New Feedback Mail to GW

[STTAB]

https://youtu.be/lo6VMmmdnyo

 

Well worth a watch.

 

Lawrence talks about GK being a codex problem. I think there was mention of doing a GK battle report. They always play mono faction an Lawrence likes his GK.

 

Tabletop tactics is one of the channels who get codexes in advance and put on the most pro battle reports with the highest viewer numbers for battle reports.

 

I suspect that their chat and future play test will have more influence.

[Soder]

 

Well worth a watch.

 

Lawrence talks about GK being a codex problem. I think there was mention of doing a GK battle report. They always play mono faction an Lawrence likes his GK.

 

Tabletop tactics is one of the channels who get codexes in advance and put on the most pro battle reports with the highest viewer numbers for battle reports.

 

I suspect that their chat and future play test will have more influence.

I will watch this when I have the time.

 

I’m going to keep asking GW to provide us with some more sample GK games because I think they’ve only shown us one battle report and that was around the time our codex was brand new and a lot has changed since then

[Adeptus]

No matter how upset you are, you've got to remain goal oriented.

 

If you want change, then you need to tone it down. Your correspondence needs to be polite, neutral toned, constructive and evidence based. You need numbers, specific examples, scenarios, etc if you want to be taken seriously. Do the math, show how on a per-points basis the internal and external balance of the codex is wrong.

 

If you want change, then you CAN'T AFFORD to give in to your emotions and rant. You can't make accusations. You can't be angry, even though you have every right to be. You are essentially begging for change here, begging to an indifferent overlord who has absolutely no reason to listen to your pleas. If you come at him with attitude he'll ignore you completely. Even worse, there exists the potential that the rules design team actually start to dread recieving mail from GK players, that they begin to actively dislike the player base, and start to ignore actual constructive feedback because the signal to noise ratio is so terrible.

 

No one wants that.

 

At the end of the day, I'm just a random dude on the internet. I can't tell you what to do. But the letter as outlined in the opening post, will get you nowhere. I promise.

[Corvus Fortis]

I agree completely. Let's just wait a bit and calm down. I am going to try a few lists with new beta rules in effect and post  reports here. I am 100% sure of the outcome, but I have to get evidence. 

[Waking Dreamer]

 

Well worth a watch.

 

Lawrence talks about GK being a codex problem. I think there was mention of doing a GK battle report. They always play mono faction an Lawrence likes his GK.

 

Tabletop tactics is one of the channels who get codexes in advance and put on the most pro battle reports with the highest viewer numbers for battle reports.

 

I suspect that their chat and future play test will have more influence.

@29:34 Lawrence sums up his thoughts on Grey Knights post-FAQ, and yes he does state Grey Knights do have codex issues and codex-specific changes need to happen (eg. Nemesis Strike Force rule allowing GK reserves to deep-strike in enemy DZ turn 1) there - rather than in the beta rules as they are a step in the right direction game-wide.

 

Bone also has one the best lines in the video:

 

Bone: "Maybe...maybe with all the beta rules going forward, it should just say - except Grey Knights. Grey Knights? They get a pass, don't worry about it..."

 

^ Probably my fav team member there, partially because one - he's a fellow Aussie, two - he is the funniest.

[Capt. Mytre]

 

https://youtu.be/lo6VMmmdnyo

 

Well worth a watch.

 

Lawrence talks about GK being a codex problem. I think there was mention of doing a GK battle report. They always play mono faction an Lawrence likes his GK.

 

Tabletop tactics is one of the channels who get codexes in advance and put on the most pro battle reports with the highest viewer numbers for battle reports.

 

I suspect that their chat and future play test will have more influence.

 

@29:34 Lawrence sums up his thoughts on Grey Knights post-FAQ, and yes he does state Grey Knights do have codex issues and changes need to happen (eg. Nemesis Strike Force rule allowing GK reserves to deep-strike in enemy DZ turn 1) there.

 

Bone also has one the best lines in the video:

 

Bone: "Maybe...maybe with all the beta rules going forward, it should just say - except Grey Knights. Grey Knights? They get a pass, don't worry about it..."

