35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Champions of Ruin - doctrine...maybe?
84472
Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape
AWESOME!
Champions of Ruin, hmm very interesting...
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Seems interesting but apparently they aren't changing the crappy traits, which is what *really* needed to happen. Still, that was a rumor so we will have to wait and see.
117377
Post by: TarkinLarson
Disappointed the legions don't get any extra soldiers... something other than berzerkers and kharn for the WE would've been nice (and all the other legions)
Champions of Ruin is probably just the title for the lore chapter describing some of the legions.
84472
Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape
Looks like (based on table of contents) only loyalists get the ability to upgrade characters?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Wayniac wrote:Seems interesting but apparently they aren't changing the crappy traits, which is what *really* needed to happen. Still, that was a rumor so we will have to wait and see.
Article says this:
including all the shiny, new Legion-specific rules for all you traitors out there
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What are you referencing?
94437
Post by: Crispy78
TarkinLarson wrote:Disappointed the legions don't get any extra soldiers... something other than berzerkers and kharn for the WE would've been nice (and all the other legions)
Champions of Ruin is probably just the title for the lore chapter describing some of the legions.
Mmm, compared to the listings for the Astartes factions, I'm *not* seeing any datasheets listed, or any change in points costs... It's not really a good first impression for me.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
 Daedalus81 wrote:Wayniac wrote:Seems interesting but apparently they aren't changing the crappy traits, which is what *really* needed to happen. Still, that was a rumor so we will have to wait and see.
Article says this: including all the shiny, new Legion-specific rules for all you traitors out there
The article can say whatever it wants. I really hope they improve them, just know that the rumor about what was in the book said it wasn't changed. I can't imagine they would STILL keep those lame traits but this is GW. Let's hope it really is "shiny, new Legion-specific rules" but of course that doesn't necessarily mean the actual trait. If it was new Warlord traits, relics and stratagems that would also constitute new rules... especially since Black Legion is absent from the list due to being in Vigilus Ablaze and they didn't get their Legion trait changed at all.
119949
Post by: FezzikDaBullgryn
HAH! GK are dead....
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Crispy78 wrote:TarkinLarson wrote:Disappointed the legions don't get any extra soldiers... something other than berzerkers and kharn for the WE would've been nice (and all the other legions)
Champions of Ruin is probably just the title for the lore chapter describing some of the legions.
Mmm, compared to the listings for the Astartes factions, I'm *not* seeing any datasheets listed, or any change in points costs... It's not really a good first impression for me.
Aye.
Well then, time to stop the speculation of 2w cultmarines beeing good or not.
Shame.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Wayniac wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:Wayniac wrote:Seems interesting but apparently they aren't changing the crappy traits, which is what *really* needed to happen. Still, that was a rumor so we will have to wait and see.
Article says this:
including all the shiny, new Legion-specific rules for all you traitors out there
The article can say whatever it wants. I really hope they improve them, just know that the rumor about what was in the book said it wasn't changed. I can't imagine they would STILL keep those lame traits but this is GW. Let's hope it really is "shiny, new Legion-specific rules" but of course that doesn't necessarily mean the actual trait. If it was new Warlord traits, relics and stratagems that would also constitute new rules... especially since Black Legion is absent from the list due to being in Vigilus Ablaze and they didn't get their Legion trait changed at all.
Yea I'm just giving the words used - I can't say whether or not it will turn out useful or not. Automatically Appended Next Post: Not Online!!! wrote:Crispy78 wrote:TarkinLarson wrote:Disappointed the legions don't get any extra soldiers... something other than berzerkers and kharn for the WE would've been nice (and all the other legions)
Champions of Ruin is probably just the title for the lore chapter describing some of the legions.
Mmm, compared to the listings for the Astartes factions, I'm *not* seeing any datasheets listed, or any change in points costs... It's not really a good first impression for me.
Aye.
Well then, time to stop the speculation of 2w cultmarines beeing good or not.
Shame.
That was a CA rumor.
20609
Post by: Tyranid Horde
Wow, Eldar really did get shafted in their book purely based off the contents.
122126
Post by: Gir Spirit Bane
New Daemon weapons are cool and all... But Melee is the worst way to kill something in 8th "point and shoot" edition and even then randumb of on a roll of a 1 your Daemon rebels, hurts you and then you can't do anything is not something I miss at all from my 3.5 edition Chaos Codex.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Gir Spirit Bane wrote:New Daemon weapons are cool and all... But Melee is the worst way to kill something in 8th "point and shoot" edition and even then randumb of on a roll of a 1 your Daemon rebels, hurts you and then you can't do anything is not something I miss at all from my 3.5 edition Chaos Codex.
There used to be ranged daemon weapons. At least we have CP rerolls now. The sample one looks pretty great considering a DP can take it. It kicks the Hellforged down to D2, but up to AP5 from AP2 and instead of S:User it will be minimum of S+2, which is S9.
(Now they just need to make a Khorne DP more worth it)
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I wonder if this is a way to get more personality out of individual models, either the HQs or Champions within the squads. I can't see Chaos being doctrinal, they are Chaos after all!
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Yoyoyo wrote:I wonder if this is a way to get more personality out of individual models, either the HQs or Champions within the squads. I can't see Chaos being doctrinal, they are Chaos after all!
WB, AL, IW would all disagree.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Well Marines have not had a books in days....
120227
Post by: Karol
Did not expect non BT to get rules in the book. They are going to be for more marines right, because BT aren't known for their master librarians.
25359
Post by: TheAvengingKnee
Karol wrote:Did not expect non BT to get rules in the book. They are going to be for more marines right, because BT aren't known for their master librarians.
The article says these are for all codex: space marines but that there will be a lot of stuff for BT in addition to the more generic bonuses.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Karol wrote:Did not expect non BT to get rules in the book. They are going to be for more marines right, because BT aren't known for their master librarians.
According to rumours all those upgraded versions of different HQ models will be available to every C: SM player. I would not get my hopes high for divergent chapters ( DA, BA, SW, GK).
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Yea, I think they're just throwing BT players a bone after the suffering they've endured over the years. There were rumors of a stratagem to "level 2" psykers for all factions so maybe we'll see that.
84472
Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape
Whatever, I'm glad to get upgrade options that seem to include primaris versions based on the text in the stratagem. *edited out error*
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
a_typical_hero wrote:Karol wrote:Did not expect non BT to get rules in the book. They are going to be for more marines right, because BT aren't known for their master librarians.
According to rumours all those upgraded versions of different HQ models will be available to every C: SM player. I would not get my hopes high for divergent chapters ( DA, BA, SW, GK).
Well, I stand corrected if true. That's just mean. Seems likely to be a lot of CP spend anyway, so, meh.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
For what it is worth, on the Warhammer Community page they write "If your army uses the rules from Codex: Space Marines – especially Black Templars – or hails from one of the Traitor Legions from Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Faith & Fury is the Psychic Awakening book for you!"
Don't know how much attention the writer put into wording.
Edit: Since it was already rumour leaked that Blood Angels would get their own spotlight in another book, I would assume that they will get their own version of these rules there. Imagine the outcry if the rules would be for all Marines and not replicated again in the BA book. "I have to spend 30€ for 10 pages of rules yadda yadda" 
84472
Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape
a_typical_hero wrote:For what it is worth, on the Warhammer Community page they write "If your army uses the rules from Codex: Space Marines – especially Black Templars – or hails from one of the Traitor Legions from Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Faith & Fury is the Psychic Awakening book for you!"
Don't know how much attention the writer put into wording.
Edit: Since it was already rumour leaked that Blood Angels would get their own spotlight in another book, I would assume that they will get their own version of these rules there. Imagine the outcry if the rules would be for all Marines and not replicated again in the BA book. "I have to spend 30€ for 10 pages of rules yadda yadda"
I think you're right. I'm sure some would disagree but it seems like they do want parity among the special chapters and the standard codex. It takes a long time to achieve that their way, though.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:For what it is worth, on the Warhammer Community page they write "If your army uses the rules from Codex: Space Marines – especially Black Templars – or hails from one of the Traitor Legions from Codex: Chaos Space Marines, Faith & Fury is the Psychic Awakening book for you!"
Don't know how much attention the writer put into wording.
Edit: Since it was already rumour leaked that Blood Angels would get their own spotlight in another book, I would assume that they will get their own version of these rules there. Imagine the outcry if the rules would be for all Marines and not replicated again in the BA book. "I have to spend 30€ for 10 pages of rules yadda yadda"
I think you're right. I'm sure some would disagree but it seems like they do want parity among the special chapters and the standard codex. It takes a long time to achieve that their way, though.
Only the way that they do it - it would take about a A4 download but lets clog up all the campaign books with just Marine rules instead
120227
Post by: Karol
TheAvengingKnee wrote:Karol wrote:Did not expect non BT to get rules in the book. They are going to be for more marines right, because BT aren't known for their master librarians.
The article says these are for all codex: space marines but that there will be a lot of stuff for BT in addition to the more generic bonuses.
Still rather suprising, in its marine part, not suprised for the non codex space marine 2.0 stuff.
Why didn't they just put the options in the 2.0 space marine codex, or the csm rules in the csm 2.0 codex? I would get the rules update if they were for some ancient codex like necron or DG. but both of those forces just got books. That is a lot of stuff to buy, codex, supplement, this book and then CA in december. To a degree am happy I don't have to buy all of that.
85299
Post by: Spoletta
I think that i'm starting to get the bigger picture here.
GW Issue #1: "Apart from Aeldari, not enough players are interested in non-SM factions, so any publication that does not feature them is economically a bad idea"
GW Issue #2: "The combined population of all non-SM non-Aeldari players is significant, so you must throw a bone in their direction once in a while or they will feel neglected"
GW Solution " Let's put a bit of SM content in everything, so that we strike a decent profit while creating content for minor factions"
Yeah, that's it! GW learned that the final solution to problems is to soup!
84472
Post by: Wolf_in_Human_Shape
Can we please stick to the topic of daemon weapons?
There are quite enough complaints going around here. We get it. Can they at least be kept on topic?
118653
Post by: The Salt Mine
Looks more like a lore entree to me. Probably not a doctrine.
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Apparently Inquisitors get the same weapon Relic
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Agreed. Not seeing anything in this that moves the needle.
Won't be wasting my money on this trash.
'You get a weapon that hurts you and fails to work 17% of the time, why aren't you happy?'
There is nothing in the book about upgrading CSM characters judging from the ToC.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Agreed. Not seeing anything in this that moves the needle.
Won't be wasting my money on this trash.
'You get a weapon that hurts you and fails to work 17% of the time, why aren't you happy?'
There's a stratagem for that. In the past that was a problem, but now you just use a CP and you can basically ignore it.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:There's a stratagem for that. In the past that was a problem, but now you just use a CP and you can basically ignore it.
Fair enough, so 17% of the time it costs a CP to use and hopefully doesn't fail again.
Still trash.
71081
Post by: Continuity
Love having half the article dedicated to a weapon that isn't even half as effective as a generic master crafted thunderhammer, and has 1 in 6 chance to flat out fail, likely losing your character in the process.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
You have a small chance of a drawback that can be ignored by spending a ressource for getting a weapon that is on average deadlier than your regular stuff.
How is that trash? Demon weapons always came with the lore of being dangerous. To their foes and wielder likewise. Feels like a fair implementation of their lore into the rules.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
a_typical_hero wrote:You have a small chance of a drawback that can be ignored by spending a ressource for getting a weapon that is on average deadlier than your regular stuff.
How is that trash? Demon weapons always came with the lore of being dangerous. To their foes and wielder likewise. Feels like a fair implementation of their lore into the rules.
It's trash because it's a placebo, not a solution.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
TwinPoleTheory wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:You have a small chance of a drawback that can be ignored by spending a ressource for getting a weapon that is on average deadlier than your regular stuff.
How is that trash? Demon weapons always came with the lore of being dangerous. To their foes and wielder likewise. Feels like a fair implementation of their lore into the rules.
It's trash because it's a placebo, not a solution.
Was anyone really expecting an actual solution though?
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
OP seemed terribly excited about it...
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
I mean, hip hip hurray that we get some, customizability back, and some flavour.
But flavouring a dex that is in vast parts more like a structural questionable bridge with only some working pilllars and walking boards is . as you said, placebo.
Sure you can paint the bad boards up with a colour, doesn't change the fact that the bridge is structurally unstable mostly.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
And being excited about an upcoming release is something we cant let happen here, so better quickly copy&paste / post that:
- my faction gets less than your faction
- what my faction get is trash anyway
- more marine rules *slow clap*
PA1 did do something for Craftworlds, the Inquisition WD article seems to shape up nicely, the last supplements have been great.
How about we wait with the criticism until we have the full rules and let people enjoy the anticipation of new releases?
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
a_typical_hero wrote:How about we wait with the criticism until we have the full rules and let people enjoy the anticipation of new releases?
The ToC tells you everything that's in there.
It's re-arranging deck chairs.
Happy to be wrong.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
a_typical_hero wrote:And being excited about an upcoming release is something we cant let happen here, so better quickly copy&paste / post that:
- my faction gets less than your faction
- what my faction get is trash anyway
- more marine rules *slow clap*
PA1 did do something for Craftworlds, the Inquisition WD article seems to shape up nicely, the last supplements have been great.
How about we wait with the criticism until we have the full rules and let people enjoy the anticipation of new releases?
I mean the first is especially true for all non Eldar/ gsc xenos.
the second point is , well, i mean if you have allready a better relic, what is the point in this one? Sooo ehhh (guess you could run 2 axes but i mean, why?)
Well and the last one is also marines and spikey marines again so yes it is true.
115943
Post by: Darsath
People here talking about how good the new daemon weapon is, and all I'm wondering is "why would you want to pay for a weapon with -5 AP?". I can't see many scenarios where it matters over -3 or -4 AP.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
This could be just to emphasise how deadly the weapon is in the lore. In older editions Tau Mass Drivers(?) had AP 1, even though armor saves capped out at 2+ and there was no bonus in overcoming tank armour for it.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
a_typical_hero wrote:This could be just to emphasise how deadly the weapon is in the lore. In older editions Tau Mass Drivers(?) had AP 1, even though armor saves capped out at 2+ and there was no bonus in overcoming tank armour for it.
IIRC AP1 weapons got a bonus on the damage table roll.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Isn't this just infinitely inferior to the DP with Skullreaver?
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Yep, which was allready brought up
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Darsath wrote:People here talking about how good the new daemon weapon is, and all I'm wondering is "why would you want to pay for a weapon with -5 AP?"
Taking on Centurions with a DP, you have a decent chance (66%) to wound on 2's and will deny armor saves completely. Malefic Talons wound on 3's and get saved on 4's so in this case in makes a big difference.
112649
Post by: grouchoben
Yes, agreed, it's an average weapon, compared to the field, and below average compared to what has been coming out in SM releases. Once you figure in the 'on a 1 the weapon bites your face' rule, it drops to 'very poor'. I hope there are better daemonic weapons than this, or that they are easy to access. Not holding my breath though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
It makes me think of axe of blind fury. The writers imagine the swinginess being uber-chaos and cool. On the table, effects that randomly make your hero feel like a chump are ... well, nice for your opponent I guess?
There has to be a risk-reward calculation at the least, and they tend to completely leave this our of their considerations. Fingers crossed Daemonic Weapons don't repeat this.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Might also be useful chopping up a 2+ Leviathan Dread after Death Hex.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:Taking on Centurions with a DP, you have a decent chance (66%) to wound on 2's and will deny armor saves completely. Malefic Talons wound on 3's and get saved on 4's so in this case in makes a big difference.
