8th Ed. Petition - Re-release the army book.

[Mr Phat]

so...

This thread

http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/armybook-artwork.12836/

let to this petition by Didymus:

https://www.change.org/petitions/games-workshop-re-release-the-8th-edition-lizardmen-armybook-2

there is really many who aren't happy about our new book, not just the new units, but also that it seems rushed in clumsy ways: typos, bad wording and lousy artwork (some of it), also the "New Artwork" watermark reeks of "we didnt look it through before turning it in" syndrome.

I for one have a feeling that we have been cut short on development time so more effort could be put into the Space Marines..
...so I signed it.....the idea of waiting 6 years to get something this poorly done is not something that makes me a happy buyer GW.

 

[Didymus]

Just to be clear, I don't really expect GW to re-release the armybook (obviously), it's just a way of saying that I ain't too happy with how they do things now.

Someone might do the wording better though, so let's view that petition as an alpha

 

[Mr Phat]

Just to be clear, I don't really expect GW to re-release the armybook

agreed...unless people will be willing to pay for it again....im almost there actually..

 

[lizardmek]

i would just like a FAQ


your asking too much to redo a whole army book because you dont like it

dont get me wrong it sure would be nice but completely unrealistic and pie in the sky to ask GW to throw thousands maybe tens of thousands of book away and start again

plus with the ramped up releases they wouldnt get round to it till way after 9th ed came and went lol


it would be better to ask GW to proof read there books alittle more but to ask them to reprint is madness

i just want a FAQ please


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOwpDIuBbKY


This is madness!

madness




THIS IS LUSTRIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[chefsdad]

So, let me get this straight...

You want GW to completely re-release the lizardmen army book, because a couple of rules are unclear and you don't like the pictures?

Cool story bro. Have fun with that.


FAQ will fix the badly worded rules, so it's pretty much down to the artwork, which I personally like. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that you don't really have a chance of getting a company to change one of their products cause a few people on the Internet don't like it.

 

[T`hinker`er]

My suggestion for a petition was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. If GW actually reacted to such a petition with a new printing of the book, correcting the editing mistakes and missing artwork and revising even just one poorly devised rule, I would die of a heart attack on the spot! If they actually issued a credit to those who bought the BETA version of the 8th Ed lizard book, my cat would pass on to the afterlife with me.

But a petition for a speedy FAQ that was worded to express, without whining, the things that desperately need to be addressed, just might be listened to. It would have to be succinct, clear, concise and dispassionate. In a perfect world, GW would at least do this much for it's customers.

 

[RipperDerek]

I maintain that, in order to make the petition meaningful, it has to be detailed and specific. List all of the major typos / editing problems, including page numbers. Specify where art is missing entirely. List the rules that are unclear.

You're not likely to actually get them to re-release the army book, but pointing out what a mess the book is might at least get them to take quicker action.

 

[Didymus]

So, let me get this straight...

You want GW to completely re-release the lizardmen army book, because a couple of rules are unclear and you don't like the pictures?

No, not really. It's more about giving a sign that they should put more care into their armybooks. I know very well they'll never re-release an armybook.

 

[Lizardmatt]

So, let me get this straight...

You want GW to completely re-release the lizardmen army book, because a couple of rules are unclear and you don't like the pictures?

No, not really. It's more about giving a sign that they should put more care into their armybooks. I know very well they'll never re-release an armybook.

Actually, they have re-released army books in the past with corrected rules.
I think it was Dark Eldar; the first printing had different rules that a later printing. They just corrected a mistake and sent it out. It left some confused players who had two different rule effects based on when they bought the army book.
It didn't matter in tournaments, because back then, anyone who wanted to win a tournament game wouldn't be showing up with dark eldar.

I liked it when GW used to release the once a year update of all the rules from all the White Dwarfs and threw in the FAQ's and Erratas as well.

-Matt

 

[Mr Phat]

I dont think anyone actually expects them to do it?

Isnt this about sending a message that says "please do it properly" ?

 

[T`hinker`er]

The only message worth sending is one that hits GW in the pocketbook. I think they broke even (in terms of profit-loss) by just selling out of the pre-release "special edition" faux lizard-scale hardcover rulebook, plus a few hundred pre-ordered carno/ripper kits from fans who believed the Trog/rippers were going to be super awesome.

I admit to taking a wait and see attitude. I'm still waiting...and not liking what I am seeing very much in rules, options, models or battle reports. My group is still using the old book, FWIW.

