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.

Can we avoid pointless nitpicking about the Berserks?
Berserks as troops was a nice move, an attention from the designers toward people with a weak spot for world eaters and/or that started in 3rd.
I can criticize the design team when is inattentive but this is attacking them when they actually gave a crap about something almost inoffensive that was important only for those involved.
How can one be mad about that, is beyond me.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Can we avoid pointless nitpicking about the Berserks?
Berserks as troops was a nice move, an attention from the designers toward people with a weak spot for world eaters and/or that started in 3rd.
I can criticize the design team when is inattentive but this is attacking them when they actually gave a crap about something almost inoffensive that was important only for those involved.
How can one be mad about that, is beyond me.

I'm not mad about them being inattentive. I'm mad about them being too attentive.

And everyone conveniently forgets that there was a detachment already for 3-6 units of berzerkers led by a khorne lord.

It's not like keeping them Elites would have somehow made it impossible to field an all-World-Eaters berzerker army. All it does is net you two more CP and grant a comparatively irrelevant special rule. Purely in-game mechanical advantages. No one who loved World Eaters since 3rd would have shelved their models over that, I guarantee you, if they lived through the prior codices.

Cult troops are troops in their legion warbands. Plague Marines and Rubrics have it. Why whouldn't Berzerkers and Noise Marines?

But to be honest I shouldn't even enter this discussion. This is one of the biggest problems of Dakkadakka. Some guy comes with his personal crusade about something totally asinine, and then the thread just is derrailed, be it conscripts, tacticals, IG sargeants, Skitarii vs Admech, AM vs IG, etc...

Listen: I don't actually mind that they got made troops. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

I am just using it as proof that Games Workshop will bend under community pressure without even waiting for things to shake out.

Sorry to bring it up.

The community interaction issue isn't to with interacting too much or too little, it's who they have been interacting with. They get a lot of their feedback through their facebook page, which often functions more like an echo-chamber of its own community. We're similar here, but the problem comes in the disconnect between players who interact within these certain communities having drastically different opinions on the game, its models, and how it could be improved, whether legitimate or not.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The Cult troops thing wasn't a bad design change per se, but I think it does have ramifications for GW's plans. I think the way GW envisioned 8th Edition was to make it super simple - no weird slot-changing shenanigans, for example. I think this design vision was epitomized by the Zerks and Noise Marines being elites; I think that was a good example of "hey, you can have your 'zerker and noise marine warband if you want. The rules totally let you do it. But we're finally not going to bend over backwards and change our design philosophy just to appease some people who think they know what's best." And then they bent over backwards and changed their design philosophy to appease some people who thought they knew what was best.

The conclusion I drew from my story was the Game Designers went "good thing we nerfed them in the codex, looks like they're about right" and the screaming of children could be heard through the windows, so they went "feth it" and removed them (and commissars) from the game, with nary a few moments to even see if the codex changes to Conscripts made them more balanced. (I think, honestly, it did, as the next AM tournament winning list didn't have many, if any, conscripts, and was mostly veterans IIRC).

Ah, so we basically agree on what their thinking probably was ("feth it, just remove them from the game"). I guess it's just not clear to me that this was the wrong call. Like, if they couldn't come up with a way to make Conscripts good but not too good, then it plausibly makes sense to trim the number of units down and save everyone the trouble of having to think about them. Or: surely it's perfectly legitimate to just decide that Guard don't need a unit whose only role is to act as a meatshield for artillery. It also strikes me as odd to try to blame people being mad about Conscripts for this, when you really didn't have a significant number of people saying that Conscripts were too good post- Commissar nerf, except possibly when combined with that one relic (which was just the one Commissar rule that survived the nerf). It doesn't seem like it takes that much to realize that if people think your game is unbalanced, and you've got some changes ready to go but which aren't public yet, maybe they won't find your game unbalanced once they hear about those changes -- there's no reason to just keep nerfing as long as you hear complaining, when there's this lag time. I guess your theory is something like: they want to make absolutely sure that the whiners shut up and so intentionally over-nerfed Conscripts just because they're worried that people will still complain that balanced Conscripts are too good. I dunno. I feel like this is a pretty common way of explaining alleged over-nerfing -- you see a similar sort of "[company] gave in to the complainers" line with a bunch of video games too -- but there's rarely that much reason to think it's actually what's going on.

