Writing a Letter to the GW Dev Team and Looking for Input

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.

**Jidmah**

That's not "pitching" ideas, but rather sending a wishlist to the north pole. Even if they carefully ponder your wishes, they'll never know the reasoning behind them, which is far more important than your actual wish.

If you send them a list of improvement for a Thousand Sons army, chance are high of them discounting them. If you explain to them the issues that you are having with a currently possible Thousand Sons army, they might come up with awesome solutions you haven't thought about at all.

The difference is about getting a Yes/No response or actually getting your problem adressed.

Also note that many gaming company's developers are actively forbidden from ever using (or even reading) any fan-sent suggestions, due to the possibilty of that fan claiming intelectual ownership of those ideas after they've been used. I don't know abaut GW (since they never tell us anything) but, for example, Wizards of the Coast has such a rule in place.

**niv-mizzet**

BA codex idea:
Give blood angels a mechanic where they can treat squads of only BA jump packers as drop pods for the purposes of drop pod assault, and choose to get some of them in turn 1. It's very unfluffy that I can't make a heavy jump pack deep strike army on the table due to how the reserve rules work.

Also death company jump packs cost waaaay too much.

General rules:
Convince them that assaulting out of reserve/special deployment is NOT, in fact, the spawn of the devil that they think it is. I feel just as "helpless and unable to respond" when a squad jumps in and shoots me to death instead, if not moreso, since I don't get to try overwatch or hit back in combat.

Also convince them to take at least some stock in competitive play. Refusing to cater at all to part of your customer base just because you don't like them is hardly a good business move. Even if they're questionable, make a few tournament format rule sets in the vein of "highly limited tournament, sort of limited tournament, and a go nuts tournament." They could even put in the standard "these are just our suggestions" line. It would help a lot of players who want to try out tournament play understand the typical rules behind it from a rulebook rather than scouring the internets and finding 67 different ways to do tournaments. Bonus: ask a few TO's to just send in their tournament rules, and use those.

Good luck.

**da001**

ClockworkZion wrote:

da001 wrote:
Both Lanrak and Jidmah are hitting the nail.

This letter sounds more and more as wishlisting / proposed rules. I am not even sure this is the right forum.

It's in Proposed Rules already, so where are you trying to make it go now?

I originally put the thread in 40k General because one of the the things I started it for was also rules issues, you know the sort of things that have been ignored by FAQs.

I do believe the letter shouldn´t include any proposed rule, so I don´t think Proposed Rules should be the place for the thread. As Jidmah just posted, developers are most probably forbidden to use fan-made material.

40k General sounds better, I think it was moved because it became a wishlisting/house-ruling topic. Anyway, since the Mods have already moved it, I doubt they are moving it to General again.

BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.

**ClockworkZion**

Jidmah wrote:
That's not "pitching" ideas, but rather sending a wishlist to the north pole. Even if they carefully ponder your wishes, they'll never know the reasoning behind them, which is far more important than your actual wish.

You apparently don't know me very well. I do explain things when I do stuff like this. When I sent in the Sisters stuff everything I changed had a reason why with it. That's the same thing here, only I'll be discussing the problem, offering up and idea and then offering my logic behind it.

Jidmah wrote:
Also note that many gaming company's developers are actively forbidden from ever using (or even reading) any fan-sent suggestions, due to the possibilty of that fan claiming intelectual ownership of those ideas after they've been used. I don't know abaut GW (since they never tell us anything) but, for example, Wizards of the Coast has such a rule in place.

GW's policy (which used to be on the website) was that fan submissions become their property once submitted to them. I'm willing to bet that still stands.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

da001 wrote:
BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.

You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.

**ace101**

Maybe a suggestion in favor of a Blood Ravens supplement. The DOW community is still quite populated and such a work might bring in more pigeons to buy GW plastic IMO (i bought in following DOW 2's release.

**da001**

ClockworkZion wrote:
(...)

da001 wrote:
BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.

You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.

No offence intended, and I have no doubt of your writing skills, but there are many posts suggesting very specific changes. There is no way to write something like that without sounding insulting and/or better than the other person.

