Providing constructive feedback to GW

[Captain Idaho]

It's always very easy to let a bad experience or two colour your approach to things or just make you feel generally negative about something and become somewhat jaded. Providing feedback to GW is important and in the past I've done so with Codex Space Marines, but it was after reviewing what the community wanted to be amended and done so in a positive light. Hell, some of those ideas even came up in one form or another and still exists in the current Codex Space Marines, so the community can provide some influence!

 

I'm not the veteran of Necrons I perhaps am for Space Marines so I'm not necessarily going to lead this discussion. I will say I am very keen on seeing what the community here wants changed in the Codex and seeing if I can get some sort of consensus.

 

Please try and keep the discussion to what you want changed and why, rather than argue too much about whether lots needs changing or not. Obviously that is relevant in some capacity but I do want to get the data and ideas off people.

 

I'm working right now but I will be posting some stuff up later on.

 

To start with if you're unsure where to begin, let's focus on army rules and how they can be amended.

 

We can move onto other stuff as the discussion takes you and feel free to raise any changes or amendments you fancy.

 

:)

[Captain Idaho]

My first bit of feedback would be regarding Command Protocols. Massively needs changing since they're such hard work to keep track of and has a large number of rules to remember and restrictions in place to get them to work.

 

They should be simpler:

 

Command Protocols - the same 3 rules that we choose which order they apply in, then move from one into the other like Chapter Doctrines. Perhaps have it predetermined at deployment.

 

However, I wouldn't be adverse to a more radical change.

 

I'd also remove completely all restrictions to their implementation. Maybe keep the criteria of an Overlord requirement but only if we bring something to the table later on for building Destroyer Cults.

[gaurdian31]

Make Reanimation protocols the old 5+ FNP. It is more complicated then it needs to be and changing it would also help multi-wound models out. 

[Captain Idaho]

It is hideously wasteful to be rolling dice on destroyed Scarabs and none return, every turn. Doesn't feel like coming back from the dead much to have a 5+ FNP but it would work better than now.

[gaurdian31]

Maybe have them make take the save after all damage is dealt? To me it should be roll these dice, your unit heals 1 wound for each 5+ up to full wounds but you could still bring back multi-wound models without full wounds. My issue is with having to bring back models at full wounds and then the rest of the wounds are lost. I think you should be able to use the left over healed wounds to bring back another model even if it isn't full or spread out the healing so a you have a number of models without full wounds. I mean they are getting back up from being killed.

[Prot]

I am not nearly pro enough with crons in this edition. At most I have about 30 games in with crons in 9th.

 

But coming from a pretty diverse 40K background, the Protocols are definitely awkward. As a side note they should really work for the Silent King and any Dynastic Agent as well as him.

 

The Protocols are unwieldy and most are borderline useless. I say unwieldy because the idea of them being so maleable makes them too cumbersome and instead of them having a really good effect, they are bland. Marines' system is just so much cleaner. You get this, then this, then that. You can tweak the order, sure, but the real 'power' comes from each chapter (in this case it would be Dynasty) having a special 'ability' in relation to which Doctrine/Protocol you are in.

 

As far as Reanimation.... I have to agree. What's the point in it beyond single wound models? I have often had near full squads of Scarabs or Skorpehks dissapear.

[Mandragola]

I think I'd split issues between a few categories:

 

Rules that are just a bit underwhelming. This definitely includes CPs for all the reasons noted above but also (albeit to a lesser degree) relics, warlord traits and cryptek arcana. As a result, Necrons have easily the least customisable characters in 40k. Oh and it doesn't help that the rules on which models can have which relics are so restrictive, meaning the Indomitus guys can't have the melee weapons, for example.

 

I think reanimation protocols should just reanimate models on a 5+ regardless of how many wounds they have. I don't think it should just be FNP because that doesn't feel sufficiently distinctive, but multi-wound models shouldn't be worse at it.

 

Bad units. Actually there are few things that are outright rubbish - the Hexmark destroyer doesn't really do anything but that's about it. Still, in the current meta the necron army just feels overpriced right across the board. Arguably, this would be better fixed by nerfs to Drukhari and Admech (in particular) but it also feels like most of our shooting units are pretty significantly overpriced, even relative to our other stuff.

[dice4thedicegod]

Core units: overly restrictive (flayed ones can neither be core buffed nor destroyer cult buffed)

 

Character customization

 

Rework protocols (maybe let them be picked turn by turn like ad mech, or make them a bit more potent)

 

Points drop

[Prot]

I think C'tan also need a full rethink. The points are crazy high, and there's just a ton of armies that can take them down in multiple phases. The cheapest C'tan is the best one. The Nightbringer is just way too expensive. My favorite, the Void Dragon just has a cruddy power, and a cruddy 12" spear, and still costs a ton.  I understand for fluff reasons they will never receive the Dynasty rules nor the Command Protocols, and that also has to be taken into account.

