The Big Community Survey 2019

[Jator]

13 hours ago, Thiagoma said:

Anyoneelse getting to the end and having a grey button at tue end and nothing happens?

Same here. Not sure if the survey has been sent or not.

[Infeston]

I couldn't select that I play Gutbusters or Beastclaw Raiders as an army at the beginning. Is this only for me? 

Or have they abandoned Gutbusters and BCR completely?

 

Also I couldn't finish the survey, because i couldn't click the finish button! I honestly don't want to do the whole survey again...

Edited April 16, 2019 by Infeston

[Lightbox]

I mostly voted for more wargear/mount options for heroes/generals and that I really like kits that are easily convertible (e.g. the dark eldar range) but as an avid converter I know what I like Unfortunately that trumped me asking for any 1 particular battletome. But I did state that I don't like the idea of paint scheme restrictions because I feel it stifles creativity (looking at you pre-faq firestorm)

[bsharitt]

I was so busy using all the text boxes to ask for Mordheim to comeback, I forgot to tell them to never bring back Tomb Kings. Oh well, there's always next year.

[EccentricCircle]

1 hour ago, Eevika said:

Why on earth would anyone want this? Some battletomes just get to dominate for a year while others are unplayabla. We need updates every 6 months.

Because it keeps the game more stable, and means that you don't have to constantly relearn the rules to your army making it far more accessible.

[Overread]

42 minutes ago, Infeston said:

I couldn't select that I play Gutbusters or Beastclaw Raiders as an army at the beginning. Is this only for me? 

Or have they abandoned Gutbusters and BCR completely?

 

Also I couldn't finish the survey, because i couldn't click the finish button! I honestly don't want to do the whole survey again...

Both are listed together under Ogors listing in the armies tab - which many are taking to show that GW intends to give them a merged Battletome much like the gloomspite and Skaven ones. 

[Dead Scribe]

2 minutes ago, EccentricCircle said:

Because it keeps the game more stable, and means that you don't have to constantly relearn the rules to your army making it far more accessible.

Updating points often doesn't change the rules to the army.

[tchad78]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

Thats because the double turn is a monumental negative game play experience for a lot of people, and going backwards is preferred by some over an experience that is negatively fun.

Thankfully, it's almost impossible to get double turned.  Get a low drop army, choose to go second and your opponent will generally not give you the double turn if they win the turn 2 roll, and if you win, give them the turn and you go second.

[Dead Scribe]

Thankfully, it's almost impossible to get double turned

We must be playing different games then.  Because double turns happen quite frequently in my shop and in the tournaments I play in.  

[SwampHeart]

I voted to:

-Keep the 'deploy first, go first' mechanic. I like it, especially if GW uses it more often to intentionally bias armies towards going first or second by designing their battalions with that in mind. 
-Keep the double turn - its a core part of AoS, IGoUGo is an awful system as a whole and should be re-worked (I'm a fan of the LoTR system but this is a different discussion) but if we're going to keep IGoUGo then do something to make it less bland/predictable. 
-I voted for more realm themed terrain - I love the realms, I'm excited to see GW expand the lore of them and having scenery to represent them would be awesome
-I voted for a Free Peoples Underworlds Warband - I want to know more about what the 'average' Joe of Sigmar looks like. 
-I voted for points updates every 3 months - the more frequent the better. There are glaring issues sitting out there at this moment that should be fixed, not left for years (who would ever vote for less often?!). 

As to my 'anything else' I asked GW to take better advantage of the fact that they have a living ruleset. Why stick to these arbitrarily set 'windows' to deal with issues with armies? If there are known NPEs fix them now, don't let them ruin the game 6 months to a year. The fact that I'm going to have to deal with the Rat Trap until at least the GHB is infuriating. If you make a mistake acknowledge it and fix it ASAP. 

[CitizenX]

5 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

We must be playing different games then.  Because double turns happen quite frequently in my shop and in the tournaments I play in.  

I think they are pointing out, that if you get that initial turn decision and decline to take the first turn, you can avoid the double turn for the entire game (at the cost of never getting a double turn yourself).

