appiah4 Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Copy/Paste response.. Thanks for writing in to us, although I don’t have great news for you. While the Blood Angels will no doubt get an update of their codex and miniatures at some point in the future, at this time we don’t know when this will be. However, please be aware that the details of future releases are a closely guarded secret at Games Workshop so new content may be in the works, but we don’t have any specific information yet.Please keep the faith that they haven’t been forgotten about and their time will come one day! I wasn't expecting anything further, but I did my share of boosting the priority for an update.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 We should rephrase the question, so they cant answer it that way! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 How do you propose we do that? I doubt you can rephrase the question in a way that excludes non-committal and negative answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morticon Posted June 12, 2015 Author Share Posted June 12, 2015 How do you propose we do that? I doubt you can rephrase the question in a way that excludes non-committal and negative answers. The response is a cut paste. If you rephrase it so that the answer no longer applies, they cant use the same cut paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucien Eilam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 As I said earlier in the thread, GW famously doesn't listen to it's customer base Of course they do. They just give far greater weight to a vote with your wallet than they do hot air on internet forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindhamster Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Uk response (it wasn't a copy paste of the other one - hey look! A different person) Hi there! Thank you for your email. I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about the Blood Angels - all I can recommend doing at this time is keeping an eye on the webstore and White Dwarf as all re-releases and new products are advertised on there first. I'm sorry I cannot be of more help this time, Sophie How would you rate my reply? Great Okay Not Good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Hello everyone!Decided to join the operation of saving our favourite chapter from the GW enhropy.Here's what I wrote: Hello!Recently I've been thinking of buying 4-5 boxes of Blood Angels terminators (mainly tactical ones) + 3 furioso dreadnoughts for starting Archangels strike force detachment. But I don't know what to do since the new Space marines codex has 25 points cheaper terminators with the same characteristics and their dreadnoughts (even ones with rocket launchers) have more attacks than my close combat dreadnoughts (and their strenght is equal). Using the same models for more cost is really frustrating since I have a lot of SM players in my gaming community and using BA models as different chapter (like Ultramarines) is generally not endorced here. So to make my decision of buying those models I need to know when will their rules be updated? If you don't have this information then please send this message to your rules team so they know that there is a need for an errata\faq for Blood angels. And the reply was quick. Well, at least she said that request will be passed to rules team) Hi there!Thank you for your email. I'm afraid that at the moment we do not have any information about the Blood Angels - all I can recommend doing at this time is keeping an eye on the webstore and White Dwarf as all re-releases and new products are advertised on there first.I will pass this on to our rules team for you.I'm sorry I cannot be of more help this time,Sophie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remtek Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Feels like we will have to wait for a new book 97%. Maybe we can hope for White Dwarf formation/detachment? Im so jealous of the free transport detachment, Razorback lists are so fun to play, and a Fragioso with 4 base attacks would be sweet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ekekrantz Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 its funny how they updated ba codex to be up to date with point cost etc then releasing new sm 6 months later leaving us at the same state we were before our "new" codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spagunk Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Keep in mind, this idea wasn't intended to get a ruling out of them. That never happens. The intention is to flood enough questions that a new FAQ can be written to flatly state their goal. Basically, flatter them with serious, heartfelt sounding questions so they have to forward someone internally an email saying "Gee, we're getting a lot of questions about his. Maybe the rules team should step in to answer this." The only time I've see GW do anything recently to address a codex problem is the flood of Tyranid data sheets they put out more than a year ago. So their track history for correcting rulebook oversights is pretty much nil. I just want my Vanguard Vets and Baals to be a worthwhile choice again. I love those guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlo Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The problem is, that it would probably take someone a day maximum to make a serviceable FAQ. That's it. There is no play testing involved just a few notes to add to some unit entries along the lines of: "Please use the Data Sheet for Vanguard Veterans as presented in the Space Marine Codex. Where it states "Chapter Tactics" replace this with "Furious Charge" This unit also has the Faction: Blood Angels, instead of Space Marines." For all the same units that will work, for things like vindicators you'd just need to add "May purchase overcharged engines at 10 points per model" For Scouts/ Dreads you could even just be like "Scout Squad & Scout Bike Squad Data Sheets increase thier BS & WS to 4." "Furioso Dreadnoughts increase thier Attacks Characteristic to 4". OKAY SO: Just had a brainwave while writing that, it's a long shot, but how about we, as a forum, make an FAQ. Strictly to bring the stats in line, the Decurion is nice but obviously that's a bit out of our hands and we have our own formations. We send this FAQ presented in such a way that GW used to them from multiple sources telling them our frustrations with the Dexes, what we aim to achieve with this and why them sanctioning it and putting it up on their site post haste would be beneficial for them. Get enough people to do that and surely then all they have to do is say "This looks good. Go on then *APPROVED STAMP*" As they don't care really about balance or play it shouldn't be much hassle for them either Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderer Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 We send this FAQ presented in such a way that GW used to them from multiple sources telling them our frustrations with the Dexes, what we aim to achieve with this and why them sanctioning it and putting it up on their site post haste would be beneficial for them. I like your idea and think we definitely should try this although I doubt that GW will just simply approve it a call it a day. Sometimes small changes have greater impact than it first seems. If we get ws4 bs4 scouts with furious charge and red thirst then we'll buy less BA tactical squads which GW released half a year ago. And so on. We need to see the full picture and know GW business plan for a year ahead which we clearly can't do. Right now our main goal is to inform GW of our needs and deliver this message in such a way that can't be ignored. So sending them our own FAQ is a good start since it shows our motivation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remtek Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Change