Let's Contact GW!

Discuss any rules that are confusing or bothering you.
User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Posts: 893

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#37 » Jul 11 2017 08:31

Jacket wrote:Arka your freaking me out you sound like your a little out on cloud 9 or something when in reality we've got it extremely dire. If we don't look at this honestly and rationally we won't get fixed with interim rules or even a codex fix. None of these lists have actually done anything at tournaments except commander spam. That's it. Telling GW that everything is fine and nothing is wrong is a little out there right now.

If you feel the rest of the Tau fanbase is to pessimistic for your tastes you can ignore them but the data doesn't lie.


Hey, I'm just trying to be the optimistic calm guy in the room. I'm emphasizing the community, atmosphere, and dynamic of the army- Vior'la Mal'caor said that his army had been ruined, that years of his life were wasted, etc. Tau are still Tau. When we started as an army we weren't very good, and we certainly aren't winning any tournaments as-is. Do I want Tau to be fixed? Yes. If we want Games Workshop to listen to us, we can't call things "dire" or "ruined," we can't sound like we're overreacting. Rather, we need a logical approach that tackles a few issues directly and simply.

I don't want to see this level of despair here on the forums. We aren't dead. The army isn't ruined. This community is thriving and active, people are talking, and we have lots of good ideas.

Let's try to contact Games Workshop and see if we can't find an ear that will listen to us. That's what this thread is about!

Jacket
Shas'Saal
Posts: 341

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#38 » Jul 11 2017 08:41

Oh yeah then cool. I don't intend to stop playing or collecting Tau either. *hovers over buy 3 Y'vahrah in FW button* lol. Seriously though they are my fav and I'm not quitting them even if I can't play them in tournaments.

User avatar
Lechai Skull
Shas'Saal
Posts: 365

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#39 » Jul 11 2017 09:07

Jacket wrote:Oh yeah then cool. I don't intend to stop playing or collecting Tau either. *hovers over buy 3 Y'vahrah in FW button* lol. Seriously though they are my fav and I'm not quitting them even if I can't play them in tournaments.


ONE is ok though... you need at least one. It's vital for your battle plan. Plus its so good looking.

User avatar
jestermaximus
Shas'La
Posts: 43

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#40 » Jul 11 2017 10:12

When you write the message to GW, I think it makes sense to spend a sentence or two explaining who you represent. Maybe something along the lines of the "largest Tau dedicated group on the web" or something of that nature. I would assume also that backing up as many statements as possible with simple math examples would increase the likelihood that they listen to the complaints/suggestions. Keeping this as concise as possible makes a lot of sense.

User avatar
CDR_Farsight
Shas
Posts: 30

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#41 » Jul 11 2017 10:23

Back on topic young Shas. Is there a way to set up a poll on this forum? We can make a list there and take the top few to GW after a period of voting and debate.

I live in the NOVA area and know many 8th Edition play-testers personally. I can assure you that many of these concerns were things already known to GW (other than the concerns with the errata), but the voices of the Tau players were drowned out by the likes of Reece. If we gather our thoughts in an intelligent manner, present real evidence, and keep as much emotion out of it as possible, we may be able to overcome the influences of the Tau haters before our official codex goes to print.

Sadly, if we cannot fix it by then, then the 5th sphere expansion may see the same fate as the 4th....lost and corrupted.
To secure victory, the wise must adapt ~ Puretide

Crimzzen
Shas
Posts: 22

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#42 » Jul 11 2017 03:27

AenarIT wrote:I'd say that we should keep the discussion on topic, let's write down the main issues we have with the Index so far.

For me it's quite simple:
- overhaul of the Markerlight table. I agree with the suggestion that it should be 1-4 ML, merging the current 1 and 2 ML bonuses. A nice addition would be adding +1BS for every ML after the 4th.
- give Battlesuits BS3+ (it's either this or additional +1BS ML bonuses).
- reassessment of Battlesuit costs (Crisis, Broadside, Riptide especially).
- overhaul of the Tidewall pieces. Having them as Open-topped transports make little sense as auras do not work.
- fix the Shield Drones, if they agree on their current little usefulness.

As for future FAQ:
- clarification on the Longstrike dilemma (does he buffs himself?).
- fix the Tiger Shark AX-1-0 in the FW Index (Titanic keyword).



I'd add that the stormsurge is a titanic model without the titanic feet CC attack that other titanic models seem to have.

