I think the Drukhari Codex might be an interesting aberration in the meta. Either players/tournaments embrace the aberration and allow it to play within its own confines(no detachment limitation for Drukhari), or they kill it off completely.
The sad thing is that players will most likely complain that GW screwed the Drukhari codex when it is house rules that are killing it.
Red Corsair wrote: The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.
That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.
Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: I think the Drukhari Codex might be an interesting aberration in the meta. Either players/tournaments embrace the aberration and allow it to play within its own confines(no detachment limitation for Drukhari), or they kill it off completely.
The sad thing is that players will most likely complain that GW screwed the Drukhari codex when it is house rules that are killing it.
I agree, I think it is a really fun idea and a good way to create armies but it's too early to tell how the meta will treat it. With hostility or encouragement? We will see.
They however created a 3 detachment limit and no limitation on duplication which allows you to run a basic raiding force. This rule they could easily change to support the larger raiding force.
The detachment duplication is a common limit and I know of some tourneys that are limiting detachments to two which would negatively affect Drukhari.
So, I hope there won't be detachment limits in tournaments in the future. That might screw with the Drukhari.
Three Patrols allows 6 HQ, 9 Troops, 6 Elites, 6 Fast Attack, 6 Heavy Support, 6 Flyers and up to 45 Transports if you max all that. That seems like plenty for 1500-2000 points. It's not like Dark Eldar have any Lords of War that will get left out.
Just means you lose out their special bonus if you want to soup in Ynnari.
Yeah that was my thought.
Unless there is anything new in the Codex, there is just the FW superheavy but mine is still be made and painted.
The detachment duplication is a common limit and I know of some tourneys that are limiting detachments to two which would negatively affect Drukhari.
They can hardly be expected to write the rules to fit some TOs’ houserules (and if they do, whose? The deluge of iTC changes is basically a complete game itself and in turn very different from ETC, European formats, “common” tourney houserules Down Under, etc.).
Whoever came up with a no-Detachment-duplication houserule may or may not change it, as may people with a no-Dark-Eldar-houserule or a lets-not-use-Stratagems-at-all-houserule. But that’s their problem and call, not GW’s, no?
Red Corsair wrote: The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.
That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.
Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...
Nope. The words in the rulebook don't change even if everyone does use it. It's still just a suggestion for organized events.
Now your just being pedantic. I never argued against your position. However, if every event currently restricts my ability to use this rule, I am SOL. Spin it however you like, not official, official, suggested, made the frig up lol. Doesn't change the reality of the present meta does it?
They however created a 3 detachment limit and no limitation on duplication which allows you to run a basic raiding force. This rule they could easily change to support the larger raiding force.
The detachment duplication is a common limit and I know of some tourneys that are limiting detachments to two which would negatively affect Drukhari.
Oh yeah, the duplication limitation is silly and unsupported by GW, totally. I know when I think of any military, the first thing that comes to mind is how unique everything is.
I've just been stuck on the 6 patrol thing and whenever that's ever actually going to come up. I guess it was to throw the narrative/apoc players a bone, which isn't a terrible thing.
Detachment limits are only a problem for tournament players and metas where people voluntarily accept tournament houserules, so it shouldn't genuinely factor in for most players.
Red Corsair wrote: The main issue I see is that matched play only allows for 3 detachments.
That's only a suggestion for organized events, and even then depends on the size of the game. It's not a hard and fast rule.
Yet if everyone treats it as though it were one, it still has the exact same result...
Nope. The words in the rulebook don't change even if everyone does use it. It's still just a suggestion for organized events.
Now your just being pedantic. I never argued against your position. However, if every event currently restricts my ability to use this rule, I am SOL. Spin it however you like, not official, official, suggested, made the frig up lol. Doesn't change the reality of the present meta does it?
No. It's on you and your group or meta or whatever if your using a suggestion for organised play as anything other than what it is. It most definitely not a 'rule' that you are required to use by GW, and GW doesn't check with the meta before writing rules.
I don't think anybody here is giving GW grief. Quite the contrary, people is complaining about tournament house rules impacting Dark Eldar in a negative way.
The point of house ruling detachment limits is to put a limit on shenanigins (a fairly high limit, but a limit nonetheless). Given the intention, and the fact that it all started with GW's own suggestion, I find it hard to believe that any event or league organisers will change their rules to accomidate one codex with a really poorly thought out rule. And I say this as a league organiser who wont be changing the rules to accomidate a single codex (even if I am the only one who would be using it).
blaktoof wrote: Some codexes have had rules for models that don't exist in 8th. Thousand sons twrminator sorcerwr- listed as a conversion in the modeling section...
I invite you to look at the model for thousand sons terminator Lord. It is neither the terminator sorcerer from the terminator Lord kit, nor is it the scarab occult sorcerer. The core even calls out that the model in the hobby section is a kit Ash to make the model.
I don't get the issue. Is it really so hard for ITC/ETC/whatever to state 'for purposes of duplication rule, patrols don't count' or 'for purposes of duplication rule, Kabal, Wych, and Haemonculus detachments are considered as different, unique subtypes'?
I'd imagine common sense would solve the issue instantly, but then again, I don't know what the procedures for change are, how difficult it is, and to be fair, people coming up with houserules do often lack common sense (these really dumb comp houserules Aussies had in 5th edition come to mind)...
It probably would have been better if it scaled per Patrol, so that even at two detachments, they can still get some use out of it.
Having theory-crafted some very obnoxious lists with a silly number of detachments, I get the point in limiting it, but I think the three detachments at 2000 is more than reasonable for just about anything you could want to do. I do not think there would be much gained by limiting it to two over three, to be honest.
Imateria wrote: The point of house ruling detachment limits is to put a limit on shenanigins (a fairly high limit, but a limit nonetheless). Given the intention, and the fact that it all started with GW's own suggestion, I find it hard to believe that any event or league organisers will change their rules to accomidate one codex with a really poorly thought out rule. And I say this as a league organiser who wont be changing the rules to accomidate a single codex (even if I am the only one who would be using it).
you know in 7th there was a quite common restriction in tournaments as only 1x Lord of War unless you playing Imperial Knights and rarely people complained. Can't see why the same can't be done for the Dark Eldar like no limits for them as long all detachments are draw from the Dark eldar codex.
It was originally put forward to reduce spamming a single unit, but it fails in all formats due to the many different detachments. Most players can just use various detachments to spam the unit they want still in any tournament format.
There is no actual merit in limiting detachments, which is why the base rules don't have any limitations.
Imateria wrote: The point of house ruling detachment limits is to put a limit on shenanigins (a fairly high limit, but a limit nonetheless). Given the intention, and the fact that it all started with GW's own suggestion, I find it hard to believe that any event or league organisers will change their rules to accomidate one codex with a really poorly thought out rule. And I say this as a league organiser who wont be changing the rules to accomidate a single codex (even if I am the only one who would be using it).
you know in 7th there was a quite common restriction in tournaments as only 1x Lord of War unless you playing Imperial Knights and rarely people complained. Can't see why the same can't be done for the Dark Eldar like no limits for them as long all detachments are draw from the Dark eldar codex.
You are expecting tournaments to be reasonable?! HOW DARE YOU!
GWs "House Rule" is 3 detachments at the normal play level. Simply using three patrols would seem doable? Plenty of different units and 7CP plus three warlords with their own Command traits. Will need to see the codex rules obviously but seems seems fine,
Making them all unique detachments as well is a Tourney House rule and seems a bit extreme, but I don't play at that level.
Also we have the Big FAQs coming out at the same time which may make a difference - especially if they restrict HQs as they did with Tau?
Galas wrote: I don't think anybody here is giving GW grief. Quite the contrary, people is complaining about tournament house rules impacting Dark Eldar in a negative way.
Well, let TOs adapt or change to go woth it. Doubling up on EW and Maelstrom as many formats do also negatively affects hundreds of armies (and benefits others). Thats the nature of tourney houserules (or every houserule actually). They all change the game and hurt some armies (and help others) in some way. If it were ‘t changing things, there’d be no point to the houserule said tournament introduced, no?
It was originally put forward to reduce spamming a single unit, but it fails in all formats due to the many different detachments. Most players can just use various detachments to spam the unit they want still in any tournament format.
There is no actual merit in limiting detachments, which is why the base rules don't have any limitations.
You mean no merit other than actually preventing some of the worst shenigans due to ensuring better balance.
At present point costs Drukhari can fill 6 patrols for less than 600pts. Now add 2 Craftworld Battalions to get 17 CP and access to about 50 stratagems.
I mean, of course the 3 detachment limit is GW's fault. They suggest it in the rulebook. They likewise suggest a battlefield size of 6 feet by 4 feet, which is also an essentially universal standard even in casual play. They clearly balance around detachment limits as with the Tau Commander limitation. There are lots of even fairly casual players who will take it as a TFG kind of thing if you try to bring more than 3 detachments to a 2k game, and they do this because GW has put forward these rules as the appropriate way to play a fair game of 40k.
And, like, it's a good rule. It's weird to talk about it as if it's so terrible for, e.g., Tau players not to be able to bring unlimited Commanders as long as they bring 5 Fire Warriors for each one beyond 3. It just doesn't mesh well with this specific thing they're doing with Dark Eldar, and clearly the best fix here is to keep on enforcing a detachment limit while relaxing it for DE. Maybe DE Patrols don't count towards that limit, or count half, or whatever. It would be very useful if GW were to come out with a suggestion for this too, since that helps promote standardization.
Imateria wrote: At present point costs Drukhari can fill 6 patrols for less than 600pts. Now add 2 Craftworld Battalions to get 17 CP and access to about 50 stratagems.
Thats with what, six archons with splinter pistols and power swords?
