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.

Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW. Unless I can easily edit it down to Bullet Point Form.

Sorry guys please stick the format or make another thread and compile a complaint list. If it's simple and straightforward GW will have something easy to go through.


I know some of you might not like the format but it's how it's got to be.


Your list should be less than a paragraph per bullet point.


1.

2.

3. Etc

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW. Unless I can easily edit it down to Bullet Point Form.

Sorry guys please stick the format or make another thread and compile a complaint list. If it's simple and straightforward GW will have something easy to go through.


I know some of you might not like the format but it's how it's got to be.


Your list should be less than a paragraph per bullet point.


1.

2.

3. Etc

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

It's entirely sexual egotistical.

11) I don't trust GW to make or leave viable any unit I buy.

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

Why? Gw takes feedback. I'm trying to send a decisive list to gw of issuea with 8th. That isn't. Thousands of paragraphs long. But distilled into a consensus from the community. Already a disgustingly impossible task. Most posters wont even stick to the simple format. Making this a headache. Each persons Dakka tag will be placed beside thier simplified list.


If you don't post a list it will be ignored. Hopefully after a few hundred lists GW will have a better Idea of what the divided community wants.


This format is so we don't send 5000 pages to gw.

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

QFT.

Is this not a forum for discussion? I'm sure (in my limited GW experience) that they'd rather see point embellished with reason and explanation over a knee-jerk single word. And besides OP, what if there are comments which you disagree on?

For example, you saying "Primaris Lore" (which, by the way, means what? Are you in support of Primaris Lore? Do you want more of it? I'll assume, for the sake of humour, that you do), meaning that you want more Primaris Lore of the same quality. That's your big complaint - you want MORE Primaris Lore. My comment might be "Primaris Lore" - however, I'm saying I want LESS Primaris Lore, or of a different quality and style. However, according to you incredibly reductionist little format, they both say "Primaris Lore".

The format really needs more explanation if you want to get traction. But hey - you obviously know GW better than all of us.

 ForceChoke wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

Why? Gw takes feedback. I'm trying to send a decisive list to gw of issuea with 8th. That isn't. Thousands of paragraphs long. But distilled into a consensus from the community. Already a disgustingly impossible task. Most posters wont even stick to the simple format. Making this a headache. Each persons Dakka tag will be placed beside thier simplified list.


If you don't post a list it will be ignored. Hopefully after a few hundred lists GW will have a better Idea of what the divided community wants.


This format is so we don't send 5000 pages to gw.

I mean, you only need 1 bullet point to send to GW:

My issues with 8th:
1) It's not perfect exactly the way I want it.

Boom, done, easy and short. And just about as helpful as any list you might distill from this.

 ForceChoke wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

Why? Gw takes feedback.

Heh. What little they do listen to is what they had already intended to do.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

QFT.

Is this not a forum for discussion? I'm sure (in my limited GW experience) that they'd rather see point embellished with reason and explanation over a knee-jerk single word. And besides OP, what if there are comments which you disagree on?

For example, you saying "Primaris Lore" (which, by the way, means what? Are you in support of Primaris Lore? Do you want more of it? I'll assume, for the sake of humour, that you do), meaning that you want more Primaris Lore of the same quality. That's your big complaint - you want MORE Primaris Lore. My comment might be "Primaris Lore" - however, I'm saying I want LESS Primaris Lore, or of a different quality and style. However, according to you incredibly reductionist little format, they both say "Primaris Lore".

The format really needs more explanation if you want to get traction. But hey - you obviously know GW better than all of us.

Make another thread or post in bullet point. It can't be anymore straightforward.

Only one: delete that nasty flyers only detachment!!!!! Only one flyer allowed per 1000 points. Stormravens spam is not 40k.

 ForceChoke wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

QFT.

Is this not a forum for discussion? I'm sure (in my limited GW experience) that they'd rather see point embellished with reason and explanation over a knee-jerk single word. And besides OP, what if there are comments which you disagree on?

For example, you saying "Primaris Lore" (which, by the way, means what? Are you in support of Primaris Lore? Do you want more of it? I'll assume, for the sake of humour, that you do), meaning that you want more Primaris Lore of the same quality. That's your big complaint - you want MORE Primaris Lore. My comment might be "Primaris Lore" - however, I'm saying I want LESS Primaris Lore, or of a different quality and style. However, according to you incredibly reductionist little format, they both say "Primaris Lore".

The format really needs more explanation if you want to get traction. But hey - you obviously know GW better than all of us.