 

^ Probably my fav team member there, partially because one - he's a fellow Aussie, two - he is the funniest.

 

 

The thing is, as I agree, GK need a codex rewrite - but GW won't invalidate huge swathes of their printed codex to fix it. It will require a new codex release for us to be fixed, and I don't see that happening for years. A couple changes might see  us over till this happens, but I can't see anything on the level required actually happening to move the 8 or so units that are fighting for the same role/just flat uncompetitive.

 

Happy to be proven wrong.

[Gentlemanloser]

Hopefully we'll get Primaris at some point.

[Capt. Mytre]

Hopefully we'll get Primaris at some point.

 

No thanks. If the fix to the army is just replace all my GK stuff with primaris GK stuff, that pretty scummy on GW part.

[Danarc]

In few months the codexes will be alla released. Then sisten on new year.

Then a second wave of codex with new models in the same edition. We have to wait for a year, the new codex is arriving.

[Waking Dreamer]

I'd recommend that they could change the CP boosts to encourage a variety of army detachments.

 

Battle-forged Armies = 4 CPs

Battalion = 4 CPs

Brigade = 9 CPs (you don't need a boost!)

Vanguard / Outrider / Spearhead = 2 CPs

 

Basically, you're getting a CP boost at least once, probably twice if it's anything common other than a Brigade and HQ Command. That means you can get +1-3 CPs even without having to go battalion or brigade. Which means you don't have to leech on other codices to get those cheaper troop choices.

[Sweetcurse]

What if we could at least convince GW to allow T1 DS on GK if all detachments are GK?

 

I’d also like to see terminators in general from all armies exempt from this.

[Sweetcurse]

No it’s not, we’ve seen exemptions happen, and they clearly stated intention to not change it for certain armies. It’s absolutely in the realm given we’ve had that ability as a trait before that we get an exemption. I didn’t need playtest to know the smite nerf was bad for us and I don’t need it now.

[Waking Dreamer]

I’d also like to see terminators in general from all armies exempt from this.

 

Terminators definitely require a more valuable role in the meta. Who really uses them with just their standard 2+/5++ save, even in a semi-competitive environment? 

 

I wonder how good they would be if the 2+ save went back to 3+ saves on a 2d6. Armour modifiers are a thing now along with multi-damage shots, so units with the Sv2+ can be rolling their save on two dice. 

[Prot]

Well worth a watch.

Lawrence talks about GK being a codex problem. I think there was mention of doing a GK battle report. They always play mono faction an Lawrence likes his GK.

Tabletop tactics is one of the channels who get codexes in advance and put on the most pro battle reports with the highest viewer numbers for battle reports.

I suspect that their chat and future play test will have more influence.

Lawrence also just played in a tournament with an undefeated GK army. I think it’s a great idea to give GW your feedback, always. But a lot of what hurts GK also hurts any marines. I think to a degree some of the overall issues are from having the first codexes in the game.

 

For example I would undo a lot of the early ‘Guilliman nerf era’. A lot of what was done there was based on Tournament results back when all Xenos were index armies BUT it greatly affected GK also. I plan on mentioning this to GW as well.

[Eddie Orlock]

Battle-forged Armies = 4 CPs

Battalion = 4 CPs

Brigade = 9 CPs (you don't need a boost!)

Vanguard / Outrider / Spearhead = 2 CPs

What if they graded detachment CP awards not functionally on the number of slots filled, but rather on some ratio of the 'Power Rating' in the slot. So, a Guard Battalion with the min 13 'Power' in troops and HQ generates 5 CP worth of logistic support, but the Grey Knight version that weighs in at 33 'Power' might award 13?

 

Maybe it could be phrased like: Battalion Command Benefit: +N Command Points where N is the Combined 'Power' of all compulsory elements of this detachment divided by three, rounded up.

