Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think the major problem with 8th/9th edition lethality is the drop in special weapons costs for both shooting and melee. When everyone has plasma guns, power weapons, or heavy weapons, stuff tends to die fast. The standard bolter which was one of the better infantry weapons in editions past may as well not exist unless its a buffed primaris version utilizing the doctrine for additional AP. The problem with 8th/9th is that when everything is special or unique, nothing actually feels special or unique.

The Ghaz/Ctan rule is one of the worst rules I've ever seen (just from a design perspective not even a balance one). It's basically a giant middle finger to Tau/IG armies that do most of their damage in one phase. It makes absolutely no sense from a suspension of disbelief aspect. If you don't have counters to it, it just feels bad to play against. Its not necessarily OP, its just bad design.

I wouldn't mind a rule along the lines of "if the defending unit's T is more than twice as high as the attacking unit's S, you cannot wound it". And then raise most heavy vehicles' T to 9. Concentrated Lasgun or Boltgun fire shouldn't be able to bring down a battle tank, not even when thousands of volleys are fired on it.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Castozor wrote:
I don´t soup, we play Mono-dex over here. Summoning might be an option but I'm not sure it would be ideal.
To the OP, besides obnoxious and (imo) arbitrary wound caps on models I would actually like more things to be as though as my MBH. Things die way too fast in my opinion and a general increase in survive ability trough normal means has my preference. So upping wounds, playing more with the toughness value, maybe accept Marines shouldn't get free AP on all their attacks. Rather than 8th's -3/4 to hit Disco Lords and Flyers, or wound caps like Ghaz/C'tan that some armies can still bypass rather trivially and others really struggle against.

I had no issues just gunning the nightbringer down, and you could always just stick im him in a blob of poxwalkers. He is going to kill most of them, but not all.
He also just moves 8" per turn and is a great target for plague mortars, so he can't hide well either. The two times I faced him, he died way before causing 350 points worth of damage, the necron player stopped bringing him afterwards.

As for the OP calling out MBH as "too durable" - a fair number of my DG wins are due to people not bringing reasonable amounts anti-tank. In semi-competitive environments people can get away with a lot less anti-tank in general, so when they suddenly face a DG army with 7+ DR daemon engines they hit a brick wall, hard.

The problem is the disparity between vehicals with DR and normal vehicals is far out of parity with the difference in points etc.
Being able to straight up shrug 1/3 of all damage is even more critical as GW keeps jacking AP, adding plus to wound and invulnerable save ignoring mechanics into the game.

Stack that on top of points changes and weapon changes for imperialists only and 9th as it currently stands is a car crash when it comes to balance.

It's less as MBH broken or not but more what faction are you playing against them with with Marines they're probably meh, against Tau and a few other factions (who have just been destroyed by CA 2020) they're pretty oppressive.

I'd say that dealing all your damage in one phase is both the problem and bad design, not the new rule.

IG has options for melee and psykers, Tau simply are mismatched with 9th because they were optimized for previous editions when shooting was more important than everything else combined.

 Jidmah wrote:
I'd say that dealing all your damage in one phase is both the problem and bad design, not the new rule.

IG has options for melee and psykers, Tau simply are mismatched with 9th because they were optimized for previous editions when shooting was more important than everything else combined.

I'd say it's GW's inability to actually remember to even attemptnto balance their game that's the more fundamental issue.

But adding you can only interact with models in a limited manor per phase is a bad bandaid to them having lost control of the level of lethality in the game.

That they have had to give Gaz and Catan these limts and dreadnaughts damage mitigation as a base ability,
Yet other vehicals get points increases and no help.
WTAF GW?

Also the imbalance between factions currently is so rediculously it's ruined the game.

Ghazzy and C'tan got the rules to stop them just getting immediately sniped as they cannot be hidden by look out sir.

They probably should have just whacked more wounds or better saves on them and declared it "fair enough" if someone put a knight-killings-worth of shots at them to take them out.

That, or give them a rule which reduces incoming damage, maybe halving it (rounding up). hell, just quite beating about the bush and call the rule "Plot Armour".

To clarify - I agree that the game is too killy, and that this is why these guys have their silly rules. They need to drop the amount of damage output significantly - entire units of double-shooting meltaguns should never have been a thing!

