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

[Soteks Prophet]

I'd rather that they did an FAQ than re-release!

 

[Ehsteve]

Paying a premium for a hardback product which has not had even a casual glance by a skilled editor or even missing content is unjustifiable. It's as bad as having faulty stitching on a pair of Jordan Flights or other such faulty products. Chalk it down to human error, sure, but when you're trying to market something as the best in the work, then you have to make sure you can deliver on that promise.

I think this error would be enough to warrant a reprint if it still has Work In Progress markings, how this managed to slip through QA is anyone's guess. This is a fundamental consumer right: when you pay for something and the product is missing features or is generally incomplete, you get your refund. The hopeful consequence is that the company (if it wants to maintain any semblance of image) will correct the error. If it fails to do so and continues marketing the same product at the same price with those same promises, that's just plain incompetence or negligence.

And no, you shouldn't have to buy the new one, GW should have a policy wherein you can go in store, give them back your defective copy and get an updated one at no charge, that's called customer-freakin'-service when prices are considered.

 

[Mr Phat]

+1 to the above.

Its not about "hurting feelings" , we are the customer and they are the supplier...it is not a "happy family" scenario where they want the best for us and we gladly pay...at least not for me anymore, since I find it clear that they downgrade some customers to others. Theres only one reason to do that: profit, and it really p's me off that Lizardmen (which is my only army and the reason im in the game) have been left behind due to the popular boy in class called Space Marines was next up..............7 different limited edition Codex's guys.....7.....and have you SEEN the quality of that artwork?!...must have TAKEN QUITE A WHILE!

back to hurting feelings: It would really surprise me if they even have any social-media strategists who crawl these forums to see what people think, as their Business to customer communication is one of the weakest ive ever seen in any retail business.

if there is anyone listening though: good job on all the old units. GW listened and/or observed what their customers did and fixed those units in the new book.


to point out what is wrong from my point of view:

1 - "first that came to mind"-symptoms on new units.
Ripperdactyls - oh haha lets take the other part of "Terradactyl" and give a a blender'ish prefix. its a work-in-progress title at best.

2 - Bastiladon - my mind has changed on their usefulness, but they clearly was 2 different dinos to start with, which then got fused...not sure if of lazyness but most certainly not from concept-oriented reaons
Arc of Sotek: makes sense to put on a beast that has no rear or flanks and likes to fight with its tail first, since the snakes pop out in all directions

Solar Engine - from a Lizardmen point of view...why would you put a forward-arced weapon on before mentioned beast? what WOULD make sense was to put an engine of the gods on its back which ALSO fires in all directions, and put the solar engine on the stegadon....who really likes to point towards his target.

I think the solar engine was meant for an Arcanadon type of creature, but it would be easier to just throw it in as a dual-kit.

3 - poor failed final draft editing.
It would take 1 game from an outsider who had never heard of PF before to
ask the question "supporting ranks or not?" .
It would also take 2 minutes for the "Watermark" implementer to go through his checklist to make sure if everything was in order.


4 - big-span variation in artwork design. for example: Look at the skinks at p36, p38, p42, p43 ...dont you think the difference is strikingly big? no? then look at Tehenhauin afterwards (downs syndrome?!)..... Couldnt they make up their mind on how they should look? sure they could...its just that a single artist with the desired expression couldn't paint it all in SO LITTLE TIME so instead they hired multiple.
I know artwork is rarely done by the same artist, but the style difference is so big that it isnt possible that they at any time sat down and said "this is what we are going for, so it has to be along these lines."

note: some of the artwork is golden in my opinion...utterly golden! but thats not the point here.



Protecting their work with "there will be FAQ" just makes it worse in my opinion...as we all know that NO ONE is sitting with this as 1. priority after the book is finished, as there should be, since it easily done and even easier updated.
It would take less than a day to scout for questions on the forums,
go "oh, right, theres doubt about this, well here you go guys..now you can play without debating for months".

 

[Didymus]

Relax guys, relax Some people are taking this a bit too serious

9 signatures already, we'll get there, we'll get there



Now, I'll try and answer a few things (rantmode might get turned on sometimes)

Part 1: (yes, it got too long)

/rant mode

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...

Well, the unclear wording of this rule has made quite a rift among players, those who think supporting attacks can generate extra attacks, and those who don't. Surely someone must have asked that question during playtesting (there was playtesting, right?). Just an extra sentence and it would be perfectly clear, but no...

/rant mode
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.

Honestly? That is the worst piece of official art I've ever seen, and I'm not even joking that people from my class could do better.

