Get Ready For Chapter Approved

[Dark_Master]

Honestly, once they release their own list building app (or if you trust battlescribe enough) you won't even need the points section of your book and could play with up to date point costs even without the CA book. ^^

 

Just as long as they keep it up to date.

 

Speaking as someone who bought ‘Armies of the Imperium’ my hopes are not high

 

DM

[TheWolfLord]

Then who was complaining that Fellblades needed to be the same points cost of two shadowswords? That doesnt make sense. Fellblades were already bad.

I still dont see reasoning

Probably a small vocal group who got blasted off the table in a friendly game and assumed they were far too good without any understanding of their stats or points.

 

I see it every day on Facebook, there's still a very strong anti FW mentality who just look at the stats of a unit without considering it's points or comparing them to similar GW units.

 

FW models do have powerful stats but they were pointed at a level that made them inefficient compared to GW models such as Baneblades or Shadowswords.

[Panzer]

 

Honestly, once they release their own list building app (or if you trust battlescribe enough) you won't even need the points section of your book and could play with up to date point costs even without the CA book. ^^

Just as long as they keep it up to date.

 

Speaking as someone who bought ‘Armies of the Imperium’ my hopes are not high

 

DM

 

I don't see a reason why they wouldn't keep it up to date. I work as a software developer and once the software runs and isn't coded like trash there's basically no real work involved in changing pointcosts. Heck if they are smart they can use the same database for the app and the digital Codexes which of course will stay up to date.

[Gentlemanloser]

I'm getting a concise list of GK issues arranged.

 

Then I'm hoping the community will spam it with me on FB and by email.

[Plaguecaster]

If feedback was the deciding factor for the points changes it does make sense just look how toxic the community can get when it comes to the competitive scene between players crying nerfs or broken on certain armies or units to a strong hatred for any FW in certain gaming areas

 

Thats probably the problem depending on how they are sorting through the feedback they are probably getting more responses on units being OP or too cheap focusing on those than the feedback wanting units to be better costed etc. For every person wanting a unit to be dealt with there will be another person who sees no problem just look at Razorbacks marine players who used them would of told you they were perfectly costed whilst most players who game up against armies with multiples would of told you a complete different story.

 

I'm getting a concise list of GK issues arranged.

 

Then I'm hoping the community will spam it with me on FB and by email.

You should post a copy of it here on the forum so others like me can see it and help spam it as well, Edited November 27, 2017 by Plaguecaster

[Gentlemanloser]

Feel free to join in!

 

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/topic/341788-feedback-to-gw/?do=findComment&comment=4943467

 

Although as mentioned other GK players have given feedback months previous, by email and fb.

 

And all of it ignored.

 

I'm hoping that we can get movement if we have enough volume of responses.

[The Yncarne]

I am skeptical of a GW army building app. I also remember their quickly abandoned previous attempt at this. GW simply has a poor track record of updating their digital products even though I think that is where their future lies.

 

Some days playing 40k feels like 1986 when I used an IBM 286 to create and update AD&D character sheets.

[Lexington]

The Community team has said many times that they pass all feedback to the rules team who judge if it needs acting on. You can't criticise them for the attempts they've made even if the result is less than perfect.

I can absolutely criticize them, because I don't believe them.

 

40K isn't a difficult game to understand, and the balance issues of 8th Edition are pretty self-evident after six months. It's been published and discussed to death on here, BoLS, Twitter and every other public 40K forum available. We know the Studio reads this stuff, too, as they've actually got a fairly good track record of addressing the biggest problems with the game, often with the online community's own pet terminology. See: The Ogryn Hyperloop.

 

Now, we can't say with absolute certainty that they didn't get overwhelming feedback from players that FW's LoWs were ruining the game, but such complaints wee decidedly not part of the discussion in any of those areas. I'd be willing to bet hefty sums of real human money that a casual stroll through the GW social media environment wouldn't turn up much in the way of that sort of thing, either. They're units that precious few people have access to in the first place, and as far as I can tell, no one really bothered with them anyway - they were, for the most part, obviously overcosted.