Again, that´s just my opinion. I wish you the best and I think it is an excellent initiative.

**ClockworkZion**

da001 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
(...)

da001 wrote:
BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.

You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.

No offence intended, and I have no doubt of your writing skills, but there are many posts suggesting very specific changes. There is no way to write something like that without sounding insulting and/or better than the other person.

Again, that´s just my opinion. I wish you the best and I think it is an excellent initiative.

"While collecting the input from other people I spent some time thinking about them and have come up with some possible methods of handling some of these changes. They're very rough, and would need some fine tuning from someone more experienced in game design than myself, but I've included them in the pages attached to this letter. I hope they may prove at least somewhat helpful to you."

I was thinking something kind of like that.

**da001**

ClockworkZion wrote:
da001 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
(...)

da001 wrote:
BUT I recommend not to send a letter to the developers explaining how would you fix their mistakes or how would you do their job. Explain the issues, but do not propose specific solutions. That would be the best approach. In my opinion, of course.

You assume the wrong tone of the letter and the way I write. There are ways to bring forth ideas to the problems without making it sound like your insulting the person or acting better than they are.

No offence intended, and I have no doubt of your writing skills, but there are many posts suggesting very specific changes. There is no way to write something like that without sounding insulting and/or better than the other person.

Again, that´s just my opinion. I wish you the best and I think it is an excellent initiative.

"While collecting the input from other people I had some thoughts on possible methods of handling some of these changes. They're very rough, and would need some fine tuning from someone more experienced in game design than myself, but I've included them in the pages attached to this letter. I hope they may prove at least somewhat helpful to you."

I was thinking something kind of like that.

That sounds well, but if you go down to the level of detail showed here:

Spoiler:

ClockworkZion wrote:
So because I don't like just sending in a list of grievances, but also offer solutions to things here are some things I've cooked up so far (without getting too much into re-costing territory yet):

Assaulting from Transports:
Regular Transports: Only if it was stationary before the unit disembarked
Assault Transports: Even if the transport moved 6" or less unit may disembark and then assault that turn

The logic behind this is pretty simple: It buffs assault units in a very small way that helps rebalance how they work in the game: namely they can actually rely on their transports more in attempting to get across the board without punishing them for it.

Khorne Berserkers: Give them Heavy Chainswords standard that they can trade for Chainaxes for a very small points cost

Thousand Sons: Relentless if the Sorceror is alive, S&P if he isn't. For every 5 models in the unit, one Thousand Sons model may be upgraded to carry a Heavy Bolter that fires at AP3.

Flesh Tearers: Known for being one of the only Imperial armies to use the Chain Axe, let them swap Bolters or Chainswords for Chain Axes on their models (2-3 pts/model)

Warband Tactics (CSM):
World Eaters: Basically give them the BT CT(It's choppy and gives Adamantium Will which is fitting)

Thousand Sons: Rerolls Perils Results (I don't have a second effect for them yet)

Death Guard: Unyielding Advance: Models have a 6+ FnP (Does not improve/replace existing FnP) Characters have IWND; Corrosive Gas: Template Weapons do not count as Flamer type weapons for determining if they're effected by rules that effect flamers. In addition they gain the Shred and Gets Hot special rules.

Emperor's Children: Perfection in All Things: Re-roll to-hit rolls of 1; Perfection Marred: Characters or units that are suffer their first wound or casualty gain Hatred and Preferred Enemy for the Faction that dealt them that first wound/casualty.

Iron Warriors: Imperial Fist CT

Word Bearers: Deamonlogists: Word Bearers only suffer Perils of the Warp on a roll of a double-6 when manifesting powers from Santic or Malefic Daemonolgy Powers; Daemon Bound: Word Bearers gain Daemonic Possession on their vehicles for free, and count Possessed as Troops.

Black Legion: (Not really sure what to give these guys honestly, perhaps the UM CT?)

