Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Rise Against

by Anonymous Foodie



Sometimes a company that shall remain nameless does things that we, a player base that shall remain nameless, do not like.

Sometimes, though, said player base is able to jump up and down, write angry letters, and otherwise make enough noise that said company comes to its senses.  Sometimes, we make the changes we want to see.

The most recent, and perhaps poorest example, was allowing Furious Assault to be activated on a Counter Charge move.

GW says "sure".  Space Wolf players rejoice.  Imperial Guard players rejoice even more.  Players get antsy.  GW says "hold that thought... no".

Why is this then a poor excuse?  Because it's more a case of GW not seeing the full effect of a ruling before it was made.

Further back, and some may not remember this, was the "all Tyranids were Eternal Warriors" craziness.  Back in the days of the last codex, if a bug was in Synapse Range (rippers excluded) they gained the Eternal Warrior rule.  Rather, they could not be insta-killed by weapons with a strength double their toughness.

Some people decided that this meant that a weapon with strength double their toughness, plus one, *could* in fact insta-kill them (as it was not specifically disallowed per Rules As Written).  Silly children.  Of course, GW decided to jump on the bandwagon with the FAQ and support such silliness.

And then we decided that we didn't like it.  About a week later, that ruling was changed, and Nids got the full EW treatment (immune to Force Weapons and the like) to boot.

Now I don't mean to make this so Niddy-centric (though maybe there's something to be said about that), but I do wonder about the FAQ with Shadow in the Warp not affecting units in Transports.  There has been plenty of commotion about it... but has there been enough?

Have people taken the time to address the issue with GW?  Have they tried sending letters?  What about the other angle - that ruling *should* have opened a can of worms, making players wonder if all other psychic defense capabilities are stopped by little boxes.  This could be a huge blunder, or it could be a new precident.  But have we done what we can to find out?

I smell a riot on the horizon, if a civilized one.  The recent Tyranid FAQ is probably the first Big Mistake (as per more or less general consensus) that hasn't made more than a few small ripples in the comparative Lake Intarwebs.  Sure, people have griped.  But I've seen (and been a part of) petitions, letters, rewrites, etc, for other things.

So why not this?

7 comments:

  1. I used my wallet to register my issues. Those being with GW's policy of neglect with respect to both codexes and inability to faq rules shown to be ambiguously written. We all have a final straw.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GW messed up one rule on the old tyranid FAQ. One big rule being the Furious and counter stacking. I personally have sent in 2 e-mails to GW, one to Customer service and one to complaints. The issue is not that too few players have done it but simply GW wont change it. I feel like GW doesn't want to admit how bad they messed up and they don't want to seem tenuous. They want to be the law and the final rule. They aren't going to admit they're wrong and at fault because then everyone will want rules changes.

    The other issue is that in Europe people still think Tyranids are OP and work good enough as they are. then we have to factor how many people really play tyranids? How many of those people are serious enough to care? How many of those people will take their time to send something in? Tyranid players will need help from imperium players to get a change. For a large enough group to speak up space wolf, tyranid, guard, eldar, marine players alike will have to ban together. . . sad news they wont because too many people just don't care that tyranids are nerfed and don't want to help the enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AMEN!

    Now, how do we DO this? Who organizes the protest, and how do I participate if I don't own Tyranids?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'll put out a few feelers in terms of something more "official". Honestly my first thought would be to start sending copious (and I mean copious) E-mails and calls to rules question people about how psychic hoods and runic weapons and other things work against Psykers in Transports, referencing Shadow.

    It's either going to point to shenanigans, or make a new standard. Of course, these things are typically loose at best, but it's a start.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sounds like a plan. I think your next step is to write up some talking points that people could follow when they call/write with rules questions.

    And as always... BE RESPECTFULL! Cursing out GW or being non-positive in your tone is the surest way to be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To echo what SandWyrm said, in the words of my departed grandfather, "You can have an opinion without being opinionated; you can disagree without being disagreeable."

    I made my personal protest with my wallet - I've not purchased a (new)model in almost a year. I did pick up the GK Codex the other day, and the DE one a month or so back, but no plastic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's a shame that GW aren't better at communicating with more of their player base. They do strike me as quite nice when you hear about direct interactions with the studio guys so I don't think there is some ill will involved. More that they seem to have too much on their plates.

    And btw, I don't play Tyranids, but I don't think that should matter. Well updated and thought through FAQs for *all* armies are in everyone's interest.

    And if you want to try to communicate with GW I recommend taking a look at what Old Shatter Hands did for the Tau. I think his letter was pretty good.

    ReplyDelete

Recent Favorites

All-Time Favorites