Gameswork shop Needs a Rules Feedback Facility

Signatures 33 total

Page: 1

1. 1
   Name: Jeremy J on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments: Gameswork shop needs an effiecient and easily accessible facility for their fans to send feedback to their games developers, thus allowing them to get a better idea of whats really going on. Hence preventing a downfall of their great gaming systems

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: David Jones on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Jaon LeClare on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Darrell Campbell on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments: As with any other product on the market, feedback is an essential tool for the makers to provide a better product for consumers. If a company never asks what it's consumers want they'll begin to lose them. I enjoy Warhammer 40k very much due to the customization available in the modeling and gaming and it takes away from the whole hobby by taking away from that one single aspect.

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Darrell Campbell on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments: As with any other product on the market, feedback is an essential tool for the makers to provide a better product for consumers. If a company never asks what it's consumers want they'll begin to lose them. I enjoy Warhammer 40k very much due to the customization available in the modeling and gaming and it takes away from the whole hobby by taking away from that one single aspect.

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Matthew Robinson on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments: Issues: New blood angels codex on WD is cheap and lazy. You should make a full new issue and if u dont have time hold it off till you do they need new models and more than just a WD codex. I have been a BA player for year and now i am unhappy to play with the new codex and have gone back to the space marine one untill there is a offical release of the blood angels codex

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Ben McMillan on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: John Daskalakis on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments: 1. I like the fluff behind 40k, I mean I really love it I wish they developped the same quality fluff for fantasy too 2. I like complicated rules as long as they make games more realistic. The rending trend must stop. Find something more creative than this unstable ability that makes luck even more important for games (remember that if luck plays a very important role, you will stop thinking logically and start praying to the dice gods). 3. Some stuff really have no meaning. e.g. the Ork huge choppa (when you have power klaw), the IG grenade launcher (when you have missile launcher), e.t.c. So don't build the same thing twice... 4. Update armies on a standard cycle. Just because you want to use Tau to get more oriental customers doesn't mean you can update the Tau codex twice while not updating Orks or DE... 5. About Fantasy... a. Fix the charge rules. What I see the last 17 years is: whoever charges usually wins the close combat round and drives the other one away. I want to see units fighting face to face to the bitter end, for at least 2 rounds. I don't like seeing units breaking off so easily... b. Fix some equipment that is useless: i. Spears: strike first vs cavalry ii. Halberds: -1 extra armor save vs. armored troops iii. Great weapons: +1 str. and strike at initiative order e.t.c. c. Fix the army organization rules. I hate seeing people take 3 Core, 4 Special and 2 Rare choices. Core means just that. The majority of your army should be core. So for 2000 pts it should be 3 Core, 2 Special and 1 Rare. As a rule: Core >= Special + Rare and Special >= Rare d. Redefine core troops. Marauders are rightly core. Khorne Chosen Knights smash other peoples' rare choices, so they should not be core. So simple. e. Each time an army gets a new book it pawns all other armies...That should stop as you correctly stopped it in 40k with the release of Dark Angels. Each remake should improve the army's choices, not make it more powerful each time. f. Points cost are obviously not calculated by a formula... You obviously make up a cost and just add it to the army book. How does a points cost get calculated Shouldn't there be a standardised way I mean an orc costs half what a high elf costs and is more effective.

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Jason Horne on Jun 22, 2007

   Comments:

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: John Hodson on Jun 22, 2007