/rant mode

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.

Smoking annoys other people nearby, but that's beside the point But the Trog has some questionable utilities, surely a new big dino should be convincing enough to put in your army?

/rant mode
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...

Well, that's kind of the point of art, isn't it? To look at it? If you don't want to look at it, it's simply bad art. Some of the half arsed rules do imply that they wrote them quite quickly or didn't playtest them enough, or haven't even asked a lot of fellow employees what they tought. The new fluff isn't not so much annoying as much as that it's simply not there. If I want to read decent Lizardmen fluff I still go back to my 6th edition book.

/rant mode
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.
l

If multiple people think it's bad, there's probably a reason for it. Ofcourse it's not out business how GW does their thing, but they used to do it for the players. Keep kicking them in the nuts, and the players will abandon them. Having to make house rules instead of using the book is once again proof that the book isn't good enough.

/rant mode
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

Some obviously haven't put a lot of time in it and shouldn't be proud of it as a result. Granted, most artwork is good or decent, but that's mostly the old artwork, it get's much worce every new generation.

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

If people reach this conclusion after going over the book it's solid proof that GW has failed. Don't get me wrong, I love Lizardmen and I always will, I'll always play with them. What annoys me is tha half-arsing that's going on, refusing to put more time and effort into something for the sake of profit and deliviring a result that doesn't live up to it's potential.

 

[Didymus]

Part 2:

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?

Well, it would be great if you could just trade in your armybook for the reworked one. Apart from the fact that it will never happen ofcourse.

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.

When I company proclaims they're the very best in the wargaming industry, I expect the very best of the merchandise I buy. They obviously proofread it one time at most. I picked up the book, glanced over it and immediately saw mistakes. Unacceptable from something that cost me 39 euros. That others have the sameproblems is no excuse to abandon all effort.

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.

Whenever someone signs the petition GW get's an email. Well, customer support does anyway... That won't help at all won't it?
And about our statement: we're trying, which is something GW didn't do with the armybook (padum-tsshh)

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

W'll see about that when the next armybook is released

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.

Seeing as we're the ones paying, yes, it IS up to us

also i think the fact youve made this thread is incredibly insulting to GW,

Well, it was their decision to rush it, so they had it coming for all I care.

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

QFT. don't we all?

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

Well, my classmates CAN do better, concerning that Troglodon at least. Seriously, compare the 6th edition artwork with that Trog scribble, it's kind of like this:


I could write a page about what's wrong with the new artwork. I probably will, in the original topic about the art.


Remember, a forum is for opinions, and negative opinions are opinions too. There's no point in mindlessly doing happy-dances every time GW breaks wind, that won't do anyone any good.

 

[warlorddrax]

well said!

i agree with you on every point you just made.

i love my lizards so much! but when i read the new book, a little part of my soul shrivels up and dies every time...

 

[Mr Phat]

Well, my classmates CAN do better, concerning that Troglodon at least. Seriously, compare the 6th edition artwork with that Trog scribble, it's kind of like this:

YES! its EXACTLY like that!!

damn thats spot on!


+1 to all of your points too...

 

[T`hinker`er]

In my experience, if you want to get a company's customer service to help you out the TONE you use with them is everything. GW regularly replaces miscast miniatures without charge (this has been especially true with the finecast range, which are plagued by bubbles/gaps and mis-shapen bits, but even with metal kits there were always times when a part would be missing and call to customer service would have a new part in the mail to you the next day). GW is not just a minis company, but a rules/publishing company - and the same policies and high standards should be maintained by them if they want to grow and survive in this highly competitive industry. The company's profits in North America alone are about 9 million a year - that's JUST North America! This isn't about hurting anyone's ego - this is business.

A voucher for a book trade in would satisfy me 100%, but being realistic, I believe that a very well worded FAQ request* in petition form to give it the weight of numbers, is probably the best we can do and will get the best results.

*Well worded here means not whiney, stating concise reasons and making helpful, reasonable (and game balanced) suggestions, all the while strokiig the GW ego.

 

[Spiney Norman]

Well, it was their decision to rush it, so they had it coming for all I care.

No offence, but would you like to make your case that GW actually did 'rush' the book (whatever you think that means). I don't really consider the fact that you don't like the artwork and there is one watermark left where it shouldn't be to be a watertight case for a 'rushed job'.

I'd also be interested in how many GW publications you can name that didn't contain a single typo from the last 5 years, certainly our lt AB doesn't fall into that category.