But I do want to emphasize that the community actually seems to have been pretty responsible about its complaining, all told. Again, nobody was still complaining about Conscripts after the Commissar nerf. I'm not really sure what examples there are of the community hating something even after it got balanced, which would give anyone reason to think that you have to over-nerf things to satisfy the complainers, at least to the extent we saw with Conscripts. I mean, sure, you can find individuals who do that. I remember someone arguing that Windriders were still too good at the start of 8th. But this was hardly the consensus position. Likewise you have people who seem offended that Russes can shoot twice, but there's an awful lot of pushback on that. Obviously you could just point to anything that there's a consensus on and say that the only reason I don't agree that it's an example of irrational hate is that I'm part of the group-thinking hivemind, but is anyone actually going to defend the stuff that there's been a consensus on?

I'd also point out that Conscripts were one of the only things that got put into the ground. And I'm not sure they were even the most complained-about unit. Surely Guilliman is ruining more people's games, since you're so much more likely to actually run into him in a pick-up game and it's so easy to squeeze so much synergy out of him. And CA only gave him a tiny little nudge upwards in cost. I feel like it's telling that the two units they decided to nuke from orbit -- Conscripts and Malefic Lords, and also Razorwing Flocks if we go farther back -- are units where they plausibly didn't really intend for them to be as central to their armies as they turned out to be. It strikes me as likely to have just been a design decision to get rid of them, not a caving to complaints. Meanwhile they do intend for Guilliman to be a major factor in Space Marine armies, so they're being much more cautious with his nerfs.

The issue is that GW writers consistently show they aren't even playing the same game as everyone else, or know the actual rules to their game. It's like watching a MiniWargaming battle report; the battlefield looks cool, the models look cool, but the gameplay is a clusterfeth because the dudes playing don't actually know how to play and are just kinda mucking about in something that vaguely resembles the game, but once you look under the surface is completely wrong.

Nobody thinks it's on purpose, it's just laziness. People like Cruddace (he's lead designer now isn't he?) seemingly just comes up with something that sounds good, and then doesn't really check how it interacts with the game to see if it really works; the aforementioned Wych Cult warlord trait springs to mind, as even a cursory glance at the current rules would reveal "Hmm, this won't work". Now maybe the -1 to hit is gone in their Codex (you have to assume the designers are at least thinking of the Dark Eldar Codex, even if it's months away) but still, that shows even more incompetence/laziness because they aren't checking it against current rules, which are what matters right now anyways.

The reason most of us veterans seem so jaded and negative is, basically, because we are tired of it. GW has had some 20+ years to perfect their game, and yet we see the same lackadaisical approach to rules design, lack of using math and formulas to stat things out, seemingly nonsensical buffs/nerfs over the years that may fix one thing, but break three others because nobody seems to actually have a fething clue about what they're doing. After a while, it gets tiresome, especially when the product is a "premium" product that you expect a certain level of quality based on the price.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Listen: I don't actually mind that they got made troops. It doesn't affect me in the slightest.

I am just using it as proof that Games Workshop will bend under community pressure without even waiting for things to shake out.

Sorry to bring it up.

Well, I overreacted too - let's keep it as an example and move on.

Admittedly, 40K units not having a temporal cost is a serious balance limitation that Blizzard uses on units like reapers.

I still think it's trivial to do a better job than GW, but almost impossible to get as good as Starcraft for your stated reasons.