 

[The Scottish Saurus]

/rant mode

i really dont see the problems with this, im over the moon with the book, the way it all is i love the 8th ed books, theyre style etc. sure theres a few badly worded rules but i think their meaning is quite obvious if you just think about it for a second, PF the model makes 1 additional attack, IMHO its obvious that an additional supporting attack would be made that cannot be boosted... the art really isnt that bad at all, the trogs art is awsome i think kind of eerie, plus the shading and all that stuff on it is fantastic id like to see any school kid replicate that without seeing the original.

and now the trogs rules... the trog is hated on a lot, its not its fault that it fulfills a certain role in a few armies, if you dont need it in your army simply dont read about it, dont look at it, dont buy one and definitely dont bitch about it, its like my argument for my smoking, if you have a problem with it, stand somewhere else, dont like the smell? breathe through your mouth, but please dont make it your own business to tell me to stop... thats my choice.

basically, dont like the art? dont look at it, look up fan art or alternative art, dont like the rules? well tough theyve been written that way for a reason, GW dont just think of it the day before and go oh thatll do. dont like the new "they were always there" fluff... dont read it its optional...

it really annoys me when people look at something and decide that cause they think its bad it must be to everyone and decide that GW should put in tons more money in re releasing it when its really none of our business as to how the rules etc are made, if it really gets to you, make your own house rules and dont use the book.

also GW really dont need us telling them we hate it, sure some people will like it some wont thats part of running a business but does the book fulfill its role, yes very well, the writters, artists etc will have put in a lot of time into making this book what it is for us to enjoy it and theyll be proud so cut them some slack

hell if it annoys you so much PLAY A DIFFERENT ARMY for crying out loud.

/end rant mode

in short, no i dont think we need a new book at all

 

[Qupakoco]

What's wrong with the artwork? Is it because it's re-packaged and colored?

EDIT: Nevermind. Guess I should learn to read, eh?

 

[sirkently]

the writters, artists etc will have put in a lot of time into making this book what it is for us to enjoy it and theyll be proud so cut them some slack

That is the thing, a lot of us don't think they should be proud of it.

 

[Spiney Norman]

So, let me get this straight...

You want GW to completely re-release the lizardmen army book, because a couple of rules are unclear and you don't like the pictures?

Cool story bro. Have fun with that.


FAQ will fix the badly worded rules, so it's pretty much down to the artwork, which I personally like. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that you don't really have a chance of getting a company to change one of their products cause a few people on the Internet don't like it.

Pretty much this.

I've also got to say that I would be really, really annoyed if they did redo the book just a month after I had forked out good money for the old one. Would you seriously go out and buy an updated version to replace the one you have now, just because they reworked the troglodon and removed the watermarks?

As it happens I really like the artwork, and I can live with the watermark, mistakes happen, at least my general is no-longer the rather awkward to pronounce Slann Magwe-Priest like in our previous book.

As for unclear rules, every Gw publication has them, that is why every rule book, army book and codex has a corresponding FAQ, if you are looking for a crystal-clear, word perfect publication you will need to find another wargames company, or more likely start your own so you can be sure to do everything perfectly, while we all sit around on our lap tops and make threads about how bad your product is and how you should have done better.

 

[Mr Phat]

As for unclear rules, every Gw publication has them, that is why every rule book, army book and codex has a corresponding FAQ, if you are looking for a crystal-clear, word perfect publication you will need to find another wargames company, or more likely start your own so you can be sure to do everything perfectly, while we all sit around on our lap tops and make threads about how bad your product is and how you should have done better.

You'll have the chance soon enough,
http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/lizardmen-expansion-project.12782/
But your are just proving my point really, since I know that the most important part of a design process is the negative feedback before release.

and I can live with the watermark, mistakes happen, at least my general is no-longer the rather awkward to pronounce Slann Magwe-Priest like in our previous book.

"Can live with" ?
I've been waiting a long time for this release and will have a long time to wait for the next one, so I was expecting a piece of wholehearted work, not something to "live with".

If I knew my customer had been waiting for such a rare release with high anticipation I would view on both those errors as unacceptable, and of course I cant tell what GW did but if it was my call it would have had consequences for the editor.

I think its a very limp attitude (sorry if it offends, im not out for that) to just accept mistakes like this that could so easily have been corrected.
Also from a developers point of view: this book is rushed people, no doubt about it whatever you like the result or not.

If GW cant keep up with their own schedule they should slow down instead of going for quantitative production.

as for this thread:
if an admin sees it, close it for my sake. It has come across wrong as people seem to get mad rather than seeing that this is just about showing GW that their audience responds to weak development.
I wasnt aware that half didnt give a damn about being fobbed off.

my mistake.

