Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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.

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.

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!

 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.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Jim Vesal won Adepticon 2019 using a Khorne Prince to smash up multiple Knights in a game with the Skullreaver Relic.

Spoiler:

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?

I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well, do you see something there, like, something in the profile of the weapon?

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?

Yoyoyo wrote:
I'm not really sure what you're getting at.

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.

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!"

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

 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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well, do you see something there, like, something in the profile of the weapon?

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?

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 Sentineil wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Well, do you see something there, like, something in the profile of the weapon?

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.

Clearly not? If people are intent on whining, negativity, and hyperbole they run the risk of being called out on it.

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?

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.

 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!

Being called out on negativity? So, are we only to say positive things now?

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.

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.

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.