"3 factions that can adjust to enemy armies on the fly "

This is the single biggest thing I hate about 40K. 40K is like having protoss be able to start off with carriers and not have to tech to it. Again, temporal cost.

hink this design vision was epitomized by the Zerks and Noise Marines being elites; I think that was a good example of "hey, you can have your 'zerker and noise marine warband if you want. The rules totally let you do it. But we're finally not going to bend over backwards and change our design philosophy just to appease some people who think they know what's best." And then they bent over backwards and changed their design philosophy to appease some people who thought they knew what was best.

Except they would be weird if they didn't given that

A: Rubrics and Plague are troops in their respective codex

B: It was done in the index.

Having the other two Cult Factions be restricted from the same benefit is just weird because we may never see a codex for our respective cults. (At least I don't have any for EC anyways, given how they want to avoid Slaanesh usually)

Problem being a Con organised by a company purely to promote their products is largely only be preaching to the indoctrinated

And whilst slapping some giant dark wallet emptying conspiracy on GW is unfair I do think much like the IoM a lot is still driven by ancient dogma that even they no longer understand why or what they are doing

I also doubt that the 'haters' really want GW to die, its just being repeatedly disappointing people causes friction which vents via forums like Dakka

the_scotsman wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:

I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.

Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.

This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.

People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.

...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.

For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.

If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.

But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.

The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.

If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.

I find DakkaDakka to be pretty generally negative. I actually pretty much stopped reading it because of all the negativity. I am only reading today because the college clas I teach has a “work day” today and none of the students seem to have questions for me.

My advice, go play real games with real people and leave the negativity to the internet.

It's a shame Conscripts are no longer worth taking; I'd actually been planning to put some units together.

M.

Should see /tg/
Although Im sure most of it isn't serious and just the result of group culture thing. Just like dakkadakka. There's a silver lining. Forums like this exist on people posting. At least they are keeping the place alive..or kicking a dead horse...it's subjective.
Glad you posted

 ProwlerPC wrote:
Should see /tg/
Glad you posted

Half of dakka is /tg/ anon
not even memeing

Ugh, I quit Chans in '08, '09, and Imma stay quit...

M.

Wayniac wrote:
The issue is that GW writers consistently show they aren't even playing the same game as everyone else, or know the actual rules to their game. It's like watching a MiniWargaming battle report; the battlefield looks cool, the models look cool, but the gameplay is a clusterfeth because the dudes playing don't actually know how to play and are just kinda mucking about in something that vaguely resembles the game, but once you look under the surface is completely wrong.

Nobody thinks it's on purpose, it's just laziness. People like Cruddace (he's lead designer now isn't he?) seemingly just comes up with something that sounds good, and then doesn't really check how it interacts with the game to see if it really works; the aforementioned Wych Cult warlord trait springs to mind, as even a cursory glance at the current rules would reveal "Hmm, this won't work". Now maybe the -1 to hit is gone in their Codex (you have to assume the designers are at least thinking of the Dark Eldar Codex, even if it's months away) but still, that shows even more incompetence/laziness because they aren't checking it against current rules, which are what matters right now anyways.

The reason most of us veterans seem so jaded and negative is, basically, because we are tired of it. GW has had some 20+ years to perfect their game, and yet we see the same lackadaisical approach to rules design, lack of using math and formulas to stat things out, seemingly nonsensical buffs/nerfs over the years that may fix one thing, but break three others because nobody seems to actually have a fething clue about what they're doing. After a while, it gets tiresome, especially when the product is a "premium" product that you expect a certain level of quality based on the price.

^This, pretty much. Over the years the developers have demonstrated over and over again how out of touch they are with how their customers play the game. They have admitted to overlooking strong and weak combinations and when White Dwarf was still worth reading, battle reports were often a joke of misplayed rules or exceptions to written rules to make for a better game.

Nobody truly hates Inspector Clouseau, they are just tired of having his equals write rules for a game they where they spend time, money and love.

