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.

 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.

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.

 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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nobody complains about Daemon weapons beeing back

"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

Yoyoyo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nobody complains about Daemon weapons beeing back

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"

Yoyoyo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nobody complains about Daemon weapons beeing back

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"

Yoyoyo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nobody complains about Daemon weapons beeing back

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"

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?

Yoyoyo wrote:
I don't think that's right. You would roll once for the Daemon Weapon ability, and that becomes the strength bonus.

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.

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.

 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.

GW doesnt balance for tournaments they balance for friends and FLGS pickup games. If something is seen as breaking the game they act.

BrianDavion wrote:

Yoyoyo wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Nobody complains about Daemon weapons beeing back

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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

 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.

 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.