays, and - for all intents and purposes - feels broken one has to wonder why they made certain choices. If they are trying to shake a certain meta or promote certain playstyles these commentaries could be used to convey that.
They've done these in the past and prepare for disappointment: they don't address what you're asking for because every single Designer's Commentary they've done shows that they think of the game in an entirely different way than the internet does. They really don't care a jot about "metas" or promoting certain playstyles over others.
Eldarsif wrote: One of the things I asked for was Designer's Commentary more akin to what Blizzard does for Overwatch. When GW releases a codex/tome that looks, plays, and - for all intents and purposes - feels broken one has to wonder why they made certain choices. If they are trying to shake a certain meta or promote certain playstyles these commentaries could be used to convey that.
I'd dig that. Back when I played LOL I appreciated reading the patch commentaries and getting a feel for what the intent was.
I guess I mostly asked for increased internal balance (specifically providing actual choices among army traits, relics, units and not just Obviously Good Things that override all others) and relentlessly added in BFG anywhere they asked me what I played or wanted
Eldarsif wrote: One of the things I asked for was Designer's Commentary more akin to what Blizzard does for Overwatch. When GW releases a codex/tome that looks, plays, and - for all intents and purposes - feels broken one has to wonder why they made certain choices. If they are trying to shake a certain meta or promote certain playstyles these commentaries could be used to convey that.
They've done these in the past and prepare for disappointment: they don't address what you're asking for because every single Designer's Commentary they've done shows that they think of the game in an entirely different way than the internet does. They really don't care a jot about "metas" or promoting certain playstyles over others.
Hasn't that applied mostly to 40k though? The AoS crowd is a bit more tourney centered with tomes that play much differently from 40k indicating that the design direction and approach is much different.
I mentioned plastic aspect warriors, tomb kings, Battlefleet gothic, black library MMPBs and prices. When they asked what function they could add to their website, I said "coupons".
Basically, give me the minis I'd be willing to pay crazy prices for or make the rest cheaper until they're attractive.
I'm a sad person. I asked for more variety in plastic Imperial Guard. As someone who started in early 2nd Ed, I was spoilt when it came to make up of my first ever Guard army.
Now I'm spoilt for choice by other companies resin regiments.
Eldarain wrote: Not feeling great about where Middle Earth fits into their plans by it's almost complete absense from the survey. Such a brilliant ruleset too.
Yeah. Underworlds got a section, but LotR did not.
I mentioned that the seemingly fast fall-off of interest in Blood Bowl, Necromunda, and Kill Team may have something to do with their releases seeming more like some kind of boiler room sales scheme than just being exciting products I want to buy. Doubt they pay much attention to comments, but perhaps they can figure out on their own that making Specialist Games an obstacle course of tiny rulebooks with an anticipated release schedule that will take me into and then out of middle age before the entire game is released might actually cause them to make less money.
Eldarain wrote: Not feeling great about where Middle Earth fits into their plans by it's almost complete absense from the survey. Such a brilliant ruleset too.
Eldarain wrote: Not feeling great about where Middle Earth fits into their plans by it's almost complete absense from the survey. Such a brilliant ruleset too.
Yeah. Underworlds got a section, but LotR did not.
Not cool, GW. Not cool.
They seemed to very specifically leave out Forge World content that wasn't, "What do you play?"
Warhammer Underworlds had it's own section for instance but not Middle-Earth, Necromunda, Horus Heresy, etc. To my knowledge Underworlds is done by the same people as Kill-Team, which is separate to Specialist Games/Forge World.
I'll admit that I have had a smile when they asked "why don't you participate in official GW tournament"....
Because all of my centerpieces are from other companies
I think they asked some good questions, so I hope I gave some good feedback.
I still think they need to drop prices if they REALLY want to take off. The more people that can afford to play, the more they'll make. And I'm sure their overhead vs Profit on unpainted minis is huge.
I love most their community stuff that they've been doing, but I feel their comics are well drawn, but pathetically boring and dull. I'm guessing they have to make them easy to translate & understand for non-english speakers, but, they seriously make me groan. If they've done this for younger readers, they've definitely underestimated the intelligence of young people.
I think GW's main issue is that they probably have one considerably sized crew of designers and rules writers that collectively shift to and fro between AoS and 40k, with a few guys piecemealed out to specialist games.
That's why it seems like we get 'staggered releases'.
God, I wish I could go back and add stuff to my survey. I don't want to slog through it again.
I mentioned wanting unique "army-less" warbands for Shadespire, warbands that wouldn't get full army releases (Like warcry?), but I'd kill for some Shadespire bands from "pre existing" factions, like Bonespittaz, Brayherds etc.
I forgot to mention having a Kroot faction as well, though I did mention Hrud and other xenos for blackstone fortress. So many things I want to add, but I forgot. :/
GaroRobe wrote: I forgot to mention having a Kroot faction as well, though I did mention Hrud and other xenos for blackstone fortress. So many things I want to add, but I forgot. :/
BSF is the perfect format to release little things here and there- and also Kill-Team. I'm still hoping we get an actual Arbites squad (not enforces, but real arbites).
skullking wrote: I think they asked some good questions, so I hope I gave some good feedback.
I still think they need to drop prices if they REALLY want to take off. The more people that can afford to play, the more they'll make. And I'm sure their overhead vs Profit on unpainted minis is huge.
I love most their community stuff that they've been doing, but I feel their comics are well drawn, but pathetically boring and dull. I'm guessing they have to make them easy to translate & understand for non-english speakers, but, they seriously make me groan. If they've done this for younger readers, they've definitely underestimated the intelligence of young people.
I didn't even think to comment on the comics. Except for the sigmar one, they're universally awful - ugly (in the sense of little technical skill) and poorly written. Even the sigmar one is just mediocre. I've no idea why they believe those would garner interest or help sell things,
I wanted them to fix up their terrain rules,
Propperly update all armies (fw index lists - GK)
Stop selling the balance Patch,
adressing soup,
Their pricing,
Pricing in conjunction with the new boxes (basic equipment not even available for the whole squad cough.)
Stopping the fact that there are now 90 documments for the game.
skullking wrote: I think they asked some good questions, so I hope I gave some good feedback.
I still think they need to drop prices if they REALLY want to take off. The more people that can afford to play, the more they'll make. And I'm sure their overhead vs Profit on unpainted minis is huge.
I love most their community stuff that they've been doing, but I feel their comics are well drawn, but pathetically boring and dull. I'm guessing they have to make them easy to translate & understand for non-english speakers, but, they seriously make me groan. If they've done this for younger readers, they've definitely underestimated the intelligence of young people.
I didn't even think to comment on the comics. Except for the sigmar one, they're universally awful - ugly (in the sense of little technical skill) and poorly written. Even the sigmar one is just mediocre. I've no idea why they believe those would garner interest or help sell things,
They have two higher grade ones, but their odd method of updating them for a few weeks then dropping them and only keeping one going at a time is really odd. It's like they are trying to do print comic media in digital form and its jsut not what people expect nor what the digital comic market delivers. They really should push out one episode/page a week for each comic or pull back and only support one really good one. Right now its like the yare testing the waters looking for something that becomes "amazing good/popular" whilst also not costing them too much.
skullking wrote: I think they asked some good questions, so I hope I gave some good feedback.
