New Feedback Mail to GW

[Danarc]

I don't think that it is offensive, probably the problem is this. I think, like the author I guess, that the real two options are that wrote in the text. 
Which other option could be? Maybe it is possible to change incompetent, but my really opinion is that they are not doing their work well. Maybe we could write it more politely, but this should be clear from the letter in my opinion. 

[Halandaar]

I mean, it doesn't help that this "list of demands" contains a lot of nonsense.

• "Exempt us from Deep Strike nerf" - Why? Other Deep Striking armies are just as badly effected; ask them not to implement it because it's a terrible change, don't legitimise it by asking for an exemption.
• "Incinerators suck on Deep Striking units" - So does every flamer on every deep striking unit in the game; it's not what you use them for. Pick something else.
• "Make incinerators cheaper" - It's already a +1S heavy flamer for less points.
• "Match the price of Plasma Cannons etc with SM" - What? It's already the same price.
• "Give Interceptors FLY" - It makes no sense for them to be able to charge jetfighters and be more susceptible to anti-air fire.
• "Make our Librarians able to cast the same power twice" - Why? Nobody else can, not even Eldar Farseers, the best psykers in the galaxy.
• "Give us a way to get more CPs" - They just did that, you get 2 extra per Batallion and 3 extra per Brigade.
• "Terminators suck because of Plasma, so make our terminators cheaper" - Terminators as a whole do need adjusting, but I'm not convinced "my opponent brought weapons that counter my units" is a good reason on it's own.
• "Let NDK ignore -1 to hit when moving" - Why? Nobody else gets that on their walking weapons platforms. If you really must have move and shoot with impunity, make them Assault weapons.

I mean, if this is the level of feedback offered then it's (IMO) not hard to see why it was dismissed out of hand the first time around. Adding a veneer of snarkiness won't improve what is essentially just a manifesto of whingeing.

 

I'm not saying there aren't weaknesses in the army and obvious disparities in terms of what you pay and what you get for that, but many of the proposed solutions are nonsensical at best, demanding bespoke responses to game-wide issues, or setting GK units on a pedestal above comparable units across other armies. It's pretty much a perfect example of why the average player shouldn't be a game designer; because everything is viewed through the prism of "My Army", not with the whole game in mind.

[Danarc]

I mean, it doesn't help that this "list of demands" contains a lot of nonsense.

• "Exempt us from Deep Strike nerf" - Why? Other Deep Striking armies are just as badly effected; ask them not to implement it because it's a terrible change, don't legitimise it by asking for an exemption. - But RG has SFTS and Cult still can DS like in first turn. Maybe we can change the wording but the sense is right. We have ONLY 24" weapons (except veichles obviously) because we are a close combat army. We need DS and like other army we deserve an exception. 
• "Incinerators suck on Deep Striking units" - So does every flamer on every deep striking unit in the game; it's not what you use them for. Pick something else.
• "Make incinerators cheaper" - It's already a +1S heavy flamer for less points.
• "Match the price of Plasma Cannons etc with SM" - What? It's already the same price. -  No. We pay twin heavy plasma cannon on SR 60. SM pays their own 34. Same problem on tech marines (that have psychic power but cost more than TWICE).
• "Give Interceptors FLY" - It makes no sense for them to be able to charge jetfighters and be more susceptible to anti-air fire. - I agree but they should have the possibility to do every other action that a fly unit do, except assault fighters. FLY is the only KW useful and I remember you that even the repulsor got it. 
• "Make our Librarians able to cast the same power twice" - Why? Nobody else can, not even Eldar Farseers, the best psykers in the galaxy. - To have some rule that make us a real psychic focussed army? I would prefer giving to our librarians librarius discipline, though. 
• "Give us a way to get more CPs" - They just did that, you get 2 extra per Batallion and 3 extra per Brigade. - No, that is a way to give non elite army more CP. We can't regain points even if EVERY other army has.
• "Terminators suck because of Plasma, so make our terminators cheaper" - Terminators as a whole do need adjusting, but I'm not convinced "my opponent brought weapons that counter my units" is a good reason on it's own. - ​Terminators suck because their cost. So a cheaper termy could help. If they want to make cheap all termy in the game I'm on.
• "Let NDK ignore -1 to hit when moving" - Why? Nobody else gets that on their walking weapons platforms. If you really must have move and shoot with impunity, make them Assault weapons. - Why not? Giving them power of machine spirit could be a good way and less power than make his weapons assault. But if we want to ask for a DK and GMDK with assault weapons for me it is ok.