I field primarily Kabal units, but I like me some DE Fliers and Talos Pain Engines, too. Being able to easily mix them sounds good. I just hope they'll fix the latter, as well as make our HQs actually useful.
Dionysodorus wrote: I mean, of course the 3 detachment limit is GW's fault. They suggest it in the rulebook. They likewise suggest a battlefield size of 6 feet by 4 feet, which is also an essentially universal standard even in casual play. They clearly balance around detachment limits as with the Tau Commander limitation. There are lots of even fairly casual players who will take it as a TFG kind of thing if you try to bring more than 3 detachments to a 2k game, and they do this because GW has put forward these rules as the appropriate way to play a fair game of 40k.
And, like, it's a good rule. It's weird to talk about it as if it's so terrible for, e.g., Tau players not to be able to bring unlimited Commanders as long as they bring 5 Fire Warriors for each one beyond 3. It just doesn't mesh well with this specific thing they're doing with Dark Eldar, and clearly the best fix here is to keep on enforcing a detachment limit while relaxing it for DE. Maybe DE Patrols don't count towards that limit, or count half, or whatever. It would be very useful if GW were to come out with a suggestion for this too, since that helps promote standardization.
The max 3 detachment at 2k points is a good rule. The "You can't duplicate detachments" isn't. I can see the appeal, for some armies having 3 batallions is extra cheap, so they will swim in Command Points... but those armies are already doing that with Brigades and Batallions.
The only detachments that gives you problems if you allow it to be spammed is the Supreme Command Detachment.
I dunno, 3 Patrol Detachments is about the size of a battalion, no? You get an extra command point and I'm sure you can spend 2000 points in their confines. If you want a Raiding Party, you have to play within those limitations.
Crazyterran wrote: I dunno, 3 Patrol Detachments is about the size of a battalion, no? You get an extra command point and I'm sure you can spend 2000 points in their confines. If you want a Raiding Party, you have to play within those limitations.
Seems fine to me.
The main issue it's not in the 3 patrol vs Batallion those are pretty even.
The Brigade vs 6 patrol can thorw up way more issues since the 6 patrol just require 6 HQ and 6 basic troops while the Brigade also forces you to take 3 Elite, Fast attack and Heavy support units.
Crazyterran wrote: I dunno, 3 Patrol Detachments is about the size of a battalion, no? You get an extra command point and I'm sure you can spend 2000 points in their confines. If you want a Raiding Party, you have to play within those limitations.
Seems fine to me.
The main issue it's not in the 3 patrol vs Batallion those are pretty even.
The Brigade vs 6 patrol can thorw up way more issues since the 6 patrol just require 6 HQ and 6 basic troops while the Brigade also forces you to take 3 Elite, Fast attack and Heavy support units.
Unless DE characters get a huge boost, that is not a problem.
Yeah, at present we have the least spammable characters around by a pretty large margin. Unless you're really spooked out by a guy with a S3 force sword at 80ish points.
It was originally put forward to reduce spamming a single unit, but it fails in all formats due to the many different detachments. Most players can just use various detachments to spam the unit they want still in any tournament format.
There is no actual merit in limiting detachments, which is why the base rules don't have any limitations.
You mean no merit other than actually preventing some of the worst shenigans due to ensuring better balance.
Yep no merit at all.
You are wrong.
With 2k points you can take any faction and create a list to spam any unit with 3 detachments that the limit of detachments or repeat detachments does nothing to address.
Name one list that is OP that needs more than 3 detachments at 2k points. You won't be able to because with three detachments, even with not duplicating a detachment you can get 10+ of any slot- you will run out of points before you run out of slots for the unit you want to spam.
With the keyword system most buffs don't cross keywords so there is no merit in limiting number of detachments, there never has been in 8th edition .
Crazyterran wrote: I dunno, 3 Patrol Detachments is about the size of a battalion, no? You get an extra command point and I'm sure you can spend 2000 points in their confines. If you want a Raiding Party, you have to play within those limitations.
Seems fine to me.
The main issue it's not in the 3 patrol vs Batallion those are pretty even.
The Brigade vs 6 patrol can thorw up way more issues since the 6 patrol just require 6 HQ and 6 basic troops while the Brigade also forces you to take 3 Elite, Fast attack and Heavy support units.
Well if the limit stays as it is its not an issue?
This isn’t that difficult to use. The three patrol limit drukari special rule is all that is useful for tournaments. You will never be able to fit 6 patrols in a 2000 or less pt tournament (it’s an apoc bonus). You are also free to ignore the bonus and play whatever other detachment you want if you want to play ynnari for example. It completely sounds like a pure codex army bonus which is nice.
Furthermore if a tournament has NO duplicate detachment rule that needs to change as it’s just plain dumb under the current list building. If you really think there is a problem with duplicate command detachments then just limit command detachments (until Gw is finished limiting HQs to one per detachment like it seems they are doing.)
gungo wrote: This isn’t that difficult to use. The three patrol limit drukari special rule is all that is useful for tournaments. You will never be able to fit 6 patrols in a 2000 or less pt tournament (it’s an apoc bonus). You are also free to ignore the bonus and play whatever other detachment you want if you want to play ynnari for example. It completely sounds like a pure codex army bonus which is nice.
The big downside for tournaments will be that you can't use very much of the DE codex while also using Ynnari or Craftworld detachments, if you want traits on DE things. If you want to use both Reavers and Kabalites while also bringing in a Farseer for Doom or whatever, one of them isn't getting traits and the other is going in a Battalion with a duplicate HQ or else in a 1 CP Outrider. It becomes very hard to soup them. Which, fine, but it's certainly striking that this would put Eldar soup way behind Imperial and Chaos soup in terms of ease of combining multiple armies.
gungo wrote: This isn’t that difficult to use. The three patrol limit drukari special rule is all that is useful for tournaments. You will never be able to fit 6 patrols in a 2000 or less pt tournament (it’s an apoc bonus). You are also free to ignore the bonus and play whatever other detachment you want if you want to play ynnari for example. It completely sounds like a pure codex army bonus which is nice.
The big downside for tournaments will be that you can't use very much of the DE codex while also using Ynnari or Craftworld detachments, if you want traits on DE things. If you want to use both Reavers and Kabalites while also bringing in a Farseer for Doom or whatever, one of them isn't getting traits and the other is going in a Battalion with a duplicate HQ or else in a 1 CP Outrider. It becomes very hard to soup them. Which, fine, but it's certainly striking that this would put Eldar soup way behind Imperial and Chaos soup in terms of ease of combining multiple armies.
Man, if only we could get that on the rest of the game...
gungo wrote: This isn’t that difficult to use. The three patrol limit drukari special rule is all that is useful for tournaments. You will never be able to fit 6 patrols in a 2000 or less pt tournament (it’s an apoc bonus). You are also free to ignore the bonus and play whatever other detachment you want if you want to play ynnari for example. It completely sounds like a pure codex army bonus which is nice.
The big downside for tournaments will be that you can't use very much of the DE codex while also using Ynnari or Craftworld detachments, if you want traits on DE things. If you want to use both Reavers and Kabalites while also bringing in a Farseer for Doom or whatever, one of them isn't getting traits and the other is going in a Battalion with a duplicate HQ or else in a 1 CP Outrider. It becomes very hard to soup them. Which, fine, but it's certainly striking that this would put Eldar soup way behind Imperial and Chaos soup in terms of ease of combining multiple armies.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
Becuase the write up specifically says they have thier own faction rules!
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
Aeldari currently has an issue that space marines and chaos don’t have. Chaos/imperial soup has no extra bonus for mixing codexs other then auras. Aeldari has ynnari that adds another layer of bonuses that the codex by itself doesn’t give; except now pure dark eldar has a bonus for taking 3 dark eldar detachments and not souping.
Galas wrote: I don't think anybody here is giving GW grief. Quite the contrary, people is complaining about tournament house rules impacting Dark Eldar in a negative way.
Ding Ding Ding! This^
Nowhere in my posts did I direct any blame towards GW.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
My understanding is that the whole reason they're doing this Patrol thing is that a Coven and a Cult don't get their "chapter tactics" type rules if they share a detachment. So you can never have Reavers and Warriors in the same detachment and still get traits, because one is <Cult> and one is <Cabal>. That's been rumored and that's the impression I get from the community article. But of course this means that it's hard to use more than just a single sub-group of the DE codex unless you're doing 3 Patrols. You can readily bring the 1 CP elite detachments, but of course these are pretty undesirable and 2 of them would be a lot of points for not much CP. Battalions are nice for many armies but would require duplicating HQs for DE, since there's just one for each sub-group, and you can't fill the extra slots it gives you with another sub-group's units.
Crazyterran wrote: I dunno, 3 Patrol Detachments is about the size of a battalion, no? You get an extra command point and I'm sure you can spend 2000 points in their confines. If you want a Raiding Party, you have to play within those limitations.
Seems fine to me.
Except they split the book in three meaning I need to flesh out a battalion with 1/3 my codex if I want to use any traits. Who knows maybe the traits are not worth that hassle but I would like to think they are worth taking, especially since it's the first time they will have ever existed.
gungo wrote: This isn’t that difficult to use. The three patrol limit drukari special rule is all that is useful for tournaments. You will never be able to fit 6 patrols in a 2000 or less pt tournament (it’s an apoc bonus). You are also free to ignore the bonus and play whatever other detachment you want if you want to play ynnari for example. It completely sounds like a pure codex army bonus which is nice.
