PDA

View Full Version : Open suggestion to GW designers



ZeroTwentythree
20-11-2009, 18:44
After reading through yet another thread in the rule forum asking about US or base size, I'd like to make a suggestion to the head of the design team at GW. It's something we do at my (completely unrelated to gaming) office.

When we start any project, we have a list of required information for each aspect of the project. Essentially a blank form in which we fill out the vital pieces of information.

So when designing the new army book entries, along with M, WS, S, T, weapons, armour, etc. I suggest adding two more items: Base Size and US. It's simple to do and would really help us (your customers & fans of the game) a whole heck of a lot.

I will be emailing a copy of this recommendation to GW. Since it has been weeks and they have still not replied to my questions about the base size and US of various unclear entries in the new Skaven book, I'm not sure they even read their emails. But I figure it's worth a shot.

Rodman49
20-11-2009, 19:08
Send a snail mail bro. More likely to be read right?

Tae
20-11-2009, 19:42
So when designing the new army book entries, along with M, WS, S, T, weapons, armour, etc. I suggest adding two more items: Base Size and US. It's simple to do and would really help us (your customers & fans of the game) a whole heck of a lot.

Or, better yet, they could actually try proofing/testing their books with people of a mental capacity above that of a boiled potato.

fall3nang3l
20-11-2009, 19:59
My favorite aspect is how they always out-do the previously redone codexes. perfect example. Vampire counts recieved the Vargulf in the most recent codex. 175 points for a monster with S5 T5 M8 hatred of all enemies and no flank/rear bonus. Then the Dark Elves codex comes out, they get a Hydra . (not sure about the specific rules but) SAME amount of points, S5 T5 M8? hatred, but an additional scaly skin save, flaming breath attack, +2 attacks more? all for 175 points. the only loss is the lack of enemies to gain rank/flank bonus.

Malorian
20-11-2009, 20:00
I've always thought the best thing they should do is:

1. Write up a book with just enough playtesting to try things out.
2. Post it in a white dwarf or on the web site.
3. Players try it and send in their ideas.
4. GW looks at the ideas, makes changes as needed, and releases actual book.

narrativium
20-11-2009, 20:39
Or, better yet, they could actually try proofing/testing their books with people of a mental capacity above that of a boiled potato.Ooh, who took the jam out of your doughnut?

zoggin-eck
20-11-2009, 21:43
Already the thread has fallen apart complaining about everything else they think GW does wrong?

Really, I would love them to do a proper explanation of base sizes, Rick P., Jervis J etc. manage it for warhammer historical, warmaster and so on.

It is annoying converting up a cool model, half wondering if someone will scream that it's meant to be on a 50mm base, not 40mm or whatever.

I think that the daemons got it the worst, the bases are so different for some models between 40k and fantasy, it just confuses it.

Surely it's a conscious decision by them? They've been clear on bases in the past occasionally, and rival companies and historical games clearly do it right, so it's not exactly a new idea that needs pointing out to them.

Then again, is it just the effect of people taking the game too competitively? I remember when white dwarf would show a hippogryph on a cavalry base for one army, then a 50mm for another. The marauder giant was just on a self made base, and the zombie dragon got a base twice the size of other armies, just because it was less upright :)

If you're going to write to anyone, I reckon the most useful person would be Jervis, regardless of how people whinge about him. At least it would be addressed to someone, not just "Dear Mr. Games Workshop" :)

ZeroTwentythree
20-11-2009, 21:51
Uh, yeah... I didn't mean this to be a "complain about GW" thread". :( I just thought what I posted was a good idea for a better way to develop/organize their army books, from the point of view of an end user.

I'm not sure it's a proofreading issue as those characteristics (US & base size) are only partially represented. I think if they were part of the process, one of the required stats, just like M, WS, etc. then there wouldn't be an issue of whether or not they needed to be included -- it would just be automatic to assume they do. This might seem redundant, for example, wit things like regular infantry. But at least the game would be more tightly written, easier to understand, and with little to no additional effort or cost for them.

Just an idea.



@Rodman49: Yeah, maybe I'll cc: it via snail mail too.

Tae
20-11-2009, 22:49
Ooh, who took the jam out of your doughnut?

Matt Ward.

narrativium
20-11-2009, 22:55
I'm not sure it's a proofreading issue as those characteristics (US & base size) are only partially represented. I'd just like to say, that's not a proofreading issue at all. If there's a spelling mistake, or a sentence grammatically appears to be missing a word, there's something a proofreader can do; to pick up on the intention or execution of a rule, that's the games developer's job. The spud who made the comment about the boiled potato isn't annoyed because developers do a poor job (if that was true, the game wouldn't be playable); he's annoyed because it's a good game with a few visible seams.

machina
20-11-2009, 23:38
I agree, base size and unit strength should be in the books.

Lord Inquisitor
21-11-2009, 00:09
The odd thing is that the Storm of Chaos book DID specify base size and unit strength for the Daemonic Legion. I assumed at the time that would be the shape of things to come, but it wasn't. :(

So clearly it has occured to the design team, they just choose not to.

cornixt
21-11-2009, 02:45
I agree with 023, it's just silly how they make up new units, no models, and then expect us to know it is on some random new base size

Alathir
21-11-2009, 03:46
Thats a really good suggestion, ZeroTwentyThree, I hope they take your idea into consideration. It should would be an easy solution to the problem some people have.

Hive Mind 33
21-11-2009, 06:17
My favorite aspect is how they always out-do the previously redone codexes. perfect example. Vampire counts recieved the Vargulf in the most recent codex. 175 points for a monster with S5 T5 M8 hatred of all enemies and no flank/rear bonus. Then the Dark Elves codex comes out, they get a Hydra . (not sure about the specific rules but) SAME amount of points, S5 T5 M8? hatred, but an additional scaly skin save, flaming breath attack, +2 attacks more? all for 175 points. the only loss is the lack of enemies to gain rank/flank bonus.

I completely agree with this. It seems that books like the Empire and the Bretts are in a state of uselessness.

Jind_Singh
21-11-2009, 20:04
I for one agree that having US/base size on the stat lines would be great!!!

But as for one thing - I used that GW email for the 1st time last week, sent in 2 questions and actually got responses back within 24 hours for both.

1 was rules clarification
1 was asking what they did with their Ogre brusier you see in the army book

And they cleared both up - maybe just try again?

R Man
21-11-2009, 20:20
Actually, if we could get a petition or something and send it to GW they might listen. I have also though of this and I see no reason why US could not be included on a stat and base size not included in a description. But unless someone from GW stumbles across this thread nothing will come of it, so if someone knows how perhaps we could get something done for a change.