If it has Wounds, we can kill it.

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is the disparity between vehicals with DR and normal vehicals is far out of parity with the difference in points etc.
Being able to straight up shrug 1/3 of all damage is even more critical as GW keeps jacking AP, adding plus to wound and invulnerable save ignoring mechanics into the game.

Stack that on top of points changes and weapon changes for imperialists only and 9th as it currently stands is a car crash when it comes to balance.

That's just a head thing though, essentially DR is the same as +50% wounds. As I've shown in another thread, DG vehicles are very similar in durability to other faction's durable vehicles, like defilers, wave serpents, LRBT or greater daemons. A unit of MBH is essentially a 36 wound model with a brutal degradation table and a fraction of the damage you could get for 300 points in other armies.

It's less as MBH broken or not but more what faction are you playing against them with with Marines they're probably meh, against Tau and a few other factions (who have just been destroyed by CA 2020) they're pretty oppressive.

I've been playing my MBH since I think CA2018 when they got their first major point drop and started being playable. Their durability hasn't changed since then, the only real change is that multi-meltas were improved and increased the total damage of a MBH by roughly 50% (gut feeling, not math).
If your opponent is expecting to take out two tank commanders, a knight or a horde of buggies, they have no trouble taking out multiple DG daemon engines either, since they aren't dealing a ton of damage in return either.
If you face someone who thinks in pre-8th terms and only has a few anti-tank weapons sprinkled in, or someone who tries to down vehicles by high RoF all-rounders like battle cannons or auto-cannons - those are boned.
In essence, anyone who managed take out MBH, drones and PBC before 9th can still do so. The only thing that has changed is that being in specific place and staying there actually matters now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 some bloke wrote:
That, or give them a rule which reduces incoming damage, maybe halving it (rounding up). hell, just quite beating about the bush and call the rule "Plot Armour".

I like the idea of having a damage resistance ability that stacks as you pour more damage into them, making them hard but not impossible to kill in one turn.

 Jidmah wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The problem is the disparity between vehicals with DR and normal vehicals is far out of parity with the difference in points etc.
Being able to straight up shrug 1/3 of all damage is even more critical as GW keeps jacking AP, adding plus to wound and invulnerable save ignoring mechanics into the game.

Stack that on top of points changes and weapon changes for imperialists only and 9th as it currently stands is a car crash when it comes to balance.

That's just a head thing though, essentially DR is the same as +50% wounds. As I've shown in another thread, DG vehicles are very similar in durability to other faction's durable vehicles, like defilers, wave serpents, LRBT or greater daemons. A unit of MBH is essentially a 36 wound model with a brutal degradation table and a fraction of the damage you could get for 300 points in other armies.

I'd agree with that. A MBH is roughly as durable as a T7 5++ dreadnought with Relentless Hatred. If gw insists on increasing the damage output of everything in the game without breaking their limit of T8 for anything short of a Mastodon I think we need to see more damage reduction abilities like DR, Relentless Hatred, Smokescreen, and Quantam Shielding. Otherwise everything just dies too quickly.

I like the idea of having a damage resistance ability that stacks as you pour more damage into them, making them hard but not impossible to kill in one turn.

Like a FNP that gets better as a unit drops in brackets? Say a 6+++ above 50% wounds increasing to a 5+++ below 50%? I think something like that would feel better than the current rules for things like Ghaz and Ctan.

No, I meant stacking over a turn, not over model health.

Let's take Thrakka as an example - the first attack to damage him in a turn just does. For the second attack he ignores damage on a 6+, the third is 5+ and so on until eventually the fifth and all further attacks need to get past a 3+ FNP. It's horrible inefficient to attack him at this point, but if you really want to, you can kill him. Or you wait until next turn when damaging him gets easier again.

Might need some refinement and mathing out, but that's the idea. It doesn't even need to be FNP, it could also be increasing toughness, damage reduction or whatever works.

And this is why the whole new vocal point on charachters and feth off giant centerpieces is an issue, because it leads to frankly absurd rules to wedge in the plot armor necessary to keep these alive.

 Jidmah wrote:
No, I meant stacking over a turn, not over model health.

