Letter to GW about our wishes and requests

Mppqlmd wrote:

I think Raiders really need to have those 10 HPs if they are to stay at a 100pts tag. They doubled in price, so they became a bit tanky. Same for Venoms, for that price you can't have a paper boat. The Ravager could go down to T5, but it would be nitpicking.

For the rest of the army, i don't really feel like we are survivable to begin with (except Coven, but hey, that's Coven, of course they are survivable). Except for Reavers, that i would be okay to see become 1W models if they came back to -20pts price tag.

Well, yeah, that is why they should go down in points of course, if they go down in Wounds. Plus in my games they often feel more durable while lacking superior speed/mobility. But I feel there's no consensus there. So I guess we should leave it out the letter.

I think we should introduce a deadline at this point, to avoid endless modifications. How about the end of this week?

Raiders and Ravagers are just fine IMO. They get to shoot Heavy weapon as Assault with Fly keyword, Opened Top and a 5++, thats huge for 95pts, imo.

If the Splinter cannon gets fix Venoms would be worth it.

Ravagers are IMO almost perfect.

amishprn86 wrote:

Raiders and Ravagers are just fine IMO. They get to shoot Heavy weapon as Assault with Fly keyword, Opened Top and a 5++, thats huge for 95pts, imo.

If the Splinter cannon gets fix Venoms would be worth it.

Ravagers are IMO almost perfect.

I agree with this sentiment. Raiders and Ravagers work. The letter should focus on the things that don't work. If we want everything to be better, it becomes noncredible.

I think the durability of our vehicles is quite nice right now, it means that the game won't rely on who gets the first turn, even if they are weak enough that you can expect some to explode/ most to degrade  turn 1.

I agree let's fix the things that need fixing: most wych cult units, the HQs and special weapons.
Our vehicles are not a real problem (at least not to me).

Right, if we ask for to much it makes the real important things diluted and meaningless.

Dont make it to long or ask for to many small changed, express the importance of the changes and why it needs to be changed.

Sorry if it's already been brought up here or elsewhere but what's the background of the designers on this project?

Are they long time GW staff or are the fresh hires from a more general game design background or imports from another game?

lcfr wrote:

Sorry if it's already been brought up here or elsewhere but what's the background of the designers on this project?

Are they long time GW staff or are the fresh hires from a more general game design background or imports from another game?

The rules writers?

They are long time GW writers, the Old CEO (The well known Tom Kirby) had a "different" way to go about the business, the Investors literally didnt like what he was doing to warhammer anymore (he was the one that said "we are a model company not a rules one, we work on Armies when we feel like it) and he said another employee could try to run the company and if he did better he would step down.

Well the new CEO Kevin Rountree is the one that started the 3 HQ boxes, Ynnari, and even AOS change with 8th changes. He was more about "make all the rules good and players will buy more" he also noted for making BETTER deals with box sets (like the start collections and the 2 Carnifex's in 1 box for 40% the cost of the old box and many others). He is also the one to Restart the Facebook page.

Kevin Rountree might be a new CEO, but he isnt new to GW and the Writers are not either, he even is working with Matt Ward again.

Edit: Tom Kirby is still there also, he helps manage, write etc.. but IDK what his job title is anymore. And it is believed that Matt Ward purposed the Idea of Primarchs (tho this is just a rumor i think).

Given how specific yet long the letter has gotten I suppose it might be in the community's favor then; they're already used to all the minutiae of the Warhammer universe.

If the design team was made up of fresh legs with fresh approaches though they may not have had much stomach for such niche requests and all the nitty gritty details, and it may have been better to just appeal to them based on their design principles and where these principles are applied inconsistently in the Index.

lcfr wrote:

Given how specific yet long the letter has gotten I suppose it might be in the community's favor then; they're already used to all the minutiae of the Warhammer universe.

If the design team was made up of fresh legs with fresh approaches though they may not have had much stomach for such niche requests and all the nitty gritty details, and it may have been better to just appeal to them based on their design principles and where these principles are applied inconsistently in the Index.

Thats what i did, kinda. And i agree.

I message them about Harlequins and them having Heavy weapons... the opposite of Quins style and it heavenly limited them b.c no quin player will take a Heavy weapon on an army literally made to Advance every turn.

Also the same thing for FW with Hornets, their special rule you have to advance, but the Hornet Gun is Heavy....

Both like the idea's and said they will talk to the rules team about it.

May I suggest that some unit flavor would also go a long way? At present the majority of our units have the army special rules and little else, which is not the case for either Craftworlders nor necrons, both of whom share our index. While they have some generic units, the majority of their stuff has at least one special rule unique to that unit.