Alpha Legion: Master Ambushers: Infantry Models have Infiltrate and Shrouded

Night Lords: Lords of Night: Game always begins with Night Fighting which continues each turn on a 4+; Lighting Strikes: Models with Jump Packs may use them in both the Movement and Assault Phase, additionally Infantry models have the Hit and Run special rule

Renegade: Has Access to Drop Pods, Assault Cannons, Razorbacks and Storm Bolters (replaces Combi-Bolter at no additional cost).

On a different note I've been rolling around Terminators in my head, and am considering recommending a 5 point drop in costs just to make them somewhat useful, and am considering bringing up them including possible rules in the future for allowing players to build their own Special Characters (it worked in IA12 and I don't see anyone really hating optional rules to do that outside of IA12).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

azreal13 wrote:
Glances only remove a HP on 3+?

Or vehicles get an armour save based on what the AV of the side you're shooting is (starts at no save for AV10 and improves by +1 for each point over 10 so AV11 = 6+, AV12 = 5+, AV13 = 4+, AV14 = 3+) and apply AP values as normal (making anti-tank weapons outright ignore the armour save).

Something like that perhaps?

then I don´t think it is gonna work. It takes a lot of time effort to go through it, it is telling them how to do their job and, as Jidmah said, they are probably forbidden to even read such a thing.

It looks like a list of 'solutions and proposals', and I think it would be better to send 'problems and suggestions' instead

**ClockworkZion**

You're comparing rough notes to a letter that is not yet written!

Furthermore, what kind of detail do you think I'll need to go to in explaining the issues and why they are issues? Frankly more than I'll be doing pitching ideas that's for sure.

This whole thing is going to be long no matter what I do, just by opening it up to the public I turned this into a fairly sizable thing which I'm going to need to reorganize by book to make it reasonable to read through.

Proper organization will help a lot with something like this, let me tell you.

And you and Jidmah are ignoring two facts: 1) I've submitted something like this before so I'm not unfamiliar with the process, and 2) GW has had a standing submission policy in the past that worked on the bases of the submissions becoming their property. Even if it's not on the website anymore I'm willing to bet that hasn't gone away.

You make assumptions in things you have not done and then use those assumptions to cast judgment on what I'm doing. Frankly it's a bit insulting.

**pretre**

Out of curiosity, how much change did we get from the last submission?

I'm not trying to be a dick, but this seems like an exercise in futility. You'd probably be better off just making house rules for people to use.

**ClockworkZion**

pretre wrote:
Out of curiosity, how much change did we get from the last submission?

Considering they haven't given Sisters another codex yet and I wrote that in response to the last one, we'll see.

pretre wrote:
I'm not trying to be a dick, but this seems like an exercise in futility. You'd probably be better off just making house rules for people to use.

Been down that road. It's honestly easier to throw things at GW and see if anything sticks than trying to get house rules approved for every single game. Not everyone plays in places that like Homebrew. Heck locally a lot of people don't really want homebrew because it's a greater unknown than FW. They can at least look up FW.

**Marik Law**

Here's my concerns:

* Better consistency of quality with the Supplements. While some of the supplements are wicked (Clan Raukaan), while others such as Black Legion and Farsight Enclave leave a lot to be desired with mediocre Relics, hit and miss Warlord Traits, and bland or just downright under-powered special rules in comparison to other supplements using the same Codex.

* Dark Angels need more customization the next time they are around. With the direction GW is now going with Supplements, Traits, etc, Dark Angels are horrendously restricted in what they can take and what they can do, to a point where they actually have less customization than most other forces. I'd like to still see Belial and Sammael give bonuses to Deathwing and Ravenwing respectively, but I'd also like the option of being able to make my own Master of the Deathwatch or Ravenwatch using the options and relics present in the book. Speaking of which...

* Dark Angels Relics definitely need work. Most of their relics just seem to be poorly thought out or just under-powered to a point where they're just boring and not worth the points in most cases.

* Dark Angels unique units need a look over, at least in terms of their points cost vs effectiveness in a battle. Most (but not all) of the Dark Angels unique units just aren't worth their points or simply don't bring anything interesting to the table for their points cost that another unit couldn't do better and sometimes for cheaper.