Let's take Thrakka as an example - the first attack to damage him in a turn just does. For the second attack he ignores damage on a 6+, the third is 5+ and so on until eventually the fifth and all further attacks need to get past a 3+ FNP. It's horrible inefficient to attack him at this point, but if you really want to, you can kill him.

Might need some refinement and mathing out, but that's the idea.

I like this idea, though it has potential to make units much more difficult to kill than they are right now, as if he passes the first few saves, then he has a 3+++ and hasn't lost anything yet. I would have it based on successful wounds, so if you hit him with a volcano cannon to start with then you might put 8 damage on him with no fnp, but having lost 8 wounds he now has a 2+++ against further damage this turn. If you put 1 wound on him, he gets 6+++, 2 wounds is 5+++, and so on. The effects are immediate, so you can't easily fast-roll, otherwise mass-melta squads will just melt characters before their fnp gets to kick in. Or characters clock up their wounds one at a time, EG if 3 heavy bolter shots get through and inflict 6 damage, they take 1 damage, then roll 6+++, then if that fails roll a 5+++ against the next, and so on.

Downside here is that this would clash with characters with fnp already, unless it becomes yet another roll to add to the fray.

Ah, that's true. Successful "plot armor saves" should not improve the ability.

 Jidmah wrote:
No, I meant stacking over a turn, not over model health.

Let's take Thrakka as an example - the first attack to damage him in a turn just does. For the second attack he ignores damage on a 6+, the third is 5+ and so on until eventually the fifth and all further attacks need to get past a 3+ FNP. It's horrible inefficient to attack him at this point, but if you really want to, you can kill him. Or you wait until next turn when damaging him gets easier again.

Might need some refinement and mathing out, but that's the idea. It doesn't even need to be FNP, it could also be increasing toughness, damage reduction or whatever works.

I see where you’re coming from, but as long as GW don’t dish that rule out like Candy, I’m happy with it on big, tough, limited stuff. Either limited by being unique, or being only so many allowed.

C’Tan and Ghaz certainly fit that bill. And as it’s not insurmountable, so long as the opponent isn’t banking on dropping them in a given phase. Plus, so far it seems only the Void Dragon can readily heal wounds - and even then it needs to wreck a vehicle to do so.

I do wonder if the Void Dragon’s healing ability is perhaps a bit overrated. If there’s one thing Necrons do quite competently, it’s taking out Vehicles. But, for the Void Dragon? I need to leave just enough wounds for it to deliver the coup de grace. If I over or under cook that preparation? I’m not getting my wounds back. So for me, it’s more a “nice if it happens” perk, rather than “mwahaha, he are the unkilabel”.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I have the opposite problem; I think units in general are far too destructible, and these special exceptions (resurrecting 8 wounds, proliferation if invulns/FNPs, and max wounds per phase) are all desperate attempts to make things durable in the face of withering amounts of power.

The rapidity with which ostensibly tough units are vaporized off the board is staggering.

Agreed, even as a GKs player. I've decked a C'tan Nightbringer in one full turn. That 3 wounds max per phase crap, only works if you've got more than 10 wounds minimum.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I wish GW was more open in why they are doing what they do. Because I don't get some of the decisions they are making.
its obvious they realise there is a problem, else we don't get stuff like Ghaz/Ctan.

Are they so deadly afraid of nerfing Space Marines after going overboard in 2.0?

GW does not think you have the right to hold them accountable, let's be real.

True, granted , the last time there were names under dexes some of the writers got death threats.
But frankly, a gak job is a gak job and let's be real here, some armies and factions allways get the short stick in regards to writing.

People sending the writers death threats was obviously wrong. However, I think it says a lot that GW's response to so much negative feedback was not to try and improve or respond to criticism, but instead to make it nigh-impossible for any individual to be held accountable for doing a terrible job.

 vipoid wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I wish GW was more open in why they are doing what they do. Because I don't get some of the decisions they are making.
its obvious they realise there is a problem, else we don't get stuff like Ghaz/Ctan.

Are they so deadly afraid of nerfing Space Marines after going overboard in 2.0?

GW does not think you have the right to hold them accountable, let's be real.

True, granted , the last time there were names under dexes some of the writers got death threats.
But frankly, a gak job is a gak job and let's be real here, some armies and factions allways get the short stick in regards to writing.