Most of our stuff has Power from pain, combat drugs if wyches or inured to pain if covens, and... not much else. Some flavorful stuff would be nice is all I'm saying and would help differentiate units.

Just want to clarify to make my statement clear (don't want to have it in the letter anymore):

amishprn86 wrote:

They get to shoot Heavy weapon as Assault with Fly keyword, Opened Top and a 5++

Yeah no problem there. It's mainly the number of wounds with me. Too high IMHO.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

I agree with this sentiment. Raiders and Ravagers work. The letter should focus on the things that don't work. If we want everything to be better, it becomes noncredible.

The opposite of what I claim. I said we should actually wish for something to be made bad ( like lower Wounds) to make the letter more credible. It shows we think of 40k as a whole and not just DE. And I think Raiders/Ravagers don't match the fluff.

|Meavar wrote:

I think the durability of our vehicles is quite nice right now, it means that the game won't rely on who gets the first turn, even if they are weak enough that you can expect some to explode/ most to degrade turn 1.

I agree let's fix the things that need fixing: most wych cult units, the HQs and special weapons.
Our vehicles are not a real problem (at least not to me).

I can agree with this though, 1st turn would be worse... Don't know if you lower the Wounds you can counter this with another cool rule to make up for it a bit.

amishprn86 wrote:

Right, if we ask for to much it makes the real important things diluted and meaningless.

Dont make it to long or ask for to many small changed, express the importance of the changes and why it needs to be changed.

So yeah, in light of these remarks, let's skip my remark. Just wanted to clarify so the idea isn't misread...

How about the deadline for the letter though? Is that agreed?

I dont think they are to high at all, Rhinos are 70pts base with 11 wounds, Ork trucks 10, Goliaths 10, Chimeras 10 etc... all the basic 10man Transports are 10 wounds.

Ravagers and Raiders dont need a nerf, they are good but not OP at all. Remember they are only T5/6 with a 4+ save, thats still very weak, from talking to other players in other areas, tournament players and many on dakka. DE vehicles are true glass cannons, they hit hard but die.

I mean 3 games in a row my Tantalus died turn 1, if they can kill a +1 toughness Tantalus in 1 turn, they can kill 2 Raiders.

amishprn86 wrote:

I dont think they are to high at all, Rhinos are 70pts base with 11 wounds, Ork trucks 10, Goliaths 10, Chimeras 10 etc... all the basic 10man Transports are 10 wounds.

Ravagers and Raiders dont need a nerf, they are good but not OP at all. Remember they are only T5/6 with a 4+ save, thats still very weak, from talking to other players in other areas, tournament players and many on dakka. DE vehicles are true glass cannons, they hit hard but die.

I mean 3 games in a row my Tantalus died turn 1, if they can kill a +1 toughness Tantalus in 1 turn, they can kill 2 Raiders.

We have different experiences I suppose. But then again... It wouldn't hurt for me to get more games in.

In my experience, Raiders die to small firearms, are quite sturdy when getting some lascannon shots (because of the 5++), but will die to anything really serious (be it a mortar, some plasma team, a bane cannon).

I think this letter could be done very soon... I'd gladly recieve some help on the stats part, it's a bit time consuming (and i actually started a new job recently so i'm quite busy). We can absolutly finish it and start collecting signatures by friday.

I think if you're getting into the nitty gritty of stats and actually showing numbers and work you're getting too specific and you'll lose their interest.

All they need to know is that points efficiency and damage output govern a lot of decision making and that certain items will never or rarely be chosen because they don't make sense to run when we look at the numbers (the Shredder, Splinter Cannon, Heat Lance as examples).

If our special weapons each had a role against certain enemies that they clearly, if even marginally, excelled at, there would be more diversity when it comes to their inclusion. Right now we're all content to run Blasters, Dissies and Lances because typically we're finding the other weapons don't compete well with their overall damage output and sometimes range (I.e. the Shredder is the only 12" non pistol weapon in the book...it needs to eviscerate GEQ at that points and range to ever be worth using, because at 12" we're being retaliated with Rapid Fire lasguns or being charged).

As a designer if I read that players have no incentive to consider using all the tools I've offered and it's killing diversity I'm going to start brainstorming a fair decrease in points or increase in damage output. They're the designers, let them do the math. All we should be doing is alerting them to a flaw in the way they've presented us our options.

I agree with lcfr. Keep it as short and to the point as possible.

If I can make another suggestion, I would like to structure the letter further. For each point, we assess the problem and make a suggestion of a possible fix.