Make another thread or post in bullet point. It can't be anymore straightforward.

Why is this method going to get a rise from GW? Why would they even be affected by a list that can't even be elaborated on?

For the sake of your list, I'll propose mine. I expect to see it put on the letter you send, please?

1) More Primaris Marines and lore
2) More Primaris Marines and lore
3) More Primaris Marines and lore
4) Hire Ward
5) Release more Primarchs
6) Remove terrain
7) Disallow shooting from the hull, so vehicles can't shoot at all
8) More Primaris Marines and lore
9) More Primaris Marines and lore
10) More Primaris Marines and lore

I really doubt they are going to change the core rules of the game, so asking them to bring back armor values and facings is probably not going to work.
That said, more faction / weapon specific or general suggestions might have more success.

Also, its probably more constructive to give advice instead of a list of complaints. I mean, I can complain all day, especially when it comes to necrons. Probably not going to help though.

So -

1) Proof read. Some options don't make sense. Like, why are void blades and hyper phase swords the exact same weapon profile wise, and why can an overcharged plasma kill a razorback on a single roll of a one? Did I miss something?

2) Errata all formerly flamer template weapons to not target units with the airborne rule. Because that is kind of silly.

3) Errata flyers to use heavy weapons on the move. At the moment they have no way of not getting penalized for using the weapon they come with, and that's kind of dumb.

 ForceChoke wrote:

Why? Gw takes feedback. I'm trying to send a decisive list to gw of issuea with 8th. That isn't. Thousands of paragraphs long. But distilled into a consensus from the community. Already a disgustingly impossible task. Most posters wont even stick to the simple format. Making this a headache. Each persons Dakka tag will be placed beside thier simplified list.

You're going to have to do work to get what you want. This is an open discussion board not your personal survey system. Asking for comments and then collating them into something to send through is your responsibility. Also, has it occurred to you that people who want to send feedback will do so directly? Much easier than faffing around policing a thread that a vanishing small number of players will comment on.

 Blackie wrote:
Only one: delete that nasty flyers only detachment!!!!! Only one flyer allowed per 1000 points. Stormravens spam is not 40k.

Tru dat. But then again I think that Elites spam, SH spam, 3-named-characters-on-the-board lists, Tau Mechs, Primaris Marines and Keyword Pick'n'Mix armies aren't 40k.

 ForceChoke wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

QFT.

Is this not a forum for discussion? I'm sure (in my limited GW experience) that they'd rather see point embellished with reason and explanation over a knee-jerk single word. And besides OP, what if there are comments which you disagree on?

For example, you saying "Primaris Lore" (which, by the way, means what? Are you in support of Primaris Lore? Do you want more of it? I'll assume, for the sake of humour, that you do), meaning that you want more Primaris Lore of the same quality. That's your big complaint - you want MORE Primaris Lore. My comment might be "Primaris Lore" - however, I'm saying I want LESS Primaris Lore, or of a different quality and style. However, according to you incredibly reductionist little format, they both say "Primaris Lore".

The format really needs more explanation if you want to get traction. But hey - you obviously know GW better than all of us.

Make another thread or post in bullet point. It can't be anymore straightforward.

Actually i probably know GW better. Because I'm sure they dislike infighting and insults. Please keep it simple or start another thread please. Some people are okay with the idea

 vipoid wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Why not just "Free Strikes?" Models in melee get to make a free round of attacks, without a pile-in move?

Sorry guys. Try to keep it to a bullet point list. So it's easy to send to gw. Keep it simple. Sorry..

Yeah, we know. But I thought it would be useful to at least get a vague consensus on the bullet points first. Otherwise your 'concise' letter to GW is going to end up looking like this:

1) Units shouldn't be able to escape from combat without passing some sort of test.

2) Units should be able to escape from combat but risk taking mortal wounds by doing so.

3) Units should be able to escape from combat but the enemy gets a free fight phase (minus mile-in moves and consolidation) against them.

etc.

If withdrawing from CC gets harder...

4) Charge distance should be reduced to D6"

5) No first turn charges

Withdraw moves were added to the game with good reason. If you can be locked in combat, you either table your opponent in 1-2 turns or you lose, and both situations tend to be anti-fun for one or both players.

 zedmeister wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

Why? Gw takes feedback. I'm trying to send a decisive list to gw of issuea with 8th. That isn't. Thousands of paragraphs long. But distilled into a consensus from the community. Already a disgustingly impossible task. Most posters wont even stick to the simple format. Making this a headache. Each persons Dakka tag will be placed beside thier simplified list.