    Comments: The continuing trend of erasing armouries is a serious slump in design. Armies lose imagination, flexibility and variety. The old Chaos codex and 4th. Ed. Space Marine codex were hugely popular because of the customisation it allowed players. With the more recent Eldar and Dark Angels (with rumours being rife the upcoming Chaos is following suit) this has been taken out of player's hands, it has become 'out-of-the-box', allows players no versatility and is incredibly uninspiring. There is no fun in playing around with lists because you simply cannot do it any more. It is a serious departure from a successful approach. Units need to be equally attractive to both competitive and 'fluffy' armies. The prime example is the Space Marine chaplain. In lower points games and competitive lists it is the unparalled choice because the captain and even more so the librarian cannot compete. Players should be given tough choices when selecting an army and 'fluffy' players shouldn't be penalised for making choices to fit a theme which leaves the army less competitive. Units need to be varied, each offering something different and to lose having a core of units which are good for all occassions so little else in the army roster gets a look in. The application of rending to assault cannons is a prime example of this. When was the last time a Terminator squad was fielded without assault cannons Heavy flamers and Cyclone Missile launchers are non-existent in competitve lists because the assault cannon can do everything - it can mow down troops (understandable) and has a better chance of penetrating a landraider than a lascannon (utterly inexplicably). Taking a heavy flamer or missile launcher makes no sense because the assault cannon is so good in comparason for all occassions. It kills the imagination and discourages experimentation. If GW setup a feedback system, above issues could easily be flagged up. Having a group of testers that span the globe could only be a good thing and would reinforce links with the community (many of which, particularly the 'veterans', are feeling increasingly alienated by current design trends). Rules would be tested in more ways than the small play testing team could ever manage to, showing every facet of it, both pros and cons. An online form system with a title detailing the relevant rule with a rating would allow the company to cope with the inevitable high volume of interest this would achieve. The general concensus from the community could be gauged with a quick scan of an inbox. As an example, new transport rules could be trialled - currently rhinos are used as mobile cover rather than actual transports because they've become coffins on wheels under the new rules. The trial rules could be play tested from virtually every conceivable angle by the community and the feedback sent back to GW with a rating and perhaps a small box for suggestions and more detailed analysis. GW who could then utilise, modify or scrap the rules as necessary. It is just a suggestion but something really does need to be done. 4th Ed. made numerous advances but there are some gaping holes and worrying trends developing within the new codices which need to be addressed without delay.

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: Eric Swing on Jun 22, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Jason Dyer on Jun 22, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Petteri Jalonen on Jun 25, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Nick Boychuk on Jun 25, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Leon on Jun 26, 2007

    Comments: As a person attempting to start my own studio, if it wasn't for the few who actively looked at my rules, my games would be no where near the quality they are now, so it must be expected of all games designers to actively seek the opinion of players, not just marketting or business people.

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Ben Baldwin on Jul 2, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Michael Green on Jul 3, 2007

    Comments: Fully behind this as a long time Blood Angel and Tyranid player. The new rule set for the BA's are shockingly bad and simple allowing no room for customisation.

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Nick on Jul 11, 2007

    Comments: YES need a feedback some rules are stupid and pointless

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Robert Byrd on Jul 15, 2007

    Comments: I have spent thousands on GW merchandise, and am very dissapointed with some of the rule changes and may even quit. GW should accept feedback from its customers to avoid losing them.

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Richard on Jul 20, 2007

    Comments: Simplifying the rules is not the way to go, the game is already simpler than Fantasy and it should not become more so. If anything make them more compicated!

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Stephen K. Fell on Jul 20, 2007

    Comments: While I like the new Space Marine Codex with the ability to customize your own chapter... adding back to the wargear would be nice plus maybe a bit more detail on making your own chapter unique and different. Plus more and current info on the the different Chapters that are not your run of the mil chapters... all the Founding Chapters, Fire Hawks, Black Dragons and so forth. I want to see more weapon choices for my HQ/Independant characters.. if I want my Company Captain to have a regular flamer.. let me put a regular flamer on him please.

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Alexander Shaw on Jul 20, 2007

    Comments: GW needs customer feedback. If it continues on the route its going its on the way to alienating all its veteren players. I feel like I'm on mars already.

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Ryan Dattilio on Jul 27, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Anonymous on Jul 28, 2007

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Joel Heaton on Aug 18, 2007

    Comments: I do agree. There isn't a point in making a game system if fans cannot let you know what they think of it and then you altering things according to what they want, not what you think they want.

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Pierce Hodges on Feb 20, 2008

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Drlmjizz on Dec 1, 2010

    Comments: mhD1iD <a href="http://ynnomqfjrbfg.com/">ynnomqfjrbfg</a>, [url=http://yhnvbepcbmir.com/]yhnvbepcbmir[/url], [link=http://bioajzvjlgiz.com/]bioajzvjlgiz[/link], http://ziuuhgzgfkhh.com/

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Discount OEM Software on Mar 9, 2012

    Comments: OS4NEg I really enjoy the post.Thanks Again. Really Great.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Camera Buying Guide on May 13, 2013

    Comments: PXGxiz Thank you for your blog article. Fantastic.

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: Good Seo on May 25, 2013

    Comments: FNfB5p Thank you ever so for you post.Much thanks again. Awesome.

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Seo Service on May 28, 2013

    Comments: N453mN Muchos Gracias for your blog. Keep writing.

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Social Bookmarking Service on Jun 7, 2013

    Comments: VGH5oE wow, awesome article post.Thanks Again. Cool.

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Free Bookmarks on Jun 10, 2013

    Comments: YhyaA9 Fantastic article post.Thanks Again. Awesome. http://crork.com/

    Flag

Page: 1