The big downside for tournaments will be that you can't use very much of the DE codex while also using Ynnari or Craftworld detachments, if you want traits on DE things. If you want to use both Reavers and Kabalites while also bringing in a Farseer for Doom or whatever, one of them isn't getting traits and the other is going in a Battalion with a duplicate HQ or else in a 1 CP Outrider. It becomes very hard to soup them. Which, fine, but it's certainly striking that this would put Eldar soup way behind Imperial and Chaos soup in terms of ease of combining multiple armies.
Man, if only we could get that on the rest of the game...
Look at me, crying tears for the competitiveness of Eldar soup, pluging cheap Dark Eldar units in their lists for Stratagems and the like.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
My understanding is that the whole reason they're doing this Patrol thing is that a Coven and a Cult don't get their "chapter tactics" type rules if they share a detachment. So you can never have Reavers and Warriors in the same detachment and still get traits, because one is <Cult> and one is <Cabal>. That's been rumored and that's the impression I get from the community article. But of course this means that it's hard to use more than just a single sub-group of the DE codex unless you're doing 3 Patrols. You can readily bring the 1 CP elite detachments, but of course these are pretty undesirable and 2 of them would be a lot of points for not much CP. Battalions are nice for many armies but would require duplicating HQs for DE, since there's just one for each sub-group, and you can't fill the extra slots it gives you with another sub-group's units.
The community post specifically says
“Each of these groups has its own set of warlord traits, FACTION RULES, and artefacts”
Faction rules seems to cover “chapter bonuses”
Aeldari currently has an issue that space marines and chaos don’t have. Chaos/imperial soup has no extra bonus for mixing codexs other then some HQ auras. Aeldari has ynnari that adds another layer of bonuses that the codex by itself doesn’t give; except now pure dark eldar has a bonus for taking 3 dark eldar detachments and not souping. You seem to think dark eldar is just a sub codex for ynnari.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
My understanding is that the whole reason they're doing this Patrol thing is that a Coven and a Cult don't get their "chapter tactics" type rules if they share a detachment. So you can never have Reavers and Warriors in the same detachment and still get traits, because one is <Cult> and one is <Cabal>. That's been rumored and that's the impression I get from the community article. But of course this means that it's hard to use more than just a single sub-group of the DE codex unless you're doing 3 Patrols. You can readily bring the 1 CP elite detachments, but of course these are pretty undesirable and 2 of them would be a lot of points for not much CP. Battalions are nice for many armies but would require duplicating HQs for DE, since there's just one for each sub-group, and you can't fill the extra slots it gives you with another sub-group's units.
The community post specifically says
“Each of these groups has its own set of warlord traits, FACTION RULES, and artefacts”
Faction rules seems to cover “chapter bonuses”
Aeldari currently has an issue that space marines and chaos don’t have. Chaos/imperial soup has no extra bonus for mixing codexs other then some HQ auras. Aeldari has ynnari that adds another layer of bonuses that the codex by itself doesn’t give; except now pure dark eldar has a bonus for taking 3 dark eldar detachments and not souping.
More accurately:
Ynnari is its own faction, with a very powerful special rule that you get on infantry and bikers. You trade out a different special rule (Battle Focus, PFP, Rising Crescendo) to get that bonus, AND you don't get faction traits (or stratagems, unless you bring another detachment that is not Ynnari to get them).
The issue is twofold:
1) The rule you trade away in all three cases is orders of magnitude less powerful than SfD
2) The issue of 'no faction traits' hasn't been much of an issue because Dark Eldar nor Harlequins have yet had faction traits, or specific strats.
Generally, a large number of models in a "ynnari" list have actually been pure Eldar, because post nerf you only really care about your one big shooty unit of reapers (the one that gets Word of the Pheonix'd) and your one big chargy unit of Shining Spears, and then you just fill out your detachment with cheap gak like DE warriors. Then the rest is an Alaitoc detachment to get strats and the -1 to hit trait on all your CWE stuff.
Ynnari is not some magical umbrella that instantly gets you all the faction bonuses and strats. It already loses you all of them, and gains the latter back if you bring in a second detachment to get them (similar to how you could get, say, Tide of Traitors into a Thousand Sons list by including a cheeky CSM detachment).
That sounds right because yynari encourages layers multiple detachments to gain the eldar starts and relics you lose out with a pure ynnari detachment.
also yynari doesn’t have its own codex yet either which may contain its own faction specific strats/relics as well.
The 3 patrol thing seems like a pretty elegant solution to me; 7 CP is about standard for any army that doesn't get special permission to game detachments like Guard does.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
My understanding is that the whole reason they're doing this Patrol thing is that a Coven and a Cult don't get their "chapter tactics" type rules if they share a detachment. So you can never have Reavers and Warriors in the same detachment and still get traits, because one is <Cult> and one is <Cabal>. That's been rumored and that's the impression I get from the community article. But of course this means that it's hard to use more than just a single sub-group of the DE codex unless you're doing 3 Patrols. You can readily bring the 1 CP elite detachments, but of course these are pretty undesirable and 2 of them would be a lot of points for not much CP. Battalions are nice for many armies but would require duplicating HQs for DE, since there's just one for each sub-group, and you can't fill the extra slots it gives you with another sub-group's units.
Yeah that's my understanding as well, supposedly trueborn and blood brides are gone.
Due to the many keywords in the Drukhari list this means you likely cannot mix coven, kabal, and wyche keywords in the same detachment and retain battle forged.
With the division of keywords and lack of units this results in kabal having no fast attack, wyches having no elite or heavy support, and coven having no fast attack. Which is really limiting to what you can take with only three detachments as Dark Eldar and keep your battle forged for faction rules. Likely more so if you play under 2K where the "recommended" number of detachments is 2.
They say it's a feature but it's likely the fix they came up with for the Drukhari keyword issue. They could have also made it so each detachment could have 1 coven, 1 kabal, and 1 wyche cult for keyword and retain battle forged.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
My understanding is that the whole reason they're doing this Patrol thing is that a Coven and a Cult don't get their "chapter tactics" type rules if they share a detachment. So you can never have Reavers and Warriors in the same detachment and still get traits, because one is <Cult> and one is <Cabal>. That's been rumored and that's the impression I get from the community article. But of course this means that it's hard to use more than just a single sub-group of the DE codex unless you're doing 3 Patrols. You can readily bring the 1 CP elite detachments, but of course these are pretty undesirable and 2 of them would be a lot of points for not much CP. Battalions are nice for many armies but would require duplicating HQs for DE, since there's just one for each sub-group, and you can't fill the extra slots it gives you with another sub-group's units.
Yeah that's my understanding as well, supposedly trueborn and blood brides are gone.
Due to the many keywords in the Drukhari list this means you likely cannot mix coven, kabal, and wyche keywords in the same detachment and retain battle forged.
With the division of keywords and lack of units this results in kabal having no fast attack, wyches having no elite or heavy support, and coven having no fast attack. Which is really limiting to what you can take with only three detachments as Dark Eldar and keep your battle forged for faction rules. Likely more so if you play under 2K where the "recommended" number of detachments is 2.
They say it's a feature but it's likely the fix they came up with for the Drukhari keyword issue. They could have also made it so each detachment could have 1 coven, 1 kabal, and 1 wyche cult for keyword and retain battle forged.
Yeah, it's looking like they went with pretty much the worst solution to a simple problem. It really should be tied to the Drukhari keyword instead of the indavidual Kabal, Cult and Coven keywords.
Kabal is in an even worse position because the entirety of our Elites options are now single characters that provide no benefit.
If you can have multiple warlords, and give them each a warlord trait, could that potentially mean three guy might EACH have the ability to regenerate command points? So, for example, I use a 1CP stratagem, then roll 3 dice (one for each warlord), and for each 5+ I get one back?
Obviously I don't know if those are available at all, let alone to every warlord.
Also, I wonder how slay the warlord will work with Dark Eldar. Would you get three extra points for killing them all, or just one?
cuda1179 wrote: If you can have multiple warlords, and give them each a warlord trait, could that potentially mean three guy might EACH have the ability to regenerate command points? So, for example, I use a 1CP stratagem, then roll 3 dice (one for each warlord), and for each 5+ I get one back?
Obviously I don't know if those are available at all, let alone to every warlord.
Also, I wonder how slay the warlord will work with Dark Eldar. Would you get three extra points for killing them all, or just one?
To your second question the Strategems calls out the other characters are only regarded as warlord for the traits, so they would not award slay the warlord as they are not regarded as a warlord for that.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
My understanding is that the whole reason they're doing this Patrol thing is that a Coven and a Cult don't get their "chapter tactics" type rules if they share a detachment. So you can never have Reavers and Warriors in the same detachment and still get traits, because one is <Cult> and one is <Cabal>. That's been rumored and that's the impression I get from the community article. But of course this means that it's hard to use more than just a single sub-group of the DE codex unless you're doing 3 Patrols. You can readily bring the 1 CP elite detachments, but of course these are pretty undesirable and 2 of them would be a lot of points for not much CP. Battalions are nice for many armies but would require duplicating HQs for DE, since there's just one for each sub-group, and you can't fill the extra slots it gives you with another sub-group's units.
Yeah that's my understanding as well, supposedly trueborn and blood brides are gone.
Due to the many keywords in the Drukhari list this means you likely cannot mix coven, kabal, and wyche keywords in the same detachment and retain battle forged.
With the division of keywords and lack of units this results in kabal having no fast attack, wyches having no elite or heavy support, and coven having no fast attack. Which is really limiting to what you can take with only three detachments as Dark Eldar and keep your battle forged for faction rules. Likely more so if you play under 2K where the "recommended" number of detachments is 2.
They say it's a feature but it's likely the fix they came up with for the Drukhari keyword issue. They could have also made it so each detachment could have 1 coven, 1 kabal, and 1 wyche cult for keyword and retain battle forged.