 

I'm really not clear as to why GW is pulling this nonsense, but the idea that it was prompted by player feedback - or any concerns for balance, really - doesn't pass the sniff test.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Lexington

[Dark_Master]

I am skeptical of a GW army building app. I also remember their quickly abandoned previous attempt at this. GW simply has a poor track record of updating their digital products even though I think that is where their future lies.

 

Some days playing 40k feels like 1986 when I used an IBM 286 to create and update AD&D character sheets.

This is my fear too, all they need to do is produce a half decent product and they will corner the market.

 

I remember emailing them about RW Sgt weapon upgrades being massively overpriced in ‘Armies of the Imperium’ and got a standard response but nothing changed.

 

Think it was £15 which at the time was not small change.

 

Fingers crossed they up their game.

 

DM

[Frater Cornelius]

 

The Community team has said many times that they pass all feedback to the rules team who judge if it needs acting on. You can't criticise them for the attempts they've made even if the result is less than perfect.

I can absolutely criticize them, because I don't believe them.

 

40K isn't a difficult game to understand, and the balance issues of 8th Edition are pretty self-evident after six months. It's been published and discussed to death on here, BoLS, Twitter and every other public 40K forum available. We know the Studio reads this stuff, too, as they've actually got a fairly good track record of addressing the biggest problems with the game, often with the online community's own pet terminology. See: The Ogryn Hyperloop.

 

Now, we can't say with absolute certainty that they didn't get overwhelming feedback from players that FW's LoWs were ruining the game, but such complaints wee decidedly not part of the discussion in any of those areas. I'd be willing to bet hefty sums of real human money that a casual stroll through the GW social media environment wouldn't turn up much in the way of that sort of thing, either. They're units that precious few people have access to in the first place, and as far as I can tell, no one really bothered with them anyway - they were, for the most part, obviously overcosted.

 

I'm really not clear as to why GW is pulling this nonsense, but the idea that it was prompted by player feedback - or any concerns for balance, really - doesn't pass the sniff test.

Easy statement to make out of the comfort of your chair. If it is that easy, why haven’t others done it already? Maybe it is a bit tougher than you may think?

[Panzer]

 

 

The Community team has said many times that they pass all feedback to the rules team who judge if it needs acting on. You can't criticise them for the attempts they've made even if the result is less than perfect.

I can absolutely criticize them, because I don't believe them.

 

40K isn't a difficult game to understand, and the balance issues of 8th Edition are pretty self-evident after six months. It's been published and discussed to death on here, BoLS, Twitter and every other public 40K forum available. We know the Studio reads this stuff, too, as they've actually got a fairly good track record of addressing the biggest problems with the game, often with the online community's own pet terminology. See: The Ogryn Hyperloop.

 

Now, we can't say with absolute certainty that they didn't get overwhelming feedback from players that FW's LoWs were ruining the game, but such complaints wee decidedly not part of the discussion in any of those areas. I'd be willing to bet hefty sums of real human money that a casual stroll through the GW social media environment wouldn't turn up much in the way of that sort of thing, either. They're units that precious few people have access to in the first place, and as far as I can tell, no one really bothered with them anyway - they were, for the most part, obviously overcosted.

 

I'm really not clear as to why GW is pulling this nonsense, but the idea that it was prompted by player feedback - or any concerns for balance, really - doesn't pass the sniff test.

Easy statement to make out of the comfort of your chair. If it is that easy, why haven’t others done it already? Maybe it is a bit tougher than you may think?

 

Handwaving everything is just as easy. We don't know how much of an efford they put into it.

Maybe it's time to drop this argument since it doesn't lead to anywhere. ^^

[the jeske]

 

 

That scenario only pans out if everyone playing the game is playing WAAC, you know.  If the play-group in question are all in it for fluff and fun rather than hammer-stomping their opponents as quickly as possible, then the playing field evens itself out.