You have to factor in losing 3 attacks to gain that benefit.
You might kill a Certurion, 2 if you're lucky.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Continuity wrote:Love having half the article dedicated to a weapon that isn't even half as effective as a generic master crafted thunderhammer, and has 1 in 6 chance to flat out fail, likely losing your character in the process.
Not sure about that. Check my math to be sure though.
Exalted Champ 5A on the charge, DttFE
5 * 1.167 * .833 * .888 * 2 = 2 dead centurions for 74 points.
Captain 5 TH swings
5 * .777 * .666 * .666 = 1.7 wounding hits = 1 dead centurion
DP vs Knight
6 * .998 * .666 * 2 = 8
Cpt vs Knight
6 * .777 * .5 * .833 * 3 = 5.8
Even if you multiply those results by 0.83 they still come out a bit ahead, which is clearly quite dangerous in a tight situation with no CP. And consider that's a regular TH, so, might be a bit behind based on the type and situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Because Daemon Weapons are cool. They've ALWAYS had this drawback. Did I state it was panacea?
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:Because Daemon Weapons are cool. They've ALWAYS had this drawback. Did I state it was panacea?
No, you did not, but you seem terribly excited about it, so enjoy. It's a useless placebo that does nothing in the grand scheme of things.
I'd rather save my CP to use Veterans again, since that might actually accomplish something.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
*shrug* I love daemon weapons. I haven't flubbed Abaddon, yet, so i'll consider myself lucky.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:*shrug* I love daemon weapons. I haven't flubbed Abaddon, yet, so i'll consider myself lucky.
I like Daemon Weapons too.
It doesn't change the fact that this doesn't actually do anything to address the current state of CSM problems.
I put a CSM model on the table and it is an objectively inferior model. I would even argue it's inferior to Scouts under the current conditions.
That is a problem that will not be solved by shiny baubles.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
They're sidegrades but they are very good if you know what you're doing.
What's most important is Prescience so you are landing DttFE on 5+. A DP will clear 3x Cents fairly reliably -- 5 base attacks, generate 1-2 more, clear 6W on 2's with no saves. I don't see that as terribly unrealistic.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:*shrug* I love daemon weapons. I haven't flubbed Abaddon, yet, so i'll consider myself lucky.
I like Daemon Weapons too.
It doesn't change the fact that this doesn't actually do anything to address the current state of CSM problems.
I put a CSM model on the table and it is an objectively inferior model. I would even argue it's inferior to Scouts under the current conditions.
That is a problem that will not be solved by shiny baubles.
Sure, but just let it play out. If it's still a gak sandwich after CA then we've got work to do to either bust GW's balls, comp, or play something else.
97136
Post by: Tibs Ironblood
For chaos marines I've always liked the idea of them having a semi horde style ability with normal marines. Mass produced marines who are still marines, but these are not the hyper trained, indoctrinated or experienced boys veterans are. These are lab grown and mass produced comparative trash. The best trash in the game, but still trash. Lower their points and there you go.
Then have the real killers. Long war veterans, cult marines and grizzled trash that fermented into a hardened badass killer. These are your boys you go to for that proper marine feeling so 2 wounds, better attacks, more options, elite slots and the like. These are the guys who stand up to Primaris and dominate lower tier mooks. Naturally more expensive and valuable.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:Sure, but just let it play out. If it's still a gak sandwich after CA then we've got work to do to either bust GW's balls, comp, or play something else.
PA1 was their first chance to do something to address the situation and utterly failed to do so.
PA2 appears to be following in the same footsteps.
CA will bring points adjustments, you will still be putting inferior models on the table.
GW ignored their testers, they are off on their own and not taking feedback from anyone apparently, so this idea that we'll somehow convince GW to fix things is not currently backed up by the facts.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:Sure, but just let it play out. If it's still a gak sandwich after CA then we've got work to do to either bust GW's balls, comp, or play something else.
PA1 was their first chance to do something to address the situation and utterly failed to do so.
PA2 appears to be following in the same footsteps.
CA will bring points adjustments, you will still be putting inferior models on the table.
GW ignored their testers, they are off on their own and not taking feedback from anyone apparently, so this idea that we'll somehow convince GW to fix things is not currently backed up by the facts.
There's a lot we don't know. The IH FAQ was delayed a fair bit. Was it because of an internal battle of ideas? Or were they scrambling last minute to address the backlash? Either way there was a reaction. If marines stay too good and we care about the game then we have to organize a message and be relentless.
We can't do that when we can't yet convince everyone of an issue, which is why a little more time is needed. And I'm sure lots of people would say, "why are we doing GW's job for them?". Part of the goal would be to push for internal change and if this were ever the time we could reach GW this is it. This isn't the days of yore when a new codex would set the meta for the rest of the edition.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Any weapon that has AP5 has uses, it's going to let a Chaos Lord or DP one-shot a Primarch.
You will need Prescience, DStrength, and Death Hex of course!
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Yoyoyo wrote:Any weapon that has AP5 has uses, it's going to let a Chaos Lord or DP one-shot a Primarch.
You will need Prescience, DStrength, and Death Hex of course!
That's a whole bunch of support needed. AP5 is good right now, because of centurions, primaris. repulsors, and invictors.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
 Tibs Ironblood wrote:For chaos marines I've always liked the idea of them having a semi horde style ability with normal marines. Mass produced marines who are still marines, but these are not the hyper trained, indoctrinated or experienced boys veterans are. These are lab grown and mass produced comparative trash. The best trash in the game, but still trash. Lower their points and there you go.
Then have the real killers. Long war veterans, cult marines and grizzled trash that fermented into a hardened badass killer. These are your boys you go to for that proper marine feeling so 2 wounds, better attacks, more options, elite slots and the like. These are the guys who stand up to Primaris and dominate lower tier mooks. Naturally more expensive and valuable.
Or just play red Corsairs, virtually the same effect and a legion soup detachment.
Same effect, worked somewhat effectively before new marines literally just roffled all over that combination.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Any weapon that has AP5 has uses, it's going to let a Chaos Lord or DP one-shot a Primarch.
You will need Prescience, DStrength, and Death Hex of course!
That's a whole bunch of support needed. AP5 is good right now, because of centurions, primaris. repulsors, and invictors.
"So you just need a lord and two sorcerers and some cp lads. "
Great dex design.
101864
Post by: Dudeface
Not Online!!! wrote: Tibs Ironblood wrote:For chaos marines I've always liked the idea of them having a semi horde style ability with normal marines. Mass produced marines who are still marines, but these are not the hyper trained, indoctrinated or experienced boys veterans are. These are lab grown and mass produced comparative trash. The best trash in the game, but still trash. Lower their points and there you go.
Then have the real killers. Long war veterans, cult marines and grizzled trash that fermented into a hardened badass killer. These are your boys you go to for that proper marine feeling so 2 wounds, better attacks, more options, elite slots and the like. These are the guys who stand up to Primaris and dominate lower tier mooks. Naturally more expensive and valuable.
Or just play red Corsairs, virtually the same effect and a legion soup detachment.
Same effect, worked somewhat effectively before new marines literally just roffled all over that combination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daedalus81 wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Any weapon that has AP5 has uses, it's going to let a Chaos Lord or DP one-shot a Primarch.
You will need Prescience, DStrength, and Death Hex of course!
That's a whole bunch of support needed. AP5 is good right now, because of centurions, primaris. repulsors, and invictors.
"So you just need a lord and two sorcerers and some cp lads. "
Great dex design.
While I aren't disagreeing you will be taking some troops for cps and 2-3 hqs anyway, you basically described a battalion.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Yeah except battalions worth of subpar units with a pricetag that is absurd frankly.
Btw did we mention there are other combinations also needing those cp and stratagems and buffs? Which do the same thing except better for cheaper or comparable price point?
See the issue?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
How much CP do you think goes into a Loyalist Smash Captain to make it work?
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
I am not talking about a smashcaptain here so what.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Well, you did deride the state of CSM for that dynamic, but chose to ignore the same situation on the loyalist side. It's not necessarily a fair accounting even if it's not the greatest use of those resources.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, you did deride the state of CSM for that dynamic, but chose to ignore the same situation on the loyalist side. It's not necessarily a fair accounting even if it's not the greatest use of those resources.
Considering that the loyalist side now has marines that, you know actually work as they should, most certainly more on the edge on too good, i rest my case.
Further did i state that i deride the situation just for Chaos?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Not Online!!! wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, you did deride the state of CSM for that dynamic, but chose to ignore the same situation on the loyalist side. It's not necessarily a fair accounting even if it's not the greatest use of those resources.
Considering that the loyalist side now has marines that, you know actually work as they should, most certainly more on the edge on too good, i rest my case.
Further did i state that i deride the situation just for Chaos?
No dog in the fight here. Just offering a perspective from the edge.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
No worries, i just in general think the whole stratagem schtick was badly handled.
It also is quite absurd how certain armies are expected to use their CP to get units to perform whilest others get something actually deserveing the name stratagem.
Ironically the buff stacking, whilest prevalent in all marines is the biggest weakness of all kinds of marines right now except ih because reasons.
It is just so much ressource investment in such a small area that it can be sometimes easily shut down.
And frankly the aura fighting reminds me more off 18th century musket warfare then 40k
.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
This is what I mean: you're complaining that you have to spend CP to make your HQs work. Guess what? So do Loyalists.
You're complaining for the sake of complaining. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is bad. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is worse than the Loyalist counterpart. There's enough stuff that needs adressing without you complaining about the stuff that doesn't. There's a bunch of bad CSM units; Daemon Princes or Smashlords aren't among them.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Well this is just an AP5 D2 sword that will usually wound Marines on 2s.
It's a good fit for a Jump Lord who can chew up isolated troops or backline units.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is what I mean: you're complaining that you have to spend CP to make your HQs work. Guess what? So do Loyalists.
You're complaining for the sake of complaining. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is bad. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is worse than the Loyalist counterpart. There's enough stuff that needs adressing without you complaining about the stuff that doesn't. There's a bunch of bad CSM units; Daemon Princes or Smashlords aren't among them.
Was I again talking about just hq? Which are probably the best thing csm have (excluding master of executions and MoP, because why do they exist) and generally can do without babysitting to sanktnimmerleinstag.
I mentioned that other units do the same for cheaper ressource wise for Chaos allready which also need the corresponding stratagem to work that would "wasted" on a daemon weapon User overall.
Same with the supporting hq.
It is a Fancy beatstick for a dex that has too many of the same beatsticks whilest severly lacking a general improvement to the core. Meanwhile it would further require ressources like votlw activations cp etc for a dex that needs these ressources on completely different models to work.
It might aswell be renamed into dex slaaneshalphaobliterterminator.
Further take a gander at the recent heat 3 results. It's pretty clear which faction now does work (too good now) and which doesn't really anymore.
Automatically Appended Next Post: https://www.facebook.com/GWWarhammerWorld/photos/a.2869276236425171/2869294903089971/?type=3&theater
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
What we do know is damning enough that I'm not giving GW money until this crap is fixed. The game is broken, period.
Daedalus81 wrote:The IH FAQ was delayed a fair bit. Was it because of an internal battle of ideas?
Yes, it's because everything their play testers warned them about happened. Then the IH FAQ brought them down from being absurdly overpowered to just top tier gatekeepers.
Daedalus81 wrote:Or were they scrambling last minute to address the backlash? Either way there was a reaction. If marines stay too good and we care about the game then we have to organize a message and be relentless.
Seriously man, you're not this dense. There was a spat of tournaments where IH absolutely crushed it with a winning percentage higher than pre-nerf Ynnari. But sure, maybe proper is messaging is all we need, maybe some flyers, a bake sales, some light protesting in Nottingham?
Daedalus81 wrote:We can't do that when we can't yet convince everyone of an issue, which is why a little more time is needed.
The people who are not convinced of the issue at this point will never be convinced. That includes just about 35%+ of the player base at this point, if the number on marine players are anything vaguely resembling accurate.
Daedalus81 wrote:This isn't the days of yore when a new codex would set the meta for the rest of the edition.
Are you high? It has defined the meta since it's release. The rest of the edition will be spent catching up to it, and given that PA seems to be their attempt to do so, it doesn't look to good.
I haven't seen anything that is going to get me to put a CSM model on the table again.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
a_typical_hero wrote:And being excited about an upcoming release is something we cant let happen here, so better quickly copy&paste / post that: - my faction gets less than your faction - what my faction get is trash anyway - more marine rules *slow clap* PA1 did do something for Craftworlds, the Inquisition WD article seems to shape up nicely, the last supplements have been great. How about we wait with the criticism until we have the full rules and let people enjoy the anticipation of new releases?
40K has ranged from overall absolutely terrible gameplay design and balance to overall "okay" gameplay design and balance, for the better part of 20 years. And yet, for almost 20 years people like you have been saying "we should wait for more information before drawing conclusions". Don't you think that's weird? What goodwill do you think GW has that would necessitate crossing our fingers and praying that this time, THIS TIME, unlike the last 50 times, there'll be some heretofore unreleased information that will result in these rules being a fantastic addition to the army? I don't see the problem in acknowledging that the info we've seen points to the rules being garbage as usual. When you take into consideration their track-record it makes more sense to assume that GW will feth up as they usually do and be pleasantly surprised if they don't then to cling to the hope that in the end everything will be great.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
It's been 2 months. Castellans were the longest lasting and that 6ish months with mid-term tweaks.
Thats far different than the years of chaos in 7th with no hope for change.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Not Online!!! wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is what I mean: you're complaining that you have to spend CP to make your HQs work. Guess what? So do Loyalists.
You're complaining for the sake of complaining. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is bad. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is worse than the Loyalist counterpart. There's enough stuff that needs adressing without you complaining about the stuff that doesn't. There's a bunch of bad CSM units; Daemon Princes or Smashlords aren't among them.
Was I again talking about just hq?
The discussion you were replying to was about HQs.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:It's been 2 months. Castellans were the longest lasting and that 6ish months with mid-term tweaks.
Yes, and they dominated tournaments during that time. GW skipped over multiple opportunities to fix that problem. Quite frankly if they take 6 months to fix this problem, I think I'll just take that as my cue to leave the hobby.
Daedalus81 wrote:Thats far different than the years of chaos in 7th with no hope for change.
So the whataboutism argument is as long as this doesn't persist for more than a couple years, at least it wasn't as bad as Chaos? Good answer, roll with that.
SM is allowed to be OP for the next couple years because Chaos deathstars are bad, mmkay?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 BlaxicanX wrote:40K has ranged from overall absolutely terrible gameplay design and balance to overall "okay" gameplay design and balance, for the better part of 20 years. And yet, for almost 20 years people like you have been saying "we should wait for more information before drawing conclusions". Don't you think that's weird? What goodwill do you think GW has that would necessitate crossing our fingers and praying that this time, THIS TIME, unlike the last 50 times, there'll be some heretofore unreleased information that will result in these rules being a fantastic addition to the army?
I don't see the problem in acknowledging that the info we've seen points to the rules being garbage as usual. When you take into consideration their track-record it makes more sense to assume that GW will feth up as they usually do and be pleasantly surprised if they don't then to cling to the hope that in the end everything will be great.
You dont see anything being different? Nothing at all?
It's not clinging to hope. Its giving enough space to make a case. If people would quit being so adversarial you'd drive fewer people to the corners.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:You dont see anything being different? Nothing at all?
It's not clinging to hope. Its giving enough space to make a case. If people would quit being so adversarial you'd drive fewer people to the corners.