Yeah, it's looking like they went with pretty much the worst solution to a simple problem. It really should be tied to the Drukhari keyword instead of the indavidual Kabal, Cult and Coven keywords.
Kabal is in an even worse position because the entirety of our Elites options are now single characters that provide no benefit.
Maybe they are planting the seeds for future Codex for Kabals, Wytch Cults and Hoemunculus Covens. And to be honest I can absolutely see that, Kabals and Covens are as similar as Imperial Guard and Sisters of Battle... or heck, Space Marines and Dark Angels/Blood Angels/Etc...
They can absolutely be expanded to be their own thing.
Have you read the codex?
Are you saying covens, cults and Kabals don’t have thier own “chapter” bonuses?
This reads to me as a pure codex bonus not a soup bonus. Ynnari has its own soup bonus!
My understanding is that the whole reason they're doing this Patrol thing is that a Coven and a Cult don't get their "chapter tactics" type rules if they share a detachment. So you can never have Reavers and Warriors in the same detachment and still get traits, because one is <Cult> and one is <Cabal>. That's been rumored and that's the impression I get from the community article. But of course this means that it's hard to use more than just a single sub-group of the DE codex unless you're doing 3 Patrols. You can readily bring the 1 CP elite detachments, but of course these are pretty undesirable and 2 of them would be a lot of points for not much CP. Battalions are nice for many armies but would require duplicating HQs for DE, since there's just one for each sub-group, and you can't fill the extra slots it gives you with another sub-group's units.
Yeah that's my understanding as well, supposedly trueborn and blood brides are gone.
Due to the many keywords in the Drukhari list this means you likely cannot mix coven, kabal, and wyche keywords in the same detachment and retain battle forged.
With the division of keywords and lack of units this results in kabal having no fast attack, wyches having no elite or heavy support, and coven having no fast attack. Which is really limiting to what you can take with only three detachments as Dark Eldar and keep your battle forged for faction rules. Likely more so if you play under 2K where the "recommended" number of detachments is 2.
They say it's a feature but it's likely the fix they came up with for the Drukhari keyword issue. They could have also made it so each detachment could have 1 coven, 1 kabal, and 1 wyche cult for keyword and retain battle forged.
Yeah, it's looking like they went with pretty much the worst solution to a simple problem. It really should be tied to the Drukhari keyword instead of the indavidual Kabal, Cult and Coven keywords.
Kabal is in an even worse position because the entirety of our Elites options are now single characters that provide no benefit.
Maybe they are planting the seeds for future Codex for Kabals, Wytch Cults and Hoemunculus Covens. And to be honest I can absolutely see that, Kabals and Covens are as similar as Imperial Guard and Sisters of Battle... or heck, Space Marines and Dark Angels/Blood Angels/Etc...
They can absolutely be expanded to be their own thing.
I wouldn't expect that, but I would expect new units and stuff like that potentially.
cuda1179 wrote: If you can have multiple warlords, and give them each a warlord trait, could that potentially mean three guy might EACH have the ability to regenerate command points? So, for example, I use a 1CP stratagem, then roll 3 dice (one for each warlord), and for each 5+ I get one back?
Obviously I don't know if those are available at all, let alone to every warlord.
Also, I wonder how slay the warlord will work with Dark Eldar. Would you get three extra points for killing them all, or just one?
To your second question the Strategems calls out the other characters are only regarded as warlord for the traits, so they would not award slay the warlord as they are not regarded as a warlord for that.
If Dark Eldar could have many different ways to regenerate CP's, heck they could even have wargear to do it too, then I could see them being the anti-Custodes army. As in, they have almost limitless access to Strategems, and depend heavily on their use to make their units optimal. With
cuda1179 wrote: If you can have multiple warlords, and give them each a warlord trait, could that potentially mean three guy might EACH have the ability to regenerate command points? So, for example, I use a 1CP stratagem, then roll 3 dice (one for each warlord), and for each 5+ I get one back?
Obviously I don't know if those are available at all, let alone to every warlord.
This seems extremely unlikely. It's just an obviously terrible thing to allow. I would bet that, like in CA, they all have different traits to choose from and perhaps only the Archon can take Grand Strategist.
What was that 3rd edition piece of wargear that ate psychers? You opened the box and it went out and gimped the closest psychic guy. I haven't gotten my DE out in a LONG while, but I hope that that specific item makes a return. I used to have fun with it.
cuda1179 wrote: What was that 3rd edition piece of wargear that ate psychers? You opened the box and it went out and gimped the closest psychic guy. I haven't gotten my DE out in a LONG while, but I hope that that specific item makes a return. I used to have fun with it.
The Crucible of Malediction. At present the only good thing you can say about it is that it's free, but a one use only ability with a 12" range and still needs you to roll a 4+ to lightly tickle a Psyker is not good at present. The old 3rd ed rules for it where every Psyker on the table takes a leadership check or dies would be awesome to get back, but probably a little OP.
I know it's a little late for wish listing, but how cool would it be if DE had a mirror ability to everyone else's "gain back a CP". Basically, if you opponent uses a CP, roll a D6. On a 5+ they loose another CP.
cuda1179 wrote: I know it's a little late for wish listing, but how cool would it be if DE had a mirror ability to everyone else's "gain back a CP". Basically, if you opponent uses a CP, roll a D6. On a 5+ they loose another CP.
Great stuff overall.
To me it looks like they put some real work into this codex, there's quite a lot of flavor.
Very happy about the boost to blasters too, and the slinter racks are back ! +25% hits from splinter rifles is pretty decent. Too bad it doesn't affect splinter cannons though.
Black Heart: One higher PfP seems not great -- Kabal units don't really enjoy CC, and their suggestion of paying 1 CP to deep strike a bad-in-CC vehicle and then take a 50/50 that it manages to charge a screening unit is just awful. But FNP for your vehicles -- which don't already have PfP -- is solid. That's always a playable trait. The Warlord Trait is not nearly as good as Grand Strategist but is still great.
Poisoned Tongue: This isn't bad for lots of splinter guns but still seems pretty niche. Splinter guns are not very good as-is and you're going to have a lot of non-poison weapons. The Splinter Racks equipment is solid -- basically +1 to hit for splinter weapons on transports -- but again has the problem that lots of your embarked models are going to want to have something other than splinter weapons. It's often the vehicles themselves putting out most of the splinter fire.
Flayed Skull: This is a much better version of Poisoned Tongue. Re-rolling hits of 1 is just as good as re-rolling wounds of 1, and your transports move 3" farther, and you get to ignore cover with your splinter weapons.
Obsidian Rose: 24" blasters and 15" rapid fire would be really nice for a sort of kiting strategy, though I'm not sure this actually makes sense.
The blaster change is massive. That's a huge buff to the army's anti-tank capability, not that it needed the help. My worry is that it still has no answer to hordes -- certainly none of the Kabal stuff here helps much. Though tbf that's what Wyches are supposed to do.
This is looking pretty good. I think Kabal of the Black Heart is a bit of a wash since most of the PfP table favours close combat, but more survivable vehicles isn't a bad thing. Surprised that there's 4 Kabals though, I was expecting 3, and Poisoned Tongue, Flayed Skull and Obsidian Rose all look good.
Blasters getting D6 damage is great, and Scourge getting a points drop (and they weren't expensive to start with) means we'll be swapping Dark Lances for Blasters on them and they'll be more effective now.
After the disappointment that was yesterdays article this one is great.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dionysodorus wrote: Black Heart: One higher PfP seems not great -- Kabal units don't really enjoy CC, and their suggestion of paying 1 CP to deep strike a bad-in-CC vehicle and then take a 50/50 that it manages to charge a screening unit is just awful. But FNP for your vehicles -- which don't already have PfP -- is solid. That's always a playable trait. The Warlord Trait is not nearly as good as Grand Strategist but is still great.
Poisoned Tongue: This isn't bad for lots of splinter guns but still seems pretty niche. Splinter guns are not very good as-is and you're going to have a lot of non-poison weapons. The Splinter Racks equipment is solid -- basically +1 to hit for splinter weapons on transports -- but again has the problem that lots of your embarked models are going to want to have something other than splinter weapons. It's often the vehicles themselves putting out most of the splinter fire.
Flayed Skull: This is a much better version of Poisoned Tongue. Re-rolling hits of 1 is just as good as re-rolling wounds of 1, and your transports move 3" farther, and you get to ignore cover with your splinter weapons.
Obsidian Rose: 24" blasters and 15" rapid fire would be really nice for a sort of kiting strategy, though I'm not sure this actually makes sense.
The blaster change is massive. That's a huge buff to the army's anti-tank capability, not that it needed the help. My worry is that it still has no answer to hordes -- certainly none of the Kabal stuff here helps much. Though tbf that's what Wyches are supposed to do.
Venoms have never had Splinter Racks before so I doubt they'll be getting them now, Raiders do have them but no splinter fire of their own. 10 guys inside in RF range will put out 20 shots, about 17 hits and re-roll 1's to wound. It's not amazing fire power but it's notably better than we currently have. The Obsidian Rose makes a lot of sense, they're the Kabal best known for being artisan weapon makers, having the beast weapons in the faction is perfect for them.
I'd look at the splinter racks with Flayed Skull, much better synergy. That gives you an average of 19.4 hits out of your 2 shots, which is good. Combined with deepstriking in on the raider and, thus, being in rapid fire range that's actually a decent amount of splinter fire. Take your Raiders from Black Heart and your Warriors from Flayed Skull I think.
It definitely seems like there is alot here to be happy about - a lot of potential synergies for different lists. It feels like airborne Dark Eldar might be a pretty nasty force.