People sending the writers death threats was obviously wrong. However, I think it says a lot that GW's response to so much negative feedback was not to try and improve or respond to criticism, but instead to make it nigh-impossible for any individual to be held accountable for doing a terrible job.

indeed, even now they protect the shoddy jobs of their ruleswriters, which in some regards seem to lack oversight and a general vision even for just an edition.
any other company would appologise for f.e. missing stuff like warlord traits. GW doesn't do so.

 vipoid wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I wish GW was more open in why they are doing what they do. Because I don't get some of the decisions they are making.
its obvious they realise there is a problem, else we don't get stuff like Ghaz/Ctan.

Are they so deadly afraid of nerfing Space Marines after going overboard in 2.0?

GW does not think you have the right to hold them accountable, let's be real.

True, granted , the last time there were names under dexes some of the writers got death threats.
But frankly, a gak job is a gak job and let's be real here, some armies and factions allways get the short stick in regards to writing.

People sending the writers death threats was obviously wrong. However, I think it says a lot that GW's response to so much negative feedback was not to try and improve or respond to criticism, but instead to make it nigh-impossible for any individual to be held accountable for doing a terrible job.

I think this sort of hyperbole is pretty indicative of people losing all sense of proportion over something that, in the grand scheme of things, is not terribly important. You're reacting as though they're some sort of corrupt public official or something. Want to hold GW "accountable"? Stop buying what they're selling. It's that simple.

 Nazrak wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I wish GW was more open in why they are doing what they do. Because I don't get some of the decisions they are making.
its obvious they realise there is a problem, else we don't get stuff like Ghaz/Ctan.

Are they so deadly afraid of nerfing Space Marines after going overboard in 2.0?

GW does not think you have the right to hold them accountable, let's be real.

True, granted , the last time there were names under dexes some of the writers got death threats.
But frankly, a gak job is a gak job and let's be real here, some armies and factions allways get the short stick in regards to writing.

People sending the writers death threats was obviously wrong. However, I think it says a lot that GW's response to so much negative feedback was not to try and improve or respond to criticism, but instead to make it nigh-impossible for any individual to be held accountable for doing a terrible job.

I think this sort of hyperbole is pretty indicative of people losing all sense of proportion over something that, in the grand scheme of things, is not terribly important. You're reacting as though they're some sort of corrupt public official or something. Want to hold GW "accountable"? Stop buying what they're selling. It's that simple.

This answer is partially correct, the deaththreats were certainly beyond necessary, however partially because it fails to take account of the perspective of he customer base having invested into.
It also fails to take into account that malfunctioning gear and procuts generally fall within guarantee rights, why shouldn't gw's frankly lackluster ruleswriting not fall under such considerations.
Basically the issue is your response absolves GW of all missdoings.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I wish GW was more open in why they are doing what they do. Because I don't get some of the decisions they are making.
its obvious they realise there is a problem, else we don't get stuff like Ghaz/Ctan.

Are they so deadly afraid of nerfing Space Marines after going overboard in 2.0?

GW does not think you have the right to hold them accountable, let's be real.

True, granted , the last time there were names under dexes some of the writers got death threats.
But frankly, a gak job is a gak job and let's be real here, some armies and factions allways get the short stick in regards to writing.

Eh you know what though, I guess I'm kind of an internet weirdo for thinking this but I actually do not think there's a point at which a writer or designer or whatever could feth up a piece of media I'd like where I'd consider death threats from random strangers "regrettable, but inevitable." Generally my instinct when I hear about people getting death threats is "who are these random weirdos sending all these death threats? Can we as a society do a better job of finding the death threat people in our midst perhaps?"

Ok sure, good luck with the moral outrage, it's working great so far and definitely doesn't make you seem like a petulant child yelling at its toys.

Holding GW accountable and telling them a piece your mind on the work they, as a company, are doing is perfectly fine and part of a customer relationship.

However, it's not your job to tell a specific writer that he is doing a bad job, it's that writer's superior's job. And if that superior is not doing his job properly, that guy's superior is supposed to make sure that he does.
Targeting people in specific or asking for them to be fired is bullying at best. You didn't buy the codex from Robin Cruddance or any other rules writer, you bought it from GW.