Wyches:
Problem: Unrealiable "No Escape" rule and too little offensive potential (make a reference to a mathmahher example and compare it with other melee troops). The high points cost are not justified for a weak T3 unit.
Solution: Improved AP on all weapons

Talos:
Problem: They lost their former AP2 and became T7 while other beasts became significantly stronger
Solution: Suggestion for weapons, such as improved AP modifiers.

Shredders:
Problem: They are our only reliable wargear against hordes. Only that they aren't. They are an expensive sidegrade to Splinter Fire and are not worth their cost in points (make reference to a mathhammer example of Splinter vs Shredder).
Solution: S6 without re-rolls but auto-hit.

etc.

Naturally, the paragraphs should be written more elaborately. Nonetheless, I think we should divide the core problem from our suggestion. I am not sure if GW will actually listen to the suggestions, but our best hope really is to point out the core weaknesses.

@Mppqlmd
If you give me a go, I will restructure the letter this way.

Quote :

If you give me a go, I will restructure the letter this way.

Absolutly, go ahead

We don't need to address units or weapons point by point.

A paragraph describing the imbalance of weapon options, I.e. the fact that we all tend to run the exact same favored weapons to the exclusion of the have-not weapons, and they need a points decrease or damage increase and a role to fill that the other weapons can't.

A paragraph describing the imbalance of units along the same lines, i.e we all tend to run the same units to the exclusion of others. We are not tending to play Cult and Coven units because their role is either unclear or they're not actually efficient at filling it, and so we are not bothering with them.

Command Points are a great new game currency that has the potential to change how we value points efficiency. Strategems that are powerful and well costed can replace tinkering with points efficiency and damage output, and we're also happy to see more units validated through these means, I.e 1CP to automatically win a No Escape roll off instead of Wych points going up or down.

Basically we should never have to bog them down with a specific suggestion or remind them what a weapon's strength is. Appeal to them as designers not wargamers.

tlronin wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

I dont think they are to high at all, Rhinos are 70pts base with 11 wounds, Ork trucks 10, Goliaths 10, Chimeras 10 etc... all the basic 10man Transports are 10 wounds.

Ravagers and Raiders dont need a nerf, they are good but not OP at all. Remember they are only T5/6 with a 4+ save, thats still very weak, from talking to other players in other areas, tournament players and many on dakka. DE vehicles are true glass cannons, they hit hard but die.

I mean 3 games in a row my Tantalus died turn 1, if they can kill a +1 toughness Tantalus in 1 turn, they can kill 2 Raiders.

We have different experiences I suppose. But then again... It wouldn't hurt for me to get more games in.

Besides, judging by how the codices are going, asking for things to be *worse* is a bad idea, and not at all reflective of how armies are being transitioned from index to codex. We don't exactly have a history of being given an OP codex... ever.

As has already been stated, the raider/ravager 10 wounds is compensated by low toughness. If our vehicles were any more fragile, then they wouldn't be usable. They have to have at least a chance of surviving 1 turn... and that's merely a chance; in the last game I played, I lost *every* one of my transports on turn 1, due to forward operative Alpha Legion shenanigans.

Agreed. But I understand the sentiment, too. I really like the idea of a glass cannon. Hit hard but try to survive the retaliation. My favorite Privateer Press faction was Legion because they hit the balance nicely. Terrifying damage output but not terribly resilient. Getting the balance is tricky. As we've now pointed out, I think our big birds are spot on. My opponent argued *against me* when he quoted my Raider's toughness. He said, "It must be 7 or 8 at least". I kept telling him the right number. He said, "Battlescribe made a mistake. They're idiots. Look it up."
I remember it so well because I said, "You're an idiot" when I proved how low the boat's toughness is.

He's one of my closest friends. I remind him regularly that he's an idiot. And a jackass. But that's tangential.

I had multiple Raiders and 2 Ravagers. Same friend said they seemed "perfect" to him. Disintigrators and Dark Lances punching holes everywhere but he could focus fire and wreck them. I'd shock prow in, take a few hits, pull away and shoot. He thought it was very fluffy and flavorful and said it was some of the best imagery evoked from a game in years.

Neither of us even remember who won the game.

Oh.... we want Vect

amishprn86 wrote:

Oh.... we want Vect  

Amen...

I also want him like the Old Movie Marines where they had "stunt doubles" or like St. Celestine with the Gemnie.

Unfortunately, I don't think we should be expecting to get rules for any units that don't have models. Remember that the Space Marines lost units between their Index and their Codex because of that, so we're not likely to fare any better.