I still think they need to drop prices if they REALLY want to take off. The more people that can afford to play, the more they'll make. And I'm sure their overhead vs Profit on unpainted minis is huge.
I love most their community stuff that they've been doing, but I feel their comics are well drawn, but pathetically boring and dull. I'm guessing they have to make them easy to translate & understand for non-english speakers, but, they seriously make me groan. If they've done this for younger readers, they've definitely underestimated the intelligence of young people.
I didn't even think to comment on the comics. Except for the sigmar one, they're universally awful - ugly (in the sense of little technical skill) and poorly written. Even the sigmar one is just mediocre. I've no idea why they believe those would garner interest or help sell things,
This one is going to be a culture gap thing, they're webcomics in the vein of the stupid gak I read growing up. I've actually loved them so far aside from the AOS one which I just haven't found nearly as funny or interesting. Reminds me too much of every D&D comic ever for me to get into it.
skullking wrote: I think they asked some good questions, so I hope I gave some good feedback.
I still think they need to drop prices if they REALLY want to take off. The more people that can afford to play, the more they'll make. And I'm sure their overhead vs Profit on unpainted minis is huge.
I love most their community stuff that they've been doing, but I feel their comics are well drawn, but pathetically boring and dull. I'm guessing they have to make them easy to translate & understand for non-english speakers, but, they seriously make me groan. If they've done this for younger readers, they've definitely underestimated the intelligence of young people.
I didn't even think to comment on the comics. Except for the sigmar one, they're universally awful - ugly (in the sense of little technical skill) and poorly written. Even the sigmar one is just mediocre. I've no idea why they believe those would garner interest or help sell things,
This one is going to be a culture gap thing, they're webcomics in the vein of the stupid gak I read growing up. I've actually loved them so far aside from the AOS one which I just haven't found nearly as funny or interesting. Reminds me too much of every D&D comic ever for me to get into it.
Not sure what 'culture gap' you're referring to. I read several webcomics now and am aware of many others. Most make the effort not to be awful.
You must have experienced a rare few then, because 98% of them are utter trash. But Vhane Glorious and Roll Models are very competently done and TSOALR is just a classic in general.
I keep seeing mention of better rules for terrain and I don't understand why.
8th edition has the clearest and most concise terrain rules we've ever seen.
I have had literally zero issues with terrain rules, function, etc. in my games this edition. It's been spectacular.
Where's the issue? I'm inclined to chalk these mentions of 'better terrain rules' to player shenanigans and TFG's.
Some of the reasons are how binary it is. The other is that it requires a lot of LOS blocking terrain when GW has historically been selling terrain that isn't very LOS-blocking.
I personally like the Kill Team cover rule and would love to see it in 40k.
I suggested that, for Blackstone Fortress, that they release:
1. Proper expansions at a decent price (the current ones are super lame and sparse in content). 2. That they give players the opportunity to grow their own characters, rather than using specific named characters that GW invent for you. 3. That they greatly expand the "between missions" stuff like Old Skool Quest had.
oni wrote: I keep seeing mention of better rules for terrain and I don't understand why.
8th edition has the clearest and most concise terrain rules we've ever seen.
I have had literally zero issues with terrain rules, function, etc. in my games this edition. It's been spectacular.
Where's the issue? I'm inclined to chalk these mentions of 'better terrain rules' to player shenanigans and TFG's.
OK... I get it, some of it feels awkward when logic is applied, but we cannot pick and choose where to apply logic to a game system that is inherently illogical. Character targeting rules!?!
I remember a quote from Jarvis Johnson or perhaps Phil Kelly "Sometimes you have to sacrifice your sacred cow for good game play."
So, sure it may feel a bit odd and limited at times, but the rules are simple, clear and unarguable. The simplicity and conciseness of the current terrain rules are fantastic. Now such things fade to the background because we do not have to be concerned with added complexity.
Honestly, I fear the day 40K regresses to past edition terrain rules. They used to just bog down the game; a lot. It was a nuisance and at times outright frustrating.
To me the biggest issue with the terrain is that you need to be in the terain or basically touching the terrain to gain the benefit. Intervening terrain does nothing unless it completely blocks the LOS. So if there is a huge ruined building between my guys and the enemy that is shooting them, I do not receive cover if my guys are not in the ruins. Actually by RAW any of the ruins without upper floors GW sells do not provide cover, as they lack base thus you can never be in them!
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't see how measure LOS from weapons, and needing to see properly see the target are things that "bog the game down".
Would you require drawing LOS from an infantry model’s gun? I don’t think it would be fair to apply that standard to a vehicle but not infantry models. Actuallly with 8E, I’ve been assuming, that like infantry, the position of the vehicle is an approximation, and that the vehicle may have actual inched forward, rotated, fired and then moved back to the cover position for purposes of determining how much is exposed to the enemy rather than a “snapshot” of exact posititioning of every model (including infantry) on the battlefield.
However, I agree that overall 8E’s terrain rules are abysmal and poorly thought out. Top off that they’re not in the base 4-page ruleset that regularly gets put into sets and it’s apparent the game doesn’t put an appropriate emphasis on movement, maneuver and positioning.
Stormonu wrote: ... and that the vehicle may have actual inched forward, rotated, fired and then moved back to the cover position for purposes of determining how much is exposed to the enemy rather than a “snapshot” of exact posititioning of every model (including infantry) on the battlefield...
Except that the game has rules for moving and firing heavy weapons, yet the tank is "moving" but not suffering those penalties. That's inconsistent.
Stormonu wrote: ... and that the vehicle may have actual inched forward, rotated, fired and then moved back to the cover position for purposes of determining how much is exposed to the enemy rather than a “snapshot” of exact posititioning of every model (including infantry) on the battlefield...
Except that the game has rules for moving and firing heavy weapons, yet the tank is "moving" but not suffering those penalties. That's inconsistent.
But that's true of infantry, too. They take up the space of their base and are assumed to be moving around in that space as necessary for taking cover, firing position, etc. A model's actual position on the table is an approximation of their abstract place, not an exact.
Look at the big rock again. Tell me that that seems right to you that the tank can fire all its guns from that position, and that it's an abstraction that would require to move it's entire length out of cover in order to fire, yet in doing so it doesn't suffer the penalties for firing had it actually moved?
Cover and positioning should mean something. Right now, much like the FOC, they don't.
I said the same thing I always say...we need a central rules repository for every game that we pay a monthly fee to access that gets ACTIVELY updated every time there is a rules change/errata/FAQ. They would make SO MUCH more money this way than the codex/splatbook route, it isn't even close and it would benefit all players old and new alike.
Oh and it goes without saying that it should have a usable, well-designed interface on mobile...so you could, you know, use it at the gaming table.
(To be clear, they could still release the codices and battletomes and whatnot with art, fluff, etc for the people who want them, but they could be smaller runs or print on demand or whatever...)
exliontamer wrote: I said the same thing I always say...we need a central rules repository for every game that we pay a monthly fee to access that gets ACTIVELY updated every time there is a rules change/errata/FAQ. They would make SO MUCH more money this way than the codex/splatbook route, it isn't even close and it would benefit all players old and new alike.
