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.

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.

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.

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

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?

 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.

Based on past experience, I'll hazard a guess that one of the daemon weapons will be +d6 attacks.

 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

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.

 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

There's definitely potential.

- D6 Strength
- D6 Attacks
- D6 AP
- D6 Damage
- D6 Wound Recovery
- D6 Negative to Leadership

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.

Isin't one of them supposed to ignore invulns?

Anything to help my mighty Khorne lords cleave foes is welcome. Ignoring invun and doling out mortals sounds pretty good to me.

 Argive wrote:
Isin't one of them supposed to ignore invulns?

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.

A weapon that ignores invuls? The Dreadaxe is back, baby!

Very pleased to see daemon weapons return.

 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

 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.

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...

Bring back the old ranged weapon Daemon weapon I think Tzeentch had!

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Sure, does that fix the main issue for the CSM dex?
I'd wager no.

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.