[The Golem]

In addition to a Scourge Privateers warband for Underworlds, I also asked for a mixed warband composed of human, duardin and aelf mercenaries. Since Warhammer Underworlds is about small bands in Shadespire, I'd like GW to move away from the rigid army factions a bit and go for more eclectic motleys.

[bsharitt]

16 minutes ago, SwampHeart said:

-I voted for points updates every 3 months - the more frequent the better. There are glaring issues sitting out there at this moment that should be fixed, not left for years (who would ever vote for less often?!). 

I voted for updates when the edition changes, once a year is already too much and used one of the text boxes to do points and constant rebalancing as a tournament packet.

[SwampHeart]

Just now, bsharitt said:

I voted for updates when the edition changes, once a year is already too much and used one of the text boxes to do points and constant rebalancing as a tournament packet.

Absolutely not, its too infrequent as it is. I'm not OK with Hags being 60 points for 3 months, yet alone 12 (or more). Tournament packets aren't official GW documents and I don't want to have to recalculate my armies points based on what an independent TO has in their packet. If GW addresses points on a more regular basis over time less and less points will need to be adjusted. 

[Stealth_Hobo]

5 hours ago, EccentricCircle said:

I suggested underworlds warbands that aren't tied ti existing factions. Its a great opportunity to expand the world beyond the stuff you get in large armies. They could make civilian adventurers, strange monsters etc. i stead everything is more or less just a variant of something already found in the wargame.

I mentioned this same thing! Also, Fimir.  Because why not.

I also wanted to see more new races and armies released for AOS instead of old ones. Sorry Dispossessed fans...

[Requizen]

1 hour ago, EccentricCircle said:

Because it keeps the game more stable, and means that you don't have to constantly relearn the rules to your army making it far more accessible.

Reviewing Warscrolls and points doesn't mean rewriting the game every 3 months. It means they look at problematic outliers and adjust ~10-15 Warscrolls across the entire product line. Unless your entire army is bent af, then you probably have nothing to worry about. 

[Overread]

I think right now its not practical, but once the game is more settled then 6 or 12 month reviews would be good. Any faster is too qiuck to really let the dust settle; esp for a wargame (its not a computer game where they not only run faster, but can perfectly log records of play and adjust on the fly faster and even the top computer games put 6 months or so between balance updates anyway and they are working with a LOT more data)

[prochuvi]

Requested battletome for dispossesed  and high elfs

[SleeperAgent]

11 hours ago, King Taloren said:

I think you are grossly overestimating the profit margins. The initial design and building of the molds can cost from 12k-120k or even 250k$ depending on the complexity and overall amount of pieces. Paying the artist, the modelers to build from the artists design. The license on the modeling program, running test runs while you decide the best way to divide the parts to fit on the spruce and in the box.

While the cost to produce it afterwards is easier with the molds how many $50 kits do you need to sell to make just that money back?

That doesn’t include paying artists for the box design, generating the rules for this new unit/model. Storing in a warehouse while you make more. paying the people in the warehouse to stock, store and protect them. The shipping to suppliers and the overseas warehouses that will need to be paid for upkeep and employees. The Games Workshop storefronts all across the world, the rent on those properties, the utilities the employees, the additional supplies such as all the posters and marketing they are doing, support for tournaments and events, just running warhammer world.

 The Website being updated and maintained and constantly ensuring your data is safe if you buy online, the license for the shopping cart and the fees associated with that. All the people who are responsible for all of this and the people in charge of them and in charge of them, etc.

Paying the lawyers to make sure they still have a game to sell people.

There is a good profit to be made  potentially but please don’t think they are making 45$ out of your 50$ purchase as actual profit. It’s probably closer to 1-2$ out of your 50$ And that is probably high estimate.

Considering stores get the $40 battletomes at $22 (55%) cost and GW still makes profit you are grossly underestimating their profit margins. 

[Forrix]

Requested new fyreslayer units/sculpts and an update for KO.

Voted 6 months for the rules reviews. Felt like there isn't enough data generated quick enough for 3 months. But 6 months allows for more incremental changes without having to suffer Nagash for a year.