 

[Mr Phat]

I'd also be interested in how many GW publications you can name that didn't contain a single typo from the last 5 years, certainly our lt AB doesn't fall into that category.

....good point.....if your were pointing out that GW dosnt learn from their mistake and adapt to give us a better product.

No offence, but would you like to make your case that GW actually did 'rush' the book (whatever you think that means). I don't really consider the fact that you don't like the artwork and there is one watermark left where it shouldn't be to be a watertight case for a 'rushed job'.

Ive just mentioned 4 huge indications that the book was rushed.
At least argue them of instead of just neglecting them.

 

[Spiney Norman]

I'd also be interested in how many GW publications you can name that didn't contain a single typo from the last 5 years, certainly our lt AB doesn't fall into that category.

....good point.....if your were pointing out that GW dosnt learn from their mistake and adapt to give us a better product.

No offence, but would you like to make your case that GW actually did 'rush' the book (whatever you think that means). I don't really consider the fact that you don't like the artwork and there is one watermark left where it shouldn't be to be a watertight case for a 'rushed job'.

Ive just mentioned 4 huge indications that the book was rushed.
At least argue them of instead of just neglecting them.

Ok, lets go over them one at a time

1. You don't like ripperdactyls
Firstly this is entirely subjective, the rippers are one of my favourite units in the new book, the models are great (second only to the Bastiladon IMO) and they fill the spot of terradons that can actually beat stuff in combat quite well. Ok they have a goofy name, but read the last 4 editions of the lizardmen army book, Lizardmen is the goofy-name army. 'Ripperdactyl' is no more nor less original than 'terradon', 'stegadon' or 'carnosaur'.

2. You don't like the Bastiladon
Again, entity subjective, the Bastiladon is my favourite model of the release and a great utility monster with a low points tag. I really, really don't get what's not to like. But your comments about expecting two different units with each of the engines on their backs is unrealistic and really just shows an ignorance (wilful or otherwise) of how GW has been operating for at least the last 3 years.

I'm also detecting a slight undercurrent of annoyance that GW didn't do exactly what you thought they should in the new Lizardmen book, they gave us ripperdactyls instead of carnosaur cavalry and they didn't put the arcanodon into the list. I'm afraid the time has come to get your head round the fact that GW pays its designers to come up with creative ideas that will not necessarily be the same as yours. I for one think they did a very good job with the new units in this book, granted they kind of dropped the ball on the troglodon, but at least the concept is interesting, all the others are well-concepted, appropriately costed for their abilities and are accompanied by excellent plastic models.
On the arcanodon I personally don't expect to see it ever, it only appeared as a conversion in the Lustria supplement where it carried the engine of the gods on its back. When the 7th edition Lizardmen book came out that was given to the Stegadon in the new plastic kit, so ally the arcanodon no longer has a role in the army.

Conclusion: I don't understand how you not liking the two above units in any way suggests the release was 'rushed'.

3. The Watermark & Predatory Fighter
I have to be honest I didn't even notice the watermark until someone pointed it out on a forum and I went to check my book. Yes its there, no it doesn't in any way detract from the usefulness of the book, its not like they have mis-named a unit entry like they did in the last book (which was much more of a big deal for me, but I didn't see any petitions for rerelease back then).

As for the predatory fighter 'discrepancy', I think a lot of people are making a lot more out of it than is necessary. Its not really even a very grey issue, its pretty plain to me that only front rankers should gain the additional attack from predatory fighter unless otherwise stated because the core rules do not allow for subsequent ranks making more than 1 attack under any circumstances (or 3 in the case of monstrous units). The call for an FAQ is basically just the fan base hoping that the author made a mistake and forgot to include the exemption rather than inquiring about a genuinely ambiguous rule.

Conclusion: the watermark issue is something of an embarrassment to GW, but they have published other books with far worse errors than this. I imagine the watermark will be removed for the next printing, so if it really is that big an issue for you just keep checking the LM ABs at your local Gw and when the new print run comes through you'll be able to get one.
Once again I fail to see that just because the PF rule doesn't work how you think it should that means the project was 'rushed'.

4. Discrepancy in artwork
Apparently you don't share my view that GW using multiple different artists to visually interpret the army in different ways is a good thing. Its true that there are a variety of styles across the book, but since all art appreciation is subjective it makes sense to go for maximum variety to cater to as many different tastes as possible. I also think the inclusion of art pieces from previous editions adds to the sense of artistic heritage and game-history of the army which would otherwise be lost. For example I still think the 6th edition cover art is the best piece of LM art that has been made to date, it would be tragic IMO if this piece was lost because they filled the latest book exclusively with new pieces for the sake of new pieces.