I actually sent a very similar list to the GW 40K facebook page last week. :)

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Posts: 743

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#43 » Jul 11 2017 03:28

CDR_Farsight wrote:Back on topic young Shas. Is there a way to set up a poll on this forum? We can make a list there and take the top few to GW after a period of voting and debate.

I live in the NOVA area and know many 8th Edition play-testers personally. I can assure you that many of these concerns were things already known to GW (other than the concerns with the errata), but the voices of the Tau players were drowned out by the likes of Reece. If we gather our thoughts in an intelligent manner, present real evidence, and keep as much emotion out of it as possible, we may be able to overcome the influences of the Tau haters before our official codex goes to print.

Sadly, if we cannot fix it by then, then the 5th sphere expansion may see the same fate as the 4th....lost and corrupted.


My single suggestion for an exercise like this is to
a. Be able to focus on a few areas where there are reasonably clear issues of internal and external imbalance
b. Be calm and constructive in the way the feedback is given
c. Give evidence, both from experience and from cold dry facts.

So for a totally made-up example if the community decided that the Missileside is really an outlier for points cost which causes a real issue for use in matched play:

Experience in the Tau player community has highlighted that the classic HYMP Broadside under performs noticeably in Matched play games. After discussion among the community and comparison with similar but better performing units we feel that the root cause of this is the points costs of the weapon options. Particular note has been made that it struggles to compete with Astartes Dreadnoughts which are equipped for shooting.

A HYMP is a weapon which fills the same role as the Astartes Twin Autocannon
Twin Autocannon 48" Heavy 4 S7 AP -1 Damage 2
High Yield Missile Pod 36" Heavy 4 S7 AP-1 Damage D3

The Twin Autocannon is 33 points while the HYMP is 41 points for inferior range but otherwise equivalent stats. While the platforms carrying these weapons do affect their performance it is hard to make a case that the Dreadnought is a worse shooting platform than the Broadside or that it undermines the efficiency of the weapon. While a Broadside can take a support system in-game experience shows that only in niche circumstances are any of these as good as the base advantage of +1 BS that the Dreadnought has over the Broadside. Community opinion is that were a support system available that granted +1 BS this would almost always be taken for competitive games to the exclusion of other options.

Overall we conclude that the weapons cost of the HYMP is out of line with equivalent weapons which is creating both internal and external balance problems for this unit in particular. The balanced cost of the HYMP should be equal to or slightly less than that of a Twin Autocannon.



Now obviously that is just an example to show the sort of format that is probably wanted. There has to be a balance between being too verbose (nobody has the time to read that stuff) and lacking enough evidence to be persuasive.

I personally believe that there are only really a few outliers from the "normal" efficiency level of the game where Tau units could really do with a fix. Much of the rest of what people are seeing in tournaments is outliers in the opposite direction (something is too efficient) being picked out from indexes that have them and taken in numbers. The only contender for this status in the Tau codex is IMO the Commander and I am not confident that it is so much undercosted as to be a true balance problem, although I could be persuaded :-?

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2313

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#44 » Jul 11 2017 03:37

I actually think it's more efficient when everybody posts their "problems" in a calm manner directly on their facebook page or sends them an email.
The mass will give them a much better impression of how wrong some things are than a single neat and tidy list of things.

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Posts: 743

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#45 » Jul 11 2017 03:56

Panzer wrote:I actually think it's more efficient when everybody posts their "problems" in a calm manner directly on their facebook page or sends them an email.
The mass will give them a much better impression of how wrong some things are than a single neat and tidy list of things.


That too.

I was sort of assuming that people would do that and did not need any sort of ATT permission to do so.

User avatar
Unusualsuspect
Kroot'Ui
Posts: 585

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#46 » Jul 11 2017 04:59

I think ultimately a Combined Arms approach is, as is often the case, the way to go moving forward.

With the extraordinary levels of moderation here at ATT, the discussion of what needs to be fixed and why will consist of strong arguments on all sides of the issue (including, hopefully, non-T'au players that frequent ATT, as we obviously aren't seeking to become OVERpowered, and non-T'au players do have a legitimate viewpoint in this process), which can lead to some sort of voting process (details to be determined) in which each unit/suggestions/whatever is weighed separately and given the weight of an association like ATT.

But part and parcel of that process should be a sister thread in which individuals can post what they plan to provide as individual feedback, which can be carefully discussed (for particular purposes, like factual errors, spelling, grammar, and tone, NOT the conclusion/opinion) and prepared for when they're actually sent (so that particular arguments/points can, if possible, present at least consistent viewpoints with consistently argued explanations.