No actually, the only difference is the frequency of rules updates, and given that they regularly fail to use those to make obviously needed changes, it's clearly more masturbatory crap to throw bones to the player base, which will continue to buy their toy soldiers regardless.
PA is our rules update.
PA is the thing that's supposed to bring all the other factions up to snuff.
You are not getting a new codex, no new model line, this is the update that's supposed to keep you competitive with marines.
Good luck.
92012
Post by: Argive
Neat. Glad Deamon weapons are making an appearance. I really like the concept. I hope we will see some awesome conversions out of this. Also, essentially rolling for effects is making a slight return. I like that and hope there will be more of that implemented. Not expecting anyone to agree with me of course. Its just personal preference. 
I don't have a dog in the fight as my book didn't even get a relic.. soo...
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:You dont see anything being different? Nothing at all?
It's not clinging to hope. Its giving enough space to make a case. If people would quit being so adversarial you'd drive fewer people to the corners.
No actually, the only difference is the frequency of rules updates, and given that they regularly fail to use those to make obviously needed changes, it's clearly more masturbatory crap to throw bones to the player base, which will continue to buy their toy soldiers regardless.
PA is our rules update.
PA is the thing that's supposed to bring all the other factions up to snuff.
You are not getting a new codex, no new model line, this is the update that's supposed to keep you competitive with marines.
Good luck.
Going from once every 2 to 3 years to 2 week codex FAQs, yearly points, and semi-annual FAQs is quite a bit of change when you consider FAQs of old didn't address much and points rarely changed and only begrudgingly. Tournaments had their own list of FAQs and comp. Hell the FAQs this year are better than those last year.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good [or better].
GW says they're committed. They have a path. Now we hold them to it. Financially or otherwise.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yeah, I haven't bought anything from them in a couple months. There's nothing I want from them currently, and I won't be paying for F&F or CA since all the information in them will be in BattleScribe, which is close enough.
There are no Chaos units I want to buy, because the ones I don't have in abundance have been relegated to trash.
But hey, they've gotten a good chunk of money out of me this edition, so kudos to GW sales for that.
43573
Post by: vict0988
I can't wait to compare and contrast with the daemon weapon rules I've written. I think my rules for Necrons I wrote before the codex came out were superior to what we got, but the Drukhari codex was better than what I wrote, I hope can manage better rules than my first draft daemon weapons like they did with Drukhari.
110509
Post by: JawRippa
Daedalus81 wrote:
Article says this:
including all the shiny, new Legion-specific rules for all you traitors out there
When teasing 8th edition article from community site used ork burna as an example to show how new blast/template weapons were going to work and it referenced being D6. In reality it turned out to be D3.
120227
Post by: Karol
Daedalus81 wrote:
Going from once every 2 to 3 years to 2 week codex FAQs, yearly points, and semi-annual FAQs is quite a bit of change when you consider FAQs of old didn't address much and points rarely changed and only begrudgingly. Tournaments had their own list of FAQs and comp. Hell the FAQs this year are better than those last year.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good [or better].
GW says they're committed. They have a path. Now we hold them to it. Financially or otherwise.
Does it mattter if the fix happen every 12 months or every 36 months, when a lot of people quit the game after a year or so? which kind of a coralates with waiting till a CA or big FAQ is suppose to fix stuff, the fix not happening and people quiting.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
BlaxicanX wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:And being excited about an upcoming release is something we cant let happen here, so better quickly copy&paste / post that:
- my faction gets less than your faction
- what my faction get is trash anyway
- more marine rules *slow clap*
PA1 did do something for Craftworlds, the Inquisition WD article seems to shape up nicely, the last supplements have been great.
How about we wait with the criticism until we have the full rules and let people enjoy the anticipation of new releases?
40K has ranged from overall absolutely terrible gameplay design and balance to overall "okay" gameplay design and balance, for the better part of 20 years. And yet, for almost 20 years people like you have been saying "we should wait for more information before drawing conclusions". Don't you think that's weird? What goodwill do you think GW has that would necessitate crossing our fingers and praying that this time, THIS TIME, unlike the last 50 times, there'll be some heretofore unreleased information that will result in these rules being a fantastic addition to the army?
I don't see the problem in acknowledging that the info we've seen points to the rules being garbage as usual. When you take into consideration their track-record it makes more sense to assume that GW will feth up as they usually do and be pleasantly surprised if they don't then to cling to the hope that in the end everything will be great.
This.
GW don't need to make good, balanced rules. Their fandom is so rabid that they'll buy anything with a GW logo stamped on it (remember the overpriced GW PVA glue, and Tape measure?). They ( GW) have little incentive to change, especially now as the one potential competitor they had ( PP) shot themselves in the foot.
Once in a while GW do produce a good, balanced set of rules, however it isn't long before the rot sets in, or the game isn't given the support it needs, so it dies off.
The models and setting are fantastic, and there is literally nothing else like it, this is what is the main draw to their products. Honestly, I can't blame people for being immersed in the setting and collecting such wonderful miniatures... what I can't understand is people supporting the rules GW produce. The sheer fact that there is a constant glut of FAQ/Erratas shows that GW aren't bothered about getting it right. Why do they need to, when they can sell you their attempt at a fix... and do it on a yearly basis? More money for them, for very little effort.
8th is a mess, just like every previous edition since 4th, all that is changed is that GW got savvy to things like FB and got a great PR team to make them seem like your friend, and people bought into it, as it was a refreshing change from the old GW's PR... which had the warmth of an ice cube.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not Online!!! wrote: AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is what I mean: you're complaining that you have to spend CP to make your HQs work. Guess what? So do Loyalists.
You're complaining for the sake of complaining. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is bad. Not everything that is Chaos Space Marines is worse than the Loyalist counterpart. There's enough stuff that needs adressing without you complaining about the stuff that doesn't. There's a bunch of bad CSM units; Daemon Princes or Smashlords aren't among them.
Was I again talking about just hq?
The discussion you were replying to was about HQs.
And i pointed out that the stratagems used for it would be anyways allready used elsewhere, not on HQ,.
So moot point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:  stonehorse wrote: BlaxicanX wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:And being excited about an upcoming release is something we cant let happen here, so better quickly copy&paste / post that:
- my faction gets less than your faction
- what my faction get is trash anyway
- more marine rules *slow clap*
PA1 did do something for Craftworlds, the Inquisition WD article seems to shape up nicely, the last supplements have been great.
How about we wait with the criticism until we have the full rules and let people enjoy the anticipation of new releases?
40K has ranged from overall absolutely terrible gameplay design and balance to overall "okay" gameplay design and balance, for the better part of 20 years. And yet, for almost 20 years people like you have been saying "we should wait for more information before drawing conclusions". Don't you think that's weird? What goodwill do you think GW has that would necessitate crossing our fingers and praying that this time, THIS TIME, unlike the last 50 times, there'll be some heretofore unreleased information that will result in these rules being a fantastic addition to the army?
I don't see the problem in acknowledging that the info we've seen points to the rules being garbage as usual. When you take into consideration their track-record it makes more sense to assume that GW will feth up as they usually do and be pleasantly surprised if they don't then to cling to the hope that in the end everything will be great.
This.
GW don't need to make good, balanced rules. Their fandom is so rabid that they'll buy anything with a GW logo stamped on it (remember the overpriced GW PVA glue, and Tape measure?). They ( GW) have little incentive to change, especially now as the one potential competitor they had ( PP) shot themselves in the foot.
Once in a while GW do produce a good, balanced set of rules, however it isn't long before the rot sets in, or the game isn't given the support it needs, so it dies off.
The models and setting are fantastic, and there is literally nothing else like it, this is what is the main draw to their products. Honestly, I can't blame people for being immersed in the setting and collecting such wonderful miniatures... what I can't understand is people supporting the rules GW produce. The sheer fact that there is a constant glut of FAQ/Erratas shows that GW aren't bothered about getting it right. Why do they need to, when they can sell you their attempt at a fix... and do it on a yearly basis? More money for them, for very little effort.
8th is a mess, just like every previous edition since 4th, all that is changed is that GW got savvy to things like FB and got a great PR team to make them seem like your friend, and people bought into it, as it was a refreshing change from the old GW's PR... which had the warmth of an ice cube.
Indeed.
Then again GW producing a good ruleset is , considering it's long live, probably more a case of the blind chicken finding a corn rather then a learning process.
And yes the new WHC page is nice and all, vertainly better then it used to be, but the site can and could be completely dislocated from the game.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I feel like some of you guys expect 40k to be managed like an esport. It's not and never will be. Competitive balance will never be prioritized in the same way, 40k is all about aesthetics including fickle Daemon Weapons that fail you 1/6 times. So they are thematic, and that's a good thing. You can reserve a re-roll if you absolutely need the dice to go your way, and Tzeentch at least even has a power for that.
I somewhat question people who chose to play a faction called CHAOS and then literally complain about it not being predictable enough. They do need some love as a faction, and I personally think GW has gone way too far in overloading SM with special rules and abilities, but some of the gripes in this thread verge on the melodramatic.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Yoyoyo wrote:I feel like some of you guys expect 40k to be managed like an esport. It's not and never will be. Competitive balance will never be prioritized in the same way, 40k is all about aesthetics including fickle Daemon Weapons that fail you 1/6 times.
Daemon Weapons are very thematic. I somewhat question people who chose to play a faction called CHAOS and then literally complain about it not being predictable enough. They do need some love, but some of the gripes in this thread are quite melodramatic.
Nobody complains about Daemon weapons beeing back, but before we add paint, wouldn't it be high time after 10 releases for CSM in 8th to fix the bridge first up?
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
BlaxicanX wrote:40K has ranged from overall absolutely terrible gameplay design and balance to overall "okay" gameplay design and balance, for the better part of 20 years. And yet, for almost 20 years people like you have been saying "we should wait for more information before drawing conclusions". Don't you think that's weird? What goodwill do you think GW has that would necessitate crossing our fingers and praying that this time, THIS TIME, unlike the last 50 times, there'll be some heretofore unreleased information that will result in these rules being a fantastic addition to the army?
I don't see the problem in acknowledging that the info we've seen points to the rules being garbage as usual. When you take into consideration their track-record it makes more sense to assume that GW will feth up as they usually do and be pleasantly surprised if they don't then to cling to the hope that in the end everything will be great.
"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal.
As I said, the latest three releases* saw an increase in power / playability for their factions.
*PA1, currently being discussed as "absolutely mandatory and not optional due to increase in power"
*Inquisition WD, though not officially released, yet. People in the thread seem to be quite happy with what seems like most of the rules being known at this point.
*Space Marine supplements
I'm not hoping anything will turn out great in the end, I just say "wait for the full picture". At the moment it is too soon to talk about how good or bad the rules for the Legions will turn out. And even though Black Templar get more pages and are "Marines, so will be broken beyond redemption anyway", their rules could turn out weak as well.
In the meantime I feel it is an actual weird thing to go at Daedalus81 for sharing the latest info on the book with us. "Who was expecting a fix anyway? OP seemed excited about it". That's just a low thing man. In my opinion. Let a fellow hobbyist be excited about an upcoming release.
You can open the thread "Faith & Fury is a crap book" soon enough
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
You're giving this forum too much credit.
"Here's a plus + D6 S, AP5, D2 Sword. It fails on 1's."
"OMG, why does it fail on 1's? GW hate Chaos and me personally, this is all the fault of SM players, I quit 40k forever"
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal
You realise that this sentence, has a bit of a wierd history on dakkadaka right?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yoyoyo wrote:You're giving this forum too much credit.
"Here's a plus + D6, AP5, D2 Sword. It fails on 1's."
"OMG, why does it fail on 1's? GW hate Chaos and me personally, I quit 40k forever"
Well, the issue is that , well it is obsolote by an allready obsolete relic.
But like i said , you can run 2 relic axes, maybee even three.
See, the flavour that it provides is great, the issue however still remains, that more relics were not needed when the baseline traits just are not up to par aswell as the datasheets and prices for said datasheets. ( tac marine 12 pts and has -1 ap over your average csm for 13 pts. )
120227
Post by: Karol
Yoyoyo wrote:You're giving this forum too much credit.
"Here's a plus + D6 S, AP5, D2 Sword. It fails on 1's."
"OMG, why does it fail on 1's? GW hate Chaos and me personally, this is all the fault of SM players, I quit 40k forever"
considering how many melee turns there are, and how hard it is to get a unit in to melee. a unit that fails something 1/6th of time seems to come with a big risk.
by the way how does it fail on a 1, do the stat degrade or something?
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
The actual rule is on the first page, if you want to read it.
The lore explanation is that a daemon weapon is a living being and the user of that weapon is not always in control of it.
The daemon inside is rebelling.
120227
Post by: Karol
I can't find it, only rules on first page are the stuff for marines.
Lore or not a unit that does not work 1/6th of time is just bad, unless the not work is something laughable, like it goes down from being -5AP to -4AP.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Yoyoyo wrote:You're giving this forum too much credit.
"Here's a plus + D6 S, AP5, D2 Sword. It fails on 1's."
"OMG, why does it fail on 1's? GW hate Chaos and me personally, this is all the fault of SM players, I quit 40k forever"
a+ d6 S AP 5 D2 sword that is a free upgrade for a power sword at that.
111146
Post by: p5freak
Karol wrote:
considering how many melee turns there are, and how hard it is to get a unit in to melee. a unit that fails something 1/6th of time seems to come with a big risk.
by the way how does it fail on a 1, do the stat degrade or something?
Actually, with Zaall, the wrathful you get two chances to roll a 1. First you have to roll if you can even use it, on a 1, you cant, and you suffer 1MW. Then, you need to roll again, to see if you get more strength with it. If you roll a 1 you only have strength user. Thats pathetic. I would choose malefic talons with diabolic strength over it every time.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I don't think that's right. You would roll once for the Daemon Weapon ability, and that becomes the strength bonus.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Daemon Princes are maybe not the best candidates for this weapon but it's going to be terrifying on a Jump Lord going after small squads of Primaris.
111146
Post by: p5freak
Yoyoyo wrote:I don't think that's right. You would roll once for the Daemon Weapon ability, and that becomes the strength bonus.
First, you have to roll if you can even use it. On a 1 you suffer 1MW, on a 2+ you can use it. Then you roll for the daemon weapon ability.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
That's not how it works. There's only one roll.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Karol wrote:I can't find it, only rules on first page are the stuff for marines.
Lore or not a unit that does not work 1/6th of time is just bad, unless the not work is something laughable, like it goes down from being -5AP to -4AP.
Disagree. You have to take into consideration what you get if it does work. Let's assume on a 2+ you would just delete the enemy unit you attacked from play. No further rolls involved. Still bad?
And you have to consider that with a stratagem you can still fight, even when you roll a 1.
I read it as well that you only make one roll for the daemon weapon.
1 Don't fight
2-6 This is your strength bonus
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
You can also fight twice for 3CP, so you can potentially delete two units in one turn and consolidate into a third.
101163
Post by: Tyel
I can be as negative as the next person. Expect salt when Word Bearers get something comically rubbish. Not quite sure what would make me happy - but something that moves them towards the new Marines.
I agree CSM and Cultists need help and they are unlikely to get it here. But CA is close. Hopefully.
Getting upset before we see the rules, on the grounds that 40k has been bad for 20 years, just raises the question of why are you still here?
GW doesnt balance for tournaments they balance for friends and FLGS pickup games. If something is seen as breaking the game they act.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Tyel wrote:I can be as negative as the next person. Expect salt when Word Bearers get something comically rubbish. Not quite sure what would make me happy - but something that moves them towards the new Marines.