requests, atleast in my work experience do require quite alot of work. Even small changes can have large effects on other issues, and if they do this for one codex they would/should need to streamline it so they can apply it to other books as well. Doing small hotfixes without planning and thought is generally bad practice. It might be better to just release a new BA book from their perspective to generate more income. This might be frustrating for us consumers, but there is so much more competition on the tabletop these days. They might loose more customers with this strategy, but if they had released a new BA book tomorrow, i for one would purchase it without hesitating. I'm sure the writers have a lot of pressure from management considering how much content they are putting out. I have sent them a few emails, but have only received the copy/paste answers. Not trying to defend GW, but something that might seem trivial for us could be more complicated on the other end. Them not doing market research really baffles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucien Eilam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Where does it end? If every time the release a new Marine codex you expect them to review and rerelease all the others, they'll never have time to do anything else. Imagine they decided something like the Rhino needed changing. That's 8 more codexes to update. Will you be clamouring to be "brought in line" when a Marine unit gets nerfed in another book too? Will you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blindhamster Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 they really ought to go back to the 3rd ed format for all marines, it worked really well. that way core units are kept in line across all. if they get better, they get better for all, if they get worse, they get worse for all. FYI, i actually think our assault squads should be identical to codex assault squads, we have our own armoury, so sergeants can still get BA unique weapons, but regular marines should be the same across the board (yes I am in fact advocating the loss of melta guns, infernus pistols and hand flamers as core weapons on assault squads... or them being added to core marines as options too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spagunk Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Where does it end? If every time the release a new Marine codex you expect them to review and rerelease all the others, they'll never have time to do anything else. Imagine they decided something like the Rhino needed changing. That's 8 more codexes to update. Will you be clamouring to be "brought in line" when a Marine unit gets nerfed in another book too? Will you I've never considered this type of argument to be a good argument in my opinion. The idea isn't to get everything but rather to get a couple of things for a small number of core units that appear to be common sense. This is provoked by having only a 6 month old codex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucien Eilam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 FYI, i actually think our assault squads should be identical to codex assault squads, we have our own armoury, so sergeants can still get BA unique weapons, but regular marines should be the same across the board You might want that, but GW clearly want more differentiation, not less. I agree with them - the more similar the others are to C:SM, the less reason they have to exist at all. The idea isn't to get everything but rather to get a couple of things for a small number of core units that appear to be common sense. Funny how "common sense" is always "the things that would make my army stronger", isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixus Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 they really ought to go back to the 3rd ed format for all marines, it worked really well. Seconded. FYI, i actually think our assault squads should be identical to codex assault squads, we have our own armoury, so sergeants can still get BA unique weapons, but regular marines should be the same across the board (yes I am in fact advocating the loss of melta guns, infernus pistols and hand flamers as core weapons on assault squads... or them being added to core marines as options too) While I do not really know what to do with ASM that can only take flamers and plasma pistols, in the interest of streamlining I think it should be the same option for all ASM whether that means including the melta weapons or not. Seems weird though that marines should not have seen a meltagun before getting into tactical squads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spagunk Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 The idea isn't to get everything but rather to get a couple of things for a small number of core units that appear to be common sense. Funny how "common sense" is always "the things that would make my army stronger", isn't it? I don't see that or your point at all. Please stop trying to make it seem like we're just out to be better than everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucien Eilam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Of course you're not. The fact that all the changes you're interested in having applied to Codex Blood Angels are the ones that would make the army stronger is pure coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bukimimaru Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Dude, no need to be smug, people are alowed to feel unhappy about having their new codex made redundant after only 6 months. You probably dont need to keep posting really obnoxious things with the sole aim of getting people riled up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ushtarador Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Actually, it is only logical. Taking necrons, eldar and marines as the new reference point, there is not a single unit or combination in our codex that stands out as being too strong. Except losing melta on our ASM, nothing would be nerfed if our codex would be brought in line with C:SM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucien Eilam Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Dude, no need to be smug, people are alowed to feel unhappy about having their new codex made redundant after only 6 months. You probably dont need to keep coming back and posting really obnoxious things with the sole aim of get people riled up. The codex isn't "redundant". A bunch of units hardly anyone was even using anyway are slightly stronger in one codex than they are in another. If you find it "obnoxious" that someone doesn't agree with your opinions, you'd be best advised to stay off the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan the Lurker Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 Everyone needs to step back and take a breath here before I have to send in purge squads with melta-weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bukimimaru Posted June 12, 2015 Share Posted June 12, 2015 My opinion is the same as yours - other codex's getting better doesn’t necessarily make ours any worse. However, I wouldn’t try to make people feel small or disregard their opinions just because I think my opinion is better than theirs. There is disagreeing with someone and then there is being purposefully rude and arrogant. I'm not the kind of person that enjoys getting into spats with internet tough guys, so I'll leave it here, but you might want to think about what kind of attitude is appropriate when posting on a civil forum like this one. EDIT: My apologies Kurgan, I should have refreshed before posting, I wasnt trying to have the last word. I'm more happy to have this post removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.