Oh and it goes without saying that it should have a usable, well-designed interface on mobile...so you could, you know, use it at the gaming table.
(To be clear, they could still release the
codices and battletomes and whatnot with art, fluff, etc for the people who want them, but they could be smaller runs or print on demand or whatever...)
Why, for goodness' sake, are some people so eager to throw money at GW, considering the obscene amounts they already get for the models themselves? There is absolutely no evidence that a subscription service would be managed at all effectively and it would completely hammer pick-up games and tournaments. I, for one, am not signing up for a direct debit / standing order payable to a company that alienated thousands of its own player base, squatted entire armies, blew up its own setting and drive its profits into the ground. And is, incidentally, in the process of slow-motion squatting its biggest selling line.
I'll buy my hard copy books, thanks. At least they have art and fluff and I can take them off a shelf and browse through them every so often. Having to pay for badly-realised, counter intuitive rules with patch after patch grafted on, in order to play a game I've already spent thousands of euro on, is my definition of throwing good money after bad.
oni wrote: OK... I get it, some of it feels awkward when logic is applied, but we cannot pick and choose where to apply logic to a game system that is inherently illogical. Character targeting rules!?!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Look at the big rock again. Tell me that that seems right to you that the tank can fire all its guns from that position, and that it's an abstraction that would require to move it's entire length out of cover in order to fire, yet in doing so it doesn't suffer the penalties for firing had it actually moved?
Cover and positioning should mean something. Right now, much like the FOC, they don't.
“Seems right”, no. But it’s clear to me this is GW’s intent. We don’t have an absolute scale for the amount of time a given turn covers and only a rough estimate of actual distances in the game. Having played some online tank games *I* can easily image the tank creeping forward, taking the shot and then quickly retreating to avoid enemy fire, with the resultant “average” being the tank’s position on the board is represented by only the fore of the tread sticks out. Kinda like a missile-launcher bearing space marine could be positioned so he “leans” around a corner to shoot a rocket at an enemy while his model on the board has only a sliver of the left-hand shoulder of his model (with the launcher physically over his right shoulder) visible in the window of a ruin and he can still shoot without counting as moving. It isn’t simulationist in the least, but then nothing in 40K is anything more than an approximation at best anyways.
It’s clear that this state isn’t favored by a portion of the gaming community, and they’d prefer a different way of handling the situation (including me), but I can somewhat see GW’s train of thought. Personally, I’d wish for firing arcs (for everything - including infantry) to be in the game, but 40K is such a beastly mix of models already that at the scale they’re promoting I’d prefer the quicker, more abstract method than the processes from 6E/7E that resulted in sloooooow games.
(Maybe this conversation is something to move to another thread if we want to continue discussing?)
The issue with terrain is that it doesn't really do anything...it's "blocks LOS or nothing". +1 save doesn't really do that much given the lethality of firepower in 8th edition, and LOS blocking is rare outside of house rules and custom terrain. There needs to be something in between "you can't shoot me" and "it's only slightly harder to kill me" to make terrain (and the movement phase) more important.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't see how measuring LOS from weapons, and needing to see properly see the target are things that "bog the game down".
well for a start, it means models are, effectively, limited by their model design, which can make some units under performing simply because they're not an optimal design. unless GW's mdoel designers are willing to completely change the mentality which they take into army design, this seems a bad idea.
greyknight12 wrote: The issue with terrain is that it doesn't really do anything...it's "blocks LOS or nothing". +1 save doesn't really do that much given the lethality of firepower in 8th edition, and LOS blocking is rare outside of house rules and custom terrain. There needs to be something in between "you can't shoot me" and "it's only slightly harder to kill me" to make terrain (and the movement phase) more important.
I suggest you (and others) actually read the terrain section of the big rulebook.
I'm always amazed at how many people either don't know there's a terrain section in the rulebook or just ignore it because they're incapable getting past the specific mention of <GW Kit Name>.
Try reading the terrain rules and replace <GW Kit Name> with something more generic, perhaps something you see on the tabletops you typically play on. There's rules for craters, woods, tank traps & obstacles, etc. All of which can influence the game in different ways beyond just giving +1 to the saving throw.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Look at the big rock again. Tell me that that seems right to you that the tank can fire all its guns from that position, and that it's an abstraction that would require to move it's entire length out of cover in order to fire, yet in doing so it doesn't suffer the penalties for firing had it actually moved?
Cover and positioning should mean something. Right now, much like the FOC, they don't.
“Seems right”, no. But it’s clear to me this is GW’s intent. We don’t have an absolute scale for the amount of time a given turn covers and only a rough estimate of actual distances in the game. Having played some online tank games *I* can easily image the tank creeping forward, taking the shot and then quickly retreating to avoid enemy fire, with the resultant “average” being the tank’s position on the board is represented by only the fore of the tread sticks out. Kinda like a missile-launcher bearing space marine could be positioned so he “leans” around a corner to shoot a rocket at an enemy while his model on the board has only a sliver of the left-hand shoulder of his model (with the launcher physically over his right shoulder) visible in the window of a ruin and he can still shoot without counting as moving. It isn’t simulationist in the least, but then nothing in 40K is anything more than an approximation at best anyways.
It’s clear that this state isn’t favored by a portion of the gaming community, and they’d prefer a different way of handling the situation (including me), but I can somewhat see GW’s train of thought. Personally, I’d wish for firing arcs (for everything - including infantry) to be in the game, but 40K is such a beastly mix of models already that at the scale they’re promoting I’d prefer the quicker, more abstract method than the processes from 6E/7E that resulted in sloooooow games.
(Maybe this conversation is something to move to another thread if we want to continue discussing?)
Probably, but it’s been discussed by a select few in several threads over the Edition.
It won’t get anywhere. Everyone has their minds set.
I can see it your way.
Rules wise it doesn’t matter about the gun positioning or whether some thing looks silly, as you are playing a rule set and follow it exact.
Cinematically it doesn’t matter, as things happen as you say, tentative advancement and firing.
It’s the mix of the two that people are applying where the problem comes. They want the rules to look cinematically correct (unfortunately no tabletop game ever will be, as you can imagine how the rules would have to be so complex/busy (bit of move, turn, shoot, more move, maybe reposition, etc etc, all in one units turn)
I really like that you don't need to measure from the guns anymore. It was tiresome to check LOS separately for each weapon. You didn't do it for infantry an monsters anyway. I like that I can freely rearrange the positions of the weapons without it becoming modelling for advantage/disadvantage.
greyknight12 wrote: The issue with terrain is that it doesn't really do anything...it's "blocks LOS or nothing". +1 save doesn't really do that much given the lethality of firepower in 8th edition, and LOS blocking is rare outside of house rules and custom terrain. There needs to be something in between "you can't shoot me" and "it's only slightly harder to kill me" to make terrain (and the movement phase) more important.
I suggest you (and others) actually read the terrain section of the big rulebook.