I mean, if this is the level of feedback offered then it's (IMO) not hard to see why it was dismissed out of hand the first time around. Adding a veneer of snarkiness won't improve what is essentially just a manifesto of whingeing.

 

I'm not saying there aren't weaknesses in the army and obvious disparities in terms of what you pay and what you get for that, but many of the proposed solutions are nonsensical at best, demanding bespoke responses to game-wide issues, or setting GK units on a pedestal above comparable units across other armies. It's pretty much a perfect example of why the average player shouldn't be a game designer; because everything is viewed through the prism of "My Army", not with the whole game in mind.

moreover in the other letter this community asked for something like the RG traits and others more particular things. 

In my opinion those exposed in the letter are less gamebreakinig, but for me we can send them 100 times the old letter. 

 

I keep on thinking that they will not read the letter and, anyway, we should, as politely you want, say them that they are not making a good work for GK. 

[techsoldaten]

Let's be constructive about this. There are ways to get what you want.

 

- Writing a letter is useful. A lot of people writing letters are more likely to get noticed.

 

- Tone is important. The Rules team is not the biggest, most important group at GW, and it's clear they have a lot on their plate. Getting them to fight our battle is easier if we make them feel like they are helping, not if they feel threatened.

 

- A private letter is not very visible. We can get more people involved if we are public about the concerns.

 

- Shorter is better. Attention spans affect what you are trying to say.

 

Here's a suggested edit to the original. I suggest everyone send a copy and update this thread with a short message stating you sent a copy to GW. Feel free to adapt it to your own language.

 

The address to send it to is 40kfaq@gwplc.com.

 

Dear Games Workshop,
 

Hoping this message finds you well. Writing to express concerns about Grey Knights, in response to the errata and FAQs for Warhammer 40k.
 

Since the publication of the 8th edition Codex, Grey Knights armies have some serious issues which make them challenging to consider for competitive or friendly games. This disappoints me, as I have invested a great deal of time, resources and energy in building my army. I really care about the whole 40k universe, and want an army I can play.

I am writing to highlight some of the issues, in the hopes that they will be addressed soon.

 

1) Our army is supposed to have superior psychic abilities. Every unit has psychic powers, but we are often limited in what we can cast due to the rules limiting the use of powers to once a turn in matched play. Please consider an exception for Grey Knights, allowing us to cast the same power 2 or more times per player turn.
 

2) Lacking access to units with long range firepower, our army operates most effectively at close range. The beta rules for deep strike affect Grey Knights inordinately. Please consider exempting us from those rules.
 

3) Our Librarians have access to the same psychic powers as everyone else in the army, making them a little redundant. Please consider granting them access to other Psychic disciplines, such as those in the Space Marines Codex. This would put them on par with Sorcerers from the Thousand Sons.
 

4) Many players in the community feel Purifiers are heavily overcosted, to the point they have no place in the game. Please consider increasing the range of Cleansing Flame to 6 inches and their profile attacks and Leadership values by +1 per model. Alternatively, please consider reducing their points cost.
 

5) Terminators are an iconic unit for Grey Knights armies, but they really suffer because of the prevalence of high strength, armor piercing, multi-wound weapons in the game. It makes them almost unplayable. Please consider reducing the cost of our Terminators and increasing their leadership.

 

6) The cost of Dreadnoughts and Techmarines is out of line with those units in other armies. While we realize they benefit from access to psychic powers, they are typically not in a position to use them because of range. Access to psychic powers should not be a negative that stops people from using these units, please consider adjusting their points to make them more playable.
 

7) Interceptios really suffer from the lack of the FLY keyword. While we realize they are not running around with jump packs, please consider adding it.
 

8) Dreadknights are really important for Grey Knights armies, given the cost of other units in the Codex. Their weapons are relatively short range, and they suffer a to hit modifier for moving. Please consider a rule that eliminates the negative modifier to hit when they move, this would go a long way to making the army more playable.

 

9) The Psycannon and the Incinerator are the weapons Grey Knights players have to fight heavy infantry and vehicles. Compared with the options available to other armies that perform the same role, they cost a lot. Please consider adjusting the number of shots / range of these weapons, or simply reducing the points costs. As it stands, a Plasma Cannon in a vanilla Space Marines list is a lot more performant.
 

10) The recent changes to command points for batallions are good, but we wish they benefitted Grey Knights players more. As it stands, a GK army is likely to have a single Batallion due to the high cost of HQ options. 5 command points doesn't do much for our army, despite the fact we are supposed to be the Imperium's elite. Please consider giving us a way to collect additional CPs during the game (perhaps through a warlord trait, artefact, or special rule attached to certain characters) or simply to recover the ones we used. As it stands, this is the biggest disadvantage to playing Grey Knights.
 

The points in this letter have been widely discussed by Grey Knights players internationally, and there's almost universal concern for the fundamental mechanics of the game. I would be happy to discuss these challenges directly with your team or engage in any playtesting to help find a more 'sane' set of rules / points costs for our army. Grey Knights armies are supposed to be challenging to play, but it's almost impossible to do much with them in the current meta.
 

I realize you have a lot of competing priorities and rules changes take time to be implemented. My hope is that our army gets the attention it needs, and I'm more than happy to assist in making it happen.
 

All the best,

[ Yours Truly ]

[techsoldaten]

Sent a copy to 40kfaq@gwplc.com

[Corvus Fortis]

I agree with everyone. I wrote a 4 pages letter where I tried to give as detailed information as possible, why some things didn't work. I understand that it is just one letter, and they recieve hundred thousands of them. And most of them are from Space Marines, Chaos, Eldar, etc. Of course, one letter is nothing. But I wasn't alone, right? And what they say after that? They didn't have time to accomplish everything? They retested GK codex and found it okay? They know that GK is not good but never considered them a stand alone force so they don't care? No, they said that no letters were about GK. So how am I supposed to feel? Well, my fury is beyond measure.

 

But still writing them letters full of rage is not a good choice. They don't care if one player quits hobby. Or 10. Or 100. We indeed do not have power over them. "Don't like - don't play" that's what they can say. Civility is required. Even if they are wrong with us.

 

 On the letter itself:

 

1. Psychic focus is ok. Really, it handicaps us, but we always can cast smite. Let's be real here, we can only one really good spell - Gate of Infinity. One good spell - Sanctuary, but it is vital only to GMNDK. Hammerhand is situative and probably the only spell that really suffers from psychic focus. Astral Aim is even more situatvie. Only VenDread combo really needs it. Purge Soul and Votex are nice additions, but they are too random to rely on. Most of time I'd go for our simple smite, because it is 100% a wound unlike Purge Soul or more reliable to cast unlike Vortex. Psychic focus is bad, but not something we cannot live with.

 

2. Agree on alpha-strike nerf. Yes, every army will suffer from it, but nobody like GK. There are three armies that has alphastike as a core design - Genestealers, Grey Knights and Blood Angels. They remembered about former... And Blood Angels, I'm afraid, became one of the reasons this rule appeared. But why not just nerf Death Company then?

 

3. I'm sure, there won't be something like that for purifiers. They consider mortal wounds OP. But in fact, they simply made sources of them easily spammable. But giving them second attack back would be at least something.

 

4. Libby with normal smite and Librarius would be okay. Still only for friendly games. Nothing gamechanging.

 

5. Terminators are okay, but overcosted. Don't understand why people call them garbage. Dream about them returning as viable troop choices. 

 

6. Yes, we are still the only codex that didn't recieve any point drops. 

 

7. Interceptors do not need fly. They still have their strengths as non-flyer units. Like psychic focus - not critical.

 

8. "Ignore heavy" won't save dreadknight. Degenerating model with 12 wounds, t6 and 5++ with 130 pts base will never payoff. They need 4++ base at least first or t7. GMNDK is okay already with 3+ and reroll 1's.

 

9. Twin Plasma Cannon actually costs almost twice for GK. Psycannon loses to stormbolter in everything point by point. Incinerators suffers as much as any flamer. If it was something like psilencer, I'd think about purgation squad with 4 running and shooting.

