Let's Contact GW!

Discuss any rules that are confusing or bothering you.
User avatar
Lechai Skull
Shas'Saal
Posts: 365

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#55 » Jul 11 2017 11:51

Panzer wrote:
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.


Which one is it exactly?
there are a few 40k pages on facebook

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1280

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#56 » Jul 12 2017 12:08

Panzer wrote:Just post it on their page


Their page is a graveyard of unanswered questions. Depressing.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2895

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#57 » Jul 12 2017 01:15

Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:Just post it on their page


Their page is a graveyard of unanswered questions. Depressing.

Just because they are unanswered it doesn't mean they aren't reading them or giving the to the rules team for future FAQs etc. ;)
Lechai Skull wrote:
Panzer wrote:
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.


Which one is it exactly?
there are a few 40k pages on facebook

The only official warhammer 40,000 page there is which I also linked in my post above. You know, the one with almost 90k likes compared to the next one with just about 1.5k likes. ;)

User avatar
nic
Kroot'La
Kroot'La
Posts: 755

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#58 » Jul 12 2017 02:32

Panzer wrote:
Arka0415 wrote:
Panzer wrote:Just post it on their page


Their page is a graveyard of unanswered questions. Depressing.

Just because they are unanswered it doesn't mean they aren't reading them or giving the to the rules team for future FAQs etc. ;)


I have heard designers say in interviews that those questions are being passed across to them. The community team is not the design team but they work in the same building(s) and clearly do pass messages along.

gliiip
Shas
Posts: 3

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#59 » Jul 12 2017 03:38

Broadside models (old and new) have 2 rail rifles but not in rules.

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2895

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#60 » Jul 12 2017 03:42

gliiip wrote:Broadside models (old and new) have 2 rail rifles but not in rules.

Their Heavy Rail Rifle is Heavy2. ;)

User avatar
555ea
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#61 » Jul 12 2017 04:31

Oh my god, it works, it works! :biggrin:

I find it inaccurate, that we can include up to 2 additional XV88 Broadsides in unit, making it a 1-3 choice, but we can only include 2 MV8 missile drones per unit, whether it's 1 or 3 broadsides. Wouldn't it be better, if we could take 2 MV8 missile drones per single broadside suit in a unit, just like with XV8 crisis suits?
It makes me sad, because taking 6 drones in an army requires 3 separate Broadside units, resulting in 3 deployment choices and 6 killpoints, a major disadvantage.


Warhammer 40,000 Hey there - this has been noted and passed to the studio to look into. If it needs an update, it will get one very soon!

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1280

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#62 » Jul 12 2017 05:18

Here's a draft of what I'm planning to send from us to GW.

This message comes from the users of the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where hundreds [edit: thousands?] of active users discuss competitive Tau tactics and list-building. We enjoy 8th Edition very much but feel that there are some important problems with our Index.

1. The Markerlight table is irrelevant to many units. For most Tau units, 2-4 Markerlights offer no benefit. Previously one Markerlight hit was enough to provide +1 Ballistic Skill, now five hits are needed. Since all Tau Markerlights hit on 4+ or 5+, over ten Markerlights are now needed to provide the same benefit that two did in 7th Edition.

Solution: Players should be allowed to choose a benefit from the Markerlight table for each Markerlight hit.

2. Points costs for Commanders and XV8s are unbalanced. 2 Commanders can be bought for the same points as 3 XV8s, offering the same weapons except with higher Ballistic Skill and Wounds. It does not make sense that Commanders offer greater firepower and durability for fewer points.

Solution: XV8s should have a Ballistic Skill of 3+ or they should cost fewer points.

3. Tau anti-tank weapons are now much less effective than those of other factions. The Broadside and Hammerhead output little more damage than a single Lascannon yet cost as much as a Space Marine Predator, which is armed with four Lascannons.

Solution: Railguns and Heavy Rail Rifles should do significantly more damage or these units should cost fewer points.


Editing for brevity will be important. Thoughts?