I agree CSM and Cultists need help and they are unlikely to get it here. But CA is close. Hopefully.
Getting upset before we see the rules, on the grounds that 40k has been bad for 20 years, just raises the question of why are you still here?
GW doesnt balance for tournaments they balance for friends and FLGS pickup games. If something is seen as breaking the game they act.
Yah 6 months later after it's already fethed up the competitive scene because the tournament players will all jump on the FOTM until it gets nerfed, then move to the next thing...
Nobody is asking for e-sport type balance (despite ITC and friends trying to get 40k to be the tabletop equivalent of an e-sport). But a little thought and effort isn't too much to ask, given GW's rich history of every book being a crapshoot if it will be OP, average, or garbage for seemingly no reason at all.
120227
Post by: Karol
 p5freak wrote:Karol wrote:
considering how many melee turns there are, and how hard it is to get a unit in to melee. a unit that fails something 1/6th of time seems to come with a big risk.
by the way how does it fail on a 1, do the stat degrade or something?
Actually, with Zaall, the wrathful you get two chances to roll a 1. First you have to roll if you can even use it, on a 1, you cant, and you suffer 1MW. Then, you need to roll again, to see if you get more strength with it. If you roll a 1 you only have strength user. Thats pathetic. I would choose malefic talons with diabolic strength over it every time.
okey thanks, for explaining. It does seem to be an odd weapon. I don't know enough about chaos stuff to be sure, but I don't think it is worth the CP over a thunder hammer on a lord or talons on a DP.
GW doesnt balance for tournaments they balance for friends and FLGS pickup games. If something is seen as breaking the game they act.
they aren't doing a very good job at this either. In fact considering the army that do get played at big events, tournaments are probably more balanced, then casual games.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
These things are confirmed:
- Champions of Ruin (probably "Angels of Death" for CSM)
- Daemon Weapons
- Unique WL Traits
- Unique Stratagems
- Unique Relics
There's also a page devoted to each Legion, which is where they would logically add any kind of rules specifically related to the Legion itself.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Basically. Although going from a similar couple pages in Vigilus Ablaze for Black Legion, there won't be any new Legion rules. Probably the rule that prevents Cultists from getting the trait (I think it was that), and then WLT/Strat/Relic. So I would not be expecting a revamp to the legion traits, despite them sorely needing it to bring them in line with the Loyalist upgrades (yeah right)
114395
Post by: chimeara
Maybe if we're really good they'll bring back the Burning Brand of Scalathrax.
103063
Post by: Gene St. Ealer
BrianDavion wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:You're giving this forum too much credit.
"Here's a plus + D6 S, AP5, D2 Sword. It fails on 1's."
"OMG, why does it fail on 1's? GW hate Chaos and me personally, this is all the fault of SM players, I quit 40k forever"
a+ d6 S AP 5 D2 sword that is a free upgrade for a power sword at that.
Yeah, definitely not any opportunity cost on the relic. Oh, hold on, that's not true, I only get one relic and there are much better choices than this one! Oh, right, CSM can just spend 1CP a relic to use as many relics as they want, that's not so bad! Oh wait, only Codex: Space Marines can do that.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
Yeah, definitely not any opportunity cost on the relic. Oh, hold on, that's not true, I only get one relic and there are much better choices than this one! Oh, right, CSM can just spend 1CP a relic to use as many relics as they want, that's not so bad! Oh wait, only Codex: Space Marines can do that.
Which CSM relic is better than this? Elixir on a TH Captain is 6 S10 TH attacks hitting on 3s rerolling 1s. This on a DP is 6 S9 AP5 D2 hitting on 2s rerolling 1s. That seems about it.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:Which CSM relic is better than this? Elixir on a TH Captain is 6 S10 TH attacks hitting on 3s rerolling 1s. This on a DP is 6 S9 AP5 D2 hitting on 2s rerolling 1s. That seems about it.
The fact that you have to get into melee with it is a drawback already, it means it's probably going to be used for a round in any given battle.
In a vacuum those stats look impressive, the reality is much less so. You're maxxing out at 12 wounds of damage with a DP? So that's what, killing a small Primaris squad if you're lucky? Annoying a knight? It might kill an unprotected Dreadnought I guess. Then it will be gone.
So which CSM relic is better than that? Any number of them, Helm of the Third Eye jumps to mind immediately, the BL and RC combi-weapons are both more likely to get more mileage, and that's without looking at any of the books.
We won't even mention that the weapon requires I carry a Khornate DP, which I have never played this edition, because they are clearly the least useful DP.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:Which CSM relic is better than this? Elixir on a TH Captain is 6 S10 TH attacks hitting on 3s rerolling 1s. This on a DP is 6 S9 AP5 D2 hitting on 2s rerolling 1s. That seems about it.
The fact that you have to get into melee with it is a drawback already, it means it's probably going to be used for a round in any given battle.
In a vacuum those stats look impressive, the reality is much less so. You're maxxing out at 12 wounds of damage with a DP? So that's what, killing a small Primaris squad if you're lucky? Annoying a knight? It might kill an unprotected Dreadnought I guess. Then it will be gone.
So which CSM relic is better than that? Any number of them, Helm of the Third Eye jumps to mind immediately, the BL and RC combi-weapons are both more likely to get more mileage, and that's without looking at any of the books.
We won't even mention that the weapon requires I carry a Khornate DP, which I have never played this edition, because they are clearly the least useful DP.
Fair enough - though max damage is a potentially bad metric if you flub with the negatives on the TH. Third Eye disappoints as much as it delights these days. I don't worry much about the Daemon DP stuff, because i'll never fit that detachment in.
This isn't my favorite weapon ever, but I see some uses for those willing to chase them.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Karol wrote: p5freak wrote:Karol wrote: considering how many melee turns there are, and how hard it is to get a unit in to melee. a unit that fails something 1/6th of time seems to come with a big risk. by the way how does it fail on a 1, do the stat degrade or something?
Actually, with Zaall, the wrathful you get two chances to roll a 1. First you have to roll if you can even use it, on a 1, you cant, and you suffer 1MW. Then, you need to roll again, to see if you get more strength with it. If you roll a 1 you only have strength user. Thats pathetic. I would choose malefic talons with diabolic strength over it every time.
okey thanks, for explaining. It does seem to be an odd weapon. I don't know enough about chaos stuff to be sure, but I don't think it is worth the CP over a thunder hammer on a lord or talons on a DP. GW doesnt balance for tournaments they balance for friends and FLGS pickup games. If something is seen as breaking the game they act.
they aren't doing a very good job at this either. In fact considering the army that do get played at big events, tournaments are probably more balanced, then casual games.
Except it doesn't work like that, read the rules again. You roll for Demon Weapon. On a 1, you take damage and do nothing. On a 2+, something happens. In the case of Zaal, that 2+ translates to getting a strength bonus equal to what you rolled to get the demon weapon to work. So on a 1 - you take damage and you can't fight, but there's nothing stopping you from burning a CP to try to ignore it On a 2 - you get +2 strength On a 3 - you get +3 strength On a 4 - you get +4 strength On a 5 - you get +5 strength On a 6 - you get +6 strength That's it, there's no second series of rolls.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:Fair enough - though max damage is a potentially bad metric if you flub with the negatives on the TH. Third Eye disappoints as much as it delights these days. I don't worry much about the Daemon DP stuff, because i'll never fit that detachment in.
This isn't my favorite weapon ever, but I see some uses for those willing to chase them.
It's ok to say it's of limited usefulness. It's a fluff weapon at best. These are perfectly acceptable statements. Showing up and throwing down math like this has some objectively useful spot in the meta is disingenuous.
Of course the Third Eye disappoints, the point is that as long as I'm not playing against RG I'll probably get several opportunities to use it at least, and that's the point. Melee relics are generally for characters you expect to lose.
Almost any of the armor relics is better than this. Honestly the more I think about this the longer the list gets.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So on a 1 - you take damage and you can't fight, but there's nothing stopping you from burning a CP to try to ignore it
One correction - you CAN fight. Just not with that weapon. Automatically Appended Next Post: TwinPoleTheory wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:Fair enough - though max damage is a potentially bad metric if you flub with the negatives on the TH. Third Eye disappoints as much as it delights these days. I don't worry much about the Daemon DP stuff, because i'll never fit that detachment in.
This isn't my favorite weapon ever, but I see some uses for those willing to chase them.
It's ok to say it's of limited usefulness. It's a fluff weapon at best. These are perfectly acceptable statements. Showing up and throwing down math like this has some objectively useful spot in the meta is disingenuous.
Of course the Third Eye disappoints, the point is that as long as I'm not playing against RG I'll probably get several opportunities to use it at least, and that's the point. Melee relics are generally for characters you expect to lose.
Almost any of the armor relics is better than this. Honestly the more I think about this the longer the list gets.
I'm not saying it has place in the meta. I'm just arguing against it being useless.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Daedalus81 wrote: CthuluIsSpy wrote:
So on a 1 - you take damage and you can't fight, but there's nothing stopping you from burning a CP to try to ignore it
One correction - you CAN fight. Just not with that weapon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:Fair enough - though max damage is a potentially bad metric if you flub with the negatives on the TH. Third Eye disappoints as much as it delights these days. I don't worry much about the Daemon DP stuff, because i'll never fit that detachment in.
This isn't my favorite weapon ever, but I see some uses for those willing to chase them.
It's ok to say it's of limited usefulness. It's a fluff weapon at best. These are perfectly acceptable statements. Showing up and throwing down math like this has some objectively useful spot in the meta is disingenuous.
Of course the Third Eye disappoints, the point is that as long as I'm not playing against RG I'll probably get several opportunities to use it at least, and that's the point. Melee relics are generally for characters you expect to lose.
Almost any of the armor relics is better than this. Honestly the more I think about this the longer the list gets.
I'm not saying it has place in the meta. I'm just arguing against it being useless.
Huh, so you can. Can a model take 2 melee weapons? I mean, I know it can, in theory, I just don't know if CSM has options like that.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
CthuluIsSpy wrote:Huh, so you can. Can a model take 2 melee weapons? I mean, I know it can, in theory, I just don't know if CSM has options like that.
Abaddon is the only character I know of that wields two melee weapons and actually has special rules for that. So normally I think the only instance where this happens is with off-hand Chainswords that provide an additional attack, specifically with the Chainsword.
In theory I guess maybe you could ditch a Chaos Lord's ranged weapons, make him Alpha Legion, give him this weapon and the Blade of the Hydra and get +D3 attacks with that. It's a lot of setup for very little payoff.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Huh, so you can. Can a model take 2 melee weapons? I mean, I know it can, in theory, I just don't know if CSM has options like that.
Yup, yup! Not common to take two melee weapons, but it might be ok as a backup to a flubbed daemon weapon.
This model may replace its bolt pistol with one item from the Pistols, Combi-weapons or Melee Weapons list.
This model may replace its chainsword with one item from the Pistols or Melee Weapons list.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
TwinPoleTheory wrote:The fact that you have to get into melee with it is a drawback already, it means it's probably going to be used for a round in any given battle.
Dude... did you not see the big keyword KHORNE in the description?
What do you think you're supposed to do, castle in the corner behind an Executioner and not leave your own deployment zone?
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:Dude... did you not see the big keyword KHORNE in the description?
What do you think you're supposed to do, castle in the corner behind an Executioner and not leave your own deployment zone?
I'm quite aware, it doesn't mean it's a tactically intelligent choice within the current game meta.
Strangely, I have better uses for CP than to blow it on a one-turn glory shot that is unlikely to actually do anything significant.
110703
Post by: Galas
Interrogator Chaplains come with a Crozius and can be equiped with other weapons. You gain literally nothing for doing it unless you want a better meele weapon (the plastic miniature comes with a power fist).
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
TwinPoleTheory wrote:I'm quite aware, it doesn't mean it's a tactically intelligent choice within the current game meta.
Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.
I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.
I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.
Ok, I'm sure this is a great sentiment in the lore forum, not so much when we're talking about competitive choices in the game.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
TwinPoleTheory wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.
I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.
Ok, I'm sure this is a great sentiment in the lore forum, not so much when we're talking about competitive choices in the game.
Huh. I guess I missed where this forum was labeled "Competitive Choices in the Game Forum."
EDIT: In other words, not everyone has the same goals from a game as one another, and that doesn't make anyone's goals less valid. Don't dump on someone else for wanting a fluffy gameplay when you want a competitive one.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Yoyoyo wrote:Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.
Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.
There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.
Unfortunately there's a million smug casual players out there with these tales, fables and anecdotes of 'yeah but isn't it COOL' or 'But in my experience...' when all empirical evidence points to the opposite situation.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
 blood reaper wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.
Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.
There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.
And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
 Octopoid wrote: blood reaper wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.
Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.
There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.
And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.
If you're not fundamentally interested in that kind of discussion then why even enter it with people?
If I'm discussing why I want a balanced, competitive game, and someone comes up and says 'yeah but the game needs to fit lore' (despite the game the fact has never faithfully followed the lore or the fluid identities of all of its armies) it's not silencing their opinion to say 'Well yeah but I'm not really interested in that point', because it's effectively irrelevant to the nature of the discussion.
58558
Post by: Octopoid
blood reaper wrote: Octopoid wrote: blood reaper wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.
Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.
There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.
And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.
If you're not fundamentally interested in that kind of discussion then why even enter it with people?
If I'm discussing why I want a balanced, competitive game, and someone comes up and says 'yeah but the game needs to fit lore' (despite the game the fact has never faithfully followed the lore or the fluid identities of all of its armies) it's not silencing their opinion to say 'Well yeah but I'm not really interested in that point', because it's effectively irrelevant to the nature of the discussion.
Irrelevant TO YOU. It's not irrelevant to them. Or to me. I can say, "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" And then you say, "Well, that's not very effective compared to sitting back and shooting." And then I say, "But I don't want to shoot; I want to chainsaw people." Then you say, "Maybe that belongs in a different forum," and that's the point at which it becomes dismissive and silencing. This isn't a tactics forum, even if it's a tactics discussion. There IS a tactics forum. Feel free to take your tactics discussion there.
That doesn't feel great, does it?
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Assault and shooting are never going to feel balanced for some people because they depend on a lot of factors that are outside of datasheets, meaning terrain on the table and experience of the player. Assault requires a lot of planning in comparison to shooting.
- Closing to charge distance
- Making the charge
- Dealing with overwatch
- Pile-in moves
- Designating attacks
- Calculating damage
- Consolidation
Whereas the shooting phase is pretty simple by comparison. Choose a target, roll dice. There's a lot less that can go wrong, and that's probably important for players who don't like the complexity involved.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Octopoid wrote: blood reaper wrote: Octopoid wrote: blood reaper wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Dude, it's like playing Black Templars and then complaining about why GW doesn't write them better rules for castling in the corner. It's completely antithetical to the identity of the army.
Most of the game is completely antithetical to the identities of the armies, and the setting. It's not a strong defence.
There's no point in playing Khornate Space Marines; shooting dominates this edition. You get into combat, the enemy falls back. You win the combat, you get shot to pieces. I remember my casual friend arguing 'yeah but when you play CSMs you get like a billion attacks on the charge', but when you look at the math 99% of the time you inflict more damage by simply standing and shooting.
And some people aren't playing the game to look at the math and inflict more damage. Some of them aren't even playing to win, myself included. Some people just like moving toy soldiers around on a mat and making blim-blam noises. Those people have valid opinions too, and shouldn't be silenced for sharing them.
If you're not fundamentally interested in that kind of discussion then why even enter it with people?