 

10. We already have +2 CP for battalion. Considering, our key stratagems are all overcosted, this is still not enough, but already much better. One more time to use Heed or Psybolt or a couple of rerolls can be decisive.

 

In the end, we need two things:

 

1. Point drops.

2. Some tools we still lack like effective heavy targets fighting or avoiding screens. 

 

I'd happily changed psychic brotherhood for rites of teleportation - go out more than 3+d6 rather than 9 form enemy models. 

 

But GW has already showed our efforts are futile. GK have poor rules > nobody play them at tournaments > no feedback to GW > no rules correction > GK have poor rules. The circle is unbreakable. 

[Danarc]

 

But GW has already showed our efforts are futile. GK have poor rules > nobody play them at tournaments > no feedback to GW > no rules correction > GK have poor rules. The circle is unbreakable. 

THIS.

It's sad but I strongly agree. 

[Chronos Darkhelmet]

Hi again everybody,

 

sorry for not having interacted anymore yesterday :) Anyway, let's try to make a bit of order in what emerged :)

 

First of all, I remember everybody that since I'm not the author of that e-mail and don't have much interaction with them, what follows is *only* my personal opinion and impression on the situation. If in the future the actual authors of the mail text will share theirs with us, I will be more than happy to report that here :)

 

Now, it's true that the "blasting for free" strategy is 95% the *worst* one. However, I guess that this time an exception has been made by the authors for the following reasons:

 

1. nobody of us is a GW employee at game-designing level, so this is not our job; we are primarily people who enjoy a wargame because we love a peculiar faction of it, hence it's not intended that we only live for 40K matches. Therefore, a blasting strategy that would be a *fail* in any working context may here be intended with totally different perspectives (I understand that this 1st point is of minor explanation though);
 

2. *much more* importantly, a feedback community mail exposed in kindly, helpful manner already proved to be a *fail*, since GW cared (apparently) nothing about it.

 

In support to these arguments, I can tell you that, among the GK Italian community, the mail as it was had a nice feedback and a fair number of players decided to send it acid as it is. Again, this is just the feeling of *one small* community from *one* country, so please feel free to adjust the tones of your mails to what you think is more suited :)

 

What is to me incredible enough, though, is that a number of users here ruled out the suggestions to improve GK playability as "useless, incredible", etc... Now, I don't know the exact reason behind this, but seriously, in the previous feedback thread I remember people asking for the Raven Guard Chapter trait to be extended to GK in order to improve their survivability! Now, either the users who negatively commented the suggestions from the Italian community are new to this section of B&C and therefore unaware of the previous discussion (in which case I would encourage them to retrieve it and read it), or they already negatively commented the previous initiative too (in which case I totally understand their coherence, sorry for having in case lost your previous feedback discussions). But, if they *positively* commented the bulls***s that came out last time just because they were written in a *polite* way to GW, well... I simply don't understand the argument of "being polite to propose any possible broken rule, while seeing one's own suggestions totally dismissed if adopting an angry tone" :)

 

My *personal* feeling about all the argument is that:

- 1st community mail got summarily dismissed by GW even if it was written in the most polite tone possible;

- as such, the authors of this 2nd mail decided to go for the blasting strategy in order to recall GW attention on the previous one (like "we are shouting at you to get your attention, so that you come back to our previous call and patiently read what we wrote last time!");

- all of this because, if opting for a solution that would have been *identical* to our 1st community mail (i.e. basically copy & paste the same contents), probably the effect would have just been the same (i.e. GW ignoring us since their GDs prefer to behave like 5-yr old kids fed by nazi hierarchs disguised as tournament organizers).

 

So said, as a simple GK player at tournament level I *strongly* believe in Corvus Fortis' idea about how GW's vicious circle for feedback works. Therefore, it is totally possible that *any* feedback mail written in *any* tone (from angelic choir to tabloid rant) will simply be systematically ignored. Nevertheless, it's worth for me the effort to try by wasting one of your coffee breaks in sending a feedback to them, just in case somebody there reads one of our mails by error ;)

 

My two cents :bye:

[Corvus Fortis]

I just read post on WH Community about FAQs. They told that changes to Psychic Focus final rule was based on GK and TS feedback. So, in fact, they heard us. But only for this one rule. I find this... well, confusing. No GK on tournaments, right? So it didn't come from them. If they hate us so much, they could ignore us at all - give it just to TS. However, they ignored us in any other matter. In the end, it seems to me, we indeed sent not enough letters and got lost.