User avatar
StealthKnightSteg
Shas'Saal
Posts: 88
Contact:

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#63 » Jul 12 2017 05:41

make "Solution" in "Possible solution"

give them something to work with instead of saying "do this"

But only these 3 point or will you make the list bigger?
Saviour Protocols and shield drones would be an auto include on any list send imho

Jorthax
Shas
Posts: 15

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#64 » Jul 12 2017 05:46

Arka, question 2 is a little disingenuous because really the unwritten part of your possible solution is that Commanders are undercosted in their opinion. I think it should be listed but with a caveat of "other balancing changes elsewhere". For example I think none of us would be surprised if Commanders went up a little, but if XV8 and Broadsides came down some so that a balanced list saw a net change of +/- 0 points, but a Commander spam list went up.

This doesn't fix the suits having BS4+ which makes me cry when I see a Necron Warrior rolling for 3+ completely unaided or with My Will Be Done hitting on 2+ for zero effort...

User avatar
Panzer
Shas'La
Shas'La
Posts: 2895

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#65 » Jul 12 2017 05:57

Arka0415 wrote:Here's a draft of what I'm planning to send from us to GW.

This message comes from the users of the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where hundreds [edit: thousands?] of active users discuss competitive Tau tactics and list-building. We enjoy 8th Edition very much but feel that there are some important problems with our Index.

1. The Markerlight table is irrelevant to many units. For most Tau units, 2-4 Markerlights offer no benefit. Previously one Markerlight hit was enough to provide +1 Ballistic Skill, now five hits are needed. Since all Tau Markerlights hit on 4+ or 5+, over ten Markerlights are now needed to provide the same benefit that two did in 7th Edition.

Solution: Players should be allowed to choose a benefit from the Markerlight table for each Markerlight hit.

2. Points costs for Commanders and XV8s are unbalanced. 2 Commanders can be bought for the same points as 3 XV8s, offering the same weapons except with higher Ballistic Skill and Wounds. It does not make sense that Commanders offer greater firepower and durability for fewer points.

Solution: XV8s should have a Ballistic Skill of 3+ or they should cost fewer points.

3. Tau anti-tank weapons are now much less effective than those of other factions. The Broadside and Hammerhead output little more damage than a single Lascannon yet cost as much as a Space Marine Predator, which is armed with four Lascannons.

Solution: Railguns and Heavy Rail Rifles should do significantly more damage or these units should cost fewer points.


Editing for brevity will be important. Thoughts?


1. I'd go and explain a bit more why exactly 2-4 are no good for most units.
2) is of no use unless you have Seeker Missiles (which are generally underwhelming with just a single Mortal wound at one-use only)
3) you have to advance/move before knowing whether you manage to hit 3+ Markerlights on the relevant targets so it's more like a way to cover the weaknesses of short ranged heavy weapons
4) very situational since usually only infantry benefits from cover that easily so most of the time it just won't give you anything...which is rather bad as 4th bonus on the table.


2. I don't think the BS3+ is such a good idea for generic Shas'Ui Crisis Suits (although a good idea for Shas'Vre). The only real solution here would be a points reduction which they could easily achieve by shifting some of the points from the basic cost of Crisis to the Drones (especially Gun Drones) since it seems that Crisis pay a good amount of points for the Saviour Protocols instead of the Drones themselves.

3. A valid complain with multiple ways to fix.

User avatar
555ea
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#66 » Jul 12 2017 06:00

Arka0415 wrote:Here's a draft of what I'm planning to send from us to GW.

This message comes from the users of the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where hundreds [edit: thousands?] of active users discuss competitive Tau tactics and list-building. We enjoy 8th Edition very much but feel that there are some important problems with our Index.

1. The Markerlight table is irrelevant to many units. For most Tau units, 2-4 Markerlights offer no benefit. Previously one Markerlight hit was enough to provide +1 Ballistic Skill, now five hits are needed. Since all Tau Markerlights hit on 4+ or 5+, over ten Markerlights are now needed to provide the same benefit that two did in 7th Edition.

Solution: Players should be allowed to choose a benefit from the Markerlight table for each Markerlight hit.

2. Points costs for Commanders and XV8s are unbalanced. 2 Commanders can be bought for the same points as 3 XV8s, offering the same weapons except with higher Ballistic Skill and Wounds. It does not make sense that Commanders offer greater firepower and durability for fewer points.

Solution: XV8s should have a Ballistic Skill of 3+ or they should cost fewer points.

3. Tau anti-tank weapons are now much less effective than those of other factions. The Broadside and Hammerhead output little more damage than a single Lascannon yet cost as much as a Space Marine Predator, which is armed with four Lascannons.