You're going to have to do work to get what you want. This is an open discussion board not your personal survey system. Asking for comments and then collating them into something to send through is your responsibility. Also, has it occurred to you that people who want to send feedback will do so directly? Much easier than faffing around policing a thread that a vanishing small number of players will comment on.

As stated above unless your list is in point forum. I will not copy and paste it with the rest.


Very basic very straightforward. Again it will not make the cut.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 ForceChoke wrote:
Anything not in Bullet Point Form I will not send to GW.

Could you please explain your relationship to GW?

QFT.

Is this not a forum for discussion? I'm sure (in my limited GW experience) that they'd rather see point embellished with reason and explanation over a knee-jerk single word. And besides OP, what if there are comments which you disagree on?

For example, you saying "Primaris Lore" (which, by the way, means what? Are you in support of Primaris Lore? Do you want more of it? I'll assume, for the sake of humour, that you do), meaning that you want more Primaris Lore of the same quality. That's your big complaint - you want MORE Primaris Lore. My comment might be "Primaris Lore" - however, I'm saying I want LESS Primaris Lore, or of a different quality and style. However, according to you incredibly reductionist little format, they both say "Primaris Lore".

The format really needs more explanation if you want to get traction. But hey - you obviously know GW better than all of us.

Make another thread or post in bullet point. It can't be anymore straightforward.

Why is this method going to get a rise from GW? Why would they even be affected by a list that can't even be elaborated on?

For the sake of your list, I'll propose mine. I expect to see it put on the letter you send, please?

1) More Primaris Marines and lore
2) More Primaris Marines and lore
3) More Primaris Marines and lore
4) Hire Ward
5) Release more Primarchs
6) Remove terrain
7) Disallow shooting from the hull, so vehicles can't shoot at all
8) More Primaris Marines and lore
9) More Primaris Marines and lore
10) More Primaris Marines and lore

It will be done. thank you.

Significantly increase the explanation for the Keyword Mechanics when it involves Army Building.

Significant buffs towards a stricter Keyword based list.

edited by moderator

12) The fanbase sucks
13) My two closest GW stores don't usually allow 40k games to be played in-store.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
I really doubt they are going to change the core rules of the game, so asking them to bring back armor values and facings is probably not going to work.
That said, more faction / weapon specific or general suggestions might have more success.

So -

1) Proof read. Some options don't make sense. Like, why are void blades and hyper phase swords the exact same weapon profile wise, and why can an overcharged plasma kill a razorback on a single roll of a one? Did I miss something?

2) Errata all formerly flamer template weapons to not target units with the airborne rule. Because that is kind of silly.

3) Errata flyers to use heavy weapons on the move. At the moment they have no way of not getting penalized for using the weapon they come with, and that's kind of dumb.

I'd like to point out that if you want armor values, facing, the removal of withdraw moves, and far more complex terrain and LOS rules, there is nothing stopping you from playing 7th edition.

As for Proof reading...I can't argue with that. I just noticed that the Rhino Primaris gets slain if it overcharges it's twin plasma rifle and rolls a 1. I'm pretty sure that should read "takes a mortal wound", but "slain" somehow got past the editor.

I also love how the Primaris Rhino cannot transport Primaris models.

As for flyers, I wouldn't make a bullet point that says "limit flyers!" That kind of QQ is pathetic, IMO. It's like crying to mom because your brother hit you instead of hitting him back.

My bullet point on flyers instead reads:

1) Anti-air weapons need to be more accessible and far cheaper, or less penalized against the 90% of armies that don't fly.

 ForceChoke wrote:
Actually i probably know GW better. Because I'm sure they dislike infighting and insults. Please keep it simple or start another thread please. Some people are okay with the idea

Could you enlighten us on your relationship to GW, and why you'd know them better? If you are in close contact, I'm sure many people would like to ask questions.

Again: simple =/= good. Your simple one-word points (Terrain) mean nothing at all. What does "Terrain" mean? If I worked at GW and someone walked up and said "I'm complaining about Terrain", I'd have no idea what they wanted. What does it mean? Do you want more terrain on the table? Less terrain? Terrain removed altogether? Primaris Terrain?

This is why explanation and discussion are needed: to bring an extra level of clarity to the argument. Then, if the discussion reaches a conclusion with a clear consensus, you can then apply a condensed, yet insightful, version of it to your list.

Of course, if you know GW better, go ahead, but I'd like to know where your expertise comes from.