GW is fully capable of finding out who fethed up a codex and has the abilities hold them accountable for it. At the same time, they are protecting their employees from a community that can be extremely toxic if rubbed the wrong way, and that is a very good thing.

the_scotsman wrote:
Eh you know what though, I guess I'm kind of an internet weirdo for thinking this but I actually do not think there's a point at which a writer or designer or whatever could feth up a piece of media I'd like where I'd consider death threats from random strangers "regrettable, but inevitable." Generally my instinct when I hear about people getting death threats is "who are these random weirdos sending all these death threats? Can we as a society do a better job of finding the death threat people in our midst perhaps?"

YEP.

Jidmah wrote:Holding GW accountable and telling them a piece your mind on the work they, as a company, are doing is perfectly fine and part of a customer relationship.

However, it's not your job to tell a specific writer that he is doing a bad job, it's that writer's superior's job. And if that superior is not doing his job properly, that guy's superior is supposed to make sure that he does.
Targeting people in specific or asking for them to be fired is bullying at best. You didn't buy the codex from Robin Cruddance or any other rules writer, you bought it from GW.

GW is fully capable of finding out who fethed up a codex and has the abilities hold them accountable for it. At the same time, they are protecting their employees from a community that can be extremely toxic if rubbed the wrong way, and that is a very good thing.

DOUBLE YEP.

Honestly, it's understandable that people might not be entirely happy with some rules for the spacemen game; heck, there's plenty of stuff about 9th I'm not super-keen on, but I'm dealing with that by not throwing any more money at GW until the dust settles and I can see what's up with it all. Some of you people need to get a grip.

the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Hecaton wrote:

 Ordana wrote:
I wish GW was more open in why they are doing what they do. Because I don't get some of the decisions they are making.
its obvious they realise there is a problem, else we don't get stuff like Ghaz/Ctan.

Are they so deadly afraid of nerfing Space Marines after going overboard in 2.0?

GW does not think you have the right to hold them accountable, let's be real.

True, granted , the last time there were names under dexes some of the writers got death threats.
But frankly, a gak job is a gak job and let's be real here, some armies and factions allways get the short stick in regards to writing.

Eh you know what though, I guess I'm kind of an internet weirdo for thinking this but I actually do not think there's a point at which a writer or designer or whatever could feth up a piece of media I'd like where I'd consider death threats from random strangers "regrettable, but inevitable." Generally my instinct when I hear about people getting death threats is "who are these random weirdos sending all these death threats? Can we as a society do a better job of finding the death threat people in our midst perhaps?"

No your opinion is perfectly valid, there's a difference indeed between criticism, even rude one and threathening someone over something like this.
The core issue as to even why something like this happens is however a whole other debate, and gw has a historical trackrecord to not be very transparant in regards to design of rules and beeing unresponsive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nazrak wrote:
Ok sure, good luck with the moral outrage, it's working great so far and definitely doesn't make you seem like a petulant child yelling at its toys.

sure, however some people expect a modicum of maintained quality in regards to goods sold to them. Gw doesn't uphold that in regards to their ruleswriting quite often.

 Jidmah wrote:
Holding GW accountable and telling them a piece your mind on the work they, as a company, are doing is perfectly fine and part of a customer relationship.

However, it's not your job to tell a specific writer that he is doing a bad job, it's that writer's superior's job. And if that superior is not doing his job properly, that guy's superior is supposed to make sure that he does.
Targeting people in specific or asking for them to be fired is bullying at best. You didn't buy the codex from Robin Cruddance or any other rules writer, you bought it from GW.

GW is fully capable of finding out who fethed up a codex and has the abilities hold them accountable for it. At the same time, they are protecting their employees from a community that can be extremely toxic if rubbed the wrong way, and that is a very good thing.

It also envisions the writing process as this hilariously simplistic single-person auteur venture where Robin Cruddace takes a codex book into his office, locks the door for four months and then emerges when he completes his seminal work cackling "YES, YESSSSSSSSSSSS, I HAVE FINALLY DESTROYED THE TYRANIDSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!"

In all actuality, putting a single author on a codex these days would be demoralizing for all those people who did their jobs working on the rules within the codex who they'd be giving that single author credit for.