If I'm discussing why I want a balanced, competitive game, and someone comes up and says 'yeah but the game needs to fit lore' (despite the game the fact has never faithfully followed the lore or the fluid identities of all of its armies) it's not silencing their opinion to say 'Well yeah but I'm not really interested in that point', because it's effectively irrelevant to the nature of the discussion.
Irrelevant TO YOU. It's not irrelevant to them. Or to me. I can say, "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" And then you say, "Well, that's not very effective compared to sitting back and shooting." And then I say, "But I don't want to shoot; I want to chainsaw people." Then you say, "Maybe that belongs in a different forum," and that's the point at which it becomes dismissive and silencing. This isn't a tactics forum, even if it's a tactics discussion. There IS a tactics forum. Feel free to take your tactics discussion there.
That doesn't feel great, does it?
I wouldn't go into the discussion with casual players cause I'd have recognised they wouldn't have cared for my point in the first place. This is a general discussion, and guess what, general discussions include tactics and such.
Even then, your point "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" is like, meaningless - it's a non sequitur. It's not a response; there's nothing to address - there is no substance. You aren't saying anything for me to respond to other than 'Good for you! I don't care!'
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Octopoid wrote:Irrelevant TO YOU. It's not irrelevant to them. Or to me. I can say, "I want a game where I move my toy soldiers forward and pretend to chainsaw your toy soldiers to death!" And then you say, "Well, that's not very effective compared to sitting back and shooting." And then I say, "But I don't want to shoot; I want to chainsaw people." Then you say, "Maybe that belongs in a different forum," and that's the point at which it becomes dismissive and silencing. This isn't a tactics forum, even if it's a tactics discussion. There IS a tactics forum. Feel free to take your tactics discussion there.
That doesn't feel great, does it?
Super, I acknowledge that you think they're pretty, fluffy and make you feel warm, thank you for your contribution to the discussion.
Now that we've acknowledged your contribution we can continue discussing whether they actually are of any use in, say, winning a game.
22150
Post by: blood reaper
Yoyoyo wrote:Assault and shooting are never going to feel balanced for some people because they depend on a lot of factors that are outside of datasheets, meaning terrain on the table and experience of the player. Assault requires a lot of planning in comparison to shooting.
- Closing to charge distance
- Making the charge
- Dealing with overwatch
- Pile-in moves
- Designating attacks
- Calculating damage
- Consolidation
Whereas the shooting phase is pretty simple by comparison. Choose a target, roll dice. There's a lot less that can go wrong, and that's probably important for players who don't like the complexity involved.
Shooting would be easier to balance if the game functioned more like say, Bolt Action, where shooting can cause fire fights where two units fire at the same time, or other units can respond to being shot at by moving away or into cover, etc. Assault requires planning to a point where it becomes irrelevant, since the risk factor makes the whole endeavour meaningless when it won't achieve any more than shooting will.
IRL, charges in the era of ranged combat were suicide. Historical wargames usually balance it out by having melee combat be extremely fatalistic.
It's not even like Khorne was always fixated on melee to the point of the onlys strategy being a Banzai Charge; in early editions of the game the World Eaters had stuff like Havocs, etc. mentioned in the fluff.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Assault requires planning to a point where it becomes irrelevant, since the risk factor makes the whole endeavour meaningless when it won't achieve any more than shooting will
Sure. The whole point with assault is to achieve more than you would with shooting, like locking down a 300pt unit like a Leviathan Dread using Plaguebearers. Once the Dread is locked down, you can send in a Daemon Prince and finish it off at your leisure. This is pretty much TJ Lanigan's current Chaos list which went 5-0 and that's in the current Marine meta. Would you rather deal with 20x S8 AP2 D2 shots, pumped up by stratagems and aura characters, or deal with 4-5x S8 AP- D1 attacks each round? It's no contest.
Assault armies need a lot of synergy and awareness, and they suffer on tables that don't have enough terrain. But if you think assault isn't relevant in 40k, that's not really borne out by results that we can verify quite easily.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
TwinPoleTheory wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:Khorne doesn't care much for your tactical intelligence, lol.
I assume their Tactical Objectives are going to be tailored to the theme of the army -- less "Secure Objective X", more rip and tear.
Ok, I'm sure this is a great sentiment in the lore forum, not so much when we're talking about competitive choices in the game.
it's also wrong, because khorne embodies all aspects of war.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Like psychic powers, for example?
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
well except that one.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
So... let me get this straight...
a deamon sword is a "useless and insulting relic" because... it's a sword....
right I'm going to walk away now in disgust. if you don't think a sword is all that useful.. that's fine, take another relic. but some people like swords etc, and deamon weapons are a fluffy thing chaos has long had that GW's finally put back into the game.
Jesus, you don;'t see black templar players whining about the librarian powers in codex space marines do you? Not every new option needs to be specificly geared to your play style
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
a_typical_hero wrote:
"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal.
It's a weird proposal because this is a discussion board and the point of its existence is to discuss 40k related news as it comes out.
"Don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time!" Why?
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
BlaxicanX wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:
"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal.
It's a weird proposal because this is a discussion board and the point of its existence is to discuss 40k related news as it comes out.
"Don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time!" Why?
I think rather it's not "don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time" so much as it's "we don't have the full information. maybe we should not make a final absolute judgement until we do to avoid looking foolish"
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yes actually.
Brass Collar of Borghaster
Scorn of Sorcery
Admittedly, they have nothing on BT at this point, but at one time they were roughly equivalent. Additional litanies certainly fills the psychic gap, especially since they can't be denied.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
Yoyoyo wrote:I feel like some of you guys expect 40k to be managed like an esport. It's not and never will be. Competitive balance will never be prioritized in the same way, 40k is all about aesthetics including fickle Daemon Weapons that fail you 1/6 times. So they are thematic, and that's a good thing. You can reserve a re-roll if you absolutely need the dice to go your way, and Tzeentch at least even has a power for that.
This isn't 1994 anymore. There are too many wargames that are both narratively fun AND balanced for GW and GW apologists to hide behind this notion that 40k can't have good balance because it has a narrative emphasis. Furthermore, the games crap balance actually HURTS it's narrative potential. In the fluff Khorne Marines overrunning a Tau gunline and cutting them to shreds in melee is something that happens. On the table the unviability of melee combat means that 9/10 games result in the Khorne army getting blown off the table if the Tau player has a semblance of a brain.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
BrianDavion wrote:So... let me get this straight...
a deamon sword is a "useless and insulting relic" because... it's a sword....
More reading BD. Being a sword is definitely the secondary complaint.
BrianDavion wrote:right I'm going to walk away now in disgust. if you don't think a sword is all that useful.. that's fine, take another relic. but some people like swords etc, and deamon weapons are a fluffy thing chaos has long had that GW's finally put back into the game.
Let me know when the fluff places in a tournament, thanks.
BrianDavion wrote:Jesus, you don;'t see black templar players whining about the librarian powers in codex space marines do you? Not every new option needs to be specificly geared to your play style
No, they got six additional litanies that can't be denied and can set up their Chaplains to pop off 2/round. I'd say in the ways that are relevant to their playstyle they made out just fine.
51881
Post by: BlaxicanX
BrianDavion wrote: BlaxicanX wrote:a_typical_hero wrote:
"Wait for the book to be released and all rules are available so we can see how they interact with each other." What a truly weird proposal.
It's a weird proposal because this is a discussion board and the point of its existence is to discuss 40k related news as it comes out.
"Don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time!" Why?
I think rather it's not "don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time" so much as it's "we don't have the full information. maybe we should not make a final absolute judgement until we do to avoid looking foolish"
Aye, I addressed that.
BlaxicanX wrote:40K has ranged from overall absolutely terrible gameplay design and balance to overall "okay" gameplay design and balance, for the better part of 20 years. And yet, for almost 20 years people like you have been saying "we should wait for more information before drawing conclusions". Don't you think that's weird? What goodwill do you think GW has that would necessitate crossing our fingers and praying that this time, THIS TIME, unlike the last 50 times, there'll be some heretofore unreleased information that will result in these rules being a fantastic addition to the army?
I don't see the problem in acknowledging that the info we've seen points to the rules being garbage as usual. When you take into consideration their track-record it makes more sense to assume that GW will feth up as they usually do and be pleasantly surprised if they don't then to cling to the hope that in the end everything will be great.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
That's going to be a tall order when the rules aren't out for it yet, including the supporting WL Traits, Stratagems, etc.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
blood reaper wrote:IRL, charges in the era of ranged combat were suicide. Historical wargames usually balance it out by having melee combat be extremely fatalistic.
Just want to say that this is the case when armor technology cannot keep up with weapon technology.
In 40k we do have incredibly durable, mass produced armor which can withstand small arms fire without problems. And there are enough common enemies who will engage in melee like Tyarinds. So having specialised CC units and weaponry does make sense. Keep in mind that in earlier editions power weapons shred every kind of armor, even TDA, while stuff like autocannons could not scratch power armor.
120227
Post by: Karol
BrianDavion 782328 10627021 wrote:
I think rather it's not "don't discuss the new release until this arbitrary point in time" so much as it's "we don't have the full information. maybe we should not make a final absolute judgement until we do to avoid looking foolish"
okey and then the arguments go like this. We have no full data, wait till people tested it, wait till large tournaments in the US, okey now wait till FAQ/ CA what ever is closer, then switch to the one that further. Then new book X is going to reign Y in. And then after 6-9 months of butt kicking, we can settle on an Z is a lot more powerful the Y or GW has finaly nerfed Y. you can wait like that for years non stop, if stuff like edition changes, suppplement books etc
113317
Post by: Sentineil
Can we ban the words "garbage" and "trash" because I feel like their misuse is having serious consequences on vocabulary, and as such polarising opinions.
Not 100% effective all the time? Garbage. Another faction has something better? Trash. Isn't better than the current flavour of the month? Dumpster fire.
What if we learned words and phrases like "poor", "adequate", "inadequate", "not great", "good", "fun".
What if we took this one step further, and didn't look down on everyone who plays the game slightly differently to us?
Wouldn't that be nice. A discussion without gaking on everyone around you?
One can dream.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
You forgot the main one, the one used in the tactica thread "obsolete" and "oppurtunity cost"
Obsolete because there are other, better, cheaper options.
Oppurtunity cost because stratagems involved better used on those other units.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Jim Vesal won Adepticon 2019 using a Khorne Prince to smash up multiple Knights in a game with the Skullreaver Relic.
I understand you guys are convinced assault is useless though, and there is no changing your mind. Maybe you play in more competitive metas!
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Sentineil wrote:Can we ban the words "garbage" and "trash" because I feel like their misuse is having serious consequences on vocabulary, and as such polarising opinions.
Please this.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Yoyoyo wrote:Jim Vesal won Adepticon 2019 using a Khorne Prince to smash up multiple Knights in a game with the Skullreaver Relic.
I understand you guys are convinced assault is useless though, and there is no changing your mind. Maybe you play in more competitive metas!
Well, do you see something there, like, something in the profile of the weapon?
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I'm not really sure what you're getting at.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Easy there, some people here find logic very offensive.
You have to balance the farcical demands of fluff with the actual demands of math.
Didn't use trash, garbage, or obsolete once, see?
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Fixed S value, no inbuilt selfharm, no inbuilt denial of weapon use, Mortals d3 on 6+, Titanic Auto rerolls and last but not least 3,5 dmg average.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also TwinPoleTheory, obsolete was a suggestion for a nicer, more accurate, word to be used in discussions, and yep the blade is, kinda, obsolete.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Which is moving the goalposts from "melee relics are trash!" to "this particular relic is trash for reasons that aren't that it's a melee weapon!"
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Sure. But the problem that was mentioned earlier wasn't that the Daemon Weapon on page 1 had a bad profile, it's that "assault is irrelevant".
What you're doing now is what's known as moving the goalposts. Automatically Appended Next Post: NInja'd
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Which is moving the goalposts from "melee relics are trash!" to "this particular relic is trash for reasons that aren't that it's a melee weapon!"
My whole point here was, that the oppurtunity cost for the use of it is too high.
Literally all over this thread, i never left this position so how, walrus are you now stating that i am moving the goalposts??
Then again considering your former responses that is not astonishing at all that you would miss the point.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
AlmightyWalrus wrote:Which is moving the goalposts from "melee relics are trash!" to "this particular relic is trash for reasons that aren't that it's a melee weapon!"
I'll keep those goalposts in place (although to be fair, pretty sure they only moved in your head), he brought up a tournament that happened almost 8 months ago?
The meta has moved. Melee in general is walking uphill in the wind right now. Not impossible, but certainly a lot more difficult and less consistent than shooting.
This has been pretty true throughout 8th edition.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Not Online!!! wrote:My whole point here was, that the opportunity cost for the use of it is too high.
It's a good weapon to remove Marines and Centurions, and it's a lot more economical to do so with a Jump Lord than a Daemon Prince.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Yoyoyo wrote:Not Online!!! wrote:My whole point here was, that the opportunity cost for the use of it is too high.
It's a good weapon to remove Marines and Centurions, and it's a lot more economical to do so with a Jump Lord than a Daemon Prince.
However, and there is the next issue, a jumplord is not as versatile as a DP with wings.
Further a DP with wings or a chainlord f.e. allready does this just as good with better results overall.
This is why the oppurtunity cost is too high regardless how you turn the coin. It's a nice fluffy piece, and I think getting daemonweapons back is great, i'd personally rather had less relics /daemonweapons if it meant the needed trait update would have happened instead.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
for the record I would be very suprised if we didn't get a start allowing a CSM army to take an additional deamon weapon.
GW's been pretty consistant that when they introduce a new list of relics, they give those who can take it a new start allowing them extra relics from that list.
113317
Post by: Sentineil
TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Easy there, some people here find logic very offensive.
You have to balance the farcical demands of fluff with the actual demands of math.
Didn't use trash, garbage, or obsolete once, see?
Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, you're taking your grim dark toy soldiers pew pewing eachother a bit too seriously?
8611
Post by: Drudge Dreadnought
I guess the viability of these is going to come down to comparisons with others relics, and will depend on if they are taken the same way as regular relics. If you could get more daemon weapons in addition to other relics, or take a relic and daemon weapon on the same character, then things could get interesting.
At the moment, weapon relics on characters aren't that big a deal. Having some new ones that are slightly better probably won't change the role much. But the warcom article did mention stuff like ignoring invul saves. That sort of thing could open up a whole new world of options.
Also any ranged weapon daemon weapons could be interesting.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
BrianDavion wrote:for the record I would be very suprised if we didn't get a start allowing a CSM army to take an additional deamon weapon.
GW's been pretty consistant that when they introduce a new list of relics, they give those who can take it a new start allowing them extra relics from that list.
Alternativly time to run that reaver Lord in your cp battery of RC and get a free relic, that might also turn you into a spawn at some point.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
There's also an opportunity cost to a Chainlord or DP.
We don't know at present what synergies exist within the context of PA to make CSM more effective. Daemon Weapons are not Legion-locked and that's going to be really important when we finally see what's available to work with.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Sentineil wrote:Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, you're taking your grim dark toy soldiers pew pewing eachother a bit too seriously?
Do you always expect people to be as invested in the fluff as everyone else? Fluff arguments are simply idiotic.
If you want to field models because they're pretty, good on you, I do it occasionally also, but using it as an actual argument in support of a bad ruleset, well, see above about fluff arguments.
115943
Post by: Darsath
Sentineil wrote: TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Easy there, some people here find logic very offensive.
You have to balance the farcical demands of fluff with the actual demands of math.