I think GW has hit their stride with stratagems and faction traits. It definitely feels like this was written-up post 8th ed, whereas some of the earlier codexes hadn't yet had a chance to absorb what they've learned from 8th edition because they were written pre-8th release.
Venoms have never had Splinter Racks before so I doubt they'll be getting them now, Raiders do have them but no splinter fire of their own. 10 guys inside in RF range will put out 20 shots, about 17 hits and re-roll 1's to wound. It's not amazing fire power but it's notably better than we currently have. The Obsidian Rose makes a lot of sense, they're the Kabal best known for being artisan weapon makers, having the beast weapons in the faction is perfect for them.
Oh, if it's just Raiders that makes more sense. Though you're not going to have 10 guys inside with splinter rifles. Especially not with that change to blasters.
With Obsidian Rose I meant more that I'm not sure that a kiting strategy is feasible, so I'm not sure how valuable it actually is for most things to be able to be 15" and rapid fire outside of maybe the first turn. I know that this is a powerful trait for Guard and Tau but they're a lot slower.
We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever, and so, we're delaying the March FAQ a just little bit so we can integrate our findings from AdeptiCon with your feedback – stay tuned for further announcements...
The deepstrike Fly vehicle it's not as bad as it may seem mirrors pretty much the Craftworld one but can be used vehicle by vehicle wich allows to put 1 extra vehicle for the same amount of CP.
We're committed to making the latest edition of Warhammer 40,000 as awesome as ever, and so, we're delaying the March FAQ a just little bit so we can integrate our findings from AdeptiCon with your feedback – stay tuned for further announcements...
There's already a two page thread on it here in News & Rumors
Lord Perversor wrote: The deepstrike Fly vehicle it's not as bad as it may seem mirrors pretty much the Craftworld one but can be used vehicle by vehicle wich allows to put 1 extra vehicle for the same amount of CP.
Actually, it's perfectly identical to Cloudstrike for Craftworld Eldar. And the Webway one for Infantry/Bikes is already in Chapter Approved and also perfectly identical. These pretty much seem like the standard stratagems for all pointy ears.
I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
I would never employ any of these horrible suggestions if it were for me, you basically understand nothing of the game let alone the current problems
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
I would never employ any of these horrible suggestions if it were for me, you basically understand nothing of the game let alone the current problems
Then suggest that lol. Could not care less how much you like my ideas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: BTW it's quite brave of you to not share any ideas of your own lol.
KurtAngle2 wrote: I would never employ any of these horrible suggestions if it were for me, you basically understand nothing of the game let alone the current problems
Errata suggestion : KurtAngle2 is banned from playing the game .
Kidding of course but RedCorsair suggestions seems fair, and you were rude aplenty.
KurtAngle2 wrote: I would never employ any of these horrible suggestions if it were for me, you basically understand nothing of the game let alone the current problems
Errata suggestion : KurtAngle2 is banned from playing the game .
Kidding of course but RedCorsair suggestions seems fair, and you were rude aplenty.
LOL, yea not suggesting anything I said was perfect or that they use any or all of it. But it would be nice for them to address those issues.
Don't understand how infiltrating units stop people from deploying since the infiltration is done after deployment, right?
Also the "modifiers never stack" thing would need every codex to be rebalanced, so, no thanks.
The way the faction keywords work you just need to share one to be battleforged, don't see the problem there.
There are already conditions on using the army-specific strategems that work fine (must be battle-forged, must be of that faction, and the strategems themselves have the rules of how to apply them) so nothing needs to change there. Your change would mean mixed armies of more than one faction would be awful as they'd lose access to their strategems.
ImAGeek wrote: Do we know the PfP chart already, or are we just assuming it's unchanged from the index?
Just assumptions, it was decent before. I am hoping they fix combat drugs. Book keeping 6 drugs across X units is very annoying. I have had 9 units with drugs before, it's silly now.
Lord Perversor wrote: The deepstrike Fly vehicle it's not as bad as it may seem mirrors pretty much the Craftworld one but can be used vehicle by vehicle wich allows to put 1 extra vehicle for the same amount of CP.
Actually, it's perfectly identical to Cloudstrike for Craftworld Eldar. And the Webway one for Infantry/Bikes is already in Chapter Approved and also perfectly identical. These pretty much seem like the standard stratagems for all pointy ears.
Not quite identical, DE's can be used on Beasts as well.
Still nothing for Monsters, which is really annoying.
ElvisJuice wrote: Don't understand how infiltrating units stop people from deploying since the infiltration is done after deployment, right?
Also the "modifiers never stack" thing would need every codex to be rebalanced, so, no thanks.
The way the faction keywords work you just need to share one to be battleforged, don't see the problem there.
There are already conditions on using the army-specific strategems that work fine (must be battle-forged, must be of that faction, and the strategems themselves have the rules of how to apply them) so nothing needs to change there. Your change would mean mixed armies of more than one faction would be awful as they'd lose access to any strategems.
Special deployment, It's why every imperial army has scouts in it. I drop them around the table and now any deep-strikers etc you have can't deploy outside your DZ. Not suggesting my fix is perfect, but when literally every imperial army has 3 scout units (same for eldar and chaos with nurglings and rangers) you know there is a balance issue. Stratagems are far from perfect actually. For example I can take a guard CC and give him the steal CP's relic in any other imperial army. Again something you constantly see. If the primary army is guard thats fine, however if its space marines for example thats just gaming the present system. Locking the army into space marine strats would prevent that CC from taking the Aquilla.
I disagree that a change would make soup armies bad. Currently several armies are locked into their own book. Soup armies can access 3-6+ books currently meaning you can mine all the best units and have no holes. Sorry, but that army doesn't need all those stratagems on top of that. IMHO of course.
Venoms have never had Splinter Racks before so I doubt they'll be getting them now, Raiders do have them but no splinter fire of their own. 10 guys inside in RF range will put out 20 shots, about 17 hits and re-roll 1's to wound. It's not amazing fire power but it's notably better than we currently have. The Obsidian Rose makes a lot of sense, they're the Kabal best known for being artisan weapon makers, having the beast weapons in the faction is perfect for them.
Oh, if it's just Raiders that makes more sense. Though you're not going to have 10 guys inside with splinter rifles. Especially not with that change to blasters.
With Obsidian Rose I meant more that I'm not sure that a kiting strategy is feasible, so I'm not sure how valuable it actually is for most things to be able to be 15" and rapid fire outside of maybe the first turn. I know that this is a powerful trait for Guard and Tau but they're a lot slower.
I thnk with Obsidian Rose it'll be more useful on weapons like Dark Lances, which with 36" are just slightly too short range to keep Ravagers out of your opponent range should they go first before moving in yourself, 42" would change that a lot. Blasters also benefit quite a bit and so would Shredders, on the off chance they've actually been made usable.
IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!
I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.
The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.
Red Corsair wrote: IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!
That gives you a 50" threat range, which is not bad at all but only gives you 2" of room against Lascannons and other 48" weapons.
I was thinking a Tantalus filled with Trueborn for the Screamer Jet strat.
ElvisJuice wrote: I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.
The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.
totally agree. Also, you don't have to DS on turn one you know? Clear the chaff and open up the corridors.
ElvisJuice wrote: I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.
The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.
Except your not being fair. Nothing I suggested locks out army building. It just removes certain perks when you make a certain choice. You could literally build the same force, you just wouldn't get ALL the things like you currently do. It's ridiculous that there is currently no cost to taking a soup army.
In regard to infiltration, I disagree. Mishaps are gone, but so is the entire option of a risky DS. I literally get no choice. Maybe adding in mishaps could also work. Deploy anywhere outside 1" but you roll a die for each model, on a 1 a models is removed. If you deploy inside 9" you cannot assault the turn you arrive via risky deepstrike or whatever you call it. All I know is right now it's silly. Theres a reason why all my chaos lists have cheap as dirt nurglings tossed in.
Red Corsair wrote: IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!
That gives you a 50" threat range, which is not bad at all but only gives you 2" of room against Lascannons and other 48" weapons.
I was thinking a Tantalus filled with Trueborn for the Screamer Jet strat.
Tantalus sounds tasty. Still no word on whether or not Trueborn are in though.
Thanks for getting this thread back on track, folks. There's way too much snark last page, though, so please remember to keep it polite - that's all we ask, really
Kanluwen wrote: I'm super impressed so far with Drukhari. Makes me lament Skitarii and Tau though.
Yea I feel they finally hit their stride. Hopefully they readdress certain issues next fall. Space marines not having traits on vehicles for example is very dumb lol.
ElvisJuice wrote: I'd say the problem there is the relics not having a cost, meaning powerful ones end up being auto-includes. Massively locking down the army building is overkill and would really harm the game, imo.
The deployment thing makes building your army around deep striking riskier, which is a good thing since deep strike mishaps are now gone. If your opponent covers the spread, you might end up having to deploy those units in your own zone instead. I see no problem with this.
Except your not being fair. Nothing I suggested locks out army building. It just removes certain perks when you make a certain choice. You could literally build the same force, you just wouldn't get ALL the things like you currently do. It's ridiculous that there is currently no cost to taking a soup army.
In regard to infiltration, I disagree. Mishaps are gone, but so is the entire option of a risky DS. I literally get no choice. Maybe adding in mishaps could also work. Deploy anywhere outside 1" but you roll a die for each model, on a 1 a models is removed. If you deploy inside 9" you cannot assault the turn you arrive via risky deepstrike or whatever you call it. All I know is right now it's silly. Theres a reason why all my chaos lists have cheap as dirt nurglings tossed in.
Red Corsair wrote: IDK, a 14" move on a 36" weapon always seemed fine to me. I think the DS stratagem is amazing though. How about no possibility of them killing a ravager before it shoots!