 

I agree with a lot of the other stuff being said, and I'd add the most expensive units, are getting worse and worse. The Silent King really should be able to use that C'tan he has strapped to the bumper (IE: some special C'tan powers?). I've harped enough on the SK in my own thread so I'll give it a rest....

 

But that still leaves the Monolith as a giant block of junk which for such a fantastic model is truly brutal.

 

Oh.. almost forgot something that has been bugging me about Reanimation protocols in addition to what's been said: I'd flat out let it be rolled on Mortal wounds, no matter when they happen or how. The lack of RP while running away is understandable, but the plethora of Mortal Wound ramp up in the game would really justify this change. 

Edited July 28, 2021 by Prot

[Ahzek451]

Thankfully there seems to be an overhwelming concencus amonsgst various necron communitities that the one that that should get a dramatic change is the command protocols.

2nd I would say is a re-tooling of reanimation protocols. 

 

3rd is an upgrade to warlord traits.

4this a unit-by-unit analysis to determine if they need changes.

 

At the bare minimum, I would be over the moon if they removed the range limitation to command protocols. And I would be totally ok with the only requirement being: having a noble on the table. 

 

Back to the drawing board with reanimation protocols. GW thought it was eating time when an entire army with FnP(death guard) rolling all that dice. And yet here we are replicating the same problem except its less useful on half the army and extremely useful on the other. Still rolling lots of dice for certain units with an extremely low chance of success. 

The game is so oversaturated with AP weapons, I don't see the harm in giving most things a +1 to it's armour to better reflect the durability of necron metal. 

[Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch]

My two big things are 

 

A) Command Protocols, in that they need to be less restrictive, and having a command barge should enhance them in some way, because they are explicitly called out as interstitial command wave amplifiers in the lore. (The fact that CCB's never gave protocol buffs in any way shape or form has always annoyed me from a lore standpoint.)

 

B ) Reanimation Protocols. I actually don't have as many issues as some other people have, it seems, though I do have two big ones (and a minor complaint). Firstly, I think we need to roll it even when a unit is wiped as a last resort thing, where you can roll the dice to see if anyone stands back up, with a caveat that you can only do that once per phase to keep it somewhat balanced (so you can't spike a single warrior's RP half a dozen times from multiple units shooting it and wasting firepower). Secondly, if you roll less than the number of wounds than needed to resurrect a multiwound model, you should get a model with that many wounds left. Eg if you lose a lychguard and roll one of two dice, you get the model back at one wound. Or if you have a scarab unit, and you pass six rolls, you should get one back with two wounds and one with four wounds. Basically the number of successes equals the number of wounds you can ressurect. My two minor gripes are firstly, that the resurrection orb should trigger at the end of the movement phase, and not the command phase, because it makes it difficult to get a rescue orb over to a damaged unit, or vice versa. Also the reanimator needs to be made more hardy or hand buffs out farther. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Daimyo-Phaeron Lenoch

[Ahzek451]

Funnily enough, I think a lot of the suggested RP changes people have been suggesting since day one (like what Lenoch mentioned above) would likely be enough to make us match the power creep.

 

And the CP change.

 

Its not a total shock that we have fallen behind this quickly for a 9th edition book, just getting sick of the fact that now we will have to wait for another round of codex books to get a fix(occasional points adjustments are not proper fixes). Just like the last codex, it fell into being underpowered quickly and sat their for an age until the current book. And history repeats itself.

 

But this is a product of GW's ancient design philosophy that is not properly funded and given the attention it deserves.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Ahzek451

[Get Thokt]

Command Protocols. How does the most advanced race in all of 40K limit their field orders to the range of a wifi hotspot? Most of us didn't mind the limitations in the beginning. Many thought 9th ed was about to enter in a whole new level of strategic play. However it became apparent that this wasn't the case with later releases of other codexes.

 

Aside from this limitation, we should compare what we gain from protocols to other faction army-wide abilities. Death Guard's increasing -1 toughness aura, Drukhari's advance & charge and a 5++, Admech's +1 save and a +3" move, Ork's advance and charge with +1 attack. All of these give so much more than protocols. They either stack, are chosen in the command phase, or become more threatening on the board. Meanwhile we have to guess which protocol will be needed in each turn. Ridiculous.

 

Triarch units. Like the previous edition, Triarch units are void of any army-wide abilities besides protocols. They don't even gain a unique Triarch ability from the rest of the army. Yet Admech units with canticles do. Why so?

 

My other gripes are:

Doomsday Arks and Doomstalkers. Still the D6 shots and D6 damage. Whilst nearly all everything else has moved on to D3+3.

 

Reanimation Protocols. Not so bad on single or 2 wound models. Waste of time on everything else. Either improve the RP roll to 4+ on 3/4 wound models, or decrease the points value on them for the reason being that RP has no benefit to them at all.

 

Plasmacyte. Why are we penalised for rolling 1s? On a 1, the Plasmacyte doesn't buff the Skorpekh Destroyers. That sounds fair. Not destroy a 35pt model.