[Requizen]

54 minutes ago, Overread said:

I think right now its not practical, but once the game is more settled then 6 or 12 month reviews would be good. Any faster is too qiuck to really let the dust settle; esp for a wargame (its not a computer game where they not only run faster, but can perfectly log records of play and adjust on the fly faster and even the top computer games put 6 months or so between balance updates anyway and they are working with a LOT more data)

I think 3 months for adjusting absolutely busted units (Hag Queens, Evocators) or Battalions (less now, but old Murderhost, Changehost, Vanguard Wing) would be good for the game, they don't need to do perfect tweaking more than 6-12 months like you said. But a serious review of the things people complain about could be useful. 

[JPjr]

yeah voted 3 months here. not that I would want or expect a complete reappraisal of the entire product line every quarter but it gives them more flexibility to do more but smaller updates that way.

GHB comes out, points readjusted and reset for the year.

+3 months - small adjustment to any units that obviously needs fixing and is clearly an issue.

+ 6 months - more wide ranging look at the overall line, with nudges here and there.

+ 9 months - again small adjustments to anything that really stands out or that a previous change has put out of whack or were released in the past 9 months.

+ 12 months - reset the clock! new GHB

Point being that ideally by trimming their sails as they go it doesn't create a huge amount of extra work, possibly less in fact. 

[angrycontra]

I voted against double turn. Originally I've been in favour of turn roll but recently it has been the source of biggest negative experiences for me in aos. Let me give some examples:

1st game. Me playing skryre against dok. My opponent got some really lucky long charges and caught me by surprise. I lost most of my army that turn. Almost threw a towel at that point. Anyway, it's time for turn roll. I win the roll, make comeback and win game through objectives. So what am I on here about? Well... if I had lost that roll, it would've been 100% defeat for me (double turn for dok). One roll literally dictated the entire course of the game. One roll. People often say that double turn makes games more exciting and allows miraculous comebacks but what it also does, is to allow people to steamroll and make double points from objectives. This skryre vs dok game was plenty exciting even without any double turns during the game (it was igougo entire game) but had that 1 roll failed, it would've been lame game, heh my opponent was even willing to give me the turn had I lost the roll, so how is that for a good game mechanic.

2nd game. Fyreslayers and gobbos vs boc and slaanesh. My fyreslayers and team mate's gobbos got double turn. During that double turn we killed all remaining slaanesh heroes and secured our objectives. This prevented slaanesh from summoning anything and boc from utilizing those summons to cap objectives. Needless to say, we won that match, but our victory didn't feel earned. Maybe this game was already in our favour, but once again, at least it would've been more fun match if it weren't for that double turn. 

I enjoy consistency. Can double turn make some matches really great? Sure but at the cost of ruining other games. No turn roll means that there won't be any real fun surprises but it also means that all negative surprises will be out as well and games will be overall consistently more enjoyable. Now some rule changes would be necessary for removal of turn roll (like endless spells) but it can be dealt with.

[JPjr]

Also what with the next GHB having a dedicated 'Tournament Rules' section (which I suspect may streamline and filter out certain elements of the game, artefacts, realm rules etc) I suspect that it's the way they'll go anyway.

Despite some misgivings it's clear they want to if not cater wholly to at least dedicate more resources towards the competitive scene and a more proactive approach to points changes would definitely keep things more lively there.

And really as long as the narrative side of there game gets to keep all its toys, and hopefully bag a few more, then I guess this will keep our dysfunctional family together a little longer, so all good.

Edited April 16, 2019 by JPjr

[Mayple]

2 minutes ago, angrycontra said:

 

I enjoy consistency. Can double turn make some matches really great? Sure but at the cost of ruining other games. No turn roll means that there won't be any real fun surprises but it also means that all negative surprises will be out as well and games will be overall consistently more enjoyable. Now some rule changes would be necessary for removal of turn roll (like endless spells) but it can be dealt with.

I agree (and also with the rest of the post)

I've also noticed a sort of negative triple effect going on.

I don't enjoy doubleturning someone. It feels cheap, and gives me a clear advantage I don't feel I earned.

I don't enjoy getting doubleturned, for the reverse reasons.

I don't enjoy failing to get doubleturn, because I know I'm losing out. 

 

 

Any similar experiences?