That gives you a 50" threat range, which is not bad at all but only gives you 2" of room against Lascannons and other 48" weapons.
I was thinking a Tantalus filled with Trueborn for the Screamer Jet strat.
Tantalus sounds tasty. Still no word on whether or not Trueborn are in though.
I don't think the problem is Infiltrate like abilities, it's that whoever goes first controls the board regardless and leaves their opponent locked into their deployment zone. Iike your idea of a riskier deep strike option.
Even if it turns out Trueborn are, saddly, out of the codex the Blaster is still improved making them viable even as an index only option. Now if only the same level of thought could be finally put into Shredders.
I think the Dark Eldar Codex is the Codex with the most complex rules that they have made in 8th edition. This will be a very hard faction to play compared with others.
Just look at those traits, how long and how many special interactions they have. Compared with most of other Chapter Tactics, etc... that are normally very simple.
Except your not being fair. Nothing I suggested locks out army building. It just removes certain perks when you make a certain choice. You could literally build the same force, you just wouldn't get ALL the things like you currently do. It's ridiculous that there is currently no cost to taking a soup army.
In regard to infiltration, I disagree. Mishaps are gone, but so is the entire option of a risky DS. I literally get no choice. Maybe adding in mishaps could also work. Deploy anywhere outside 1" but you roll a die for each model, on a 1 a models is removed. If you deploy inside 9" you cannot assault the turn you arrive via risky deepstrike or whatever you call it. All I know is right now it's silly. Theres a reason why all my chaos lists have cheap as dirt nurglings tossed in.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be "unfair", but your suggestion was for mixed armies to have BRB strategems only? Which would make most of them loads weaker. That's why I think it would lock down army building too much, because it'd stop being competitive. A nice compromise might be that you have to choose one detachment and get their strategems instead of using everything, that way you have parity with mono faction armies.
I think the board control option offered by cheap infiltrator units makes those units interesting and viable where they weren't so much previously, the fact that your local meta favors it doesn't necessarily mean it has to be changed as you're suggesting. That board control isn't going to matter much to a low model count army, for example.
Why is it wrong for a mixed faction to give something up? Your suggesting that it is fair that they get to fill in every slot with the best unit AND get their cake to eat as well with the other bonuses.
Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.
The infiltration issue is also the lowest priority of mine. I'll aggree with Imateria its more of an issue with who goes first in a game of I go with everything, you go with everything which is why after further reflection I think an alternate deepstrike rule that has much more risk would work better.
Red Corsair wrote: Why is it wrong for a mixed faction to give something up? Your suggesting that it is fair that they get to fill in every slot with the best unit AND get their cake to eat as well with the other bonuses.
Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.
The infiltration issue is also the lowest priority of mine. I'll aggree with Imateria its more of an issue with who goes first in a game of I go with everything, you go with everything which is why after further reflection I think an alternate deepstrike rule that has much more risk would work better.
I agree that a lot of this would be solved if the Supreme Command Detachment was removed and if people wanted to run similar lists, they would have to take the auxiliary detachment that is -1 CP. Most of the spam issues observed in the game right now are due to the HQ slot. Having 0-1 on generic/fluff models like Commanders, Grandmasters, Tyrants, etc will go a long way on cutting out the spam. For example, the Adepticon winner had around 1500 points in the HQ slot. The runner up had ~900. That's bad. It makes no sense to have x Commanders. Who commands the Commander? Warboss? Grandmaster? Tyrant?
Red Corsair wrote: Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.
Except you have that backwards. It's the cherrypicking of traits from single book that looks dumb, is unfluffy, and covers all the possible holes without drawbacks. How many times you saw 3 SM chapters in books operating in one tiny zone? And not even mixed forces, but some sort of weird amalgam with UM only supplying bikes, IF artillery, and RG infiltrating CC units in front of all that? Ditto for IG mixtures and forces from two forge worlds on the opposite ends of the galaxy suddenly operating in one spot. I'd definitely curb that nonsense somehow, say limiting detachments not sharing same chapter/regiment/forge trait to patrols and auxiliary detachments, much like ally detachment in 6th.
I have much less problem with different armies supporting each other, but to be fair to above, I suppose all allying could use same patrol nerf to prevent cherrypicking of slots. There, problem solved.
AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?
I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...
To bad kabal of the dying sun wasn't amongst them would have love to see what trait they're getting. I have some 3rd edition dark eldar that I'm going to paint as them but I have been unsure about it. Seeing the trait for them might have motivated me to paint them.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Well I'll tell you why certain ones are terrible.
1. Some of those armies only care about the reroll in the first place. This punishes non-good Soup Lists, rather than fixing the actual issue of internal and external balance.
2. This one I'm okay with.
3. The only offender is Eldar for the most part, and maybe you shouldn't BE shooting at someone with a -3 to hit? Maybe supplement with melee if you want to avoid that?
4. Eh I'm fine with this. The issue is the cheap Psyker able to cast it though.
5. I'm also okay with this.
6. This is easily the worst suggestion. That's part of what these units do (Well maybe not Nurglings).
AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?
Because the Dark Eldar setup flatout proves that Skitarii could have been done as their own book or had their special rules kept intact(the reasoning behind Doctrina Imperatives becoming Stratagems was "they didn't want to confuse new players") with a single or two HQ choices...?
I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...
Sorry where did I say anything about buffing?
The Dark Eldar book looks like it is a book with substance and thought put into it. Both AdMech and Tau, while okay books in their own rights, are rather uninspired and not exceedingly dissimilar from their 7th edition counterparts.
AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?
Because the Dark Eldar setup flatout proves that Skitarii could have been done as their own book or had their special rules kept intact(the reasoning behind Doctrina Imperatives becoming Stratagems was "they didn't want to confuse new players") with a single or two HQ choices...?
I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...
Sorry where did I say anything about buffing?
The Dark Eldar book looks like it is a book with substance and thought put into it. Both AdMech and Tau, while okay books in their own rights, are rather uninspired and not exceedingly dissimilar from their 7th edition counterparts.
obligatory
I feel that PARTS of the Tau Codex were pretty inspired. Some of the Septs are super unique in feel (Farsite Enclaves and Bork'An), but they didn't bother to fix a few core issues (like Crisis suits being junk).
The AdMech codex brings out hatred in me though as it's very uninspired.
AM, GK and SM definitely need revisiting to bring them up to par to later books, but Tau? With their huge array of options making even IG look downright weak in places? What?
Because the Dark Eldar setup flatout proves that Skitarii could have been done as their own book or had their special rules kept intact(the reasoning behind Doctrina Imperatives becoming Stratagems was "they didn't want to confuse new players") with a single or two HQ choices...?
I am strangely sure once Codex: Mortars is nerfed, Tau will move above it in tier, especially with GW commitment to not touch new books, and you want to buff that? Hello, it's not 7th ed anymore...
Sorry where did I say anything about buffing?
The Dark Eldar book looks like it is a book with substance and thought put into it. Both AdMech and Tau, while okay books in their own rights, are rather uninspired and not exceedingly dissimilar from their 7th edition counterparts.
obligatory
As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.
It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.
I'm liking the look of it so far. The Patrol stuff gives us more granularity than other armies. And having the traits split up among Kabal, Cult, and Coven is more interesting than them all getting the same trait, which would inevitably be worthless on most of the units due to them being so different. It seems characterful, and shows that GW isn't just giving everybody the same template. I already own a mix of Kabal and Cult, so this works well for me.
As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.
Welcome to the Guard, where we've got six unique factions sitting in our book.
It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.
The issue is that AdMech was two books that are now lumped into one.
I would kill to have Doctrina Imperatives back as a special rule for Skitarii and Canticles back exclusively to the Cult stuff, with the army being led by a Dominus or Cawl meaning that Canticles became a Detachment rule instead.
As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.
Welcome to the Guard, where we've got six unique factions sitting in our book.
No you don't, you have 6 regiments. Scions and Guard can make it count as 2, but taking Scions doesn't stop other units from getting their regiment benefits. Taking Kabal, Cult or Coven together in the same detachment will.
It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.
The issue is that AdMech was two books that are now lumped into one.
I would kill to have Doctrina Imperatives back as a special rule for Skitarii and Canticles back exclusively to the Cult stuff, with the army being led by a Dominus or Cawl meaning that Canticles became a Detachment rule instead.
I can certainly see how that would be a nice improvement, so long as it worked like Scions and Guard and not Dark Eldar.
As a Dark Eldar player, I am hating the fact that it looks like our army has been split into 3.
Welcome to the Guard, where we've got six unique factions sitting in our book.
No you don't, you have 6 regiments. Scions and Guard can make it count as 2, but taking Scions doesn't stop other units from getting their regiment benefits. Taking Kabal, Cult or Coven together in the same detachment will.
Scions, Aeronautica Imperialis(Valkyries and Officer of the Fleet), Astra Telepathica/Scholastica Psykana(Psykers), Adeptus Ministorum(Priests and Crusaders), AdMech(Enginseers), Auxilla(Ratlings and Ogryns), and Officio Prefectus(Commissars).
Every one of those have fixed things that are precluded from having the <Regiment> keyword. The only difference between those and Kabal, Cult, or Coven is that we had a special rule that had to be added to 'make it work'--just like the Incubi and Scourges are supposed to be working.
It can be said that the AdMech and Tau 7th ed codecies worked in a way that matched what you would expect from armies, so little need to change it. The 7th ed DE codex was pure trash and needed this level of change.
The issue is that AdMech was two books that are now lumped into one.
I would kill to have Doctrina Imperatives back as a special rule for Skitarii and Canticles back exclusively to the Cult stuff, with the army being led by a Dominus or Cawl meaning that Canticles became a Detachment rule instead.