 

You might tweak the denominator of the ratio for Brigades, but maybe not because that detachment organisation makes so many more non-troops compulsory. Naturally you'd need a larger divisor to reconcile the vanguards and spearheads. Okay, I mean division as required math is beyond the literacy level of the typical rule book supplement, but we could probably implement it as a look-up chart with various bands of power level in compulsory slots corresponding to different sums of command points.

 

Anyway, coming up with a simply worded version is both likely imperative for implementation and something I'll leave to people who might be motivated to see this kind of redress.

 

Under the proposed math above, a min brigade of guard yields four, but the min GK yields eleven and the scheme still rewards being troop heavy.

[Capt. Mytre]

 

Well worth a watch.

Lawrence talks about GK being a codex problem. I think there was mention of doing a GK battle report. They always play mono faction an Lawrence likes his GK.

Tabletop tactics is one of the channels who get codexes in advance and put on the most pro battle reports with the highest viewer numbers for battle reports.

I suspect that their chat and future play test will have more influence.

Lawrence also just played in a tournament with an undefeated GK army. I think it’s a great idea to give GW your feedback, always. But a lot of what hurts GK also hurts any marines. I think to a degree some of the overall issues are from having the first codexes in the game.

 

For example I would undo a lot of the early ‘Guilliman nerf era’. A lot of what was done there was based on Tournament results back when all Xenos were index armies BUT it greatly affected GK also. I plan on mentioning this to GW as well.

 

 

That tournament had severe limitations, and it isn't the most competitive environment from what I've heard. That tournament is more about being 40k than being a competition. What I'm afraid of is that GW will see it and go "Oh, GK are fine, all these complaints are just bad players".

 

Also, it not what hurts GK hurts marines, it what hurts marines hurts GK. First up, we get nerfed if we share a unit with marines (see hurricane bolters/razorback etc nerfs), though our cost should be different since we don't have access to the same buffs SM get.

 

Secondly, we have up costed power armour and terminator armour, but zero increase in survivability. This makes us more like glass cannons, meaning that we rely on alpha strike. A nerf to alpha strike hurts us more than any other army.

 

Terminators and Drop pods should be immune to the deepstrike changes. They are already bad choices, they just get further cemented into being horrendous choices.

[Danarc]

 

Well worth a watch.

Lawrence talks about GK being a codex problem. I think there was mention of doing a GK battle report. They always play mono faction an Lawrence likes his GK.

Tabletop tactics is one of the channels who get codexes in advance and put on the most pro battle reports with the highest viewer numbers for battle reports.

I suspect that their chat and future play test will have more influence.

Lawrence also just played in a tournament with an undefeated GK army. I think it’s a great idea to give GW your feedback, always. But a lot of what hurts GK also hurts any marines. I think to a degree some of the overall issues are from having the first codexes in the game.

 

For example I would undo a lot of the early ‘Guilliman nerf era’. A lot of what was done there was based on Tournament results back when all Xenos were index armies BUT it greatly affected GK also. I plan on mentioning this to GW as well.

 

This is a good idea. 

 

 

What if they graded detachment CP awards not functionally on the number of slots filled, but rather on some ratio of the 'Power Rating' in the slot. So, a Guard Battalion with the min 13 'Power' in troops and HQ generates 5 CP worth of logistic support, but the Grey Knight version that weighs in at 33 'Power' might award 13?

 

Maybe it could be phrased like: Battalion Command Benefit: +N Command Points where N is the Combined 'Power' of all compulsory elements of this detachment divided by three, rounded up.

 

You might tweak the denominator of the ratio for Brigades, but maybe not because that detachment organisation makes so many more non-troops compulsory. Naturally you'd need a larger divisor to reconcile the vanguards and spearheads. Okay, I mean division as required math is beyond the literacy level of the typical rule book supplement, but we could probably implement it as a look-up chart with various bands of power level in compulsory slots corresponding to different sums of command points.

 

Anyway, coming up with a simply worded version is both likely imperative for implementation and something I'll leave to people who might be motivated to see this kind of redress.

 

Under the proposed math above, a min brigade of guard yields four, but the min GK yields eleven and the scheme still rewards being troop heavy.