[Lord_Ikka]

Command Protocols suck- the requirement of needing to be within a certain range of a character is ridiculous. If SM had similar requirements for Doctrines I'd be fine with it, but right now we got stuck with the worst version of secondary bonuses.

 

Ranged weaponry- the most advanced race having super swingy d6 damage on their main ranged anti-tank is dumb. It would be okay if we didn't have a bunch of 3+d3 damage weapons come out recently, but Necrons have a hard time shooting at T7-8 stuff now.

 

I'm not a big fan of Reanimation Protocols, but have just learned to run with them- I don't think GW will even look at changing stuff for multi-wound models.

[Captain Idaho]

Seems like consensus generally being made here which is great stuff.

 

Regarding Reanimation Protocols: I'm for the 5+ straight model returns at the beginning of the turn like 8th. Sure the argument was someone would just wipe out a unit, but I think a straight +1 armour save to every model to represent Necron resilience (so 3+ for Warriors, 2+ for Immortals etc) would counter this as well as obscuring terrain.

 

And some stuff will die. That's 40K!

[Mandragola]

I don't actually mind the plasmacyte sometimes killing Skorpekhs. It's a risk/reward thing for a powerful buff and fits the fluff of destroyers being mad killing machines that don't care about their own survival, so that's fine. I do mind a bit how the plasmacyte dies if there aren't any destroyers within 6", as that's a fairly likely result after a charge. Maybe change that to 9 or 12" to avoid any kind of abusive tactics with the thing (though I'm not really sure what those would be).

 

Otherwise we do seem to have some consensus around the problems. Command protocols are the main offender I think, with RPs close behind. It's a real shame that what ought to be the signature Necron abilities both fall so flat.

[Captain Idaho]

I say why kill the Plasmacyte off at all? Just say it can't score and can only be targeted if it's the closest unit.

[Miek]

What's the best way to communicate this good stuff to GW, a Facebook post on the 40k community or a complaint through the complaint portal?

 

Alternatively, perhaps some good folks have already made those suggestions on FB and we could simply ~upvote those (don't really know how FB works)?

[Ahzek451]

double post, oops

Edited July 29, 2021 by Ahzek451

[Ahzek451]

What's the best way to communicate this good stuff to GW, a Facebook post on the 40k community or a complaint through the complaint portal?

 

Alternatively, perhaps some good folks have already made those suggestions on FB and we could simply ~upvote those (don't really know how FB works)?

I mean...I don''t really think anyone has ever posted a unified message on a warcom article before as one. Most complaints/suggestions are done on an occasional individual level, typically followed up by rude comments and arguements. 

 

Wouldn't it be something if we coordinated on a particular post one of us started on a warcom article, and each of us drops a respectful, related comment on that comment thread?

 

I think that would certainly get some attention. And I think others outside of this forum would join in. Granted, it might still attract some rude comments but hopefully that would stay at a minimum, and be outshined by the constructive ones. 

 

As long as we all more or less stick the the message of dissatisfaction for command protocols and reanimation protocols, sprinkle in whatever else after that. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Ahzek451

[Mandragola]

I believe we're supposed to email 40kFAQ@gwplc.com with feedback. As I recall, they asked for this kind of feedback, at least during 8th edition.

 

Edit: though doing something publicly could also have some power. You could also organise a petition on something like change.org if you really wanted.

Edited July 29, 2021 by Mandragola

[Ahzek451]

I believe we're supposed to email 40kFAQ@gwplc.com with feedback. As I recall, they asked for this kind of feedback, at least during 8th edition.

 

Edit: though doing something publicly could also have some power. You could also organise a petition on something like change.org if you really wanted.

 

For sure, this is the way we are supposed to do it. But as you say it won't have the same impact as a public approach. The point being, to stir the pot just a touch but not to be excessive about it. If it were not for the suffering of falling behind as a codex so soon YET AGAIN, I would be content with a simple email. But if I am being honest, not to sound like an entitled brat but I think its reasonable to be politely more vocal considering the amount of time and money invested in this hobby. One kinda gets a little sick of going through the same motions for a decade. And life is short. As they say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. 

 

And while I am sure they do pay attention to the 40kFAQ emails, I also believe that everyone has an opinion and this inbox is just swarmed with emails, many constructive ones may fall through the cracks. Not to mention, all these messages are in a faceless background that could easily be ignored. 

 

I think it would be nice if GW would wake up to the idea that small points adjustments and minor FAQ's are not enough. It's not fair to a customer to have to wait for a whole new round of books to get an update that may only last a couple months. They really need to update themselves and make a more pro-active living ruleset. 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Ahzek451

[Captain Idaho]

In the past I've contacted customer services and they passed on stuff to the correct team. But any communication I'd repeat in the faq emails.

[Lord Raven 19]

If this does go forward, could we also suggest allowing the silent king to get his own dynastic code if your whole army is szarekhan?

[Captain Idaho]

We'd have to establish new Dynastic codes... so let's start discussing that.

 

On that note, any new Relics, Warlord Traits or Strategums folk have ideas for.