I'm always amazed at how many people either don't know there's a terrain section in the rulebook or just ignore it because they're incapable getting past the specific mention of <GW Kit Name>.
Try reading the terrain rules and replace <GW Kit Name> with something more generic, perhaps something you see on the tabletops you typically play on. There's rules for craters, woods, tank traps & obstacles, etc. All of which can influence the game in different ways beyond just giving +1 to the saving throw.
If you're referring to the rules on page 248 of the BRB, then as far as the effect of cover for shooting is concerned, you would be wrong. It does have an effect on certain ways to charge, but nothing else.
I brought up cover being a problem, and I'm less concerned with tank positioning as I am about how hard it is to get cover with large units and the fact that it's possible to make units unassaultable by taking up all the space on a floor of a building
BrianDavion wrote: well for a start, it means models are, effectively, limited by their model design, which can make some units under performing simply because they're not an optimal design. unless GW's mdoel designers are willing to completely change the mentality which they take into army design, this seems a bad idea.
I don't even know what you mean by this. "Optimal design". What?
BrianDavion wrote: well for a start, it means models are, effectively, limited by their model design, which can make some units under performing simply because they're not an optimal design. unless GW's mdoel designers are willing to completely change the mentality which they take into army design, this seems a bad idea.
I don't even know what you mean by this. "Optimal design". What?
My bet is that It is the fact the model designers create the model first (and what weapon it’s carrying) before it gets statted out. Top it off that the designer models it with, say, holding a melta gun instead of a plasma cannon. Thus, its not the most effective thing to deploy without some conversion.
BrianDavion wrote: well for a start, it means models are, effectively, limited by their model design, which can make some units under performing simply because they're not an optimal design. unless GW's mdoel designers are willing to completely change the mentality which they take into army design, this seems a bad idea.
I don't even know what you mean by this. "Optimal design". What?
I remember things like the land raider having difficulty using both sponsons if a target was too close or slightly off center. Of the storm talon having a 360 degree nose assault cannon because it looked cool, while the storm hawk has a fixed forwards mount in the same place. And the nightmare of the firing arc on the heldrake.
Crimson wrote: To me the biggest issue with the terrain is that you need to be in the terain or basically touching the terrain to gain the benefit. Intervening terrain does nothing unless it completely blocks the LOS. So if there is a huge ruined building between my guys and the enemy that is shooting them, I do not receive cover if my guys are not in the ruins. Actually by RAW any of the ruins without upper floors GW sells do not provide cover, as they lack base thus you can never be in them!
This is what I wrote in my survey, essentially. They need to update their terrain rules to work a little better with the terrain they actually sell e.g. all the new and fantastic looking sector imperialis being full of gaps. That terrain works very well when the rules are written like in Kill Team, but in 40k only infantry can really take advantage of those scenery models.
I'd rather not go down the road of each gun needing individual line of sight, though.
I also wrote in that I'd like to see them use Blackstone Fortress and Kill Team to inject some new life into some factions that need a little love, such as Inquisition. They've already shown they can and will do this with the GSC and AdMech characters released already.
One last thing I wrote was for them to do more with their painting and building/kitbashing videos and warhammer community content. Their videos are just really brief and lack a lot of explaination. We all know that what they show us in those videos is not how they get the results shown for their studio armies. Maybe they could separate painting/modelling tutorials into "Warhammer: Battle Ready" and "Warhammer: Advanced" or something like that, IDK. I know they want to have videos for people to find and make it look easy and not scary, but I wouldn't mind picking the brains of their studio artists a bit more.
BrianDavion wrote: well for a start, it means models are, effectively, limited by their model design, which can make some units under performing simply because they're not an optimal design. unless GW's mdoel designers are willing to completely change the mentality which they take into army design, this seems a bad idea.
I don't even know what you mean by this. "Optimal design". What?
I remember things like the land raider having difficulty using both sponsons if a target was too close or slightly off center. Of the storm talon having a 360 degree nose assault cannon because it looked cool, while the storm hawk has a fixed forwards mount in the same place. And the nightmare of the firing arc on the heldrake.
exactly this. the designers model the weapon placement etc on what looks cool, and some models in the old day of weapon LOS had some distinct issues as a result
I'd rather not go down the road of each gun needing individual line of sight, though.
.
I don't understand this mentality. We draw line of sight from each infantry model in a unit. A tank is often as big or bigger than a unit of infantry. What's so hard about treating their guns the same way as the guns in an infantry squad? It's not like a squad of 20 can all shoot if a single model can see.
I'd rather not go down the road of each gun needing individual line of sight, though.
.
I don't understand this mentality. We draw line of sight from each infantry model in a unit. A tank is often as big or bigger than a unit of infantry. What's so hard about treating their guns the same way as the guns in an infantry squad? It's not like a squad of 20 can all shoot if a single model can see.
No, but a single model can and a vehicle is a single model. The equivalent is measuring from an infantry model's weapon, not from a single model in a unit(especially since many vehicles can make units).
BrianDavion wrote: exactly this. the designers model the weapon placement etc on what looks cool, and some models in the old day of weapon LOS had some distinct issues as a result
To which I say: So what?
I'd rather there be actual design flaws or deficiencies in designs than a Baneblade being able to fire all its guns around a corner from the front of its track, or a Land Raider being able to fire it's guns through itself.
BrianDavion wrote: exactly this. the designers model the weapon placement etc on what looks cool, and some models in the old day of weapon LOS had some distinct issues as a result
To which I say: So what?
I'd rather there be actual design flaws or deficiencies in designs than a Baneblade being able to fire all its guns around a corner from the front of its track, or a Land Raider being able to fire it's guns through itself.
You make it sound like it's one or two extremes. here's a easy way to do it. Assign guns to specific arcs, based off the mini and apply a bit of common sense (or put all future tanks on bases so that those arcs can be calculted off the base)
So, let's use a Land raider as an example here..
A land raider is armed with 4 lascanons, 2 heavy bolters, and a stormbolter.
right now you can fire everything, which is I admit a bit silly. Assign those guns to specifics arcs as follows.
2 Lascanons: Left Sponson
2 Lascanons Right Sponson
2 Heavy Bolters: Front
Stormbolter: Turret.
So what does this mean? it means that the stormbolter has a 360 degree firing arc, the heaby bolters a 90 degree fireing arc to the front, and the las canons can fire two to a side, or all 4 to the front or back.
there's no dicking around with individual line of sight and detirmining that "ohh those lascanons actually clip throuh the hull thus can't fire to the front" etc. in the baneblade example you've posted the baneblade would be able to fire some of it's side weapons yes, which is silly sure, but at least it'd have some limits on it.
end of the day you have to keep in mind 40k isn't a simulation but an abstration. a 40k simulation table top game would be a NIGHTMARE, and IMHO you'd not be able to do it. you'd likely take hours to play a squad vs squad thing.
Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I suggested that, for Blackstone Fortress, that they release:
1. Proper expansions at a decent price (the current ones are super lame and sparse in content). 2. That they give players the opportunity to grow their own characters, rather than using specific named characters that GW invent for you. 3. That they greatly expand the "between missions" stuff like Old Skool Quest had.
oni wrote: I keep seeing mention of better rules for terrain and I don't understand why.