I can certainly see how that would be a nice improvement, so long as it worked like Scions and Guard and not Dark Eldar.
Well sure, but no matter what Doctrinas ceasing to be damned Stratagems would be an improvement.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Well I'll tell you why certain ones are terrible.
1. Some of those armies only care about the reroll in the first place. This punishes non-good Soup Lists, rather than fixing the actual issue of internal and external balance.
2. This one I'm okay with.
3. The only offender is Eldar for the most part, and maybe you shouldn't BE shooting at someone with a -3 to hit? Maybe supplement with melee if you want to avoid that?
4. Eh I'm fine with this. The issue is the cheap Psyker able to cast it though.
5. I'm also okay with this.
6. This is easily the worst suggestion. That's part of what these units do (Well maybe not Nurglings).
You didn't really tell me why though, you just agreed with most of it and the ones you didn't you just said they were bad ideas lol. That's fine, you don't have to agree with me, email them yourself. But I don't really understand the point of your post here.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Well I'll tell you why certain ones are terrible.
1. Some of those armies only care about the reroll in the first place. This punishes non-good Soup Lists, rather than fixing the actual issue of internal and external balance.
2. This one I'm okay with.
3. The only offender is Eldar for the most part, and maybe you shouldn't BE shooting at someone with a -3 to hit? Maybe supplement with melee if you want to avoid that?
4. Eh I'm fine with this. The issue is the cheap Psyker able to cast it though.
5. I'm also okay with this.
6. This is easily the worst suggestion. That's part of what these units do (Well maybe not Nurglings).
You didn't really tell me why though, you just agreed with most of it and the ones you didn't you just said they were bad ideas lol. That's fine, you don't have to agree with me, email them yourself. But I don't really understand the point of your post here.
I don't need to type a whole paragraph on why an idea is bad. The sentence I provided for those bad ones perfectly sums up the issues.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Well I'll tell you why certain ones are terrible.
1. Some of those armies only care about the reroll in the first place. This punishes non-good Soup Lists, rather than fixing the actual issue of internal and external balance.
2. This one I'm okay with.
3. The only offender is Eldar for the most part, and maybe you shouldn't BE shooting at someone with a -3 to hit? Maybe supplement with melee if you want to avoid that?
4. Eh I'm fine with this. The issue is the cheap Psyker able to cast it though.
5. I'm also okay with this.
6. This is easily the worst suggestion. That's part of what these units do (Well maybe not Nurglings).
on 4. If smite was 7 then horrors will not be able to cast it as they only make psychic test with a single d6. So this is a bad suggestion as it causes an issue for this unit with how they work.
The beta smite "fix" isn't much better for pink horrors or grey knights, to be honest. The current fix is bad, and it might be better to have it manifest on a 7+ and just errata pink horrors to conform to that reality.
Red Corsair wrote: Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.
Except you have that backwards. It's the cherrypicking of traits from single book that looks dumb, is unfluffy, and covers all the possible holes without drawbacks. How many times you saw 3 SM chapters in books operating in one tiny zone? And not even mixed forces, but some sort of weird amalgam with UM only supplying bikes, IF artillery, and RG infiltrating CC units in front of all that? Ditto for IG mixtures and forces from two forge worlds on the opposite ends of the galaxy suddenly operating in one spot. I'd definitely curb that nonsense somehow, say limiting detachments not sharing same chapter/regiment/forge trait to patrols and auxiliary detachments, much like ally detachment in 6th.
I have much less problem with different armies supporting each other, but to be fair to above, I suppose all allying could use same patrol nerf to prevent cherrypicking of slots. There, problem solved.
Actually for example guard it's quite normal. By fluff for example tank regiment doesnt' have infantry and infantry doesn't have tanks so if you have both those are supposed to come from two DIFFERENT regiments(which btw would mean two different colour schemes). Now you could argue it's 2 cadian regiments but then again you can't always quarantee that either and indeed the higher up's could easily decide deliberately to NOT do that to ensure they aren't too good of pal's. Whole point of such division of assets is to ensure that regiments arent' independent so having 2 regiments from same world could be seen as more likely to work together if one decides to traitor it up...
Is smite even still a thing? I play DG and Nurgle Daemons, both of those armies have each at least 4 spells that are more useful than smite most of the time. Smite on 7+ would make me not even consider it ( on the other hand, it would lead to considering the other mortal wound spells wich are often overlooked due to hardly being better than smite).
Sgt. Cortez wrote: Is smite even still a thing? I play DG and Nurgle Daemons, both of those armies have each at least 4 spells that are more useful than smite most of the time. Smite on 7+ would make me not even consider it ( on the other hand, it would lead to considering the other mortal wound spells wich are often overlooked due to hardly being better than smite).
Some units can only cast smite, or have to cast smite each turn (can cast two powers, but only knows 1 + smite). Others, like GK, have so many psykers that in matched play they often don't have a choice. And that's only in situations where the units were not necessarily taken for their smite capabilities alone, because smite spam is still a thing. It doesn't seem to win major tournaments anymore, but it's still pretty good.
Red Corsair wrote: Now look at Necrons, one book to fill your slots out. I have no problem with mixed detachments of the same faction. Like Cadia and Catachan. I have a bigger issue with guard, BA and Custodes suffering no drawbacks on top of having no weaknesses in their unit options.
Except you have that backwards. It's the cherrypicking of traits from single book that looks dumb, is unfluffy, and covers all the possible holes without drawbacks. How many times you saw 3 SM chapters in books operating in one tiny zone? And not even mixed forces, but some sort of weird amalgam with UM only supplying bikes, IF artillery, and RG infiltrating CC units in front of all that? Ditto for IG mixtures and forces from two forge worlds on the opposite ends of the galaxy suddenly operating in one spot. I'd definitely curb that nonsense somehow, say limiting detachments not sharing same chapter/regiment/forge trait to patrols and auxiliary detachments, much like ally detachment in 6th.
I have much less problem with different armies supporting each other, but to be fair to above, I suppose all allying could use same patrol nerf to prevent cherrypicking of slots. There, problem solved.
Actually for example guard it's quite normal. By fluff for example tank regiment doesnt' have infantry and infantry doesn't have tanks so if you have both those are supposed to come from two DIFFERENT regiments(which btw would mean two different colour schemes). Now you could argue it's 2 cadian regiments but then again you can't always quarantee that either and indeed the higher up's could easily decide deliberately to NOT do that to ensure they aren't too good of pal's. Whole point of such division of assets is to ensure that regiments arent' independent so having 2 regiments from same world could be seen as more likely to work together if one decides to traitor it up...
Erm, there are mechanized regiments. I can recall at least two examples from the books that had both armour and infantry in one regiment, and it takes a really primitive world to not have at least some combined arms elements. Even so, you can still represent two regiments (or combined regiment) by adding patrol or two. It's way more fluffy (and frankly, logical, given the fact cherrypick spam always foregoes 'tax' units without which such unit would be useless) than having, using RL example, third world war unit consisting of Peruvian tanks, US infantry, and Nepalese artillery rolled into one mass fighting on Siberian front.
But that's not my point. The point is, traits do encourage different armies, say Black Templars focus on melee (or indeed that new Necron dynasty with same). The trait has opportunity cost - you might for example neglect artillery because your CC units are better than what other marines field, while your artillery is slightly worse - but then it goes flying out of the window as soon as HS spam detachment with five Imperial Fist vindicators (or whatever dynasty annihilation barges) materializes right behind your CC units. Any character (and downside you had in your trait balancing the bonuses) is suddenly gone, as now you can perfectly cherrypick units that only care about bonus detachment gives them, never caring about downsides as they simply won't apply to them. This makes the whole traits thing pointless - they might as well be inbuilt bonuses to certain units in 'tournament' army, almost functioning as mini-soup that puts whoever sticks to a single regiment/chapter/dynasty/whatever at a big disadvantage.
This is also why I said I have less problems with different armies on the field - with detachment limits, these at least are more likely to stick to a single trait each and thus have some non-trivial opportunity costs, instead of being Codex++ multi-trait spam lists have. Sure, sometimes you can cover holes in one army with units of another, especially if you go for best unit spam - it's why I said I'd like allies limited to patrol-like detachment, as then at least such cherrypicking would be curbed to a large degree, while at least nominally looking like legit army, not random hodgepodge.
The amount of LD-stacking you can do in an eldar soup list is just awesome.
With the new coven, you can get:
-3 from proximity
-1 from Phantasm launchers
-2 from Hemlock
-1 from Terrify (which the Hemlock can cast)
-1 from the new Harlequin relic
-1 from the kill the WL strat
-1 from Spookmode on the PFP table (turn 4 if you take Black Heart)
Also, its pretty danged easy to stack to something like a -5. One Raider with 2 units of wracks or 3 grotesques and a haemie pop out to deliver that -3, and then you fly a Hemlock over and you've got definitely -5, maybe -6 to LD, on everything in a bubble.
I think we've found our horde-clearing dark eldar subfaction.
the_scotsman wrote: The amount of LD-stacking you can do in an eldar soup list is just awesome.
With the new coven, you can get:
-3 from proximity
-1 from Phantasm launchers
-2 from Hemlock
-1 from Terrify (which the Hemlock can cast)
-1 from the new Harlequin relic
-1 from the kill the WL strat
-1 from Spookmode on the PFP table (turn 4 if you take Black Heart)
Also, its pretty danged easy to stack to something like a -5. One Raider with 2 units of wracks or 3 grotesques and a haemie pop out to deliver that -3, and then you fly a Hemlock over and you've got definitely -5, maybe -6 to LD, on everything in a bubble.
I think we've found our horde-clearing dark eldar subfaction.