Didn't use trash, garbage, or obsolete once, see?
Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, you're taking your grim dark toy soldiers pew pewing eachother a bit too seriously?
This is probably the most typical troll comment I've seen in a long time. Congratulations.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Clearly not? If people are intent on whining, negativity, and hyperbole they run the risk of being called out on it.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:Clearly not? If people are intent on whining, negativity, and hyperbole they run the risk of being called out on it.
As do the pollyannas, so what?
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Maybe you should just stop posting man. I don't think you've offered one observation of substance in this thread. It's really immature.
113317
Post by: Sentineil
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Sentineil wrote:Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, you're taking your grim dark toy soldiers pew pewing eachother a bit too seriously?
Do you always expect people to be as invested in the fluff as everyone else? Fluff arguments are simply idiotic.
If you want to field models because they're pretty, good on you, I do it occasionally also, but using it as an actual argument in support of a bad ruleset, well, see above about fluff arguments.
I'm not at all really pushed about fluff, to each their own. I just take issue with your over the top point scoring and arrogance.
Charged comments like "people here find logic offensive" just make dakkadakka what it is I guess.
Darsath wrote:This is probably the most typical troll comment I've seen in a long time. Congratulations
Thanks Pal!
115943
Post by: Darsath
Being called out on negativity? So, are we only to say positive things now?
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I think we should just start putting people with nothing to say on ignore, they are only going to degrade the value of the conversation. Automatically Appended Next Post: Darsath wrote:Being called out on negativity? So, are we only to say positive things now?
There's a big difference between enlightened criticism and hysterical whining, which this thread has seen a lot of.
I'm all for the former.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:Maybe you should just stop posting man. I don't think you've offered one observation of substance in this thread. It's really immature.
Clearly your argument 'Because...KHORNE.' was the clincher, we can all go home now, thanks.
115943
Post by: Darsath
Yoyoyo wrote:I think we should just start putting people with nothing to say on ignore, they are only going to degrade the value of the conversation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Darsath wrote:Being called out on negativity? So, are we only to say positive things now?
There's a big difference between enlightened criticism and hysterical whining, which this thread has seen a lot of.
I'm all for the former.
I want to point out, that you did literally say to call people out for negativity. I don't want people to be silenced just because I don't like what I hear.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I can't silence anyone, it's a public forum. I can just choose to respond to the posters who we feel offer something more valuable than a pointless internet slapfight.
Anyway, moving on.
 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:But the warcom article did mention stuff like ignoring invul saves. That sort of thing could open up a whole new world of options.
That is pretty interesting. It might be hard to stack 6W on something like a Chapter Master if it's D1 though.
84689
Post by: ingtaer
Enough of the tit for tat bickering and name calling. This thread is for discussing the return of daemon weapons not for telling people they are playing with their toys the wrong way.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
WarhammerCommunity wrote:Trust us when we say the risk is worth it – from ignoring invulnerable saves to dealing deluges of mortal wounds to enemies, these are Relics that turned the measliest Chaos Lord into a mighty champion.
So I guess that's 3 weapons we can guess at.
- AP5 D2 Sword with D6 Strength buff
- Ignore Invul Saves
- Mortal Wound mechanic
30490
Post by: Mr Morden
Yoyoyo wrote:WarhammerCommunity wrote:Trust us when we say the risk is worth it – from ignoring invulnerable saves to dealing deluges of mortal wounds to enemies, these are Relics that turned the measliest Chaos Lord into a mighty champion.
So I guess that's 3 weapons we can guess at.
- AP5 D2 Sword with D6 Strength buff
- Ignore Invul Saves
- Mortal Wound mechanic
Well Mortal wounds ignore Invuls anyway?
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
 Mr Morden wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:WarhammerCommunity wrote:Trust us when we say the risk is worth it – from ignoring invulnerable saves to dealing deluges of mortal wounds to enemies, these are Relics that turned the measliest Chaos Lord into a mighty champion.
So I guess that's 3 weapons we can guess at.
- AP5 D2 Sword with D6 Strength buff
- Ignore Invul Saves
- Mortal Wound mechanic
Well Mortal wounds ignore Invuls anyway?
In all seriousness, yes, but there will probably enough distinction in role. Like a sword mortal wounding on 6s or a th ignoring invulns.
53939
Post by: vipoid
Based on past experience, I'll hazard a guess that one of the daemon weapons will be +d6 attacks.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
 vipoid wrote:Based on past experience, I'll hazard a guess that one of the daemon weapons will be + d6 attacks.
I suspect another deamon weapon will be a thunderhammer. to enchourage the sales of the new hammer lord.
I'm going to put on my christmas list a + d6 attacks thunderhammer
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
BrianDavion wrote: vipoid wrote:Based on past experience, I'll hazard a guess that one of the daemon weapons will be + d6 attacks.
I suspect another deamon weapon will be a thunderhammer. to enchourage the sales of the new hammer lord.
I'm going to put on my christmas list a + d6 attacks thunderhammer
If they tie them all to the D6 roll...sounds plausible.
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
Daedalus81 wrote:BrianDavion wrote: vipoid wrote:Based on past experience, I'll hazard a guess that one of the daemon weapons will be + d6 attacks.
I suspect another deamon weapon will be a thunderhammer. to enchourage the sales of the new hammer lord.
I'm going to put on my christmas list a + d6 attacks thunderhammer
If they tie them all to the D6 roll...sounds plausible.
and disgustingly good
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
There's definitely potential.
- D6 Strength
- D6 Attacks
- D6 AP
- D6 Damage
- D6 Wound Recovery
- D6 Negative to Leadership
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
what I'd like to see is rather then them giving us a selection of pre-built deamon weapons, giving us instead "build a deamon weapon" rules. but I suppose that'd be a bit broken.
92012
Post by: Argive
Isin't one of them supposed to ignore invulns?
114395
Post by: chimeara
Anything to help my mighty Khorne lords cleave foes is welcome. Ignoring invun and doling out mortals sounds pretty good to me.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I'm thinking you get some random effect, then there's a special rule or a neat profile behind the D6 roll.
Or hey, it could be something completely different.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
A weapon that ignores invuls? The Dreadaxe is back, baby!
Very pleased to see daemon weapons return.
92012
Post by: Argive
 Marshal Loss wrote:A weapon that ignores invuls? The Dreadaxe is back, baby!
Very pleased to see daemon weapons return.
Exept it will end up having ap 0 /-1...  Geee Duuuwbs trolling the fan base hard
79409
Post by: BrianDavion
 Argive wrote: Marshal Loss wrote:A weapon that ignores invuls? The Dreadaxe is back, baby!
Very pleased to see daemon weapons return.
Exept it will end up having ap 0 /-1... Geee Duuuwbs trolling the fan base hard
even if it did it'd have a niche use in fighting deamons.
92012
Post by: Argive
BrianDavion wrote: Argive wrote: Marshal Loss wrote:A weapon that ignores invuls? The Dreadaxe is back, baby!
Very pleased to see daemon weapons return.
Exept it will end up having ap 0 /-1... Geee Duuuwbs trolling the fan base hard
even if it did it'd have a niche use in fighting deamons.
Ohh the irony...
122126
Post by: Gir Spirit Bane
Bring back the old ranged weapon Daemon weapon I think Tzeentch had!
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
BrianDavion wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:BrianDavion wrote: vipoid wrote:Based on past experience, I'll hazard a guess that one of the daemon weapons will be + d6 attacks.
I suspect another deamon weapon will be a thunderhammer. to enchourage the sales of the new hammer lord.
I'm going to put on my christmas list a + d6 attacks thunderhammer
If they tie them all to the D6 roll...sounds plausible.
and disgustingly good
i miss the old + 2d6 one for khorne.
That thing was ridicoulus.
47547
Post by: CthuluIsSpy
Argive wrote:BrianDavion wrote: Argive wrote: Marshal Loss wrote:A weapon that ignores invuls? The Dreadaxe is back, baby!
Very pleased to see daemon weapons return.
Exept it will end up having ap 0 /-1... Geee Duuuwbs trolling the fan base hard
even if it did it'd have a niche use in fighting deamons.
Ohh the irony...
It makes sense though.
The Dread Axe was originally a reference to Malal, a Chaos God who hates other Chaos Gods.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
First of all, back in the day, World Eaters did have Librarians so... that anti-magic stuff was cooked up as Khorne's "gimmick" when they expanded the Chaos gods to make them more one-dimensional (same time when Khorne became the god of bloodthirsty berserk combat rather than martial prowess).
Second, I do think way too much that everything is scrutinized under a competitive magnifying glass, which already removes 90% of choice anyways. I get wanting things to be good, but there are a lot of things which are perfectly serviceable in a game and aren't the 100% optimal choice; I honestly am getting sick and tired of the desire to be 100% optimal 100% of the time essentially making it so barely anything is worth taking when you compare it with other things. It's an incredibly toxic mindset that infests everything it touches and reduces choice down to no choice at all (often while those same people are bitching about there being a lack of choices when they themselves are part of the reason)
Third, I dislike the whole "wait until you see" crap. It's been going on for years, and I can count on one hand the number of times that it's actually changed what people were saying beforehand. In fact, that mentality is often detrimental because it tries to shut up the actual critique of things that are previewed, which lets one glean insight to the actual product, and can mislead or spread misinformation about things by spouting the old "Wait until you have the whole book" argument.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Wayniac wrote:First of all, back in the day, World Eaters did have Librarians so... that anti-magic stuff was cooked up as Khorne's "gimmick" when they expanded the Chaos gods to make them more one-dimensional (same time when Khorne became the god of bloodthirsty berserk combat rather than martial prowess).
Second, I do think way too much that everything is scrutinized under a competitive magnifying glass, which already removes 90% of choice anyways. I get wanting things to be good, but there are a lot of things which are perfectly serviceable in a game and aren't the 100% optimal choice; I honestly am getting sick and tired of the desire to be 100% optimal 100% of the time essentially making it so barely anything is worth taking when you compare it with other things. It's an incredibly toxic mindset that infests everything it touches and reduces choice down to no choice at all (often while those same people are bitching about there being a lack of choices when they themselves are part of the reason)
Third, I dislike the whole "wait until you see" crap. It's been going on for years, and I can count on one hand the number of times that it's actually changed what people were saying beforehand. In fact, that mentality is often detrimental because it tries to shut up the actual critique of things that are previewed, which lets one glean insight to the actual product, and can mislead or spread misinformation about things by spouting the old "Wait until you have the whole book" argument.
On the second point. I agree if, if it is an interesting sidegrade. This one sofar is only looking like a beatstick for beatstick sake. And we allready got these gallore. ( otoh if skalathrax flamer shows up, or such things , then yes.)
The third point is also funny: In 8th edition CSM allready got 10 Rule sources, the core issues of missmanaged traits for the army persist since the first iteration of the Codex. (same for some other factions aswell )
Waiting didn't serve the CSM players, it will mostlikely not serve them this time again if the french rumour guy is right.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Not Online!!! wrote:On the second point. I agree if, if it is an interesting sidegrade. This one sofar is only looking like a beatstick for beatstick sake. And we allready got these gallore. ( otoh if skalathrax flamer shows up, or such things , then yes.) The third point is also funny: In 8th edition CSM allready got 10 Rule sources, the core issues of missmanaged traits for the army persist since the first iteration of the Codex. (same for some other factions aswell ) Waiting didn't serve the CSM players, it will mostlikely not serve them this time again if the french rumour guy is right.
That's why it bugs me so much. You always hear "Wait until the book", then wait until the errata, then wait until the Big FAQ, then wait until Chapter Approved. At some point it's like no, they can't keep fething this up and getting away with it. At what point do you not wait for stuff that's already known and call a spade a spade?
115943
Post by: Darsath
I say wait until it's out, but don't wait afterwards. Judge the product on its merits when it's launched. If it needs some other future product to work (like a second codex, another part of the supplement etc) or needs to be errata'd/FAQ'd then it's not of much use. Players shouldn't be expected to wait for the released product to be improved after they've been expected to pay for it.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Darsath wrote:I say wait until it's out, but don't wait afterwards. Judge the product on its merits when it's launched. If it needs some other future product to work (like a second codex, another part of the supplement etc) or needs to be errata'd/ FAQ'd then it's not of much use. Players shouldn't be expected to wait for the released product to be improved after they've been expected to pay for it.
like 9 times in this exemple before?
I agree fully, yet we are at dex 2.0 for Marines AND CSM.
First like you said, two factions needed an update why?
Secondly, To pay for the improvement ASWELL AGAIN, is even more asinine imo.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Well we can see the Table of Contents. That gives you a pretty good idea what's coming. Daemon Weapons, Relics, Stratagems, and WL traits can all be quite powerful when they're taken in combination..
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Yoyoyo wrote:Well we can see the Table of Contents. That gives you a pretty good idea what's coming. Daemon Weapons, Relics, Stratagems, and WL traits can all be quite powerful when they're taken in combination..
Sure, does that fix the main issue for the CSM dex?
I'd wager no.
81283
Post by: stonehorse
a_typical_hero wrote: blood reaper wrote:IRL, charges in the era of ranged combat were suicide. Historical wargames usually balance it out by having melee combat be extremely fatalistic.
Just want to say that this is the case when armor technology cannot keep up with weapon technology.
In 40k we do have incredibly durable, mass produced armor which can withstand small arms fire without problems. And there are enough common enemies who will engage in melee like Tyarinds. So having specialised CC units and weaponry does make sense. Keep in mind that in earlier editions power weapons shred every kind of armor, even TDA, while stuff like autocannons could not scratch power armor.
GW have changed 40k's direction and style. Before it was akin to fantasy in space, hence why close combat was so crucial and bloody, while shooting for the most part was supportive and limited. Now it is a shooting game, where CC happens rarely and can be mitigated.
I miss 3rd edition.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
It's not going to touch Datasheets and Points Values, so it's more along the lines of some cool synergies you can leverage and a few stratagems to influence the game where needed.
115943
Post by: Darsath
Yoyoyo wrote:Well we can see the Table of Contents. That gives you a pretty good idea what's coming. Daemon Weapons, Relics, Stratagems, and WL traits can all be quite powerful when they're taken in combination..
This isn't necessarily true. We can get hyped or disappointed at what we see so far, but always reserve judgement until the full contents are known and confirmed.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Darsath wrote:This isn't necessarily true. We can get hyped or disappointed at what we see so far, but always reserve judgement until the full contents are known and confirmed.
It's all masturbatory shiny baubles until they fix the fundamental problems with CSM.
Doesn't change the fact that your CSM models, of any flavor, are objectively inferior to any equivalent SM put on the table.
But there's apparently a very fluffy contingent of CSM players that like shiny baubles.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
True, but it would make sense to discuss what's relevant. Points Values and Statline adjustments are going to be in Chapter Approved.
What we can expect is:
- Heretic Astartes (probably a splash/lore page)
- Champions of Ruin (collating Hateful Assault, Bolter Discipline, DttFE, Daemonic Ritual)
- Daemon Weapons (available to every Legion, excluding Marks)
- Legion (splash page, Legion rules)
- WL trait
- Stratagems
- Relics
- Tactical Objectives
- Name Generator
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:What we can expect is:
- Heretic Astartes (probably a splash/lore page)
- Champions of Ruin (collating Hateful Assault, Bolter Discipline, DttFE, Daemonic Ritual)
- Daemon Weapons (available to every Legion, excluding Marks)
- Legion (splash page, Legion rules)
- WL trait
- Stratagems
- Relics
- Tactical Objectives
- Name Generator
None of which actually fixes anything. Again, masturbatory waste of time, just another GW cash grab. All of this information will be available elsewhere, no reason to buy the supplement.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
*heavy breathing waiting for CSM focus article*
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
I'm actually kinda annoyed the Daemon Weapons aren't giving D6 attacks like before.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
What will be most valuable is the opportunity to kit out your characters for different roles. The AP5 D2 sword for going after Marines and Cents, exploding Mortal Wounds for massed infantry, Invul save denial for going after 4++ units. It would be good if there's a D6 damage can opener as well so Daemon Princes can take on Knights within the CSM codex.