 

So I suggest everyone to send a letter at least about Tactical Reserves beta-rule. Maybe, fate of GK as playable faction at all is still in our hands. That inspired me to write another letter. I promised myself to give up, if nothing will change in FAQ. But, in fact, we got baby-smite untouched and +2 CP. We didn't got nerfed in non-beta rules, while other armies got a bit down with death of poxfarm, a bit more expensive Reapers and eldar psykers, Warp Time nerf and so on. 

 

I'm going to AoS for summer and will wait to see how this situation resolves in september. Not that I expect any changes to C:GK anymore, but beta-rules still have chances to be denied. There are a lof of players in many factions that are displeased with them. Not just us. 

[Chronos Darkhelmet]

I just read post on WH Community about FAQs. They told that changes to Psychic Focus final rule was based on GK and TS feedback. So, in fact, they heard us. But only for this one rule. I find this... well, confusing. No GK on tournaments, right? So it didn't come from them. If they hate us so much, they could ignore us at all - give it just to TS. However, they ignored us in any other matter. In the end, it seems to me, we indeed sent not enough letters and got lost.

 

So I suggest everyone to send a letter at least about Tactical Reserves beta-rule. Maybe, fate of GK as playable faction at all is still in our hands. That inspired me to write another letter. I promised myself to give up, if nothing will change in FAQ. But, in fact, we got baby-smite untouched and +2 CP. We didn't got nerfed in non-beta rules, while other armies got a bit down with death of poxfarm, a bit more expensive Reapers and eldar psykers, Warp Time nerf and so on. 

 

I'm going to AoS for summer and will wait to see how this situation resolves in september. Not that I expect any changes to C:GK anymore, but beta-rules still have chances to be denied. There are a lof of players in many factions that are displeased with them. Not just us. 

 

Quoting everything on this BUT that single point, since it has been a game-wide gift (basically everyone else can access Battalions, if not worse Brigades) ;) In the Italian mail, we were meaning for *totally extra* CPs and/or a way to recover the expended ones ;)

[Panzer]

Yes everyone has access to it but the thing is that some armies (namely Astra Militarum) ALREADY had access to so many CP that they had too many to spend if they wanted to. There's only so much you can spend them on unless you're a super CP hungry Codex like Blood Angels. Them getting even more barely changes anything but elite armies getting more has a way bigger effect. All we need now is worthwhile Stratagems. ^^

[Gentlemanloser]

It just cements the 'soup' of dipping an AM detachment for CP though.

 

The reason GW gave for the increase (+1CP detachments were too attractive) is bogus.  Especially with the Rule of Three.

[Corvus Fortis]

Yes, armies like AM, oversaturated with CP, didn't got as much from it as we did. Testers' commentary states that it was the point of this change.

[Panzer]

I don't think anything will ever stop soups unless GW bans it completely in matched play (or at least tournaments). It's just how this edition is played.

[Capt. Mytre]

I don't think anything will ever stop soups unless GW bans it completely in matched play (or at least tournaments). It's just how this edition is played.

 

A solution isn't that hard to think up. If a list is a mono-list, it gains strong rules. This could be as simple as stratagems can only be used if your list contains only one army type (ie, <chapter> or <regiment>). Another option is granting crazy CP bonuses to mono-lists.

 

There are solutions, GW just has to think for a minute.

[Panzer]

I didn't say there aren't any solutions. I just don't think we'll ever see them.

I said multiple times elsewhere that I've liked to see stratagems for Imperium armies, Adeptus Astartes Armies, <Chapter> armies and the more specific you go the more stratagems you have access to. Of course for that the keywords would have to count army-wide, not just detachment-wide.

[Corvus Fortis]

I like AoS variant with limited points that can be spend for allies. Like only 25% of your army. Or only one allied detachment can be added. 

[newdigitalGK]

So really the only way for GK's to be noticed for for a mass entry into the big tournament scene with GK armies expecting to lose so wasting our money just to get new rules?

[Waking Dreamer]

Tabletop Tactics released their video discussion of the Big FAQ.