 

no. becase what you say could only happen, if the "fluff" list were balanced against each other and it is not the case. a fluff orc or tyranid army destroys a tournament GK or SoB list. Plus in your example you have to force people to play[possible] and buy[much harder to do] models, units and maybe whole armies they may not want to play with. I mean lets say I can still play and take a tyranid army vs a tau list, and the tau player does not play a 9CMDs list? am not sure I could even buy a tyranid list that is bad enough for the tau player to play [where play is doing something durning the game, and not just removing your own stuff knowing you will lose], unless I went in and started doing some really stupid stuff like deploying warriors , fewer points etc.

 

And while it is not like this is the first time we have a situation like this in w40k, we were told that 8th was suppose to fix stuff like that, that it was tested. Then codex and index+rule proved it to not be true.  And then when we get an rules update, and expected that the armies will be fixed now, the opposit is done. Non of armies which were clearly bad were buffed up[and that is what the rules shoould be doing], they did nerf some units, but the nerfs did not [and by the way I think it is a good thing] make any of the good lists suddenly bad. IG will just stop running conscripts and run normal squads[tournament lists were already doing that post commisar nerf] the  G-man/razor points up, is balanced by the points decreese on other units . Soup and demons/tyranids are doing fine. Now there are salty people who invested in to models they won't be able to use now. I feel for them, even if the units were FW. But all changes did in fact, besides making people salty, is to make bad armies worse and that by nature of any game should not happen.

 

 

The way around this is make sure you also pass feedback to GW, they've been criticised for years that they don't listen to the community. They promised they would and now they are, if we don't offer our own feedback then we are relying on others and hoping they provide the same feedback as we would give. I know these online communities can be inward looking at times but maybe that needs to change

 

you seriously think this was done? The problem is that the GW books do not go to print a week after people are fisnished writing them. Sometimes it takes months between a books being closed and then go to print. Now our problem here is that GW went with the AoS way of updating stuff. In AoS it didn't matter what and how the update was done, without points cost and a game structure even the worse set of rules[which the AoS index was not by the way] were better then nothing. with w40k we already had point costs, matched play etc. What we need was smoothing things out. Make swarms less dominate, make units/weapon/rules that  are clearlly too good cost the right amount of points. Fix the alfa strike problems. Stuff like that. we did not need rules to make stuff that was already weak made weaker, and good stuff get changed [and not even to bad stuff in general, which i would hate, but what would technicly lower the gap between armies/units/weapon options]. Heck there is a ton of good stuff that got buffed. Cawl got cheaper[why?], mortar teams got through unchanged [which is mind blowing to me] etc.

 

Handwaving everything is just as easy. We don't know how much of an efford they put into it.

 

 

now am not sure how many people were vistiing tyranid/chaos or IG forums back in 6th. Ton of people were trying to fix the books. Work was done, as was testing, points and rules were being worked on etc. Out of all of it one thing was found out, that it is reeaallly hard to make people home brew armies, specially when it makes them better. And I mean this on a FLGS/hobby center , as no tournament I know of ever was ok to accept a home brew army being played.

Edited November 28, 2017 by the jeske

[Panzer]

 

 

Handwaving everything is just as easy. We don't know how much of an efford they put into it.

 

 

now am not sure how many people were vistiing tyranid/chaos or IG forums back in 6th. Ton of people were trying to fix the books. Work was done, as was testing, points and rules were being worked on etc. Out of all of it one thing was found out, that it is reeaallly hard to make people home brew armies, specially when it makes them better. And I mean this on a FLGS/hobby center , as no tournament I know of ever was ok to accept a home brew army being played.

 

Homebrew stuff not being commonly accepted? Shocking! That really wasn't the topic here. ^^

[the jeske]

Simple.  You tell them to play what looks cool or seems fun rather than worry about squeezing every possible iota of point-efficiency out of the system.  I know it's an alien concept for you -- I'm not insulting, I've just been here long enough to know your outlook on the game -- but you could try to step away from WAAC ideals.

ok, but even with a random distribution of models taken. if he plays GK vs a good army he will lose every time. And that is assuming three things happen, units are chosen at random and end up being the bad/worse ones, the person who is the opponent actually buys/has those models and likes the looks of them, non of the likes the look of stuff is good. Because if the likes the look of model is ends up being somehting like G-man we are in serious trouble.