Isengard wrote:
I've been to the Open Day every year for a few years now.

I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length. I know they have to sell the games but they don't need to expose themselves to the public in that manner, it isn't a necessity. They are not behind glass or locked away, they are in a hall with just a table between you and them.

I am new to this forum, but not to 40K nor to Internet forums. These places tend to have the ends of the bell curve (the really happy and the really mad) as the middle ground are happy to play and not talk about it. Some folks are just plain mad at the game and they can tend to repeat the same point again and again. Perhaps they love the game but have always hated some aspect or maybe somebody moved their cheese with a new edition or FAQ. Those opinions are absolutely valid, but they do not necessarily represent the gaming community at large. What is cool is that they come from a wide variety of gaming communities. What is more, even a broken clock is correct twice a day.

I started 40K in 1996 and left in 2014. The new direction of 8th Edition brought me back, and I am still very happy. I play in a good community that, while not perfect, is a great place to play 40K. Perhaps I am the glass half full end of the bell curve, but I was on the other end a year ago.

Cheers,

T2B

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Perhaps they love the game but have always hated some aspect or maybe somebody moved their cheese with a new edition or FAQ.

Very nice of you. Very nice implication that the most bitter are the waac-guys that got their OP options removed. Poison-coated post, my friend.

What about people that had Chaos in 3rd and have seen most of their options removed.
What about the Lost and he Damned players, unable to play a similar army for years.
What about the hobbyists that slowly and lovely build an army just to see the options removed in the next codex. See inquisition.
What about players of armies ignored and neglected by years by the designers, given to people that did not care. Orks and Tyranids.
What about the players of armies that got only token updates, like GK now or SoB from.. it looks like forever.
What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of some of all of the above
What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of a combination of prices and unreliable investment in an army.
What about warhammer fantasy players.

People are bitter because they felt their time and money repeatedly ****wed over by GW lack of care and the completely erratic, amateurish attitude of the design team.

I like a lot of the new stuff gw is doing, but Robbin Cruddace is the WORST. He has a history of a VERY poor concept of game design and the books his name has been on have either been incredibly full of cheese or incredibly broken/ unplayable.

RC really shouldnt work there any more. Why he continues to be employed is beyond me.

Next time you speak with Phil Kelly, please ask him if Chaos is still fickle

Hoodwink wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:

I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.

Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.

This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.

People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.

...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.

For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.

If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.

But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.

The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. Yes because you could theoretically roll all 6s with the agonizer? Also, the damage floor for both weapons is zero. None of this changes the fact that on average against every target the succubus could possibly want to be fighting, the glaive+1A on charge trait does more.

You deal an average of just about 2 wounds with a glaiveand splinter pistol with the +1A on the charge against marines, and about 1.5 with the agonizer+new trait. That isn't "pretty close" it's a 25% decrease in damage for, again, more points. Against something like an Ogryn (T5 2+) the pistol/glaive still does more damage. It's true that once you get above T6, the agonizer starts to do about 25% more, but at that point you're doing about 1.25 wounds on average to models that are almost always going to be capable of one-rounding the succubus thanks to multi damage melee weaponry.

It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.

This is false, and again, comes from the rules SOUNDING good but not actually reading them. Serpentin is +1 WEAPON SKILL, not +1 to hit. That makes her WS1+, meaning she will hit on 2s with the Glaive but still cannot roll a 6, and the trait will still only trigger on a 6 with the Agonizer.

If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. assuming you're in the habit of spending 75 points to suicide succubi into carnifexes. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.

This is true! It causes her to, on average, cause .25 more wounds on average to MEQ models compared to the basic Glaive succubus. Such value for only 50 points more! It's too bad you can't actually get her to pop the trait on 4s though, that'd be nice. TIL a new definition of the term "eviscerate" which here means "makes back her points in only five rounds of uninterrupted close combat against her optimal target". I'm sure we'll see tons of Lelith Hesperax lists sweeping tournaments with this OP new strat.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Perhaps they love the game but have always hated some aspect or maybe somebody moved their cheese with a new edition or FAQ.

Very nice of you. Very nice implication that the most bitter are the waac-guys that got their OP options removed. Poison-coated post, my friend.

What about people that had Chaos in 3rd and have seen most of their options removed.
What about the Lost and he Damned players, unable to play a similar army for years.
What about the hobbyists that slowly and lovely build an army just to see the options removed in the next codex. See inquisition.
What about players of armies ignored and neglected by years by the designers, given to people that did not care. Orks and Tyranids.
What about the players of armies that got only token updates, like GK now or SoB from.. it looks like forever.
What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of some of all of the above
What about people that have seen their groups dissolve because of a combination of prices and unreliable investment in an army.
What about warhammer fantasy players.

People are bitter because they felt their time and money repeatedly ****wed over by GW lack of care and the completely erratic, amateurish attitude of the design team.

I think that you are being sarcastic calling me friend. "Moving your cheese" is business metaphor/fable where things have changed and the cheese is no longer is the same place in the maze for the mice. I can see how you would think I was referring to "cheese" in a gaming sense - that would have indeed been a clever if convoluted double-entendre! I apologize for offending you. The idea with the expression, though, is that things change and some folks are unhappy (whether because they lost their entire army or had a single unit toned down - its a wide range). The unhappiest take to the forums.

Cheers

the_scotsman wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:

I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.

Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.

This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.

People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.

...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.

For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.

If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.

But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.

The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. Yes because you could theoretically roll all 6s with the agonizer? Also, the damage floor for both weapons is zero. None of this changes the fact that on average against every target the succubus could possibly want to be fighting, the glaive+1A on charge trait does more.

You deal an average of just about 2 wounds with a glaiveand splinter pistol with the +1A on the charge against marines, and about 1.5 with the agonizer+new trait. That isn't "pretty close" it's a 25% decrease in damage for, again, more points. Against something like an Ogryn (T5 2+) the pistol/glaive still does more damage. It's true that once you get above T6, the agonizer starts to do about 25% more, but at that point you're doing about 1.25 wounds on average to models that are almost always going to be capable of one-rounding the succubus thanks to multi damage melee weaponry.

It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.

This is false, and again, comes from the rules SOUNDING good but not actually reading them. Serpentin is +1 WEAPON SKILL, not +1 to hit. That makes her WS1+, meaning she will hit on 2s with the Glaive but still cannot roll a 6, and the trait will still only trigger on a 6 with the Agonizer.

If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. assuming you're in the habit of spending 75 points to suicide succubi into carnifexes. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.

This is true! It causes her to, on average, cause .25 more wounds on average to MEQ models compared to the basic Glaive succubus. Such value for only 50 points more! It's too bad you can't actually get her to pop the trait on 4s though, that'd be nice. TIL a new definition of the term "eviscerate" which here means "makes back her points in only five rounds of uninterrupted close combat against her optimal target". I'm sure we'll see tons of Lelith Hesperax lists sweeping tournaments with this OP new strat.

Haha I admit I'm wrong when I am. I misread the rules she had. But your response simply backs up why dakka has the reputation it does. Being rude and condescending against me when I did absolutely nothing like that to you. I even specifically stated Lelith wasn't in a great place or that good and you chose to ignore that for the sake of whatever reason.

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
The unhappiest take to the forums.

Cheers

Let's put it in this way: I agree with he fact that that happiest and unhappiest are the ones most noisy. The rest would be a pointless fight.
Sorry for misereading the cheese, but you have to admit the context was perfect for the misunderstanding.

Hoodwink wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Hoodwink wrote:
In reference to the Drukhari Succubus trait:

I think this goes perfectly hand in hand with the doom and gloom people have towards GW.

Take this rule for example. A Succubus in the index has access to the Glaive that is -1 to hit. They also have access to TWO other melee weapons that do not have a -1 to hit.