 

This is when they discuss the Deepstrike Beta rule:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo6VMmmdnyot=11m34s

 

 

Also, @25:36 - they are discussing alternate beta rules solutions/adjustments for particular armies, thematically encourage to revolve around deep-strike assaults. And below is an extract of them discussing how to "influence" GW most effectively in making changes you hope, such as with the new DS beta rule .

 

-----------------

 

Stiggs: "Now this is really important, all the Blood Angels players, all the Grey Knights players they need to be giving really specific examples of the difference it made to them, and what could have made those differences."

 

Chef: "Be constructive."

 

Sanger (a Blood Angels player): "That's how we get it folks."

 

Chef: "if you just start going...if you just start sending an email across going, 'You're rubbish, I've *** this, I've *** that, you're F***!' They're just going to go, yep yep - delete. Delete."

 

Lawrence (the 4-time No Retreat tournament champion): "Yeah, that doesn't work."

 

Chef: "Yeah, there's nothing constructive."

 

Sanger: "This is where we say don't despair, don't despair. But it's a challenge. It is a challenge."

 

--------------

[Holier Than Thou]

Tabletop Tactics released their video discussion of the Big FAQ.

 

This is when they discuss the Deepstrike Beta rule:

 

 

 

Also, @25:36 - they are discussing alternate beta rules solutions/adjustments for particular armies, thematically encourage to revolve around deep-strike assaults. And below is an extract of them discussing how to "influence" GW most effectively in making changes you hope, such as with the new DS beta rule .

 

-----------------

 

Stiggs: "Now this is really important, all the Blood Angels players, all the Grey Knights players they need to be giving really specific examples of the difference it made to them, and what could have made those differences."

 

Chef: "Be constructive."

 

Sanger (a Blood Angels player): "That's how we get it folks."

 

Chef: "if you just start going...if you just start sending an email across going, 'You're rubbish, I've *** this, I've *** that, you're F***!' They're just going to go, yep yep - delete. Delete."

 

Lawrence (the 4-time No Retreat tournament champion): "Yeah, that doesn't work."

 

Chef: "Yeah, there's nothing constructive."

 

Sanger: "This is where we say don't despair, don't despair. But it's a challenge. It is a challenge."

 

--------------

So they are suggesting we do exactly what many of us did originally which got completely ignored? That sounds like a great idea. Of course GW will listen this time because, er, reasons.

[Waking Dreamer]

 

So they are suggesting we do exactly what many of us did originally which got completely ignored? That sounds like a great idea. Of course GW will listen this time because, er, reasons.

 

 

The smite beta rule was adjusted for GKs wasn't it? The quality of the feedback is always important too.

 

Say, long-winded responses with little to no evidence / examples, or even multiple pages consisting of "listed demands" based on your "feelings", clearly doesn't / wont go far either. If you send out your resume 5 times looking for a job, but don't get the results - do you stop looking for a job? Or do you get tips to better improve your resume? 

 

But hey, this is a new thread about providing feedback if you want to do it. Not a thread about telling people NOT to give feedback because you already think it's hopeless.

[Sweetcurse]

We need to focus exclusively on requesting exemption from deep strike beta rule along with BA. it’s important to focus on reasonable reasons why we neee this, chiefly that GK flavor is greatly dependent on it as well as the army was made for DS. Not to mention how that was OUR THING last edition as well. Every other request needs to wait until a better time.

 

Furthermore, tbh, I firmly believe that terminators, jump pack infantry and other similar units from other armies(crisis suits,reivers) in general should be allowed to DS first turn as normal. None of those were breaking the game or winning tournaments really so why punish them further. It would also indirectly fix Termies.

[Sweetcurse]

Let’s flood, politely and repeatedly the inbox with this ONE request.

[Sweetcurse]

Totes! Who needs our main mechanism anyway with all the tournaments we win.

 

I’m sure my opponents would hate facing me if I can gate one unit into their deployment for them to shoot.

[Danarc]

Give any prize to one detachment army it’s absolutely good, but will kick GK out of any game. We can’t play alone in this moment.

And we need a new different codex.

 

Gate is only for 1 unit. Without a massive DS is quite useless unless you want kill that unit.

 

Moreover we were constructive and they ignored us. Twice.

 

If you think that it could be better we can update our first e-mail and send them again.

 

But the circuit previously described is still real.