Conclusion: I don't really follow the logic that stylistic variety = 'rushed', based on my own judgement (admittedly I am not a professional art critic) I don't see that any of the new artwork in the army book seem rushed.

 

[Natural 20]

So a guy in editing misses a watermark and GW makes up some silly names for units and people are crying for a new book?

Here's my thoughts

First off find me a GW book that dosent have a stupid name in it be it a unit or character they like silly names sometimes owell that's life. Why don't you try to figure out a better name for Ripperdactyles hell I've seen actual dinosaurs with worse names

In the fluff for the Bastiladon is explains why it has the solar engine and the Sotek ark the heat from the solar engine and the fire needed to rouse the snakes is to hot for most creatures the Bastiladons thick shell makes it unaffected by the heat thus it has both of those things on its back.

I agree that some rules are up for debate but that exists in every book call GW lazy call them whatever people still buy it they will still print it

I like the new book and the new units I've played a crap ton of games with the new book Rippers are awesome, the Basti is awesome, Carnosaur is awesome, the troglodon is well he's blind and stuff >.> basically our book is great we didn't get short changed like Tomb Kings an we didn't get a big block of Mat Ward cheese like High Elves and Deamons and I'm good with that.

Another thing on the note of the Troglodon art I think it's pretty disrespectful to bash on that artwork as an artist myself its hard to put yourself out there and make a career out of it. To critique it is one thing but to blatantly trash on it is highly disrespectful I'd like to see you draw one better and even if you could it would still be wrong to hate on it. Everyone has a style and draws differently obviously it got that person a professional job and I commend them it's not easy

 

[Didymus]

So a guy in editing misses a watermark and GW makes up some silly names for units and people are crying for a new book?

People seem to miss the 10.000 times i've said we don't actually expect a new book

Another thing on the note of the Troglodon art I think it's pretty disrespectful to bash on that artwork as an artist myself its hard to put yourself out there and make a career out of it. To critique it is one thing but to blatantly trash on it is highly disrespectful I'd like to see you draw one better and even if you could it would still be wrong to hate on it. Everyone has a style and draws differently obviously it got that person a professional job and I commend them it's not easy

I could consider myself an artist as well (of sorts), and I expect a LOT more from official published artwork.

 

[Didymus]

4. Discrepancy in artwork
Apparently you don't share my view that GW using multiple different artists to visually interpret the army in different ways is a good thing. Its true that there are a variety of styles across the book, but since all art appreciation is subjective it makes sense to go for maximum variety to cater to as many different tastes as possible. I also think the inclusion of art pieces from previous editions adds to the sense of artistic heritage and game-history of the army which would otherwise be lost. For example I still think the 6th edition cover art is the best piece of LM art that has been made to date, it would be tragic IMO if this piece was lost because they filled the latest book exclusively with new pieces for the sake of new pieces.

Conclusion: I don't really follow the logic that stylistic variety = 'rushed', based on my own judgement (admittedly I am not a professional art critic) I don't see that any of the new artwork in the army book seem rushed.

The inclusion of 6th edition artwork isn't a problem, on the contrary, it makes up most of the decent artwork that's in the book. Among the new art there's just too much difference in style. Not that some artworks are done more expressively than others or something like that, they just almost seem to portray different creatures. Others like the Tehenhauin and Trog ones) are just plain bad.

 

[Spiney Norman]

So a guy in editing misses a watermark and GW makes up some silly names for units and people are crying for a new book?

People seem to miss the 10.000 times i've said we don't actually expect a new book

Then perhaps a more appropriate (and therefore less hyperbolic) petition statement would have been in order. The thing is most people replying to the thread are responding to the title of the poll and the question of the petition, not reading the multiple pages of argument and riposte beneath it. Maybe wording the petition something like "Petition for GW to raise the quality of its publications" would have been better, at least that is a point I could possibly agree with, even if I do think most of your complaints are vastly exaggerated.

Your opinion of the artwork is entity subjective, as is mine. Are you basically saying I'm not allowed to like it because you think it is bad?

 

[Didymus]

Then perhaps a more appropriate (and therefore less hyperbolic) petition statement would have been in order.

Perhaps that would be for the best.

Your opinion of the artwork is entity subjective, as is mine. Are you basically saying I'm not allowed to like it because you think it is bad?

No, I don't. But you're saying I shouldn't say it's rubbish, just because someone made it. Putting effort into something doesn't automatically result in something beautiful.