You'll probably be able to stack WL Trait --> Daemon Weapon --> Stratagem so that's quite a bit of punch you can throw on a HQ. Smash Captains for everyone basically, but with a lot more flexibility in their melee loadout.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Still no article. D:
120227
Post by: Karol
GW fears to show WB rules.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I mean after the last time, can't say I blame them. If they show it and STILL no adjustments to the lame traits there will be rioting.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Wayniac wrote:I mean after the last time, can't say I blame them. If they show it and STILL no adjustments to the lame traits there will be rioting.
+1 Leadership to vehicles! Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey new model for us!
Wait...no...Sisters article...
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
Guess we have to wait until at least tomorrow then for a preview. Bleh! At least we'll get the full hit this weekend, so long as the reviewers are allowed to dump all the information out.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Don't give them ideas
122126
Post by: Gir Spirit Bane
Daedalus81 wrote:Wayniac wrote:I mean after the last time, can't say I blame them. If they show it and STILL no adjustments to the lame traits there will be rioting.
+1 Leadership to vehicles!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hey new model for us!
Wait...no...Sisters article...
Hey proper defilement here and there, stick a eight pointed star, maaaaybe a skull or 80 and viola! a Dark Apostles floating sermon chair!
(Jokes aside, new sisters look amazing except for the Canoness who looks like Terry Crews dressed as He-man!)
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Gir Spirit Bane wrote:
Hey proper defilement here and there, stick a eight pointed star, maaaaybe a skull or 80 and viola! a Dark Apostles floating sermon chair!
(Jokes aside, new sisters look amazing except for the Canoness who looks like Terry Crews dressed as He-man!)
....I like the way you think.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/14/battle-sisters-on-the-battlefield-part-2gw-homepage-post-1/
Appears no CSM update today either.
It's almost like they know it's a garbage supplement that will be received negatively...
114395
Post by: chimeara
TwinPoleTheory wrote:https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/14/battle-sisters-on-the-battlefield-part-2gw-homepage-post-1/
Appears no CSM update today either.
It's almost like they know it's a garbage supplement that will be received negatively...
Or, conversely. It's going to be an amazing supplement and they want to save all of that goodness for your inevitable purchase?
I'm personally hoping for some revamped rules for some of my favorite daemon weapons from the past. Like the Kai gun, burning brand of scalathrax and the one Khorne glaive from the 3.5 codex I can't remember what it's called. Plus the one flamer sword. Basically all the ones from 3.5 codex.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
 chimeara wrote:Or, conversely. It's going to be an amazing supplement and they want to save all of that goodness for your inevitable purchase?
I'm personally hoping for some revamped rules for some of my favorite daemon weapons from the past. Like the Kai gun, burning brand of scalathrax and the one Khorne glaive from the 3.5 codex I can't remember what it's called. Plus the one flamer sword. Basically all the ones from 3.5 codex
Oh, I'm definitely not giving GW money for it, that's guaranteed at this point.
As for the Daemon Weapons, sure, maybe they'll manage not to trip on that low bar, but I'm certainly not rewarding their apathy with my money.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
There is an update on Warhammer Community. Including a Stratagem to update CSM HQ characters
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Nope. No money for gw until I know that my night lords get good rules. And it doesn't look like they're very proud of whatever they have.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
a_typical_hero wrote:There is an update on Warhammer Community. Including a Stratagem to update CSM HQ characters
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/11/14/chaos-space-marines-why-you-need-faith-furygw-homepage-post-4/
Sweet, happy to be wrong.
Sadly it confirms I'm not giving GW money for this waste of paper.
Locking the Dark Apostle upgrade to Word Bearers only is a exceptional level of hosing.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
a_typical_hero wrote:There is an update on Warhammer Community. Including a Stratagem to update CSM HQ characters
Feth. That's the fastest I've ever ate my own words. Well I guess I can finally stop a unit from running away from combat.
But why do ALL loyalists get to upgrade their chaplains but only wb get to upgrade their da?
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
So we get AP-1 cultists
So first they nerf them into the ground for everyone, then they add this?
You know, with Votwl and Cacophony still affecting them?
Like? Why?
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Gadzilla666 wrote:But why do ALL loyalists get to upgrade their chaplains but only wb get to upgrade their da?
I am so looking forward to when they lock Sorc upgrades to TS, that will be amazing.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I mean these are bandaids and not actually that bad. The WB and IW WLTs are decent. It's just that combined with everything else, they repeatedly fail to address the most basic issue so these are still hot garbage. It's not the parts themselves but the whole. Giving decent WLTs to a crap army while neglecting the core issues doesn't make it any less of a crap army.
The fact they are giving cultists a buff when the problem already is that Alpha Legion (or was it Red Corsairs now?) and cultist spam is the "best" way to play is a fething joke, seriously.
21358
Post by: Dysartes
Gadzilla666 wrote: a_typical_hero wrote:There is an update on Warhammer Community. Including a Stratagem to update CSM HQ characters
Feth. That's the fastest I've ever ate my own words. Well I guess I can finally stop a unit from running away from combat.
But why do ALL loyalists get to upgrade their chaplains but only wb get to upgrade their da?
Theoretically, every Chapter has a head Chaplain/Librarian/Techmarine/etc, but only the Word Bearers have a Dark Council/tend to have Dark Apostles with additional gifts?
I dunno, I don't write for GW, but presumably they thought it only fit with the WB from a flavour perspective?
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
TwinPoleTheory wrote:Gadzilla666 wrote:But why do ALL loyalists get to upgrade their chaplains but only wb get to upgrade their da?
I am so looking forward to when they lock Sorc upgrades to TS, that will be amazing.
Maybe it's one of those strategems everyone gets but under different names.
Wonder if they'll have anything that works on vehicles.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Gadzilla666 wrote: TwinPoleTheory wrote:Gadzilla666 wrote:But why do ALL loyalists get to upgrade their chaplains but only wb get to upgrade their da?
I am so looking forward to when they lock Sorc upgrades to TS, that will be amazing.
Maybe it's one of those strategems everyone gets but under different names.
Wonder if they'll have anything that works on vehicles.
At most some buff to daemonengines, which will not fix daemonengines, because pay your bloody spike tax on them.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Gadzilla666 wrote:Maybe it's one of those strategems everyone gets but under different names.
Wonder if they'll have anything that works on vehicles.
Maybe, guess I'll find out when BattleScribe is updated.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
A Thunder Hammer that always wounds on 2+ and a Stratagem that just plain turns off falling back and the supplement is "a waste of paper"? Yes, there's a 1/6 chance of the Power Fist relic going wrong, but wounding T8 on a 2+ is great. Reroll charge/hit/wound is similarly great for a Slaanesh Character.
I can agree on the locking of the Apostle upgrade being stupid though.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
I mean we just got fall back block...that's pretty sweet. Forcing an explosion on their side...awesome.
The Khorne stuff seems brutal.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A Thunder Hammer that always wounds on 2+ and a Stratagem that just plain turns off falling back and the supplement is "a waste of paper"? Yes, there's a 1/6 chance of the Power Fist relic going wrong, but wounding T8 on a 2+ is great. Reroll charge/hit/wound is similarly great for a Slaanesh Character.
I can agree on the locking of the Apostle upgrade being stupid though.
It's a band aid, Chaos allready had good enough HQ.
What CSM needed was a rework to traits and their baseline Infantry, or what GW deems is supposedly the base line infantry (cough CSM cough).
Instead it reinfoced two things,
Play alpha legion.
Use cultists.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Not Online!!! wrote:
It's a band aid, Chaos allready had good enough HQ.
What CSM needed was a rework to traits and their baseline Infantry, or what GW deems is supposedly the base line infantry (cough CSM cough).
Instead it reinfoced two things,
Play alpha legion.
Use cultists.
We don't quite know everything yet. The preview is otherwise promising.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Daedalus81 wrote:I mean we just got fall back block...that's pretty sweet. Forcing an explosion on their side...awesome.
The Khorne stuff seems brutal.
I don't quite get the axe.
Like if i just get one 6, i do 3 mortals and then thats it from the carrier?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:Not Online!!! wrote:
It's a band aid, Chaos allready had good enough HQ.
What CSM needed was a rework to traits and their baseline Infantry, or what GW deems is supposedly the base line infantry (cough CSM cough).
Instead it reinfoced two things,
Play alpha legion.
Use cultists.
We don't quite know everything yet. The preview is otherwise promising.
I wonder how a 13 pts model is supposed to keep up with a 5 pts model with AP-1 , that has bigger unit size and can therefore take better advantage off the allready great baseline stratagems.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Not Online!!! wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:I mean we just got fall back block...that's pretty sweet. Forcing an explosion on their side...awesome.
The Khorne stuff seems brutal.
I don't quite get the axe.
Like if i just get one 6, i do 3 mortals and then thats it from the carrier?
Instead of the usual 'does a mortal wound plus additional damage' it is just 'does 3 mortal wounds' and then you move to the next attack.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
8 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
A Thunder Hammer that always wounds on 2+ and a Stratagem that just plain turns off falling back and the supplement is "a waste of paper"? Yes, there's a 1/6 chance of the Power Fist relic going wrong, but wounding T8 on a 2+ is great. Reroll charge/hit/wound is similarly great for a Slaanesh Character.
I can agree on the locking of the Apostle upgrade being stupid though.
Yes honestly loving that new strategem.
No running from the boys in midnight clad. Just wish it worked for my contemptor. Or against repulsors.
87123
Post by: stormcraft
The iw trait is freaking amazing. Rerolls 1 to wound for all my dreads and havocs is great. Iw gunline with levis, scorpius and havocs will bringt some serious pain.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
Daedalus81 wrote:Not Online!!! wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:I mean we just got fall back block...that's pretty sweet. Forcing an explosion on their side...awesome.
The Khorne stuff seems brutal.
I don't quite get the axe.
Like if i just get one 6, i do 3 mortals and then thats it from the carrier?
Instead of the usual 'does a mortal wound plus additional damage' it is just 'does 3 mortal wounds' and then you move to the next attack.
Well, i guess people now have a reason for a Exalted champion with chainaxe
92012
Post by: Argive
I think chaos soup is going to be delicious.. Exploding repulsors & IK on a 3 which you cant re-roll? Daamn... Charging the chaff screen and not needeing to wrap & trap ? nice..
3750
Post by: Wayniac
I am so sick and tired of this "we don't know the whole picture" horsegak. We know enough. If there were trait updates, it would have been in the preview. None of these are bad, but they don't fix the problem. In fact, they actually exacerbate it since you already saw Alpha Legion Cultist Spam, and this just makes that particular combo even better.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Wayniac wrote:I am so sick and tired of this "we don't know the whole picture" horsegak. We know enough. If there were trait updates, it would have been in the preview. None of these are bad, but they don't fix the problem. In fact, they actually exacerbate it since you already saw Alpha Legion Cultist Spam, and this just makes that particular combo even better.
K, well, you're free to be pissed off and we're free to wait for the reviews tomorrow before coming to a conclusion about the book.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Argive wrote:I think chaos soup is going to be delicious.. Exploding repulsors & IK on a 3 which you cant re-roll? Daamn... Charging the chaff screen and not needeing to wrap & trap ? nice..
I ain't souping gak. Automatically Appended Next Post: Daedalus81 wrote:Wayniac wrote:I am so sick and tired of this "we don't know the whole picture" horsegak. We know enough. If there were trait updates, it would have been in the preview. None of these are bad, but they don't fix the problem. In fact, they actually exacerbate it since you already saw Alpha Legion Cultist Spam, and this just makes that particular combo even better.
K, well, you're free to be pissed off and we're free to wait for the reviews tomorrow before coming to a conclusion about the book.
Yeah they've made my raptors better with that strategem. I'll settle down the salt.
For now.
102537
Post by: Sgt. Cortez
On Facebook they previewed a totally different rule for Vox Dominus, so I guess we know two NL artefacts already? 
On FB Vox Dominus gives a 2+ save and the bearer always counts as being in cover.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Sgt. Cortez wrote:On Facebook they previewed a totally different rule for Vox Dominus, so I guess we know two NL artefacts already?
On FB Vox Dominus gives a 2+ save and the bearer always counts as being in cover.
Sounds like an IH relic. The fluff of the Vox matches the rules in the WHC article.
119289
Post by: Not Online!!!
So incompetence or actually a second Relic?
92012
Post by: Argive
Incompetence.. If it's ever a choice with GW and anything to do with rules. Id bet the house on incompetence 9/10
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Second relic. Sounds like a retread of stormbolt plate from traitor legions.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
The Chainaxe relic could be nasty so I like that.
20 man Raptors from Night Lords spaced out as much as you can to stop as much shooting as possible.
That's about all I like so far. I'm not wasting a Warlord Trait to make my Cultists honestly not shoot much better.
However we need to see if there are updated traits.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
AlmightyWalrus wrote:A Thunder Hammer that always wounds on 2+ and a Stratagem that just plain turns off falling back and the supplement is "a waste of paper"? Yes, there's a 1/6 chance of the Power Fist relic going wrong, but wounding T8 on a 2+ is great. Reroll charge/hit/wound is similarly great for a Slaanesh Character.
As was pointed out, HQ help was largely superfluous and unnecessary.
The no fallback strat requires I play what is, by general consensus, one of the worst legions available.
Also, not a Slaanesh character, specifically an EC character.
The *only* reason to buy this book is the strats, and honestly, that's not enough to get me to buy the book over simply getting that information elsewhere.
Yeah, well the discrepancies between the Dark Apostle and nu-Chaplain are a stark illustration of the state of SM vs CSM.
As pointed out, all this did was re-emphasize Alpha Legion and Cultists and left the rest of the legions as largely fluff or filler.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Well, as long as they drop the apostle to 60 points before disciples I'd be ok. Odds of that big of a point cut is slim to none though.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Daedalus81 wrote:Well, as long as they drop the apostle to 60 points before disciples I'd be ok. Odds of that big of a point cut is slim to none though.
I think what we'll see is points adjustments in CA. From there, we're looking at maybe late next year Daemons gets an update. CSM won't be getting much beyond CA until 2021 most likely given that almost all the Xenos factions are in desperate need of updates and we just got a codex earlier this year.
So, get comfortable folks, this is pretty much it.
99475
Post by: a_typical_hero
Wayniac wrote:I am so sick and tired of this "we don't know the whole picture" horsegak. We know enough. If there were trait updates, it would have been in the preview. None of these are bad, but they don't fix the problem. In fact, they actually exacerbate it since you already saw Alpha Legion Cultist Spam, and this just makes that particular combo even better.
Let's ignore that the comments have been more positive on average since more rules got previewed and we have a better understanding. 
No matter how often you write it, it does not change the fact that judging something entirely based on a tiny tidbit of information (e.g Table of content + one weapon) is just silly hyperbole. I get it, you are frustrated with the current situation of your faction and I have the feeling you expect something completely different than what these supplements are likely to bring (with the exception of BT, as they are C: SM who are late to the party). Still, there might be some new combinations in there that are worthwhile for CSM players until GW takes the time to give you proper attention.