With all due respect, though, the cynic in me is smirking over my shoulder with a grin correlated with eating things I'd rather not name.

ATT standards or not, united front or not, awesome ATT posters or not... if we're going to do this in a way that isn't IMMEDIATELY dismissed as the ravings of T'au players disgruntled about the changes (whether that's factually true or not), we need to do it right, and that is not going to be easy and it is not going to be quick. Doing it right is going to be a task of endurance, and I'm hopeful that ATT has what it takes to do it right, because it isn't worth the headache otherwise.

bobby hostile
Shas
Posts: 7

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#47 » Jul 11 2017 05:36

HOW you present your ideas is almost more important than the idea itself sometimes. Despite any lofty goals of being reasonable and civil in how we (these forums) present it, there are going to be players who rage in an incoherent manner demanding outlandish concessions. We can't control that, but we can be reasonable. Being a voice of reason over the shouts of rage may help us be heard.

knute
Shas'Saal
Posts: 130

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#48 » Jul 11 2017 05:55

My $0.02:

Our infantry and drones are fine. Fire warriors and their equivalents are 8 points a piece. Most drones are 8 points a piece. Our screening units are also cheap: Kroot Carnivores are 6 points and hounds are 4 points. Even our infantry HQs are reasonably priced: most are priced around 40 to 45 points. So I think our infantry units are fine.

Our suits, however, are a little overpriced. I say "a little" for a reason. Our suits are tough and they can throw a lot of dice or shoot some powerful weaponry. So it makes sense that they're expensive, but compared to what other factions have I do think our guys are overpriced.

To correct that, I think our units need to either be reduced in cost by 10-15% or be BS 3+. I think any submission to GW should include such a suggestion, specifically citing equivalent units in other armies. Such equivalents could include Kastellan Robots, Inceptors (I think those are the ones with the twin heavy bolter things), that one Tyrannids monster that can spit like 20 shots a turn, etc.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Posts: 893

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#49 » Jul 11 2017 07:19

Okay! Thank you for all the replies. I'll compile a list of promising things to address in a message/petition to GW.

It will be short. Anyway, in the meantime, what's the best way to contact GW? Is it this email address?

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Or does someone know of a better way to contact them?
Last edited by Arka0415 on Jul 11 2017 11:29, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2313

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#50 » Jul 11 2017 11:12

Arka0415 wrote:Okay! Thank you for all the replies. I'll compile a list of promising things to address in a message/petition to GW.

It will be short. Anyway, in the meantime, what's the best way to contact GW? Is it this email address?

[url]gamefaqs@gwplc.com[/url]

Or does someone know of a better way to contact them?

As now mentioned multiple times: the official way to contact them for now is their facebook page.

User avatar
russ29
Shas'Ui
Posts: 315

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#51 » Jul 11 2017 11:22

Most of the questions are already asked by you guys, so here are 2 that I haven't seen asked yet.

R'varna battlesuit has no options of taking a multi tracker or doesn't seem to have one but there is a rule on mukti tracker on its page. Is it supposed to get one or is it just a misplaced rule?

And I do not have a manta, but if you can't deploy the manta on the table because the base is too large does it get destroyed immediately?
Through unity, devastation

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Posts: 893

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#52 » Jul 11 2017 11:30

Panzer wrote:As now mentioned multiple times: the official way to contact them for now is their facebook page.


People have mentioned this, but has it been confirmed as the official point of contact? And I assume this would be in the form of a Facebook message?

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2313

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#53 » Jul 11 2017 11:39

Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:As now mentioned multiple times: the official way to contact them for now is their facebook page.


People have mentioned this, but has it been confirmed as the official point of contact? And I assume this would be in the form of a Facebook message?

Why would I say it's official if it's not confirmed by GW? They outright told us to contact them via their facebook page if we have issues with things or suggestions for the time being.
Just post it on their page: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Warhammer-40000-1575682476085719/posts/?ref=page_internal

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Posts: 2313

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#54 » Jul 11 2017 11:45

russ29 wrote:Most of the questions are already asked by you guys, so here are 2 that I haven't seen asked yet.

R'varna battlesuit has no options of taking a multi tracker or doesn't seem to have one but there is a rule on mukti tracker on its page. Is it supposed to get one or is it just a misplaced rule?

And I do not have a manta, but if you can't deploy the manta on the table because the base is too large does it get destroyed immediately?

Those are FW models and rules. GW won't be able to answer them.

Return to “Rules & FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests