New Feedback Mail to GW

[Chronos Darkhelmet]

So, here we are again. Time has passed, things have changed, Errata & FAQs are out again, and GK got their n-th free nerf for the faults of others (though we'd thank GW for having excluded us from the Smite nerf LOL).

 

In addition, GK got no updates along with some other armies, since according GW the GDs didn't receive any complaint about GK rules. The problems are that (i) GK date back to the beginning of 8th Edition while other non-updated armies were born in 8th in the last three months, and (ii) the international community *did* send GW *a lot of complaints* through feedback mails.

 

For these reasons, the Italian GK community decided to write a new feedback mail for GW, proposing the same points to be addressed anew enclosed within more acid frontmatter and backmatter. Here below you can find what we are sending to the GW FAQ mail address (40kfaq@gwplc.com), please feel free to contribute to the spam (just remember to change "Italian" with "International" or "[insert your country]") :D

 

Dear Games Workshop,

 

this is a new feedback mail produced from the Italian Grey Knights (GK henceforth) community in response to the errata & FAQs for Warhammer 40,000 released on April 16th. With this mail, we would like to express our DEEP DISAPPOINTMENT for not having received ANY update to our units in order to improve our internal balance, which we feel to be really needed at this point of the 8th Edition. Also reading OFFICIAL comments of yours on your OFFICIAL Facebook page about GK not needing an internal fixing for you not having received "any new questions that needed addressing this time round" is deeply saddening for us. This is in fact a FAKE STATEMENT, since you received PLENTY of feedback about GK that needed to be addressed from both our local community and the international one. Thus, although we are "grateful" for you not having nerfed us with the straight applications of errata such as the final version of the Smite (former) beta rule, we are deeply concerned about even the playability of our Codex after the introduction of the so-called "Alpha Strike Beta Nerf", which leaves us with VERY POOR tactical options since we are an army that focuses on the aspects that are currently the MOST PENALIZED in the whole game (i.e. alternative entering from reserves, psychic phase and melee). In addition to this, since NOT A SINGLE POINT of our previous feedback was taken into account for this FAQ round, we would WARMLY invite you to reconsider the lack of Errata & FAQs for GK and to release them IN SHORT after this mail. Among the points that need to be addressed, the major ones are:

 

1) improve our psychic phase by allowing us to attempt casting AT LEAST each power (with possibly the exception of the mortal-wound dealers) TWICE a turn rather than once;

 

2) exclude us from the "Alpha Strike Beta Nerf", e.g. by treating our Teleport Strike like the Raven Guard Ambush;

 

3) give our Librarians access to another psychic discipline such as the Space Marine Librarius (i.e. the Thousand Sons concept);

 

4) increase both the range of Purifiers' Cleansing Flame to 6" AND their profile Attacks and Ld values by +1 per model, OR give them a MASSIVE point decrease (or at least any combination of these things);

 

5) MASSIVELY decrease the point cost of our Terminators, since they are CLOSE TO UNPLAYABILITY in a game in which the spam of high-S, good-AP, multi-D shooting weapons is NORMALITY; also, bring back their old Ld, since their current one is TOTALLY OUT OF BACKGROUND;

 

6) in case the psychic rule of one is not overwritten, MASSIVELY decrease the point cost of units that we share with Space Marines that are BRUTALLY overpriced just for the "fault" to be Psykers (referring in particular to Techmarines and Dreadnoughts of any kind);

 

7) give Interceptors the keyword FLY;

 

8) allow Dreadknights to do not suffer the -1 penalty to shoot after having moved or entered from reserves;

 

9) TOTALLY rework the psycannon (should be AT LEAST Heavy 6 as the assault cannon) AND the incinerator (as is, it is UNPLAYABLE by an army deep-striking at more than 9" from the enemy), OR give them a MASSIVE point decrease; also, bring some point costs of equipment shared with SM (e.g., the plasma cannon) in line with their last updates;

 

10) give us a way to collect extra CPs OR a way to recover them during the game (IF NOT BOTH).

 

We sincerely hope that this time your attention will be focused on these issues that we continuously find in our games, and that therefore we are not left back again until September 2018. Although it is actually clear that you believe that GK are the most balanced army in the game, since you only made few changes that (except for the almost useless Terminator point decrease) have only been nerfs, we assure you that there's nothing less real. This thesis is further supported from the fact that no one uses pure GK armies in competition with good results, and ever more people are giving up with GK. But we already sent you tons of feedback that you decided to ignore, probably because you only consider the feedback from tournaments where, as already affirmed, no GK have good results. This means one of the following:

 

- you are incompetent;

- you are in mala fides.