8th edition has the clearest and most concise terrain rules we've ever seen.
I have had literally zero issues with terrain rules, function, etc. in my games this edition. It's been spectacular.
Where's the issue? I'm inclined to chalk these mentions of 'better terrain rules' to player shenanigans and TFG's.
ryuken87 wrote: Firing arcs slowed the game right down in previous editions and caused disagreements, I'm glad to see the back of them.
Yeah I don't entirely disagree. as I said, it works when the models are designed with them clearly in mind, the Lemen Russ for example is a pretty well designed mini in that regard, clear and obious fields of fire etc.
but then you get things like the helldrake, the new vencom crawler etc, where the arcs are a bit harder to judge.
Not to mention the arguments that a dorsal weapons on a flyer - like the turret on the Stormraven - would be unable to target anything on the ground unless you parked it on a slope. Because you know, an aircraft wouldn't be able to pitch or something.
Or the age-old question what happens with multibarrel weapons like twin-linked lascannons where one barrel has clear line of sight but the other is blocked. Lose twin-linked? Half the shots? Does have cover?
Firing arcs did tend to slow things down and it was clunky ...would it be too messy to require a simple line of site to each weapon for it to shoot at a particular target?
I feel like much of the impracticality of certain vehicles being able to aim all there weapons at one target are already addressed by allowing them to target several different targets.
Da-Rock wrote: I am assuming this is all Tourny player anger over arcs?
The previous arc setup was dumber than a box of rocks. This one is too.......the difference? One is easier and faster to deal with.
As for Flyers......they are fun, don't see how that is an issue.
That would be my guess. In the every day player scene, at least in my area no one cares about the cover/LOS/arc issue. Literally no one I talked to today at our store even said anything about it other than "8th is so much better than the nightmare that was AV/FA positioning."
I don't see it as a toruny vs non tourny thing but a "Realism vs abstraction" thing the abstraction makes it easier yes, but some people want a more "Realism" type mind set. neither side is wrong, it's, ultimately a matter of preferance.
You guys make it sound like a LR is op just because it can fire all its guns. How many lists do you see these days that even have a LR...
And when was the last time you saw a predator tank on the table?
Its hard enough running vehicles currently already. Why make it even harder. Because the only such line of sight stuff to a weapon would affect are vehicles mainly. Because walkers have 360 line of sight so they don't care. Same for hovercraft.
Unfortunately, knights have killed the ability for other vehicles to be viable (with some exceptions of course). A Castellan just erases your vehicles, and since people also plan to face knights, killing much weaker vehicles is a piece of cake.
For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.
Sherrypie wrote: For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.
That's great and all, but meaningful terrain interaction shouldn't require paying out for an additional rules supplement.
Sherrypie wrote: For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.
That's great and all, but meaningful terrain interaction shouldn't require paying out for an additional rules supplement.
Most of that is in the core rulebook, what isn't is in Chapter Approved 2018. That's not asking much, really.
Of course I agree those rules should be just put in as the base line, perhaps through the beta rules system, as people for some reason seem to avoid anything that isn't officially stamped "non-optional" like a plague. But until then, most have CA 18 either for themselves, for their group or store or can just crib it from the internet in like ten seconds.
Galas wrote: Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.
Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.
Albino Squirrel wrote: Frankly it's pretty dumb to have flyers in the game at all. But that ship has sailed.
The dumb is that the anti-air stuff is pretty garbage at handling them and for whatever reason some of the stuff that is supposed to be anti-air/anti-skimmer/anti-fast vehicles(Looking at you Dark Reapers) have instead been rejigged to simply be "anti-hit penalty".
Sherrypie wrote: For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.
That's great and all, but meaningful terrain interaction shouldn't require paying out for an additional rules supplement.
Most of that is in the core rulebook, what isn't is in Chapter Approved 2018. That's not asking much, really.
Of course I agree those rules should be just put in as the base line, perhaps through the beta rules system, as people for some reason seem to avoid anything that isn't officially stamped "non-optional" like a plague. But until then, most have CA 18 either for themselves, for their group or store or can just crib it from the internet in like ten seconds.
Peiple don't like cities of death as the last think the game needs is more sources of stackable minus to hit mess.
Oh yeah GW allow everyone to hit 1/6 of the time, shame the price weapons depending upon the number your supposed to be able to hit on.
+1,+2 cover also has fewer but still some terrible rules interactions. Terminators are as tough in cover as out of cover, but a guardsmen takes half the damage he otherwise would have, because 1's autofail having a -1 save is meaningless.
Cities of death helps meta codex's be more powerful than less meta codex's, that is what your proposing to improve balance really?
Galas wrote: Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.
Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.
One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.
Galas wrote: Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.
Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.
One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.
Especially since you could put wound after wound on a Wraithlord and it was just as effective as it was unharmed.
Question to those who completed the survey and filled in their email, do you get a confirmation mail after finishing the survey? I finished the survey a few days ago but got just a blank screen within the survey frame after clicking "Done". I figured something might have gone wrong and decided to redo it this morning. Same result though. A blank screen in the survey after clicking done. I have no clue if my answers were actually sent to them or that something went wrong. I'm using Edge, which could be the problem. Any insight would be appreciated because I definitely want to submit my feedback and get a shot at the Sisters of Battle prices.
After completing the survey and filling in my E-Mail address I got a page from Survey Monkey. I don't remember if the page had a "thank you for participating" note, but it certainly looked like it was the official survey completion page.
I used Firefox and got to the survey via the link in GW's newsletter, if that makes a difference.
Thanks, I now redid the survey in IE and I got the final screen with the survey monkey. I have no clue if I now submitted the survey three times, but whatever. I hope they can figure out that this wasn't intentional.
Took the survey two times. Took forever.
No confirmation on neither a separate ”thank you” page nor an email (although it might be due to me selecting the ”no email adverts”-option). The buttons (previous & submit) just stopped working after I pressed submit.
Safari on iPhone XR.
Was my survey(s) submitted or not?
Frustrating.
Final notes from me on the survay was to update the digital codexes with FAQ and errata as they come out and to include a free download code for the digital with the purchase of a physical copy of a codex/book.
Couldn't care less about the games anymore. The few games of the latest 40k version I've played have all been about making up combos prior to the game. I can play MtG for that.
I just wish they'd put their paints in dripper bottles. At least do it with the air paints - which after opening become just as gloopy as the normal paints in a few weeks.
I‘d be up for Epic, but definitely not in the boring, dry, humour deprived Heresy shipwreck of a setting, which is pretty much the anti-thesis of everything that makes 40k great.
If they wanna do Epic right and instead of the wet fart that is AT, they need to go back to the roots with insane Tyranid/Daemon Godzillas and giant Tau suits, zany Ork flying fortresses, titan-sized Dreadnights, funky terrain-rules, etc...
I have to agree, if Epic comes along I really hope its not just "more Imperial VS Imperial." I think GW can only play that card so many times before it becomes boring on its own.
At the very least have pure chaos warped and converted armies to play against.