120227
Post by: Karol
But the book was leaked already, even GW posted a ton of rules online. The relics, the warlord traits etc.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Assuming we're getting the vigilus bl treatment for the other codex legions we've got over 20 more warlord traits, strategems, and relics to see. So there's probably more good stuff coming.
And why is everyone complaining that either:
A:Gw are pushing al who are already strong, or
B:The best previewed strategem is for night lords who are considered a weak legion?
So you don't want to build up an already strong legion or give some good rules to one that generally doesn't get many? It's one or the other.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Karol wrote:But the book was leaked already, even GW posted a ton of rules online. The relics, the warlord traits etc.
Err...not that I've seen there has been no leak. GW hasn't really posted a "ton" given there are 6 factions each with a page dedicated entirely to traits, artefacts, and stratagems means that each page will likely have 6 items on them. That likely means 36 relics, 36 artefacts, 36 strats, and the daemon weapons.
3750
Post by: Wayniac
Something to keep in mind is that BT got a REAL supplement. Not the gak they said was an equivalent to a supplement but nowhere comes close. So they COULD have put a 2.0 update to CSM in this book, and CHOSE not to.
This is deliberate. Either they don't care, or they really think that CSM is fine as they are and don't need a 2.0 update. More likely, they don't want to make CSM mirror images of SM again, but don't really have an idea of how to make them unique enough. I can't believe they actually think the book is fine, since anyone with any sort of idea of the game could look at it and see it's not. So it has to be that they don't know how to fix it, so don't.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Wayniac wrote:Something to keep in mind is that BT got a REAL supplement. Not the gak they said was an equivalent to a supplement but nowhere comes close. So they COULD have put a 2.0 update to CSM in this book, and CHOSE not to.
This is deliberate. Either they don't care, or they really think that CSM is fine as they are and don't need a 2.0 update. More likely, they don't want to make CSM mirror images of SM again, but don't really have an idea of how to make them unique enough.
White Scars are tearing it up without broad use of doctrines. Fancy strats, relics, and traits on top of solid units are doing that. With CA it's plausible we could get to the same place, but I hope that it's just not cacophony oblits that are just cheaper.
I'd hope for some damn unit that can shoot stuff out of LOS, but that's a bridge too far.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Gadzilla666 wrote: Assuming we're getting the vigilus bl treatment for the other codex legions we've got over 20 more warlord traits, strategems, and relics to see. So there's probably more good stuff coming.
The salt here is that CSM troops are objectively inferior to their counterparts by pretty much every measurable metric in the game and this doesn't appear likely to do anything to alleviate that problem.
I wouldn't say their 'pushing' it per se, it's simply that they were already generally considered the best CSM legion ( BL kind of challenges them) and this didn't really change that, if anything it reinforced this state of affairs.
Gadzilla666 wrote:B:The best previewed strategem is for night lords who are considered a weak legion?
Without speaking to anyone else's concerns, the disappointment here is that the Night Lords legion trait needs to be redesigned from the ground up, simply throwing some spackle on it and calling it good is not going to cover up their problems.
On the most basic level, any army in the game can spend 2 CP to entirely ignore your legion trait, which doesn't even delve into the armies that can simply ignore it entirely, which is a not insignificant number of the armies in the game.
So who knows? Maybe when the full picture becomes available we'll be in the middle of a new CSM renaissance (which I'm sure would thrill our xenos friends), but given what we've seen, that seem highly unlikely.
101163
Post by: Tyel
If, as it appears, there are no new legion traits or equivelents of the super doctrine, then I'm afraid its a damp squib.
Much like with the Aeldari - its not 100% rubbish, because yes, these weapons, relics and stratagems etc do represent an increase in power. But it isn't fundamentally altering how CSM play. Or at least not as I see it.
I mean for Word Bearers, is having 2-4 extra CP (if we include the warlord's reroll) better than 3 inches on auras and other abilities? Probably yes. Does it make up for... essentially not having a legion trait? No. Does this meaningfully alter how a Word Bearers CSM army plays as compared with AL, IW, Night Lords etc? Not really.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
TwinPoleTheory wrote:Gadzilla666 wrote: Assuming we're getting the vigilus bl treatment for the other codex legions we've got over 20 more warlord traits, strategems, and relics to see. So there's probably more good stuff coming.
The salt here is that CSM troops are objectively inferior to their counterparts by pretty much every measurable metric in the game and this doesn't appear likely to do anything to alleviate that problem.
I wouldn't say their 'pushing' it per se, it's simply that they were already generally considered the best CSM legion ( BL kind of challenges them) and this didn't really change that, if anything it reinforced this state of affairs.
Gadzilla666 wrote:B:The best previewed strategem is for night lords who are considered a weak legion?
Without speaking to anyone else's concerns, the disappointment here is that the Night Lords legion trait needs to be redesigned from the ground up, simply throwing some spackle on it and calling it good is not going to cover up their problems.
On the most basic level, any army in the game can spend 2 CP to entirely ignore your legion trait, which doesn't even delve into the armies that can simply ignore it entirely, which is a not insignificant number of the armies in the game.
So who knows? Maybe when the full picture becomes available we'll be in the middle of a new CSM renaissance (which I'm sure would thrill our xenos friends), but given what we've seen, that seem highly unlikely.
Night lords don't need a complete rework. All gw has to do is allow nl to take raptors as troops just like we can take zerkers and ec can take nm. Then bring back the rule that jump troops can reroll charges. Getting strike first strike hard back would be nice as would forcing night fighting again but it wouldn't be necessary.
We don't know what the "champions of chaos " page in pa2 contains. It's probably just fluff but it could have new traits. The current traits take up less than a page in the codex.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Gadzilla666 wrote:Night lords don't need a complete rework. All gw has to do is allow nl to take raptors as troops just like we can take zerkers and ec can take nm. Then bring back the rule that jump troops can reroll charges. Getting strike first strike hard back would be nice as would forcing night fighting again but it wouldn't be necessary.
That would certainly be interesting (with Host Raptorial possibly), but you're still left with a largely ineffective legion trait and almost no way to capitalize on that trait when it does work (at least no way to capitalize that isn't easily countered).
Raptors in general have just been very underwhelming this edition, making them the signature unit of an underwhelming legion just kind of adds insult to injury.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
you're still left with a largely ineffective legion trait
I'm sure there's going to be some new LD warfare tricks in the upcoming book.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:I'm sure there's going to be some new LD warfare tricks in the upcoming book.
I'm not sure how you do that unless you have strats that suddenly make units that are immune to morale suddenly vulnerable to it, or flat-out prevent the Insane Bravery strat.
But you clearly approach this with what I consider an unrealistic level of optimism.
84439
Post by: Marshal Loss
There are already masses of LD warfare tricks floating around the place, in my experience they all suck. LD just isn't really consequential in 8th imo
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
TwinPoleTheory wrote:I'm not sure how you do that unless you have strats that suddenly make units that are immune to morale suddenly vulnerable to it, or flat-out prevent the Insane Bravery strat.
I think that's quite possible given we've seen abilities that tamper with core mechanics like Falling Back and Explodes.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
9 TwinPoleTheory wrote:Gadzilla666 wrote:Night lords don't need a complete rework. All gw has to do is allow nl to take raptors as troops just like we can take zerkers and ec can take nm. Then bring back the rule that jump troops can reroll charges. Getting strike first strike hard back would be nice as would forcing night fighting again but it wouldn't be necessary.
That would certainly be interesting (with Host Raptorial possibly), but you're still left with a largely ineffective legion trait and almost no way to capitalize on that trait when it does work (at least no way to capitalize that isn't easily countered).
Raptors in general have just been very underwhelming this edition, making them the signature unit of an underwhelming legion just kind of adds insult to injury.
Not with the new strategem. A 20 man raptor unit deepstrikeing with the host raptorial detachment warlord trait on a smash lord, and spreading out to maximum cohesion could tag a lot of units.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I wonder if we see any adjustment to Warp Talons. No Overwatch and no Falling Back is going to really mess with armies that don't have anything to offer outside the shooting phase.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Gadzilla666 wrote:Not with the new strategem. A 20 man raptor unit deepstrikeing with the host raptorial detachment warlord trait on a smash lord, and spreading out to maximum cohesion could tag a lot of units.
Raptors are 15 max, I could see this being decent against some GEQ, but I think nu-Marines would laugh assuming you can even deep strike within some kind of reasonable charge range. Against Tau you'll end up locking up a bunch of drones.
Probably good against Orks and maybe Nids/ GSC assuming they aren't protected by spore mines. Eldar are going to burn 2 CP and cripple that unit on drop though. Knights are quite happy to have you lock up their GEQs, that's what they're there for.
It's just a bit too situational for my tastes.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Yoyoyo wrote:I wonder if we see any adjustment to Warp Talons. No Overwatch and no Falling Back is going to really mess with armies that don't have anything to offer outside the shooting phase.
With marines at 12 talons should be 11, but thats probably it.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
TwinPoleTheory wrote:Gadzilla666 wrote:Not with the new strategem. A 20 man raptor unit deepstrikeing with the host raptorial detachment warlord trait on a smash lord, and spreading out to maximum cohesion could tag a lot of units.
Raptors are 15 max, I could see this being decent against some GEQ, but I think nu-Marines would laugh assuming you can even deep strike within some kind of reasonable charge range. Against Tau you'll end up locking up a bunch of drones.
Probably good against Orks and maybe Nids/ GSC assuming they aren't protected by spore mines. Eldar are going to burn 2 CP and cripple that unit on drop though. Knights are quite happy to have you lock up their GEQs, that's what they're there for.
It's just a bit too situational for my tastes.
It's 40k. Everything is situational. Paper, rock, scissors.
You'd obviously have other units to deal with problems that tactic couldn't.
My point is you don't need to rely on the legion trait. Trust me I've learned not to. But there's still 6 warlord traits, 5 strategems, and 5 more relics to see. So there might even be help with that.
101163
Post by: Tyel
I think doing anything with raptors is a waste of time. Their damage output is abysmal. They are not sufficient cheap that a 15 strong 225 points (before specials) unit can be thrown in as a suicide unit.
The fact it doesn't work against vehicles is a further negative for this "tie them up" approach.
Warp Talons - imo anyway - are far too expensive/fragile to be viable. They don't actually hit that hard either due to their ridiculous price.
Really the use here I think would be ensuring you are locked in combat (and so can't be shot) without having to suffer the vagaries of the wrap and trap.
I'd have thought there are more legs on your warp-timed and buffed up Possessed blob. Or say Khorne Berzerkers.
First turn go into something and chop it to pieces and set it up so you can consolidate into another infantry squad (or character). Take a few punches back for your trouble. Play the stratagem, they can't shoot you and you proceed to cut them to pieces in their turn. Now you are hopefully deep in their lines and free to charge whatever you like on your next turn, which may be game winning.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
How about this: Drop a Slaanesh Plasma Terminator squad, plasmaify something, and then charge them into something else to keep them around for another turn?
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Daedalus81 wrote:Yoyoyo wrote:I wonder if we see any adjustment to Warp Talons. No Overwatch and no Falling Back is going to really mess with armies that don't have anything to offer outside the shooting phase.
With marines at 12 talons should be 11, but thats probably it.
That would be nice but I doubt we'll see that big of a drop. That's 13 ppm.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Daedalus81 wrote:?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
No it really does not make them interesting. Can you stop white knighting for a moment?
101163
Post by: Tyel
Warp Talons don't do enough damage and they die if you look at them funny. Assault units which just tickle the enemy do not work.
Ignoring overwatch is useful - but its only in the turn when you deepstrike in, and you therefore have to roll at least a 9" on the charge. You are going to fail a lot.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Possessed used to be 1W. Warp Talons could get the same treatment.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
No it really does not make them interesting. Can you stop white knighting for a moment?
I said somewhat. Heaven forbid someone isn't gaking on something non stop. What would we do with ourselves?
Bunch of god damn babies.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
No super-Legion traits also means there's no drawbacks to mixing and matching your Legions depending on what you want to task them with.
SM armies are going to be strong but being mono-Codex, they're going to be awfully predictable
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
Daedalus81 wrote:?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
Feth. I always think of them as 24. Can't really take them without claws.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Gadzilla666 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
Feth. I always think of them as 24. Can't really take them without claws.
I only mentioned it like that, because it's the only part of them likely to change.
Actually I take that back. Marines pay 10 for a pair now. So, 21 points is probably the lowest we could see them.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
I don’t know, even beyond the questionable damage output of Warp Talons/Raptors, the amount of Deep Strike protection available in the game these days make it a really sketchy tactic.
Against SM you have to assume you’ll be forced to DS at 12”, against Tau you have to assume you’ll be charging Drones, against Eldar there’s Forewarned, against Nids you have the spore mine bubble. I largely stopped building DS into my lists even before the SM upgrades, and the situation certainly hasn’t improved.
124882
Post by: Gadzilla666
IPO Daedalus81 wrote:Gadzilla666 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
Feth. I always think of them as 24. Can't really take them without claws.
I only mentioned it like that, because it's the only part of them likely to change.
Actually I take that back. Marines pay 10 for a pair now. So, 21 points is probably the lowest we could see them.
Not your fault my brain works in battlescribe.
But seriously,10 points for sm? Didn't some of their jump troops get cheaper too? Ca better fix these points discrepancies. Sm get everything for less on units with better rules.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Gadzilla666 wrote: IPO Daedalus81 wrote:Gadzilla666 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
Feth. I always think of them as 24. Can't really take them without claws.
I only mentioned it like that, because it's the only part of them likely to change.
Actually I take that back. Marines pay 10 for a pair now. So, 21 points is probably the lowest we could see them.
Not your fault my brain works in battlescribe.
But seriously,10 points for sm? Didn't some of their jump troops get cheaper too? Ca better fix these points discrepancies. Sm get everything for less on units with better rules.
Jump Assaults are still 15 like raptors, but obviously better supporting rules.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Daedalus81 wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Daedalus81 wrote:?
Talons are 12 currently with 12 more for claws. 3 attacks from brutal assault makes them somewhat interesting.
No it really does not make them interesting. Can you stop white knighting for a moment?
I said somewhat. Heaven forbid someone isn't gaking on something non stop. What would we do with ourselves?
Bunch of god damn babies.
I'm not the one defending garbage units and rules writing on a 24/7 basis like you have been.
35086
Post by: Daedalus81
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm not the one defending garbage units and rules writing on a 24/7 basis like you have been.
Maybe you should try reading the rest of my posts instead of assuming my position and automatically default to posting nothing useful as a response. Or, you know, simply disagreeing.
I don't give a feth what people think about GW. I hate bull gak artists and whining for the sake of whining.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I haven't seen a lot of complaints about the Daemon Weapons, Relics, Stratagems, or WL Traits. They seem to be pretty much on point. Lots of flavour and fun tricks to make playstyles more diverse and unique.
A lot of people are complaining PA2 wasn't designed as a competitive balance patch. I think you're bound to be disappointed if that's what you were expecting.
117111
Post by: TwinPoleTheory
Yoyoyo wrote:I haven't seen a lot of complaints about the Daemon Weapons, Relics, Stratagems, or WL Traits. They seem to be pretty much on point. Lots of flavour and fun tricks to make playstyles more diverse and unique.
A lot of people are complaining PA2 wasn't designed as a competitive balance patch. I think you're bound to be disappointed if that's what you were expecting.
Then they should market it as an RPG, not a war game.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
It is.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I'm not hallucinating a name generator in this book, am I?
|
|