 

this has nothing to do with WAAC or tournaments, but everything with us being told that GW is going to fix stuff with 8th and then with the index, and us getting the exactly opposite. They made bad armies worse, this should have never been done[although it is not like they didn't do it in the past, only that was suppose to be the old GW].

 

And you are right I can't get my head around the concept of the game being balanced around two people picking units by the way they look, and those units always or at least most of the time, ending up on the same tier of being good or being base for a good army. Because the chance of this happening is equal to two people doing trade only they randomise the stuff they trade and how much they pay each other for the stuff. It practiclly impossible to achive. While on the other when a system is made [or at least its designer try it ot be so] out of stuff that is as good as it is possible, the problem does not exist in the first. WAAC is a w40k only concept in no other game, the communities panelise people for playing with the good[and what if they like the look of the good stuff? should they play with the bad stuff they do not like to make others happy?] and in no other system are those at the bottom of the barrel having as few options to deal with sudden meta shifts or rules changes.

[the jeske]

 

 

 

Handwaving everything is just as easy. We don't know how much of an efford they put into it.

 

 

now am not sure how many people were vistiing tyranid/chaos or IG forums back in 6th. Ton of people were trying to fix the books. Work was done, as was testing, points and rules were being worked on etc. Out of all of it one thing was found out, that it is reeaallly hard to make people home brew armies, specially when it makes them better. And I mean this on a FLGS/hobby center , as no tournament I know of ever was ok to accept a home brew army being played.

 

Homebrew stuff not being commonly accepted? Shocking! That really wasn't the topic here. ^^

 

well if you are sending GW any propsed rules changes, you are sending them home brew rules. It is exactly that. And GW reacts the same way other companies react to such stuff. They ignore it at best, and at worse you just killed an idea[for lets say a CCG card].

[Panzer]

 

 

 

 

Handwaving everything is just as easy. We don't know how much of an efford they put into it.

 

 

now am not sure how many people were vistiing tyranid/chaos or IG forums back in 6th. Ton of people were trying to fix the books. Work was done, as was testing, points and rules were being worked on etc. Out of all of it one thing was found out, that it is reeaallly hard to make people home brew armies, specially when it makes them better. And I mean this on a FLGS/hobby center , as no tournament I know of ever was ok to accept a home brew army being played.

 

Homebrew stuff not being commonly accepted? Shocking! That really wasn't the topic here. ^^

 

well if you are sending GW any propsed rules changes, you are sending them home brew rules. It is exactly that. And GW reacts the same way other companies react to such stuff. They ignore it at best, and at worse you just killed an idea[for lets say a CCG card].

 

Who said anything about sending GW specific rule changes and expecting them to use them tho?  

Again, that wasn't the topic at all.

[Snook]

Regardles of how well balanced a system is, there will always be a group that will abuse its weaknesses to get the slightest advantage. And no I am not saying that GWs games are well balanced.

 

Spaming the strongest units is not GWs lack of balance it is your urge to win in the possibly easiest way possible. With that logic all units would need the same profile to "balance" it.

[TheWolfLord]

 

 

 

 

Handwaving everything is just as easy. We don't know how much of an efford they put into it.

 

now am not sure how many people were vistiing tyranid/chaos or IG forums back in 6th. Ton of people were trying to fix the books. Work was done, as was testing, points and rules were being worked on etc. Out of all of it one thing was found out, that it is reeaallly hard to make people home brew armies, specially when it makes them better. And I mean this on a FLGS/hobby center , as no tournament I know of ever was ok to accept a home brew army being played.

Homebrew stuff not being commonly accepted? Shocking! That really wasn't the topic here. ^^

well if you are sending GW any propsed rules changes, you are sending them home brew rules. It is exactly that. And GW reacts the same way other companies react to such stuff. They ignore it at best, and at worse you just killed an idea[for lets say a CCG card].

Who said anything about sending GW specific rule changes and expecting them to use them tho? :huh:

Again, that wasn't the topic at all.

Once again Jeske I think you've missed the point. Why should GW sift through countless forums online when there's a direct route fto them If you wanted to pass on your feedback. Feedback isn't trying to redesign the game or units and I wouldn't blame them for ignoring posts that did that.

 

Feedback is using both your anecdotal and statistic evidence to say a unit or faction may be too powerful or not good enough. After that it's up to the rules team to decide if they agree and what they are going to do about it.

 

Is it any wonder that large FW Lords of War were trashed when one of their main avenues of feedback are ITC, Adepticon and Nova who ban units over a certain power level. If those event didn't believe those Lord of War were too powerful they wouldn't ban them in the first place (see my point?).

 

You can whine and complain all you want but if you aren't willing to get involved with GW and pass feedback to them then you're as cupable as those who make knee jerk reaction complaints at everything they can't destroy easily.

Edited November 28, 2017 by TheWolfLord

[Gentlemanloser]

GK players sent feedback months ago.

 

After the codex dropped.

 

It has all been seemingly ignored.

[Frater Cornelius]

GK players sent feedback months ago.

 

After the codex dropped.

 

It has all been seemingly ignored.

Or too late to fix. Books are made quite a bit in advance.

[Gentlemanloser]

That would imply the razorback changes et all were already set when codex GK dropped.

 

If that was the case, why not include them in the codex?

[Irbis]

Regardles of how well balanced a system is, there will always be a group that will abuse its weaknesses to get the slightest advantage. And no I am not saying that GWs games are well balanced.

 

Spaming the strongest units is not GWs lack of balance it is your urge to win in the possibly easiest way possible. With that logic all units would need the same profile to "balance" it.

 

Again, read what Jeske said. No one is arguing for 'same profile' strawman. People would be completely fine if the units were in at least shouting distance of each other. As it is, you can pull units out of say Eldar codex almost at random, have it go against optimized, strongest unit spam from Grey Knight or Deathwatch army, and it would still likely have a good chance of winning. Is that okay situation for you?

 

Ditto for nerfs like Commissars or Conscripts, both units were stomped on so hard they are not even remotely balanced now, their entries in codex might as well be blank space now because both units actively harm armies that take them. Again, how is that even remotely okay way to balance anything? Is asking to, I don't know, having them be weak but actually useful units too much to ask?

[DuskRaider]

I can't tell you how glad I am that they raised the points cost of my FW Felblade and Scabiethrax to a ridiculous level compared to GW Baneblades and Shadow Swords... woo, man. I'm extremely thankful. Seriously, it's as if GW wants to push the player base away from FW products.

[Leif Bearclaw]

 

Or too late to fix. Books are made quite a bit in advance.

 

Then what was the point of CA this early into 8th? If they effectively have to decide what to alter before there's an opportunity to see what needs changing, then CA cannot deliver on the balance changes/adaptive rules that were promised, because they cannot take any feedback on board in time.

[Blindhamster]

 

Regardles of how well balanced a system is, there will always be a group that will abuse its weaknesses to get the slightest advantage. And no I am not saying that GWs games are well balanced.

 

Spaming the strongest units is not GWs lack of balance it is your urge to win in the possibly easiest way possible. With that logic all units would need the same profile to "balance" it.

 

Again, read what Jeske said. No one is arguing for 'same profile' strawman. People would be completely fine if the units were in at least shouting distance of each other. As it is, you can pull units out of say Eldar codex almost at random, have it go against optimized, strongest unit spam from Grey Knight or Deathwatch army, and it would still likely have a good chance of winning. Is that okay situation for you?

 

Ditto for nerfs like Commissars or Conscripts, both units were stomped on so hard they are not even remotely balanced now, their entries in codex might as well be blank space now because both units actively harm armies that take them. Again, how is that even remotely okay way to balance anything? Is asking to, I don't know, having them be weak but actually useful units too much to ask?

 

 

The commissar had to change, no way was it acceptable to have effectively fearless guard all over the place. However the model the commisar kills should be taken from the battleshock deaths (so he kills 1, you roll morale twice and take the better result, if models still die, reduce the number of models that die by 1 as the commisar already killed one).