* More non-Imperial Codexs and Supplements. Seriously, including Supplements we're now up around 10+ Imperial Codexs and Supplements. I know the Imperium is GW's cash cow, but their other factions could be potential cash cows too if GW just took the time to take them seriously enough to make them more important in the lore. While I do play Imperium, I know people who aren't interested in the Imperium at all and feel like they are getting screwed because the Imperium is getting all of these awesome new armies and supplements, yet the non-Imperial races are left to just deal with it.

**Jidmah**

ClockworkZion wrote:
You're comparing rough notes to a letter that is not yet written!

Furthermore, what kind of detail do you think I'll need to go to in explaining the issues and why they are issues? Frankly more than I'll be doing pitching ideas that's for sure.

It's the subtle difference between "Khorne Berzerker need a way to get into combat" and "Khorne Berzerkers need to be able to charge out of rhinos". That's all he's saying.

This whole thing is going to be long no matter what I do, just by opening it up to the public I turned this into a fairly sizable thing which I'm going to need to reorganize by book to make it reasonable to read through.

Proper organization will help a lot with something like this, let me tell you.

And you and Jidmah are ignoring two facts: 1) I've submitted something like this before so I'm not unfamiliar with the process, and 2) GW has had a standing submission policy in the past that worked on the bases of the submissions becoming their property. Even if it's not on the website anymore I'm willing to bet that hasn't gone away.

Laws don't work that way. Unless you actively agree to those terms before contacting them, those terms do not apply. If you have Phil Kelly's email address, and you are contacting him this way directly, no law would permit them to use your intellectual property, no matter what their internal policies are. It's fully possible that GW is oblivious to this kind of thing, or are simply ignoring these problems. I just wanted to point it out to you, so your long letter you put so much effort in goes to the recycle bin without being read.

You make assumptions in things you have not done and then use those assumptions to cast judgment on what I'm doing. Frankly it's a bit insulting.

Hey, you asked for input, and you're getting it. If you don't want da001 and me to give you anymore input just say so, we'll stop right away.

**da001**

ClockworkZion wrote:
(...)
Frankly it's a bit insulting.

Insult requires intention, and there was none. You are, of course, free to feel insulted, but I am merely giving what I think is a valid advice, without any harmful intention. I apologize if it sounded harsh.

I do think it is a great idea to write this letter, and it should be done in the way you think better fits your purpose, since you are the one writing it. But you opened a thread 'looking for input', and this is mine: iIt doesn´t matter how good you are at writing, if you send 20+ pages of specific data, in my opinion it will be ignored.

You make assumptions in things you have not done...

You are assuming I haven´t sent stuff to Submissions too.

There are some advices in the Submissions page, and one of them is to be concise. Instead of sending 10 pages, send one. Following this advice, instead of sending a 104 pages long fan-made Codex: Sisters of Battle, I sent three pages: a short story about Sisters Vs Tau, a new unit (Patronica Squads, a close-combat version of the Seraphim that do not requires a new model) and the background and rules of a named Independent Character (a Dialogus).

Never got an answer, of course.

The Sisters of Battle are the obvious choice for any wannabe game designer, because they currently need a lot of love and have a lot of room for improvement. When (not if) a proper Codex is at least released, I think a lot of people is going to read it carefully trying to spot their suggestions.

**ClockworkZion**

Jidmah wrote:
Laws don't work that way. Unless you actively agree to those terms before contacting them, those terms do not apply. If you have Phil Kelly's email address, and you are contacting him this way directly, no law would permit them to use your intellectual property, no matter what their internal policies are. It's fully possible that GW is oblivious to this kind of thing, or are simply ignoring these problems. I just wanted to point it out to you, so your long letter you put so much effort in goes to the recycle bin without being read.

Agreement is done by submission as per their policy. And while I do have Phil's email thanks to my previous submission (I had included an email address in the letter for contacting me back without needing to go through the post. Additionally, I just touched base with him and as far as he's aware there is no change to the submission policy, so stuff sent in is consented to be theirs. Not that I won't include that in the letter just to keep legal happy).