Solution: Railguns and Heavy Rail Rifles should do significantly more damage or these units should cost fewer points.


Editing for brevity will be important. Thoughts?



The 1st solution looks too good to be true, remember, that markerlights were consumed, and now they are shared across all army, you can fire entire army at that nasty Land Raider at 3+. I think markerlights have to be optimized, but not free. Something like a +1BS for 3-4 hits, instead of 5.

Considering the 2nd, you have a bit wrong arguments. The point is that 2 crisis suits cost more, than a single Commander, having same S,T,W,Sv, but commander has higher WS/BS and abilities. I think that 76 / 2 => 38 points per crisis is much more suitable, than 42. I think they should not go BS 3+, there will be too much controversy which units should have higher bs, and which not. Markerlight optimization is fine.

I'm agreed on 3rd, but not all tau anti-tank weapons are bad. Fusions are awesome, like a 4 fusion commander, or twin fusions on bigger suits. Missile pods are fine too. The weapons, which are poorly pointed are riptide weapons, ion accelerator is an awful idea now, broadside weapons, and hammerhead main weapons. This should be mathematically justified, for a good proof.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1280

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#67 » Jul 12 2017 06:55

Here's a new version, thanks for the feedback everyone! For the time being, I'm doing just a few important points. If there is a response, we can send more. I clarified with some math in some areas, and as 555ea suggested clarified that it is our long-range weapons which are lacking. Here's the updated text:

This message comes from the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where thousands of users discuss competitive Tau tactics and list-building. We enjoy 8th Edition very much but feel that there are some important problems with our Index.

1. The Markerlight table is irrelevant to many units. For most Tau units, 2-4 Markerlights offer no benefit, and highly-situational advantages at best. Previously one Markerlight hit provided +1 Ballistic Skill, now five hits are needed for the same effect. Markerlights hit on 4+ or 5+, so over ten Markerlights are now needed for +1 Ballistic Skill.

Possible Solution: The threshold for getting +1 Ballistic Skill should be lowered, or players should be allowed to choose a benefit from the Markerlight table for each Markerlight hit.

2. Points costs for Commanders and XV8s are unbalanced. One Commander costs much less than two identically-armed XV8s, yet has more firepower. For example, one Commander with 4 Burst Cannons costs 116 points and statistically hits 13 times, while two XV8s armed with three Burst Cannons each cost 144 points total, yet will only statistically hit 12 times. It does not make sense that a Commander should be more powerful, and cheaper, than XV8s. This leads players to use only Commanders and not XV8s, the same problem in 7th Edition when players used only certain units.

Possible Solution: XV8s should have BS 3+, or XV8s should cost fewer points, or Commanders should cost more points.

3. Tau long-range anti-tank weapons are now less effective than those of other factions. For example, the Hammerhead has a 44% chance to deal D6 wounds to a Rhino, while a Space Marine Predator has a 37% chance to deal D6 chance yet fires 4 shots compared to the Hammerhead's 1 shot. These units cost 171 and 202 points respectively, even though the Space Marine Predator has 413% the damage output.

Solution: Railguns and Heavy Rail Rifles should do significantly more damage, or these units should cost fewer points.

Jorthax
Shas
Posts: 15

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#68 » Jul 12 2017 07:20

I really do hope they address your question 3. And I think your question 2 wording is much better now, hope you didn't mind the comment there.

I don't mind dice rolls for damage in theory, because they add the spice to life in the game. But a 3+d3, or 6+d3 even would just move that curve slightly more to the reasonable realm. Your maths on the 413% should really be eye opening to them.

Fingers crossed for a response. I'm seeing lots of people post that the feedback is acknowledged but not really yet answered.

knute
Shas'Saal
Posts: 136

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#69 » Jul 12 2017 08:03

Arka0415 wrote:Here's a new version, thanks for the feedback everyone! For the time being, I'm doing just a few important points. If there is a response, we can send more. I clarified with some math in some areas, and as 555ea suggested clarified that it is our long-range weapons which are lacking. Here's the updated text:

This message comes from the forum Advanced Tau Tactica, where thousands of users discuss competitive Tau tactics and list-building. We enjoy 8th Edition very much but feel that there are some important problems with our Index.