 

We would be therefore more than happy to get proof of the opposite.

 

Best wishes,

The Italian Grey Knights Community

Many thanks in advance for the contribution! ;)

[Danarc]

As I told, I'm not sure that GW considers our feedback, but I'm always in this kind of advices. 

And, as part of the Italian community for me the letter is perfect.

 

;)

[Halandaar]

If I'm honest, it looks and reads like a rant in a British tabloid newspaper. Capitalising ever other word makes the group look like children throwing a hissy fit, not like players providing considered feedback.

 

I'm sure many will say it's the content that counts rather than the formatting, but both matter. Consider advising the authors to format it like an actual letter if you want it to be taken seriously.

[Chronos Darkhelmet]

Hi Halandaar,

 

thanks for the advice. Unfortunately I do not know very well who the authors of that mail are, I will do my best to pass the info though. However, I suspect that the tone of the text is willingly put in that form.

 

In fact, AFAIR the 1st community feedback mail was tailored as an actual letter, and the net result of it has been that simply GW decided to ignore it for some reasons (arriving at - deliberately? - trolling GK players on social media with sentences like "oh y'kno, no updates for GK 'cause we didn't receive anything to address"). Therefore, my thought is that the current mail was written that way intentionally.

 

Of course you are totally free to disagree with the contents, and send GW your feedback arranged in the form that you feel most suited for the scope Please feel also free to rework the contents of the Italian feedback mail as you wish (it is not IP-covered after all )

[Danarc]

Maybe a different tone e-mail could catch the appropriate interest since, according to dakkadakka forum, it seems that GW will rely on big event and tournaments and they organiser as you can see when LVO help guy REECE said:

 

 

the proper way to play GK is with AM allies, and that playing pure GK lists is the “wrong way to play”.

GK should not be using Smite more than once or twice a turn, as they have other more useful powers to use instead.

Playing pure GK is very challenging but that is not because they aren't good, just because they (like most elite armies) lack some of the essential tools you need to succeed in the hyper-aggressive 8th ed competitive meta

[Gentlemanloser]

GW have actually stated they didn't receive any complaints about GK rules??

 

What is this, I don't even...

 

Edit: That quote from Reece is so much crap.  And these are the guys that playtest rules for GW.

[Danarc]

GW have actually stated they didn't receive any complaints about GK rules??

 

What is this, I don't even...

 

Edit: That quote from Reece is so much crap.  And these are the guys that playtest rules for GW.

I think that they didn't receive any complaints about GK rules IN TOURNAMENTS, since no one play GK in tournament

[Panzer]

Edit: That quote from Reece is so much crap.  And these are the guys that playtest rules for GW.

 

Well in the context of the current meta what he said is right. However that doesn't mean GK are fine the way they are. Far from it. Also I don't like Reece anyway so I don't give much about what he says. ^^

[Gentlemanloser]

GK should not use smite more than once or twice...

 

The bare bones GK army will have 5 casters.  With two HQs that can cast 2+ powers, so that's two smites right there.  Once Sanctuary and GoI (possibly Hammerhand) is done, we're left with nothing else but Smite.

 

On all our other units.

 

And yeah, the 'right' way to play every Imperial army is with AM...

[Adeptus]

This letter is just going to be dismissed as a rant.

 

The best way to be heard is to put your arguments forward in a considered, evidence based way with a neutral tone.

 

And Interceptors should not have fly. They step through the warp, not fly through the air.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's practically the same. Bamphing through the warp should allow Interceptors to fall back from combat like jump troops.  Possibly the only fluff thing it shouldn't do is allow you to assault Fliers.  But then jump troops possibly shouldn't be able to do that either.

[Adeptus]

It's practically the same. Bamphing through the warp should allow Interceptors to fall back from combat like jump troops.  Possibly the only fluff thing it shouldn't do is allow you to assault Fliers.  But then jump troops possibly shouldn't be able to do that either.

Yeah, I can see them being able to fall back like flying troops, but I can't imagine them assaulting fliers. After playing Space Marine I don't have too much of a problem with 'flying' troops assaulting fliers, it was awesome to watch the stormboys crawling all over the valkyries lol.

[Panzer]

If they'd get the FLY keyword it would also mean that they'd get easier hit by anti-air stuff and harder hit by anti-ground stuff (which is rathe rare to be fair). That wouldn't make any sense. ^^

[Gentlemanloser]

Like Jetbikes?