Then again I figure if we see Epic it will happen after or around the same time AT advances into the more modern eras and starts getting Xenos factions of its own to play with. The advantage there is that titans basically remain the same through the histories. Ground forces between the HH and more modern 40K times clearly evolve and advance. So by the time you've got Tyranids on the field your core Imperial armies are quite different in appearance.
I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.
But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.
This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.
Sherrypie wrote: For those griping about terrain, why don't you use Cities of Death? -1 to hit from obscured LoS even without standing in something, heavy and light cover, always hit on natural 6, add in some core rulebook stuff like obstacles that prevent advancing or hinder charges and bam, terrain matters again.
Because A) that's a lot of extra book keeping and B) Tournaments don't use it.
Of course, I'd be fine if they just got rid of hills. Hills are stupid.
Galas wrote: Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.
Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.
One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.
This is why I think tanks should be able to buy Invulnerable saves. Should we really believe they can put energy shields on power armor, but not on predators, or leman russes? Being able to spend an appropriate amount of points to get a 5++ save for my predator would be great.
Galas wrote: Why people defending firing arcs uses square shaped imperial vehicles as an example instead of all xenos or demonic engines ones? That was were the problem was.
Yeah, arcs fell apart when you tried to apply them to oddly shaped vehicles. Could have been resolved by giving every vehicle in the game a quadrilateral base, but that didn't happen.
Really though, I miss destroying weapons more than arcs. Degrading stats just aren't the same.
One thing I don't miss is my expensive vehicle having it's one and only gun blown off from the first hit, leaving it to do absolutely nothing for the rest of the game.
Especially since you could put wound after wound on a Wraithlord and it was just as effective as it was unharmed.
Yeah, the monster rules were a bit goofy back then.
I do like how they tried to balance them out, but vehicles are now indistinguishable to monsters, and that gets rid of some depth.
I'd rather they gave the monsters the degrading statline and kept some of the vehicle rules to make them stand out mechanically.
They could expand on the degradation mechanic where if a vehicle loses enough wounds, it could risk losing weapons, getting immobilized, etc. The trade off could be that vehicles have lower degradation thresh holds than monsters, and a few more wounds to boot. That should make them a little more distinct.
Crimson wrote: One thing I think they should have done differently for their own benefit in the survey is this:
They ask you whether you play the game X and you say 'yes', it gives you questions about that game, if you say 'no' it just moves forward.
It might be beneficial to ask couple of questions from those who say 'no'. Why aren't they interested in that game and what might change that?
Well, that surely would've made the survey quicker, if everyone also had to answer another page of question on why they don't play Blitzbowl or Adeptus Titanicus, lol.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.
But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.
This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.
Main reason to play tabletop games vs computer games is the visual/collector aspect. Adeptus Titanicus offers nothing in that regard, just blue on blue. It took the plague of 40k proper, marine on marine fights, and made it even blander. It's just a massive missed opportunity, but I understand the logic behind it, there's probably not enough Xenos players left in the world to make it worth their while to release anything for them after two decades of Imperial fanboys handling the IP.
Which is related to the topic of survey because it's also what I put down (if more politely)
I think the questions about blitzbowl etc are important but will become more so in the next few years,
ie it will let GW see if these gateway, normal toy store games along with atuff like vedros are actually bringing in new players, and if so at what rate
and that will tell them if they should be doing more/less/something different as they've not had anything with a mainstream presence for a long time now and anything they learned from how heroquest/Warhammer quest etc performed is going to be very dated
Oh, the survey. Yeah, that felt like school home work, but appreciated the opportunities to not only dig at GW but also praise them for the last few years.
The digs were basically at pricing and lack of local events, while praise was for making an effort to allow for an easier entry into the whole Warhammer hobby( First Strike and Kill Team ) and to engage with the gaming community. Mostly praise though.
If they had initial orders for say, 50,000 units, and in 12 months have then sold say, 5,000 more? Suggests the market aimed for may not be there.
Numbers used for illustrative purposes only.
They know what they're selling, but not how many of those sales translate into a new gamer showing up knocking on Warhammer or AoS door over the next few years, what they're going to want is for these things to be gateways to more sales later, and if they're not then they need to try something else
(although that's not to say they don't want sales too, but I don't think that's the primary idea of them otherwise we'd see far less recycling of old kits and perhaps more zero assembly required boardgame stuff as boardgamers as a group don't like making minis even push fit ones)
H.B.M.C. wrote: I don't see how measuring LOS from weapons, and needing to see properly see the target are things that "bog the game down".
TBH I would far rather we go to the opposite situation, where like with melee combat we move to an abstracted LOS system based on the bases of models rather than the models themselves.
Is there terrain between your model's base and the target's base? No LOS. Is the base partially obscured? Cover. Is the base fully in the open? No cover.
Let things like laser line-drawers determine LOS in cases where competitiveness matters. An argument about whether your model's head can see part of the enemy model is the same as an argument as to whether Arbitrary Point of Your Model can see part of the enemy model.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.
But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.
This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.
Main reason to play tabletop games vs computer games is the visual/collector aspect. Adeptus Titanicus offers nothing in that regard, just blue on blue. It took the plague of 40k proper, marine on marine fights, and made it even blander. It's just a massive missed opportunity, but I understand the logic behind it, there's probably not enough Xenos players left in the world to make it worth their while to release anything for them after two decades of Imperial fanboys handling the IP.
Which is related to the topic of survey because it's also what I put down (if more politely)
Just out of curiosity, what have you been smoking if you think AT offers nothing on those aspects? Just like there's room for creative expression on the Heresy front, the internet is full of amazingly talented works of those who are inspired to dabble with the possibility of finally owning a titan legio of their own without selling their house and kids. Though the range is somewhat limited at the moment, a bit of creative spark takes one pretty far and as Doc said, the armies really don't play like blue on blue due to maniple and legio rules. Many people also use the miniatures alongside their existing Epic projects, where they slot without any problems.
Sure, it would be cool to get xenos expansions and we probably will one of these years, but calling stuff that's out thus far bland is just personal bias. Especially given the game is ruleswise anything but.
If the just re-skin the AT Box with the current rules, it in the 40K timeline, more traditional fun 40k fluff, more bright colours in the art direction, incl. the old logo instead of all the pretentiously angsty brown and new sculpts for the titans more in line with the old looks, not the fugly resin FW ones for 28mm scale, e.g. proper walking cities on chicken legs, old-school warhounds with a proper wolf head, etc. it‘d be amazing.
Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.
Cronch wrote: Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.
Historics use humans on all sides, yet have done well for two centuries. Small differences get pretty far.
I'd say a general hobbyist doing "their Legio" has a lot more freedom and modelling opportunities with the extremely well designed Titanicus kits (seriously, they are just amazing to work with) than with some other games' entire ranges. Also, there are Knights of two varieties currently and a third is mentioned in the latest rules supplement, which brings all-Knight armies on the table. Specialist Games team has talked of several new titan chassii they want to explore and have years of plans in the making. Success of the game has blown everyone out of the water and this snowball shows no signs of stopping.
Cronch wrote: Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.
Historics use humans on all sides, yet have done well for two centuries. Small differences get pretty far.