1. The Markerlight table is irrelevant to many units. For most Tau units, 2-4 Markerlights offer no benefit, and highly-situational advantages at best. Previously one Markerlight hit provided +1 Ballistic Skill, now five hits are needed for the same effect. Markerlights hit on 4+ or 5+, so over ten Markerlights are now needed for +1 Ballistic Skill.

Possible Solution: The threshold for getting +1 Ballistic Skill should be lowered, or players should be allowed to choose a benefit from the Markerlight table for each Markerlight hit.

2. Points costs for Commanders and XV8s are unbalanced. One Commander costs much less than two identically-armed XV8s, yet has more firepower. For example, one Commander with 4 Burst Cannons costs 116 points and statistically hits 13 times, while two XV8s armed with three Burst Cannons each cost 144 points total, yet will only statistically hit 12 times. It does not make sense that a Commander should be more powerful, and cheaper, than XV8s. This leads players to use only Commanders and not XV8s, the same problem in 7th Edition when players used only certain units.

Possible Solution: XV8s should have BS 3+, or XV8s should cost fewer points, or Commanders should cost more points.

3. Tau long-range anti-tank weapons are now less effective than those of other factions. For example, the Hammerhead has a 44% chance to deal D6 wounds to a Rhino, while a Space Marine Predator has a 37% chance to deal D6 chance yet fires 4 shots compared to the Hammerhead's 1 shot. These units cost 171 and 202 points respectively, even though the Space Marine Predator has 413% the damage output.

Solution: Railguns and Heavy Rail Rifles should do significantly more damage, or these units should cost fewer points.


From an advocacy standpoint, I would not ask for Commanders to get a points increase because what you're really asking for is a decrease in points for Crisis Suits. Just say you think Crisis Suits should be BS 3+ or be cheaper.

I would also add a note about shield drones being superfluous now that Saviour Protocols turns the wound into a mortal wound. Might as well if you're submitting a list on our behalf.

User avatar
Arka0415
Shas'Ui
Shas'Ui
Posts: 1280

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#70 » Jul 12 2017 08:12

knute wrote:From an advocacy standpoint, I would not ask for Commanders to get a points increase because what you're really asking for is a decrease in points for Crisis Suits. Just say you think Crisis Suits should be BS 3+ or be cheaper.


That's what I had before, and Jorthax said it was disingenuous:

Jorthax wrote:Arka, question 2 is a little disingenuous because really the unwritten part of your possible solution is that Commanders are undercosted in their opinion. I think it should be listed but with a caveat of "other balancing changes elsewhere". For example I think none of us would be surprised if Commanders went up a little, but if XV8 and Broadsides came down some so that a balanced list saw a net change of +/- 0 points, but a Commander spam list went up.


What do you think about that?

knute wrote:I would also add a note about shield drones being superfluous now that Saviour Protocols turns the wound into a mortal wound. Might as well if you're submitting a list on our behalf.


Already many people have asked this question directly to GW. They will address it in the next FAQ supposedly.
Last edited by Arka0415 on Jul 12 2017 08:39, edited 1 time in total.

Jorthax
Shas
Posts: 15

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#71 » Jul 12 2017 08:30

I'm just one guy :) Just felt a bit 'obvious' that we wouldn't point out the crazy efficiency of the Commander. Balanced, reasonable feedback is likely to get a response.

Looking at the awesome mathhammer site in the other thread, the Commander in almost any weapon configuration is just better than anything else designed for the job. I feel like this will be nerfed whether we like it or not so we should probably note that we would like to be given some balancing in that regard...

The question should definitely point this out, as XV8's main contender for points/function is the commander. I think the brilliant example in Q3 is clear, and the same should be made in Q2. Most people would have (short of flamers to ignore BS) any reason to spam commanders if they owned sufficient models.

User avatar
555ea
Shas'Saal
Posts: 35

Re: Let's Contact GW!

Post#72 » Jul 12 2017 08:31

I think we have to do it one by one, pick a question, that bothers you the most, then write it to them. I think we'll be more successful if everyone from this thread just posted a single, most important thing for him, like markerlights, it's much more effective than saying you are representing a community of hundreds of people.

Hell, if we'd took that conversation in their facebook page, all of the comments would be noticed and considered.

Return to “Rules & FAQ”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests