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.

So relics. You don't pay for them, you can't have more than one of each, you can't have more than one period without spending CP, and they tend not to be terribly well balanced against one another. So I'm wondering what the point of specifically making something a "relic" is. I mean, the fluff is kind of neat sometimes, but you could easily just write up a backstory for your mastercrafted bolter or whatever most of the time and get the same result. If the relic breaks the game if you have more than one of them, that kind of implies that they're very potent. But you don't pay for them. At which point one might assume that they're all meant to be balanced against one another and thus the fact that each army gets one of them for free evens things out, but we can probably all agree that there are some relics that are obviously less useful than others.

We have units that are already limited to one per army (solitaire, avatar, any named character), and there used to be 0-1 wargear options (old shadowfields for instance).

So what's the niche for relics. What's the intention behind wargear that you don't pay for but can't take multiples of?

Wyldhunt wrote:
So relics. You don't pay for them, you can't have more than one of each, you can't have more than one period without spending CP, and they tend not to be terribly well balanced against one another. So I'm wondering what the point of specifically making something a "relic" is. I mean, the fluff is kind of neat sometimes, but you could easily just write up a backstory for your mastercrafted bolter or whatever most of the time and get the same result. If the relic breaks the game if you have more than one of them, that kind of implies that they're very potent. But you don't pay for them. At which point one might assume that they're all meant to be balanced against one another and thus the fact that each army gets one of them for free evens things out, but we can probably all agree that there are some relics that are obviously less useful than others.

We have units that are already limited to one per army (solitaire, avatar, any named character), and there used to be 0-1 wargear options (old shadowfields for instance).

So what's the niche for relics. What's the intention behind wargear that you don't pay for but can't take multiples of?

customize your HQs a bit. make your commander feel special and nifty

It would be better if they just costed points. They now all 'cost' the same, but are not really equally good, so many of them will never be used.

As you said, it's a different way of packaging the 0-1 limit and a place for designers to put in some odd ideas and/or fluff-references, not least because it's 0-1.

A vague nod to "flavor".

 Crimson wrote:
It would be better if they just costed points. They now all 'cost' the same, but are not really equally good, so many of them will never be used.

So? Some ere situational, yes, but I don't think I saw 8th edition relic no one used yet.

As for them costing points, what? Relics used to cost points in garbage system that was 7th. It was unnecessary fiddly, slowed building lists down, and necessitated reshuffles every single time you wanted to change it. It was such a chore most of people really just picked 1 and never changed it. Now they can be swapped on the fly chance of change is much larger, and the game benefited on old, trash system being deleted and rightly sent to dumpster. Simplicity is really worth dropping the hassle, +/- 5 pts in 2000 pts game changes literally nothing meaning time saves >>> any ""balance"" that might be gained by adding meaningless minutiae. Ditto for spell costs in early editions, and warlord traits/vows, approach 8th took might not be perfect but beats literally every single previous edition.

I don't like them at all, having every commander of a certain faction's army running around with the same "unique" item feels weird and wrong. If they cost points you could justify not taking one, but as it stands you're playing suboptimally if you don't take one. But hey, nowadays GW want you to play Guilliman, Celestine, Alaitoc and Alpha Legion instead of your own army with your own characters. Of course they should have GW's own special gear as well.

I think they're there to artificially inflate the number of new things you get in the codex. The indices were fine, the codices are unnecessary and make the game more convoluted without making a lot of improvements except for points adjustments.

 Crimson wrote:
It would be better if they just costed points. They now all 'cost' the same, but are not really equally good, so many of them will never be used.

As we saw in 7th and before.. This happened anyways, because you had things like the Hand of Darkness costing 50 points for an effect that did not justify a cost.

 Irbis wrote:

As for them costing points, what? Relics used to cost points in garbage system that was 7th. It was unnecessary fiddly, slowed building lists down, and necessitated reshuffles every single time you wanted to change it. It was such a chore most of people really just picked 1 and never changed it. Now they can be swapped on the fly chance of change is much larger, and the game benefited on old, trash system being deleted and rightly sent to dumpster. Simplicity is really worth dropping the hassle, +/- 5 pts in 2000 pts game changes literally nothing meaning time saves >>> any ""balance"" that might be gained by adding meaningless minutiae. Ditto for spell costs in early editions, and warlord traits/vows, approach 8th took might not be perfect but beats literally every single previous edition.

All your normal weapons and some other items have point costs already. This would really be no different. Having to take account points for one or two items more is really not a big deal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
It would be better if they just costed points. They now all 'cost' the same, but are not really equally good, so many of them will never be used.

As we saw in 7th and before.. This happened anyways, because you had things like the Hand of Darkness costing 50 points for an effect that did not justify a cost.

Sure. But that is just an issue with a badly assigned point cost, and as now GW reassesses point costs annually, such thing could be fixed.

 Cream Tea wrote:
I don't like them at all, having every commander of a certain faction's army running around with the same "unique" item feels weird and wrong.