Sure. And that's why people play Bolt Action or Flames of War or proper Historicals.
That's not what people want from a Games Workshop game
Crimson wrote: They ask you whether you play the game X and you say 'yes', it gives you questions about that game, if you say 'no' it just moves forward.
I thought that's what the survey did, given I said "No" to AOS and it just moved on.
Cronch wrote: Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.
Thats actually a fair point you make about the Imperials vs Traitors. Its understandable that Titanicus is keeping things simple for the moment and was initially set in the Horus Heresy era, but I do wish GW would ease up using Chaos as a poster boy faction for most of their games. The Nighthaunts for the AOS starter set were at least a change from the Khorne chaps.
Cronch wrote: Yes, it is personal bias, as are all opinions in general. The fact is, you have two sides, which happen to use the same kits. I also personally despise the HH setting in general, but that's neither here nor there- if there were gargants, Knights etc. available like in Epic 40k, I'd just blissfully ignore that aspect. As it is, it's just more boring imperium on imperium (except EVIL!) fights.
Historics use humans on all sides, yet have done well for two centuries. Small differences get pretty far.
I'd say a general hobbyist doing "their Legio" has a lot more freedom and modelling opportunities with the extremely well designed Titanicus kits (seriously, they are just amazing to work with) than with some other games' entire ranges. Also, there are Knights of two varieties currently and a third is mentioned in the latest rules supplement, which brings all-Knight armies on the table. Specialist Games team has talked of several new titan chassii they want to explore and have years of plans in the making. Success of the game has blown everyone out of the water and this snowball shows no signs of stopping.
The complaint isn't so much what you can do if you are so inclined, but that the Horus Heresy does not represent the larger 40k setting. If you want to compare that to historicals, it's as if all that was on offer is five hundred years of Americans punching different Americans. if you want ancient Romans or Egyptians, or Samurai or Mongols, you're out of luck. It's a specific, incomplete look at the setting, and people getting hooked on undeniably major parts of the wider setting that are not represented in this little conflict don't get to play. It's a simple as that.
Now sure, there are good reasons for Titanicus being what it is, first and foremost the apparent need to save money on plastic sprues. But no matter how great an Imperial Titan may look, if you're not into that sort of stuff you're out of luck. For the moment anyway.
It asks you if you play certain games, for example AoS. I said no, and then it just moved on.
I wish it would ask me why I didn't play and what would make me play that game.
I really want them to understand all the reasons I hate AoS.
They should have asked more questions about the rules portion. I want to give them a piece of my mind.
Also, there were a very large number of questions related to tournaments and events.
I also wished they'd ask what kind of models we would be interested in seeing for the future.
Yeah, that part I found odd, too. I would have had a thing or two to say about 40k and AoS in their current editions, but apparently they're happy knowing I don't play.
I was not positive in this survey, tried to be but really just said they were mad for getting rid of fantasy. I just hope enough people didn't fawn to them and actually told them they were wrong and they might do something about it one fine day when Porcine Air takes off.
Olthannon wrote: I was not positive in this survey, tried to be but really just said they were mad for getting rid of fantasy. I just hope enough people didn't fawn to them and actually told them they were wrong and they might do something about it one fine day when Porcine Air takes off.
Because god forbid anyone enjoy something you don't.
I complained about prices. Prices - and the size of armies required for "standard" play - are the main thing keeping people I know (both new and lapsed players) away from the game.
I also complained about my own personal dislike of Stratagems, which - to me - suck a lot of the fun of the game as it becomes more and more like a card game with expensive "DLC" (and, if we are being honest, they are not that different than Formations).
To this point, I also complained about the way Command Points are generated, which I think is a detriment to the game as a whole (especially compared to how AoS does it).
I also expressed my dislike of how GW split the rules up between the new Chaos Codex and the new Vigilus book. I know many people (myself included) who thought the split was: Existing players use the old codex and buy the vigilus book, new players just buy the new Chaos Codex. This is not true, as regardless of which Chaos codex you have, you still need the Vigilus book. I firmly believe a better strategy would have been to release Vigilus now, then 6 months from now release the new Chaos Codex with ALL of the updated rules.
I also expressed my disappointment with Adeptus Titanticus. The game's scale is really large, which makes the individual models super expensive to purchase. I love the idea of the game but when FW charges $154 for ONE model, the game is not going to be as popular as it could have been.
I also expressed my dissatisfaction with the switch to "local prices" for Forge World, which increased the real cost of everything in the store for people outside the UK by an exorbitant sum. Americans are paying 20 to 30% more for items from Forge World than people in the UK are. I can understand shipping costs are greater for those outside of the UK but that does NOT translate to a 20-30% price hike. Just charge more for shipping, the way every other company works.
I also expressed my love of 30k and the recent move to update units in the play test/errata.
I additionally expressed my frustration with the slow pace at which GW updates their 40k line. I believe FAQs, errata and rebalancing/points adjustments should happen with much more regularity than what we are currently getting. I also believe GW should join other wargaming companies in embracing the 21st century and create an online tool with which you can create lists, which would GW to more easily and readily update points as they could just update the app, rather than regularly publishing a Chapter Approved book and updating codexes.
I also expressed my desire for even more customization rules for open and narrative play (ala the Land Raider rules in Chapter Approved 2017).
Not that I'd mind lower prices, but... What is that mysterious $154 model for AT, given you get a full playable army of good size from one 130€ battlegroup box (two warhound, one reaver and a warlord)?
Sherrypie wrote: Not that I'd mind lower prices, but... What is that mysterious $154 model for AT, given you get a full playable army of good size from one 130€ battlegroup box (two warhound, one reaver and a warlord)?
The Adeptus Titanicus Warlord Battle Titan with Macro-Gatling Blaster and Quake Cannon is 154 bucks by itself.
If you just want one Warlord Titan, it is 110 bucks.
I do not understand why this game is so expensive, or why the kits are so complex. Do we really need 144 pieces for a Warlord titan? I think not.
I will applaud GW for having actual bundles that offer a discount. The bundle you mentioned is $235 if you bought everything individually or $170 in the bundle (which is a savings of 65 bucks!).
I think the more posable kits are awesome. Having options to play around, bits left over, actual freedom of movement and what not is absolutely stellar compared to the more monopose lines of boredom they are pushing for the main ranges. That's absolutely a mark in their favor.
The reason we believe titanicus is expensive is because the only Titan available at launch was the Warlord( £65 ) and of course the GME boxed game( £175 ). Alone, this was enough to put many off the game. So for those left to reason "well its just the warlord and a pack of Knights - whats the big deal?", they then found out that "you need a maniple to play with a minimum of three titans.". So you had more potential players horrified at the thought of forking out £195 for 3 Warlords just to have a "legal" army...
Thankfully the Reaver and Warhounds proved to be far cheaper and debunked the myth that to play AT you must own a small collection of Warlords. Also, the Knight kits were affordable( though a tad expensive for what they were) and useful for other games such as ye'olde Epic, Battletech, a scaled down Imperial Knights:Renegade and Horizon Wars. Not every player gets to own a 40K Knight and so being able to purchase three of the mini-sized marvels for £20 is damn cool! I get the feeling that the Questoris kit will prove to be the best selling product in the Titanicus range...