[Panzer]

Jetbikes arguably "fly" as much as units with Jump Packs and Jet Packs. Marines teleporting around don't.

[Gentlemanloser]

Does the Repulsor have FLY?  I think the Fly keyword also covers grav tanks/etc that just hover above the ground and don't actually get up in the air, like Fliers.

 

It's all a bit abstract anyway.

[Waking Dreamer]

This letter is just going to be dismissed as a rant.The best way to be heard is to put your arguments forward in a considered, evidence based way with a neutral tone.And Interceptors should not have fly. They step through the warp, not fly through the air.

I highly agree here.

 

Sure you can send it as is, if it makes you feel a bit happy to blast GW through the internet.

I'll be real here, you/we don't sign their paychecks, you're strangers to them...have you ever helped a stranger you will never ever see again right after they blasted you for some reason? To the authors of the letter, realise you are not their project team leader, manager or performance evaluator,  on them means nothing to them...They don't even have to finish reading you email before trashing and they still get paid the same.

 

Recommendations on improvements:

1. Evidence/ mathhammer for every problem you listed (dont rely on just how you "feel" the unit / rule is poor)

2. Mathhammer to back up your proposed solutions

3. Examples of precedence from other codex / rules as reference to changes 

4. Clear, concise format with a neutral tone.

[Panzer]

Does the Repulsor have FLY?  I think the Fly keyword also covers grav tanks/etc that just hover above the ground and don't actually get up in the air, like Fliers.

 

It's all a bit abstract anyway.

 

Yes and Hover tanks are often depicted as almost literally flying abover forests and stuff in artwork and fluff so anti-air certainly makes sense against such units.

[Adeptus]

For something like a Falcon 'fly' totally makes sense. Not as much for a Repulsor which doesn't look nearly as 'airborne' as a Falcon. But it's GW, and they just got a bit too excited about their new toy and thought "wouldn't it be cool if it could fly?!" and yes, that's literally how they come up with rules.

[Panzer]

To be fair, not even the real flyer from the Marine range look particilarly airborne lol

[Adeptus]

lol!

[Holier Than Thou]

Send what you want but just be prepared to be ignored. Again.

[Danarc]

 

This letter is just going to be dismissed as a rant.The best way to be heard is to put your arguments forward in a considered, evidence based way with a neutral tone.And Interceptors should not have fly. They step through the warp, not fly through the air.

I highly agree here.

 

Sure you can send it as is, if it makes you feel a bit happy to blast GW through the internet...but I 100% guarantee you they won't derive any positive changes from it.

 

I'll be real here, you/we don't sign their paychecks, you're strangers to them...have you ever helped a stranger you will never ever see again right after they verbally blasted you? To the authors of the letter, realise you are not their project team leader, manager or performance evaluator going nuclear on them means nothing to them...They don't even have to finish reading you email before trashing and they still get paid the same.

 

Recommendations on improvements:

1. Possible solutions to every problem you listed

2. Mathhammer to back up your proposed solutions

3. Examples of precedence from other coders rules

4. Clear, concise format with a neutral tone.

 

I could agree with you if our last e-mail had been considered. But they trashed it or didn't read it. So, in this moment, I think that a less polite e-mail could be more useful. 

[Panzer]

A less polite mail is NEVER useful.

[Waking Dreamer]

 

 

I could agree with you if our last e-mail had been considered. But they trashed it or didn't read it. So, in this moment, I think that a less polite e-mail could be more useful. 

 

 

I feel your frustration, but in what way would it actually be more useful? As I said, we have no power over them. How does emailing them in a more offensive way threaten them to get things done?

 

Remember your are NOT emailing the project team under you as their boss to get crap done faster and better. You / we, are not even on the level of a paying customer at a retail store complaining about a faulty product.

 

Actions such as emailing customer service, then calling customer service, then calling the admin section to be transferred to the department section, repeatedly blasting the same issue at 3-4 different employees on the same day...as to why the product with your proof of purchase is faulty / unsatisfactory to you (making the staff's day hell). Where, being repeatedly offensive so that it is finally escalated to the store/department manager...where they will approve a full refund / replacement, as they call you back smoothing things over, and apologising profusely for all the inconvenience you "suffered."

 

^ No, we don't even have that type of offensive customer power...

 

Emailing politely, rudely or not at all, track record so far says the result could be all the same in the end. However, if you do blast offensive emails at them there is a possibility...that no matter how much  they currently think or care about Grey Knights...there is definitely the possibility of them caring EVEN less. That's my perspective.