Yeah, because having more options allowing you to field 'your guys' more accurately is somehow wrong these days

Who says it's ""GW"" relic? Say, the relic banner SM have could be standard your SM company crusaded under last 6000 years, inspiring them to ever greater feats. Relic chainsword might be DAoT weapon your captain acquired somewhere. The possibilities are endless. I know I looked at relic lists too while choosing what tactics my SM would use, checking if any would fit my backstory. But alas, the above requires actual ten seconds of thought, while mindlessly hating GW takes zero, so of course it's easier to bemoan a thing, no matter how good, than to acknowledge it as maybe a good thing.

 Crimson wrote:
All your normal weapons and some other items have point costs already. This would really be no different. Having to take account points for one or two items more is really not a big deal.

Wrong. They actually do have some point costs built in already. Difference between relic power fist and relic chainsword is the cost of fist upgrade, so they are not 'free' in any way, often requiring a solid chunk of points for better effects, so that's out. Also, these are supposed to be a big deal, one time things. Making them 'just another upgrade' would just cheapen them, and make them really become 'pick one and forget' stale thing as no one would bother to shuffle points every single game. Why is that a good thing, exactly?

Plus, it's not a matter of just 'reassessing point costs' as such a thing might be impossible. How do you price anti-daemon relic? 50 pts it might cost against daemons, or 5 pts it might be worth against necrons? Do you make it auto-take, or no-one-takes? It's far better (and easier) to price it as 'opportunity' cost - picking it costs you something else, unless you cough up some (very expensive) CPs. Do so and you might actually see all relics being used, different ones from game to game, but still, all of them. Again, what adding chore and meaningless minutiae adds to game you want to see it back? Give one even mediocre reason, because so far your argument can be summed as lose-lose.

Not everyone plays to be WAAC. Some people take relics cuz it might be a cool conversion oppertunity or because the fluff behind one appeals to them.

 Sim-Life wrote:
Not everyone plays to be WAAC. Some people take relics cuz it might be a cool conversion oppertunity or because the fluff behind one appeals to them.

such people don't rumble on dakka

The most basic purpose of a relic is to incentivize mono-faction detachments along with the stratagems, chapter tactics, et all.

It's secondary purpose is to incentivize using generic characters by giving that first one a little extra edge for free.

For factions that have access to multiple relics, it allows you to modify that unit a half-step to tailor it to the role you want to give it. That role might be one you chose for gameplay or fluff reasons but the end result is your commander might be a shrewd tactical planner keeping as far from the front line as he can while trying to see the big picture, or a father to his men throwing out quick decisive orders in the thick of it, or a paragon of holy contemplation who stands up after receiving a grievous wound and rallies her awe-struck platoon into one last heroic charge.

 koooaei wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:
Not everyone plays to be WAAC. Some people take relics cuz it might be a cool conversion oppertunity or because the fluff behind one appeals to them.

such people don't rumble on dakka

I'm actually in that camp, as are a lot of more casual players. Not everyone on Dakka is the beardiest of the beardiest who play at events like LVO and make the GW devs weep bitter tears about how the game has been broken by them.

Honestly, I feel relics work perfectly as is. Most require some kind of initial wargear investment (like the Crimson Fists and their Power Fist one) and it lets you give your character a slightly buffed weapon for that makes them feel more unique when compared to the regular guys. Basically it lets you make your character feel more like a character and not just another nameless due no one has ever heard of.

Even the ones that don't require an wargear investment don't break the game (Salamander's Cloak giving +1T for example), even when you're trying to bring the heat, and just act as a way to adjust your HQ's play style a little more to your liking and make them different from the regular options.

I do wish we could double up relics for some kind of cost due to the number of special characters with multiple relics (Salamander Cloak and a Burning Blade on a Gravis Captain would basically be a Primaris Vulkan He'Stan (minus his special rule) for instance), but I can understand they don't want to see a return of stuff like Captain Smashfecker who are loaded up with two or more relics and potentially break the game due to an unintended result.

I consider myself a casual player too.

For example, the "Blade of Conquest" is at the low end of the list of IG relics, but it is the one I choose. I combine it with the Vostroyan "Honoured Duellist" warlord trait, and any cursory glance at the homebrew background thread should say why:

Lord Marshal Katerina Malinenko (my regimental commander; she rarely sees the table but she's in my master list for the regiment of course) is a member of the Senatus Concordia, the aristocracy of her homeworld, and is second-in-line for the ruler of House Malinenko and its territories on Concordia. She has duelist-style swordsmanship, and uses a Dark Age of Technology fencing sabre (that would have been called a Paragon Blade in the Horus Heresy) that has been passed down through her family for generations named Gloriana.

So the Honoured Duelist Warlord Trait and Blade of Conquest make perfect sense, even if they're not "meta".

It's a relic of Warhammer's original goal of being a RPG/skirmish hybrid. The idea is to let you customize your commander as special to your force and different from anyone else with the same detachment faction.

Same for warlord traits and the various forms of chapter tactics. Players seem to respond. There are whole fan wikis full of people backstorying their lists and commanders.

