Has the
OP been banned or given up on this? I only ask because while he's welcome to email whatever he likes to whoever he likes (within the realms of common decency and the laws of the land, so no unsolicited saucy images or attempts to organise an uprising against the crown, for example) I personally wouldn't be comfortable with some odd list of disjointed bullet points being emailed to Games Workshop and presented as being the work of the Dakkadakka forum as a collective. I suspect the
OP was intending to present his list of demands (well, strange words and phrases lacking in context or meaning if we're honest) as some kind of official communication from the forum, or representative of the forum's views.
As long as the
OP doesn't claim to be operating on behalf of us all though, I'm all for this idea. Not because it would "fix"
40K, which isn't actually broken in my opinion, but because it would be hilarious for some poor bugger at
GW to receive these lists. One says "more shooting" the next says "less shooting" the one after that says "Donald Trump" or "female Doctor Who" and none have any real explanation of the problem or what fix is desired. Even the
OP's list is a little confusing. If you don't mind, I'll illustrate how someone reading it might have trouble understanding what it is you want.
ForceChoke wrote:
1. Non Lore Based drop pods
2. Terrain
3 Shooting from the hull
4. Primarchs in competitive play
5. Encourages Hoards
6. More play tested and balanced armies.
8. Primaris lore
9 . Firing arcs
10. Simplified vehicle armor and upgrades.
Non lore based drop pods - I can't figure out what this refers to, never mind why it is a problem and what needs to be done about it.
Terrain - What about terrain? You want terrain? There are rules for terrain, I think. Do you want them to sell terrain? Is the whole concept of terrain a problem?
Shooting from the hull - Again, you need to explain what you mean by this. I guess you mean you don't like line of sight being drawn from any part of a vehicle. But you need to explain why it is a bad thing
in the context of the game, from a rules perspective and ideally come up with a solution or an alternative way of doing it, which hasn't already been tried and rejected.
Primarchs in competitive play - you want there to be primarchs in competitive play? Why not friendly games as well? Or you don't like them but again aren't going to explain why.
Encourages hordes - I can't for the life of me figure out why you would consider this to be a bad thing. The game should be designed to discourage horde armies? Ork players should be trodden upon, and anything that might make the game enjoyable for them should be flagged up as a problem?
More play-tested and balanced armies - The format up until now seems to have been to simply list the things that you consider to be a problem, so going by that, it appears that you are saying that having more play-tested, balanced armies is a problem. If you are saying that you want more play-tested, balanced armies, then that is completely facile. As if that's something that has never occurred to them. At least give some examples of poor balance!
Primaris Lore - Again, you're not detailing a problem, you are just saying, "primaris lore." The person reading would not know what it is that you don't like about the primaris lore, whether you like primaris marines but think the lore is iffy, or don't like primaris marines at all because of the lore, or maybe there's some specific part of the lore you don't like. It isn't very clear, so I don't know how you expect them to "fix" it.
Firing Arcs - They're gone, aren't they? So problem solved! Or do you want them back? Why? Or is there some other issue which is somehow related to firing arcs?
Simplified vehicle armour and upgrades - You want them to be simplified further, right? It's again very hard to tell. They are already pretty simple and easy to understand. I agree that it is better, but you need to explain why you feel it should be simplified further, and how it should be done. Or again, maybe you are saying the opposite, and you consider the simplification to be a problem? It's very unclear. You might say, "of course that's what I'm saying!" but it only seems that way to you because to you whatever it that you are seeing as a problem seems self-evident to you. The reader most likely wouldn't have the same perspective as you, especially if that person is someone who worked on the new edition!
Please don't think I'm being "hostile" or unnecessarily mean, I'm trying to help. It's good to have your work proof read and constructive criticism given. I'm trying to stop you simply sending
GW a huge list of complete nonsense, which is what it currently looks like you're about to do. I don't begrudge you your right to give
GW feedback on the game, and I hope you haven't been banned. I haven't seen anything I personally would consider ban-worthy in this thread. I agree that trying to reach a consensus is impossible, so the compilation of lists of individual suggestions isn't a bad one (although don't expect anyone to bother reading it - they are busy people and such a list would be a massive pain in the bum to wade through.) This criticism is nothing to do with my own views of
40K, incidentally - I'm just trying to help. The fact that I disagree with every one of your criticisms is neither here nor there.