So, I don't agree with alot of your points OP, plus you seem to think that you speak on behalf of the community, but you don't.

Do I have to write my disagreements down in bulletform, or can I just write it down for you?

Yeah, there needs to more AA options in general. Like, necrons still don't really have one in the codex, even though they use lightning weapons. You have to go to FW to get their anti-air unit.
I would actually love it if they ripped off DzC and introduced a necron unit that's really good at shooting air units (2+ to hit), but terrible against everything else (6+ to hit)

Also, to respond to all of the "people shouldn't be able to run away from me when I charge them!"

You got access to un-counterable 1st turn charges, and non-deviating deep-strike. Being able to walk away and shoot you more is the only thing that gives shooting armies a chance of winning games in this edition.

...and you want to take that away? Just straight up take it away or make it more difficult at the rules level?

I'd say if you want the ability to stay stuck in CC, you should pay for it. And it should be expensive because it will win you games. Just straight up win you games in the first or second turn. Tactically and strategically, it will 100% win games for you. It's seriously around a 100-250 point ability, and you just want it for free.

Depending on the army...wytches? it's what makes them work at all given their terrific staying power and horrible AP and strength. Berzerkers of Khorne? Oh god...they so don't need anything like that. Nids? Also don't need anything like that. Not when you can get Genestealers into CC first turn in about 3 different ways with a lucky roll.

Edition's too new to me for me to think of ways to "definitively" fix it. Hell, my 8th edition rulebook finally arrived a couple hours ago, prior to this I had to sneak peaks at my friends' books.

But I do know that a number of factions really need to be expanded upon. Sisters, Inquisition, Orks, Necrons and Tyranids could use some lovin'.

 MinscS2 wrote:
So, I don't agree with alot of your points OP, plus you seem to think that you speak on behalf of the community, but you don't.

Do I have to write my disagreements down in bulletform, or can I just write it down for you?

I can't stop you from being disgruntled and hostile. But I can ask you to be mature and take it to another thread.

Also. I. am not speaking for the community each list will have your dakka name beside it. I then plan to send of the lists to someone with GWs ear aswell as a letter to head office.

Some people want to make a list.

Please be considerate of other people.

 ForceChoke wrote:
Some people want to make a list.

Some people wish to discuss their faults to reach an enlightened consensus.

Please be considerate of other people.

Does that not work both ways here?

Top issues?

1. Poorly-defined terrain/cover.

2. Uneven distribution of options/customizability. This is mostly an issue with the Chambers Militant (Deathwatch, GK, Sisters) and their heavily restricted motor pools/kit options forcing them into mono-build corners.

3. Seize the Initiative. Too random, too swingy. It'd be better to make a roll-off after deployment giving the side that finished setting up first some sort of bonus rather than hanging the turn order on a single die roll, especially when combined with problem #4.

4. Uncounterable/too easy alpha strike movement. Deep Strike, monsters with Fly (especially in combination with Warptime). The fact that they exist hard-counters putting infantry that costs more than Boyz on the table during deployment.

5. Uniform-damage blasts. Too random, and the need to make them good enough to threaten hard targets requires that the number of shots is too low to threaten spread-out targets that they ought to be good against. Bring in the rules for the C-Beam Cannon (Contemptor Dreadnaught option) and make all "blasts" one high-power shot that does extra low-power hits if it kills something.

6. PL pricing for options. Most units are close to the same price regardless of what options you give them, but when you have units where everyone has the option to take expensive stuff playing with PL forces you into tiny and incredibly brittle loadouts by making everyone cost what they would fully upgraded.

7. Too many Heavy weapons on fast platforms. The Heavy type punishes you for moving, and Jetbikes, Vypers, Flyers, etc. are paying points to move. Expand the non-Heavy options or give out more PotMS/CTM/"this weapon counts as Assault when equipped to a vehicle".

8. Psykers. More powers, and give us stacking restrictions ("you can only target a unit with this once per turn") instead of the one cast attempt per army per turn rule.

That's as much as I've got without digging into fiddly details of specific units/wargear.

 ForceChoke wrote:
4. Primarchs in competitive play

No. Hell no. Primarchs shouldn't even exist in 40k, they should remain in 30k where they belong. Bad enough that we have magnyboy and robooty in...

Folks, please drop arguing about the format of discussion in this thread. People are free to post however they please as long as they abide by the Dakka Dakka rules. Just to be clear, Rule Number Two does not require posters to use a particular format, such as a bullet point list. Thanks!