This trait is also applicable to Lelith who is also capable of using it.

People go way overboard and find the negative in everything unfortunately. If you use Drukhari, have a Succubus, and are using the Glaive, then don't use this trait and use another. Otherwise this is a REALLY good trait since it adds 3 auto hits and not granting a single extra attack like some other warlord traits.

...Which would be a good excuse for it, if doing so didn't make your Succubus mathematically worse.

For one thing, the succubus always has to take the Archite Glaive. It is free wargear, and she has no choice. She can choose to give up her pistol to pay points for another melee weapon so she can use the trait, which makes her do less damage on average against pretty much every target in the game compared to just taking the Glaive with the default rulebook +1A on the charge trait. Guard, Marines, Terminators, vehicles, pretty much everything except T6+ monstrous creatures (because the Agonizer is Poison 4+) which you should not be throwing your succubus away on anyway.

If you look at it without doing any of the math, yeah, it looks like a really good trait. It SOUNDS great! and it would be roughly twice as effective as the +1A on the charge trait if it weren't for the -1 to hit rule on the Glaive, or if they'd thought to make it trigger any time you rolled a 6, regardless of modifiers, or even if they'd used their pre-codex rebalancing book to remove the -1 to hit on the Glaive to make the Succubus even a little bit effective.

But they didn't do that. This is a trait that allows you to spend extra points to make any use of it at all, and when you do that it makes you slightly less effective in combat than if you'd just chosen the basic rulebook trait. There is no way to spin that, unless (like people are claiming that critics are doing) you don't actually think about the rule, just read it and go "sounds neat!" which is almost certainly what the GW employee who wrote the rule said when he came up with it.

The math between an Agonizer and a Glaive for MEQ actually works out pretty close with the Glaive slightly ahead. The Agonizer has a lower damage floor but a higher damage ceiling. Yes because you could theoretically roll all 6s with the agonizer? Also, the damage floor for both weapons is zero. None of this changes the fact that on average against every target the succubus could possibly want to be fighting, the glaive+1A on charge trait does more.

You deal an average of just about 2 wounds with a glaiveand splinter pistol with the +1A on the charge against marines, and about 1.5 with the agonizer+new trait. That isn't "pretty close" it's a 25% decrease in damage for, again, more points. Against something like an Ogryn (T5 2+) the pistol/glaive still does more damage. It's true that once you get above T6, the agonizer starts to do about 25% more, but at that point you're doing about 1.25 wounds on average to models that are almost always going to be capable of one-rounding the succubus thanks to multi damage melee weaponry.

It differentiates even more towards the Agonizer once you get to T6+ against non vehicles. The Succubus also has access to Combat Drugs for a +1 To Hit option in addition to the Power From Pain that gives a +1 on turn 3+. It's far from useless even if you want to use the Glaive if you decide to setup your Succubus for the trait. Use an Agonizer and a +1 To Hit Combat Drug and you are averaging 3 hits on a hit roll of 4+ by Turn 3. Otherwise, you can still get it with the Glaive on 5+. Any further bonuses would start to get a little crazy with the Agonizer exploding on 3+. It's good if you want to setup for it, but it's merely an option and not an autotake.

This is false, and again, comes from the rules SOUNDING good but not actually reading them. Serpentin is +1 WEAPON SKILL, not +1 to hit. That makes her WS1+, meaning she will hit on 2s with the Glaive but still cannot roll a 6, and the trait will still only trigger on a 6 with the Agonizer.

If you decide to setup your HQ for it, then it's a good option. assuming you're in the habit of spending 75 points to suicide succubi into carnifexes. Otherwise, it's not as good and another would be better. Put it on Lelith, and she starts completely eviscerating people. You can set her up for the 4+ exploding rolls with 7 attacks. She's not super amazing but it gives a pretty good buff to her. She still needs buffs, primarily to wounding, but this doesn't do anything to hinder her.

This is true! It causes her to, on average, cause .25 more wounds on average to MEQ models compared to the basic Glaive succubus. Such value for only 50 points more! It's too bad you can't actually get her to pop the trait on 4s though, that'd be nice. TIL a new definition of the term "eviscerate" which here means "makes back her points in only five rounds of uninterrupted close combat against her optimal target". I'm sure we'll see tons of Lelith Hesperax lists sweeping tournaments with this OP new strat.

Haha I admit I'm wrong when I am. I misread the rules she had. But your response simply backs up why dakka has the reputation it does. Being rude and condescending against me when I did absolutely nothing like that to you. I even specifically stated Lelith wasn't in a great place or that good and you chose to ignore that for the sake of whatever reason.

I apologize if I come off as rude. I just get frustrated by the level of apologism that goes on when it comes to certain armies always consistently getting the shaft when it's incredibly clear that whoever is in charge of their rules just has no idea what they need to be successful.

GW has been making some big wins and some big mistakes, and while I do definitely hope for a Codex: Tyranids level of life being breathed back into my favorite factions, Chapter Approved inspires exactly 0 confidence in that ever being the case.

I don't try to focus exclusively on the negative, but there is a lot more negative here for what I play than positive. Court of the Archon units got a price adjustment - awesome. Corsair units got a price reduction too, meaning Skyreavers and Sky Dancers are back to their traditional role from the last 2 editions of allowing you to use the pretty Dark Eldar Hellion and Reaver models without dealing with their Dark Eldar rules. My orks got a couple random weapons and units adjusted, and if the rumors are true, may get one good stratagem and a decent relic.

But (again, if rumors are to be believed) everything the dark eldar got, everything the Thousand Sons got, and half of what the orks got, is handily worse than the basic traits and stratagems already in the main rulebook. Several xenos factions (you know, the ones sitting around with their thumbs up their butts while we wait for 80% of the imperium and chaos codexes to be done) got no points adjustments at all, in a book which was stated to be intended to help close the gap between Index factions and Codex factions. The statements GW made (like "Points adjustments to each and every faction!") are now known to be false, and you're coming after people for being frustrated with that.

People are saying stuff like "clearly this means that the factions that didn't get any adjustments are getting codexes Soon(tm)! Clearly? how do we know that? Just like we knew months ago that Celestine's release meant Sisters of Battle would be coming out in plastic with the release of 8th? Oh wait, that was the release of Biglymarines. or how 8th would be the most balanced edition ever? oh wait, the number of factions represented in tournaments got cut in half.

If you continually disappoint people and perform below expectations for decades, expect some pessimism to build up.

Isengard wrote:

I'm just amazed at times by the difference between the internet perception and the actual experience of the real people who I have met several times and spoken to at length.

In other parts of the Internet, Dakka gets referred to as "GW's complaint box". This is not a recent occurrence.

I'm guilty of it from time to time too, but I can get over it, as have most in times past. The times I haven't been able to get over it were the times I just checked out and did something more enjoyable with my life, like most of 7th edition.

The current behavior is definitely louder and more aggravated than it's been previously. We have four posters I can immediately think of who will pop up into virtually any thread and echo the same variation on the same theme and just repeat it constantly to the point where anymore I can't help but wonder if they're not just chat bots someone set up to spam the forum.

Life is too short to continually be that angry with something that you're clearly that much involved with. It tends to bring other people down, and even if you don't care about that, it's really unhealthy for yourself. If you're that unhappy with how things are going, don't post about it in any thread you can get away with, instead take a break for a few months. It's still pretty nice out, at least in the midwest US. Even if it's not, go outside. feth, build a snowman or something if you have snow. Maybe hit up a gym. Get a hobby. Get a girlfriend. Read a book. Get a job.

DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

 Elbows wrote:
DakkaDakka is the Mos Eisley of internet forums.

Well since whineseer got nuked.