 

I agree with you but it is too complicated for GW policy. :(

 

 

Terminators and Drop pods should be immune to the deepstrike changes. They are already bad choices, they just get further cemented into being horrendous choices.

This could be a good solution. and also fluffy one. 

[Corvus Fortis]

Have you actually even given the new beta rules a shot? Give it an honest try and provide feedback to GW based on that. 

 

 

I agree here. It may be obvious, how it will impact us, but our words must not be unfounded. First time I playtested beta-smite, I have found little impact on gameplay. When I went to 2k points, and I made only 2 simtes out of 7, I had an example. 

[Prot]

I like the idea of Terminators and pods being exempt from first turn restrictions, but be honest, if this were the case, would you use them? ( I probably wouldn’t]

 

I think this restriction falls into the same category I cited earlier with the Guilliman-solo Codex Nerf era. Meaning that Warp Time Raptors and multi Obliterators mega Alpha was extremely nasty. ( I’ve been in the receiving end of it and it’s made for my shortest games ever)

 

I think we are collateral damage from that source of problems. Just like having the only Primarch and codex in 40k made Razorbacks look amazing. ( but we suffered from that too)

 

So since this is a feedback topic, do you due diligence, playtest and give honest feedback. It’s all you can do.

 

I have playtested Beta Smite numerous times, and it turns out we are exempt. I have not play tested the alpha strike change but I do want to give myself a chance to see what I can come up with lining stuff up with Stormravens and shunt shenanigans.

[Chronos Darkhelmet]

Hi all!

 

While I understand that the following is not necessarily related to our feedback mails, I like to think that our feedback mails have played at least a (very) minor role in producing this result ;) Here are the declarations of GW's GD leader Rob Cruddace during the London GT broadcast on Warhammer TV (thanks to GM Rich for reporting):

 

The highest placing GK player finished at 67 (3-2), with the next best at 176 (3-2, but fewer pts earned).

 

However, if anyone was watching the Warhammer TV stream on Day 1, Robin Cruddace (lead rules writer for 40k) was commentating on one of the games and specifically asked about the GK codex.  He said that there will be a comprehensive review of the first few codexes with Chapter Approved this year and admitted GKs needed to be looked at.  So likely nothing in September FAQ, but perhaps serious pts adjustments or more in CA.

[jeffersonian000]

I just sent the following, which represents my views on this debacle.

 

I hope this message finds you well. It has come to my attention that in an official statement from Games Workshop that no changes to the Grey Knights will be forthcoming due to a lack of feedback on changes needed for Grey Knights. This statement is a blatant lie, as hundreds of Grey Knight players have been sending feedback to Games Workshop regarding the unplayability of Grey Knights in 8th edition since the codex was released. Let me reiterate the common complaints:

 

1. The Rule of 1 overly penalizes the Grey Knights due to their small selection of powers versus their army being composed of only Psykers. Even the Thousand Sons Codex gave that army more options to reduce the penalty of the Rule of 1. Grey Knight Librarians need access to more Psychic powers, as they did in 7th edition.

 

2. Daemonology (Sanctic) powers are underperforming. The Primaris power “Banishment” is too limited compared to other Primaris powers, and should have a more generic effect rather than just versus Daemons. “Purge Soul” is too random of an effect to be useful. “Vortex of Doom” is almost not worth bothering to cast given that it effects so little versus how difficult it is to cast. Please consider revisiting the Sanctic discipline.

 

3. Alpha Strike Beta Rule overly penalizes Grey Knights due to the entire army being balance around Deep Striking. Grey Knight troops, elites, Fast, and HQs have inherent Deep Strike and are intended to close via Deep Strike in order to be in charge range, yet can no longer do so unlike Genestealer Cults which are balance on the exact same theme. Please consider returning the Rites of Teleportation to the Grey Knights so they can Teleport Strike on Turn 1.