 ChargerIIC wrote:
It's a relic of Warhammer's original goal of being a RPG/skirmish hybrid. The idea is to let you customize your commander as special to your force and different from anyone else with the same detachment faction.

Same for warlord traits and the various forms of chapter tactics. Players seem to respond. There are whole fan wikis full of people backstorying their lists and commanders.

I'd say it's part of allowing people to become more emotionally invested in their "dudes".

Too bad you can't do multiple relics on the same character though. There's less incentive to go on the generic HQ dudes for Marines as is. What's broken about a Captain with The Teeth Of Terra and Spartean? Nothing. Axe Of Medusa and The Shield Eternal?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Too bad you can't do multiple relics on the same character though. There's less incentive to go on the generic HQ dudes for Marines as is. What's broken about a Captain with The Teeth Of Terra and Spartean? Nothing. Axe Of Medusa and The Shield Eternal?

I think it's fear of the 6th edition Relic spam that prevents it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Too bad you can't do multiple relics on the same character though. There's less incentive to go on the generic HQ dudes for Marines as is. What's broken about a Captain with The Teeth Of Terra and Spartean? Nothing. Axe Of Medusa and The Shield Eternal?

I think it's fear of the 6th edition Relic spam that prevents it.

Except any broken relics were the exception, not the rule. It's people like in this forum that made GW overreact to handling relics.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Too bad you can't do multiple relics on the same character though. There's less incentive to go on the generic HQ dudes for Marines as is. What's broken about a Captain with The Teeth Of Terra and Spartean? Nothing. Axe Of Medusa and The Shield Eternal?

I think it's fear of the 6th edition Relic spam that prevents it.

Except any broken relics were the exception, not the rule. It's people like in this forum that made GW overreact to handling relics.

It's less this forum specifically, and more how they were used/abused on high profile tournaments (like LVO) I think.

That said, while it's not wonderful to have such caps in place, I can appreciate the reasoning behind it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Too bad you can't do multiple relics on the same character though. There's less incentive to go on the generic HQ dudes for Marines as is. What's broken about a Captain with The Teeth Of Terra and Spartean? Nothing. Axe Of Medusa and The Shield Eternal?

I think it's fear of the 6th edition Relic spam that prevents it.

Except any broken relics were the exception, not the rule. It's people like in this forum that made GW overreact to handling relics.

It's less this forum specifically, and more how they were used/abused on high profile tournaments (like LVO) I think.

That said, while it's not wonderful to have such caps in place, I can appreciate the reasoning behind it.

And if you looked at any tournament list it was only a few being used. So yeah I'm blaming the actual majority in this case.

Some of it is that relics are free now unless they're a weapon or the like.

So I could have an IG character with Laurels of Command, the Dagger of Tu'Kah (or whatever), Kurov's Aquila, the Blade of Conquest, the Deathmask of Ollanius, and the Armour of Graf Timoshenko

So for the same price as a Company Commander with power sword, you get:

+2 strength, -4 AP, and d3 damage in melee
a 4+ to double up orders on a unit (First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire and Take Aim, no?)
The ability to outflank with one Infantry unit alongside them
A 5+ to get a command point back if your Opponent uses a stratagem
+1 Invulnerable Save and a d3-wound auto-heal, like a mechanicus dude
+1 toughness
2+ save.

neat.

Relics shouldn't be free in the first place though.

It's not like you can't stick multiple relics on a dude if you're playing narrative play with your homies.

If you're playing 'Competatively' a limit makes sense.


I do appreciate the character they add, it really gives me a leg up since I refuse to use named characters on principle, a Warlord Trait and a Relic really make a dude stand out without also making him OP. Some of them are pretty 100% pants, sure, some people will use them narratively, like Unit, competatively the choices are obvious, but the game is about more than hyper competative and they give you more options. More options are good.

Now explain to me why my company commander can have THE SWORD OF THE AGES, and my Sergeant can't have a frikken lasgun yet?

Everyone can have a freebie in their army. I don't see the issue.

Relics are like Chapter Tactics. Is fine if they are free as long as everyone has them.

And with them being free, you can't NOT take them. Probably the only issue I have with the concept.

Sadly, they are underwhelming gimmicks (except a few which actually stand out).

From game design perspective, they are like an Advantage for 1 point. While Doctries are, say, powerful perks for 5+ points. From fluff perspective, it's not very fun.

A person with imagination and understanding of what player of every faction feels would have been cool could have done better, but for now, we are left to continue counting -3 AP, D3 damage epic super swords, which everyone has in the Codex by half a dozen. (Eldar have 3. And there are exactly 2 models that can use them. Hint: you'll probably not use them, even on those models.)

 Infantryman wrote:
And with them being free, you can't NOT take them. Probably the only issue I have with the concept.

You can just take one and 'forget' you have it. I wish they did cost something so i wouldn't feel obligated to assign one and i could use the extra points on a grunt or special weapon.

Can you simply not assign a warlord, therefore not need to assign a relic? That will also deprive the opponent of the VP for warlord assassination.

I could look in book but lazy too much 2 look or spel rite.