Hey, you asked for input, and you're getting it. If you don't want da001 and me to give you anymore input just say so, we'll stop right away.

Your input is off topic. You want to give input, then stick to the input I asked for. Seriously this is the second time in this thread I've had to tell people I'm looking for specific kinds of input, not just whatever opinion they have about what I'm doing that falls out of their heads.

**The Shadow**

Kain wrote:A Swarmlord who at the least has eternal warrior or something to make him actually badass rather than mindshackle scarab fodder.

If the Tyranids can't roll for BRB powers, they should at least have more than one psychic discipline.

jamesk1973 wrote:BA: bring back "fast" for the Rhino chassis vehicles.

Nightlord1987 wrote:I'd suggest that the little gimp licking Typhus's floor horn on his base should be considered a spell familiar added to his profile. Typhus is way too taxed for what little he brings, and I hate that little gimp.

Now you've got to be careful with the contents of your letter. I scrolled down the first page and found at least three examples of "wishlisting". If you fill your letter with such things, it's going to sound like you complaining something along the lines of "oh, Mr. GW Dev guy, my Tyranids get beaten by Tau, make them powerful, waah

"

I can't claim to know exactly what GW will listen to, but I know it isn't that. Sensible and fair suggestions (that will still make them money) is perhaps the kind of thing they'll listen to.

At the end of the day though, there is only one thing you should be writing to GW about: getting them to release a tournament supplement for 40k. From GW's point of view, they can still sell loads of Daemons to TFGs using Summoning Spam, and they can still sell everything and anything to little Johnny who wants to use his entire collection in an unbound army but, at the expense of a bit of work, they can sell a £30 book to tournament gamers and stop some whining in the process. Maybe you can convince them that such a move would have long term benefits, with more veterans staying in the game. Heck, they might even bring back some of their own tournaments/campaigns!

**ClockworkZion**

So today (June 3 in the US) will be the last day I'm taking submissions. After today I'm going to sort through everything in this thread (skipping things like the BA = Fast thing because they fixed that already) and do what I can to turn it into something they'd be interested in reading. My goal is to have it all in the mail by the end of next week. Possibly with a bribe of cookies or something to encourage them to actually read it (I sent Cadbury Chocolate bars with the last one but I don't think I can trust chocolate to make it anywhere with how warm it's been getting lately).

**Quientin**

Okay so I understood you and have trusted you to word and tone down my requests. But as stated earlier most of what I want is what you want too. I also agree with everyone who stayed on topic. But please, put your best art and wordsmithing on the alpha legion special effects of some sort. I care not if it is one of the ideas I pitched or something as simple as grab some strategems we already made worth x... Or a figure it out yerself type request.

Jink saves need to not be compatible with shrouded, Nurgle DPs do not need a 2up cover. This is said by a chaos player.

To solve the woes of IP just preface the letter with a disclaimer that you have no intent to cry about it if they use it.
Send them fancy jellybeans from a nice candy store. They have a much higher heat tolerance. Or a 5 pound bag of haribo sugar free gummybears if you hate them. Read the amazon reviews to understand.

**ClockworkZion**

Honestly, I may not include the Warband Tactics stuff but instead just explain what people want and why and hope that gets the point across.

I'll try and work the DP thing in too.

And the disclaimer was planned from the start.

I wouldn't dare do sugar free gummy bears to the devs.

Maybe to Kirby, but not the Devs.

**happygolucky**

ClockworkZion wrote:
The old chart made vehicles too invincible. We need some kind of balance between what we had and what we're currentl getting.

And I doubt we'll see any more FW stuff added in (and FW just redid the Dreadclaw making it unlikely GW will knick it).

Simple, just let the damage do -1 on the chart but without removing HP.

you can still glance a vehicle to death, but it would add the toughness back in to vehicle, but not make them invincible back in 5th ed.

As to FW, they made pre-heresy variant's, but I can see GW create post-heresy warped up demonic plastic kits *hint, hint, wink, wink*