 

4. The Shrouding is an ability Grey Knights were originally balance around that has not existed in the game for several editions, yet still effects how the army works. Grey Knights are balanced around not being easy to hit at long range, but don’t have the special rule that makes them hard to hit at long range. Please consider returning “The Shrouding” to the Grey Knights for a -1 to be hit at over 18”.

 

5. The Internal balance of the codex is poor, at best. There is no reason to take their iconic Troop choice of Grey Knight Terminators because they cost too much and are underpowered versus Strike Squads and Paladins. Purifiers are also fairly useless due to being too expensive with a power that is too short in range as well as having the exact same stat line as Strike Squads. Interceptors are the only decent power armored unit in the Grey Knight codex, yet they cannot leave combat like every other Jump Infantry unit, despite being able to teleport every turn. Purgation Squads would be fine if their special weapons were useful, or at least affordable. Please consider point drops and stat line adjustments for all units in the codex.

 

6. Grandmaster in Nemesis DreadKnight armor was a bad idea. The regular Nemesis DreadKnight should have been buffed, we didn’t need an over the top HQ unit to invalidates both normal NDKs and other HQs. The genie is out of the bottle, so no going back, but please consider buffing the NDK so that it is actually worth taking.

 

7. Everything is too expensive. Grey Knight players can never take a Brigade in tournament, because the individual units are too expensive. At best, Grey Knights can field a Battalion, and expect only 8 cp for an entire game because they cannot regenerate cp, don’t generate bonus cp, and have overpriced yet underperforming Stratagems that eat up their cp. Many Grey Knights players do not enjoy having to take an Astra Militarum cp battery just to use Psybolts more than once a game. Please revisit the Stratagems and command point generation for this army.

 

8. Grey Knights are the last army anyone wants to play versus Daemons. Astra Militarum are better at killing Daemons than Grey Knights because Daemons don’t respawn if killed by anyone not a Grey Knight. Seriously, please revisit why the Daemon Hunters are the worst at hunting Daemons. Grey Knight players would rather have no bonuses versus Daemons than be so bad at killing Daemons.

 

In effect, Grey Knight players as a world community are calling out Games Workshop on their false statement that no feedback has been sent. We have been vocal, and we are being vocal. I for one have no reason to purchase 40k product, as there is no reason to continue to play an underperforming army handicapped by ill informed rules. Please fix this so I can spend money on useful models.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

SJ

[Ninjoe42]

Letter is rant. Address them respectfully and with courtesy.

 

Still convinced there's something going on on the DL. Some sort of weird future change related to plot advancement...

[techsoldaten]

Letter is rant. Address them respectfully and with courtesy.

 

Still convinced there's something going on on the DL. Some sort of weird future change related to plot advancement...

 

FWIW I send a letter about my Grey Knights after every game, detailing specific situations where I felt they were outclassed.

 

I try to keep it short, focused, and professional, providing insight without dictating a solution. Even if GW never reads it, I get a sense of relief just writing it.

 

One topic I bring up in every letter is Nemesis Force Weapons and Terminator saves. Given that these weapons provided various bonuses in previous editions, changes to them may be the simplest route to improvements.

[Waking Dreamer]

 

Letter is rant. Address them respectfully and with courtesy.

Still convinced there's something going on on the DL. Some sort of weird future change related to plot advancement...

 

 

FWIW I send a letter about my Grey Knights after every game, detailing specific situations where I felt they were outclassed.

 

I try to keep it short, focused, and professional, providing insight without dictating a solution. Even if GW never reads it, I get a sense of relief just writing it.

 

One topic I bring up in every letter is Nemesis Force Weapons and Terminator saves. Given that these weapons provided various bonuses in previous editions, changes to them may be the simplest route to improvements.

That's a lot of effort, but it's exactly what I think our GKs need. Good on you!

 

I'm also actually pleased that one of the rules team, has finally admitted GKs need a thorough review. Top tourney players have been saying it for months now.

[Danarc]

I sent another feedback e-mail to GW, showing the results of a dakkadakkda pool and discussion related to the worst codex army. We win with 64% (on more than 600 votes). Starting from there i asked for the usual stuff, very polite. 

 

Let's see.