 

[Spiney Norman]

As for unclear rules, every Gw publication has them, that is why every rule book, army book and codex has a corresponding FAQ, if you are looking for a crystal-clear, word perfect publication you will need to find another wargames company, or more likely start your own so you can be sure to do everything perfectly, while we all sit around on our lap tops and make threads about how bad your product is and how you should have done better.

You'll have the chance soon enough,
http://www.lustria-online.com/threads/lizardmen-expansion-project.12782/
But your are just proving my point really, since I know that the most important part of a design process is the negative feedback before release.

and I can live with the watermark, mistakes happen, at least my general is no-longer the rather awkward to pronounce Slann Magwe-Priest like in our previous book.

"Can live with" ?
I've been waiting a long time for this release and will have a long time to wait for the next one, so I was expecting a piece of wholehearted work, not something to "live with".

If I knew my customer had been waiting for such a rare release with high anticipation I would view on both those errors as unacceptable, and of course I cant tell what GW did but if it was my call it would have had consequences for the editor.

I think its a very limp attitude (sorry if it offends, im not out for that) to just accept mistakes like this that could so easily have been corrected.
Also from a developers point of view: this book is rushed people, no doubt about it whatever you like the result or not.

If GW cant keep up with their own schedule they should slow down instead of going for quantitative production.

as for this thread:
if an admin sees it, close it for my sake. It has come across wrong as people seem to get mad rather than seeing that this is just about showing GW that their audience responds to weak development.
I wasnt aware that half didnt give a damn about being fobbed off.

my mistake.

I think you're missing my point, I said I could live with the watermark, the book as a whole is very good, and I don't think the watermark alone is a big enough problem to detract from what otherwise is a good product.

Yes its annoying they left a watermark where it shouldn't be, but for me that is about the only complaint I have of the book. Whether or not you or I like the artwork is entire subjective anyway, and as for the troglodon, every book has sub-par choices.

Now I have an erroneous watermark in my army book... the question is what to do about it
A petition for the to redo it is totally pointless, because even if it were successful (which it won't be) there is no way on this earth I would pay another £30 for an un-watermarked version (if I wanted to do that I would have bought the iBooks version).

And as for all this drivel about "making a statement", it won't do that either, GW will just ignore it unless it gets a truly tumultuous response, but I rather doubt that if every Lizardmen player in the world signed it there would be enough signatures to worry the suits.

I also totally disagree that one misplaced watermark means LM players were 'fobbed off' with 'weak development'. The army list is in very good shape overall, and after over half a dozen games with the book I like the way it plays, the fluff isn't horrendous, even if it does read like a bit of a kiddies comic strip in places (which is something that has afflicted all of the 8E army books and seems to be something of a design decision sadly). The artwork is all good quality, and even most of our magic items seem pretty well balanced, which is something they screwed up on in a lot of other 8E books.

I actually think the inclusion of High Magic (and the intentional modification of the spell names to make them less elf-centric) points to Lizardmen and high elves being developed together which would actually give LM a longer than usual development period.

I understand that GW didn't come up with the goods on the all-conquering, unkillable, dinosaur-mounted MC front, which some folk are still pining for, but perhaps that means they are learning from their mistakes in previous books and were trying to redress the balance of the game with something cool like... Str6 multi-wound impact hits or something

 

[The Scottish Saurus]

the writters, artists etc will have put in a lot of time into making this book what it is for us to enjoy it and theyll be proud so cut them some slack

That is the thing, a lot of us don't think they should be proud of it.

thats exactly what im getting at, its not up to us if they are proud of their artwork or not, the book isnt released and then GW sit and wait for feedback on the artwork or any of that.

also i think the fact youve made this thread is incredibly insulting to GW, think of how itd make you feel im a strong believer in silent hate so if you really dont like it instead of ruining peoples self esteem and confidence maybe just burn a few ants or smoke an extra fag, go to the gym for an extra hour, you know work it off instead of destroying someones personality for something that IN YOUR OPINION is not good enough for YOUR standards

EDIT: apologies for any offence or annoyance i cause with my attitude here i have a very defensive mindset and language, i did try to keep it light hearted but it hasnt really worked haha

 

[RipperDerek]

Uh...

Of COURSE people are expressing their own opinions when they post on forums. Those opinions are not always going to be positive, and they aren't always going to agree with yours, Scotty. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't post them.

 

[The Scottish Saurus]

im not trying to discourage posting, im trying to discourage unnecessary and harsh words being said, if there was constructive critisism here instead of "this art sucks, my classmates could do better" maybe like "i dont really like the troglodons art too much but its been done well"

us scots have a vicious temper too