The real expense of Adeptus Titanicus - as it currently stands - is in the weapons, terminals and card packs. The ruleset covers enough for a small two player game - 3 titans and 1 Knight banner for each player - and the Reaver and Warhounds will have to have different weapons for there is only one card of each. If one is serious about Titanicus then you'll need more components.
Regarding the complex detail of the AT kits - its a game of Titans! If I can't afford a 40K Resin Titan then I'm delighted for my 8mm Titan to look just as good at a small fraction of the price! Although the Reaver could do with an "easy-to-build" kit and perhaps a little more thought for magnets would be welcome...
Getting back to the topic on hand, its been a great year for GW and I appreciate the effort they have made to make the hobby more accessible to all, not just those of us with disposable income.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: I know peeps are probably aware, Like vs Like is the entire reason they were, financially, to reintroduce Adeptus Titanicus.
But as you may not be aware, the Legion Traits and Maniples really do add variety. And as more and more armaments and Knight variants come out, so does the tactical variety increase. This is to a far greater degree than such things affect 40k.
This is still a game very much in its infancy, having been out for barely a year. And in the pre-orders of the new guns is anything to go by, it’s definitely found it’s niche.
Main reason to play tabletop games vs computer games is the visual/collector aspect. Adeptus Titanicus offers nothing in that regard, just blue on blue. It took the plague of 40k proper, marine on marine fights, and made it even blander. It's just a massive missed opportunity, but I understand the logic behind it, there's probably not enough Xenos players left in the world to make it worth their while to release anything for them after two decades of Imperial fanboys handling the IP.
Which is related to the topic of survey because it's also what I put down (if more politely)
Someone isn't a member of any AT groups online. It's not "Blue on Blue." It's quite a skillful game, that is far more action packed and random than 40K is. If you've not played anything other than the "basic" starter rules I can understand your opinion. But if you've played with the Advanced rules, it is a whole other ball game.
Someone isn't a member of any AT groups online. It's not "Blue on Blue." It's quite a skillful game, that is far more action packed and random than 40K is. If you've not played anything other than the "basic" starter rules I can understand your opinion. But if you've played with the Advanced rules, it is a whole other ball game.
I believe our friend was referring to the models on the tabletop - its the same five units to look at, save for their armament.
If people didn't care about the background and models, they wouldn't be playing GW games. So it doesn't matter how good the game's rules are. If it's Imperial titans vs traitor imperial titans, it's not going to appeal to a lot of people. Same thing with imperial starships vs. repainted imperial starships.
Albino Squirrel wrote: If people didn't care about the background and models, they wouldn't be playing GW games. So it doesn't matter how good the game's rules are. If it's Imperial titans vs traitor imperial titans, it's not going to appeal to a lot of people. Same thing with imperial starships vs. repainted imperial starships.
Aaaah that\s why it\s constantly selling out with GW struggling to come up with enough supply.
And imperium vs chaos is basically what GW bases it's whole marketing stick...We have power armour vs power armour as the main selling point in 40k.
Platuan4th wrote: Do people need Titanicus stuff? Because it's gathering dust where I am.
I do!!!
But seriously, they've not been supporting Titanicus in White Dwarf as much as they could have and the release of Doom of Molech is disappointing due to no Knight releases to coincide, save for the book itself and a pack of cards. The game itself is good but so far the enthusiasm for it has been met with more "don't count on it" than "something awesome this way comes!".
AT is finally starting to get some traction at my local store. What it took was me running a demo game for a couple guys. The models look amazing and the game plays great, so demos really help. It also helps when you break down how you can get started for less than the price of a grandmaster edition.
I think AT was a careful release because it has kind of a funny niche. It both has a higher cost of entry and requires more commitment (both gameplay and model prep) than BB/KT/NM etc. Meanwhile, it has less general appeal than big games like 40K and AoS. The careful release pace has probably held the game back in certain ways, but I don't see an infinite ceiling for AT either.
Overall, GW is probably getting it mostly right. The stuff just keeps selling out, and forums like the ATFB group are very active. It's not going to be the next big tournament game, nor is it something that's going to dominate the local store. But as a basement/occasional store/convention game, I think it'll do just fine.
The more variety AT gets, the better position I believe it will be. Right now, the range consists of Warlord, Reaver, Warhound, Cerastus(?) Knight And Knight. Several people are holding back because it’s Imperial vs. not-Imperial-in-a-different-paint-scheme. If the line gets opened up with Xenos titans, true Chaos-warped titans and maybe the introduction of super heavy units, it should gain more traction.
Stormonu wrote: The more variety AT gets, the better position I believe it will be. Right now, the range consists of Warlord, Reaver, Warhound, Cerastus(?) Knight And Knight. Several people are holding back because it’s Imperial vs. not-Imperial-in-a-different-paint-scheme. If the line gets opened up with Xenos titans, true Chaos-warped titans and maybe the introduction of super heavy units, it should gain more traction.
Apparently some "inbetween" titans are in the works, along with more Knights. At this rate I wonder if they will see release as a "2nd Wave" in August, to mark the 1st Anniversary of the game's release...
Stormonu wrote: The more variety AT gets, the better position I believe it will be. Right now, the range consists of Warlord, Reaver, Warhound, Cerastus(?) Knight And Knight. Several people are holding back because it’s Imperial vs. not-Imperial-in-a-different-paint-scheme. If the line gets opened up with Xenos titans, true Chaos-warped titans and maybe the introduction of super heavy units, it should gain more traction.
Apparently some "inbetween" titans are in the works, along with more Knights. At this rate I wonder if they will see release as a "2nd Wave" in August, to mark the 1st Anniversary of the game's release...
I might even bite it they release rules for Eldar WraithKnights. Currenty 40K scale WraithGuard are on point for Titanicus scale and it be SUPER easy to convert them with the right wargear (dual arm-mounted Wraithcannons, Sword/Sword and Cannon/Shield).
I've even contemplated getting the Titanicus Knight set of 3 and just use them with 40K rules against WraithGuard as WKs, translate "Inches" into "CMs" and play on a 4x4 board
1. It's set in the Horus Heresy. Which limits its scope. 2. It's not Epic. Which is what the original Titanicus evolved into. So this new Titanicus is, from a game evolution point of view, a step backwards.
oni wrote: IMO, Titanicus was DOA for two reasons.
1. It's set in the Horus Heresy. Which limits its scope.
2. It's not Epic. Which is what the original Titanicus evolved into. So this new Titanicus is, from a game evolution point of view, a step backwards.
It's hard to say something is dead on arrival if it has a thriving following and new releases almost sell out as fast as they are produced, though.
And it's not backwards, because they are different branches. Just like modern apes aren't backwards humans, they are evolutionarily different.
Crimson wrote: They ask you whether you play the game X and you say 'yes', it gives you questions about that game, if you say 'no' it just moves forward.
I thought that's what the survey did, given I said "No" to AOS and it just moved on.
Indeed. But it might have been useful for them to know why you aren't interested in AOS and whether there's anything they can do to change that.