 

[Mr Phat]

In the fluff for the Bastiladon is explains why it has the solar engine and the Sotek ark the heat from the solar engine and the fire needed to rouse the snakes is to hot for most creatures the Bastiladons thick shell makes it unaffected by the heat thus it has both of those things on its back.

how the #¤&" have I missed this?
Ive read the book from start to end and somehow this just didnt place itself into my memory.
Ill take anything back ive said about the Bastiladon concept, as this justifies everything.
My mistake.

but read the last 4 editions of the lizardmen army book, Lizardmen is the goofy-name army. 'Ripperdactyl' is no more nor less original than 'terradon', 'stegadon' or 'carnosaur'.

I dont agee as "Ripperdactyl" breaks the semantics by introducing a verb into a name which is supposed to be unique for the race.

If the other guys was called "Charges-with-horns'adon" and "Tears-stuff'apart'asaur" ...I wouldnt have a problem with it.....as I wouldnt be in the hobby either.

the rippers are one of my favourite units in the new book, the models are great

You don't like the Bastiladon
Again, entity subjective, the Bastiladon is my favourite model

I dont like the models for rippers no but that is completly of topic. It is the book thats the center of attention only. (I like all the new models a whole lot, couldnt ask for more.)

I'm also detecting a slight undercurrent of annoyance that GW didn't do exactly what you thought they should in the new Lizardmen book, they gave us ripperdactyls instead of carnosaur cavalry and they didn't put the arcanodon into the list.

Wrong detection, I never had any expectations for any of the rumours to be true and was by the way feeling VERY joyful and satisfied as the first pictures of the new models arrived.
I dont care about the carnosaur cav and I dont care about the Arcanadon. If me mentioning the Arcanadon triggered the thought of "what I want" then I think you are jumping to conclusions.

Apparently you don't share my view that GW using multiple different artists to visually interpret the army in different ways is a good thing. Its true that there are a variety of styles across the book, but since all art appreciation is subjective it makes sense to go for maximum variety to cater to as many different tastes as possible.

First rule of marketing, design and product development:
"if you design for everyone you design for no one"

It was literally the first thing I was told in class, and rightfully so as you can never achieve a strong design if
you dont know who and what you are going for and why you are doing it.

Something for everybody is less for the individual.


and as mentioned above: I take everything about the Bastiladon back, I cant believe how I possibly missed that part as it ties everything together so perfectly that I actually sit with a bitter taste for all the things ive said.

WHY have no one mentioned this before?!?


and on a side note:

I realise I might have been a little out swinging in some of our debates spiney, being a little more on edge than necessary.....could we agree that disagreeing should be done properly ?

 

[Mr Phat]

No, I don't. But you're saying I shouldn't say it's rubbish, just because someone made it. Putting effort into something doesn't automatically result in something beautiful.

This is so right that it cant be stated enough times.

 

[Spiney Norman]

Then perhaps a more appropriate (and therefore less hyperbolic) petition statement would have been in order.

Perhaps that would be for the best.

Your opinion of the artwork is entity subjective, as is mine. Are you basically saying I'm not allowed to like it because you think it is bad?

No, I don't. But you're saying I shouldn't say it's rubbish, just because someone made it. Putting effort into something doesn't automatically result in something beautiful.

I actually don't think its helpful to label something as 'rubbish' because you dislike it any more than it is helpful to label a person as 'stupid' because you think they should have done better in a test. Throwing absolute lables around based on your opinion is effectively saying that your opinion is the only one that matters. Everyone here is entitled to their own opinion, but constructive criticism generally gives a better atmosphere of discussion than simply saying how terrible something is to the point where your petition basically says this whole book is so bad it needs to be binned and started again from scratch.

You don't need to say something is beautiful just because someone has put time and effort into it (as the contributors to the Lizardmen book clearly have), but decrying it as 'rubbish' or 'rushed' just because you don't like it, does seem to me to be unreasonable. I think its fair to respect work that is the result of someone's time and effort regardless of whether you like it or not. Respect is not the same as praise, and I'm a little saddened that this thread and others have basically been a flame war on the book, which I would consider to be very good.

I simply think that starting a petition for a new army book simply because some of the artwork is not to your taste is a monumental overreaction, and yes, if I had authored the book or contributed to it in any way I would probably be slightly offended if I had the slightest respect for your opinion.

 

[Didymus]

You can not possibly compare 6th edition artwork with 8th edition artwork and not notice a drop in quality. Even if the current artists have put as much time and effort into their drawings as the previous artists, they're simply not as talented.