A warhammer codex is the product of, in order of importance:

1) whatever core rules directives the authors are required to include within the book, whether that's concerns that they've received from players (e.g. "make a new drukhari book, but we keep getting complaints about how we split it into 3 and that doesn't really work, so, work that in.") or directives that they must add particular mechanics (Drukhari are gonna have to have a 'no soup' benefit, whether it makes sense or not, because we gave that stupid-ass nonsensical thing to space marines now we all have to pretend that every army has some kind of semi-unified army wide rules benefit that tracks along a progressive turn-by-turn basis, just like how in 7th we all had to pretend everyone used 'formations' in their fighting and THAT was fluffy...)

2) Deadlines, obligations based on new models, whether or not authors have a compelling reason to want to make a book or have ideas for it now

3) contributions from testers who experience a mechanic and have a chance to provide feedback, which is most likely how we ran into the situation where the SM codex recognized how cancerous Aggressors were but the same tester didn't get a chance to try out the brand new Eradicators, so those end up going in.

There's a certain point where it just does not belong to one guy.

 Jidmah wrote:
Holding GW accountable and telling them a piece your mind on the work they, as a company, are doing is perfectly fine and part of a customer relationship.

However, it's not your job to tell a specific writer that he is doing a bad job, it's that writer's superior's job. And if that superior is not doing his job properly, that guy's superior is supposed to make sure that he does.
Targeting people in specific or asking for them to be fired is bullying at best. You didn't buy the codex from Robin Cruddance or any other rules writer, you bought it from GW.

GW is fully capable of finding out who fethed up a codex and has the abilities hold them accountable for it. At the same time, they are protecting their employees from a community that can be extremely toxic if rubbed the wrong way, and that is a very good thing.

two answers, firstly it is indeed the lack of general oversight as to what the rules team produces, atleast i expect it to be.
However this is also a buissness in which designers do have a degree of a "name" to themselves, seeing as they are kinda known, granted GW has had a bit of a cult following in regards to their writers...

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Ok sure, good luck with the moral outrage, it's working great so far and definitely doesn't make you seem like a petulant child yelling at its toys.

sure, however some people expect a modicum of maintained quality in regards to goods sold to them. Gw doesn't uphold that.

So don't buy the thing. If you keep giving them money just for something to grumble about, they've no incentive to change their approach. Or you could keep having an extremely normal one on the internet I guess; your call.

the_scotsman wrote:

There's a certain point where it just does not belong to one guy.

also true. in many way.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nazrak wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Nazrak wrote:
Ok sure, good luck with the moral outrage, it's working great so far and definitely doesn't make you seem like a petulant child yelling at its toys.

sure, however some people expect a modicum of maintained quality in regards to goods sold to them. Gw doesn't uphold that.

So don't buy the thing. If you keep giving them money just for something to grumble about, they've no incentive to change their approach. Or you could keep having an extremely normal one on the internet I guess; your call.

or i could demand guarantee rights. which any other company has to abide by.

 Nazrak wrote:
Honestly, it's understandable that people might not be entirely happy with some rules for the spacemen game; heck, there's plenty of stuff about 9th I'm not super-keen on, but I'm dealing with that by not throwing any more money at GW until the dust settles and I can see what's up with it all. Some of you people need to get a grip.

Honestly, contacting them via mail, facebook or other public channels is better than reducing their millions of yearly income by a few hundred. Tell them what you don't like, if enough people feel the same way, they might change something.

I've written them multiple mails so far, and I'm fairly sure they read them - after all, one of the SotB FAQs is worded exactly as one of questions in my mail.

The most important part is staying polite. No one will ever accept constructive criticism from someone who is being an donkeycave.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
two answers, firstly it is indeed the lack of general oversight as to what the rules team produces, atleast i expect it to be.
However this is also a buissness in which designers do have a degree of a "name" to themselves, seeing as they are kinda known, granted GW has had a bit of a cult following in regards to their writers...

If a single person is writing the rules for anything unchallenged, that's a major flaw in their business to begin with. The only way these codices won't turn out to be crap is dumb luck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
or i could demand guarantee rights. which any other company has to abide by.

When was the last time you bought a GW book whose content wasn't fully leaked before its release date?

This conversation went to a weird place...