Never mind horde clearance. What I think is scariest from all those debuffs is the effect they have on Mind War. It's entirely possible to drop key characters down to Ld1 and drop enough mortal wounds to kill most units outright.
the_scotsman wrote: The amount of LD-stacking you can do in an eldar soup list is just awesome.
With the new coven, you can get:
-3 from proximity
-1 from Phantasm launchers
-2 from Hemlock
-1 from Terrify (which the Hemlock can cast)
-1 from the new Harlequin relic
-1 from the kill the WL strat
-1 from Spookmode on the PFP table (turn 4 if you take Black Heart)
Also, its pretty danged easy to stack to something like a -5. One Raider with 2 units of wracks or 3 grotesques and a haemie pop out to deliver that -3, and then you fly a Hemlock over and you've got definitely -5, maybe -6 to LD, on everything in a bubble.
I think we've found our horde-clearing dark eldar subfaction.
Never mind horde clearance. What I think is scariest from all those debuffs is the effect they have on Mind War. It's entirely possible to drop key characters down to Ld1 and drop enough mortal wounds to kill most units outright.
Here's a question that it delights me to ask: Does it say in the rules that LD can't be reduced below 1?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
docdoom77 wrote: I'm all about the 4+ Insensate to Pain. 4+ Invul on pain engines? Yes please. Of course, now I'll have to break down and buy some Wracks.
I'm thinking of turning Bride of Khaine Blood Sisters into Grotesques. I think they're big enough. Just add on some Coven bits and good to go.
I love the trait but the strat is crap. Bringing back a maximum of 9 wracks for 2cp? No thanks. I think its a good army trait, and the WL trait is fine if a bit boring. But I am curious to see the rest of the info before I make the call on which is the best.
I think Creed may prove to be the strongest if the army is constructed around it (Eldar soup list feat. Mind War, Hemlocks, Harlequins with their LD shenanigan stuff, etc) but in general the other two are just if you prefer offense or defense. -1AP is pretty nice on all the coven stuff because most of it is Ap0 or AP-1.
Yea I don't think any of those are bad. I mean, an additional ap is awesome, increased durability, awesome and that LD debuff certainly begs for a list to be tailored to but by no means is bad if you don't. Still not sure how great it is for clearing cheap GEQ though, since there are plenty of ways to auto pass moral and even with a -4 bubble your going to need to damage a ton of small units but it certainly helps a lot lol.
This just has me even more excited for wych cults, I am guessing the biggest improvement was saved for last, or I hope at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @the_scotsman I wouldn't call it crap. I thought the same thing as you at first until I realized your probably toughness 5 and have a 4++ 6+++ which if you math it out makes you the equivalent of triple or more guardsmen. Tide of traitors is good on a 30-40 man blob of cultists, 30 is price equivalent to 10 wracks from the index. So 29 cultists that are t3 6+ compared to 9 wracks at t5 4++ 6+++ can't do the math at the moment but I am positive your taking more flack then the cultists to remove those 9.
the_scotsman wrote: The amount of LD-stacking you can do in an eldar soup list is just awesome.
With the new coven, you can get:
-3 from proximity
-1 from Phantasm launchers
-2 from Hemlock
-1 from Terrify (which the Hemlock can cast)
-1 from the new Harlequin relic
-1 from the kill the WL strat
-1 from Spookmode on the PFP table (turn 4 if you take Black Heart)
Also, its pretty danged easy to stack to something like a -5. One Raider with 2 units of wracks or 3 grotesques and a haemie pop out to deliver that -3, and then you fly a Hemlock over and you've got definitely -5, maybe -6 to LD, on everything in a bubble.
I think we've found our horde-clearing dark eldar subfaction.
Never mind horde clearance. What I think is scariest from all those debuffs is the effect they have on Mind War. It's entirely possible to drop key characters down to Ld1 and drop enough mortal wounds to kill most units outright.
Here's a question that it delights me to ask: Does it say in the rules that LD can't be reduced below 1?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
docdoom77 wrote: I'm all about the 4+ Insensate to Pain. 4+ Invul on pain engines? Yes please. Of course, now I'll have to break down and buy some Wracks.
I'm thinking of turning Bride of Khaine Blood Sisters into Grotesques. I think they're big enough. Just add on some Coven bits and good to go.
I love the trait but the strat is crap. Bringing back a maximum of 9 wracks for 2cp? No thanks. I think its a good army trait, and the WL trait is fine if a bit boring. But I am curious to see the rest of the info before I make the call on which is the best.
I think Creed may prove to be the strongest if the army is constructed around it (Eldar soup list feat. Mind War, Hemlocks, Harlequins with their LD shenanigan stuff, etc) but in general the other two are just if you prefer offense or defense. -1AP is pretty nice on all the coven stuff because most of it is Ap0 or AP-1.
The AP one is nice. But as a pure DE player, I really like the Warlord Trait for Prophets of Flesh. It synergizes with the multiple warlord stratagem and the multiple Patrol Detachments really well.
Red Corsair wrote: Yea I don't think any of those are bad. I mean, an additional ap is awesome, increased durability, awesome and that LD debuff certainly begs for a list to be tailored to but by no means is bad if you don't. Still not sure how great it is for clearing cheap GEQ though, since there are plenty of ways to auto pass moral and even with a -4 bubble your going to need to damage a ton of small units but it certainly helps a lot lol.
This just has me even more excited for wych cults, I am guessing the biggest improvement was saved for last, or I hope at least.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @the_scotsman I wouldn't call it crap. I thought the same thing as you at first until I realized your probably toughness 5 and have a 4++ 6+++ which if you math it out makes you the equivalent of triple or more guardsmen. Tide of traitors is good on a 30-40 man blob of cultists, 30 is price equivalent to 10 wracks from the index. So 29 cultists that are t3 6+ compared to 9 wracks at t5 4++ 6+++ can't do the math at the moment but I am positive your taking more flack then the cultists to remove those 9.
I guess. I think I'm just looking at it in comparison to how I'm going to be setting up my army (Non-Ynnari Eldar Soup with LD debuffs for days, a Reaper which can go into Sniper Mode and pick off characters, mind wars critting units for tons of mortal wounds, etc) and the PoF just seem boring. Not bad, but a bit boring. "I have 7-9 more wracks! Wooo!"
Well, remember it can be any edge. So it's more like you can go on offense or use them as a disposable screen, grab that suicidal objective and if they survive burn 2 CP's and walk them on from any edge onto another objective or grab line breaker. It won't be great every game, but it's the threat of such an ability that will make your opponent either focus them down at the expense of a lot of fire power, or simply ignore them.
I can see what you mean about it being less interesting, but I think it's mainly a result of other armies getting the same ability already. Remember thats just a stratagem, the other two are way lewss useful since they utilize shooting for COVEN units only, and coven isn't really about shooting. You pretty much are leaning on the Talos at that point. Will be interesting if ravagers and raiders can continue to take the coven key word, if thats the case then hot damn will An Esoteric Kill, Delivered From Afar be busted as hell. Imagine a ravager sniping out all the backfield characters... Yea, no way ravagers can do it, but man even a raider hitting a character with a dark lance is pretty hilarious lol.
Red Corsair wrote: Well, remember it can be any edge. So it's more like you can go on offense or use them as a disposable screen, grab that suicidal objective and if they survive burn 2 CP's and walk them on from any edge onto another objective or grab line breaker. It won't be great every game, but it's the threat of such an ability that will make your opponent either focus them down at the expense of a lot of fire power, or simply ignore them.
I can see what you mean about it being less interesting, but I think it's mainly a result of other armies getting the same ability already. Remember thats just a stratagem, the other two are way lewss useful since they utilize shooting for COVEN units only, and coven isn't really about shooting. You pretty much are leaning on the Talos at that point. Will be interesting if ravagers and raiders can continue to take the coven key word, if thats the case then hot damn will An Esoteric Kill, Delivered From Afar be busted as hell. Imagine a ravager sniping out all the backfield characters... Yea, no way ravagers can do it, but man even a raider hitting a character with a dark lance is pretty hilarious lol.
Ravagers can't, but Reapers, from Forgeworld, can take the Coven keyword.
Theyre pretty much a Ravager "But slightly different" - they have a D6 shot gun instead of 3 shots, and its actually got the Heavy type. But it has an alt fire mode that's Heavy 2D6 S6 AP- D1 which can be useful in some niche circumstances.
Erm, there are mechanized regiments. I can recall at least two examples from the books that had both armour and infantry in one regiment, and it takes a really primitive world to not have at least some combined arms elements. Even so, you can still represent two regiments (or combined regiment) by adding patrol or two. It's way more fluffy (and frankly, logical, given the fact cherrypick spam always foregoes 'tax' units without which such unit would be useless) than having, using RL example, third world war unit consisting of Peruvian tanks, US infantry, and Nepalese artillery rolled into one mass fighting on Siberian front.
And those combined arm regiments are generally described as oddballs out there and often result of ad-hoc joints by casualties(and even then often not even from same world!).
But that's not my point. The point is, traits do encourage different armies, say Black Templars focus on melee (or indeed that new Necron dynasty with same). The trait has opportunity cost - you might for example neglect artillery because your CC units are better than what other marines field, while your artillery is slightly worse - but then it goes flying out of the window as soon as HS spam detachment with five Imperial Fist vindicators (or whatever dynasty annihilation barges) materializes right behind your CC units. Any character (and downside you had in your trait balancing the bonuses) is suddenly gone, as now you can perfectly cherrypick units that only care about bonus detachment gives them, never caring about downsides as they simply won't apply to them. This makes the whole traits thing pointless - they might as well be inbuilt bonuses to certain units in 'tournament' army, almost functioning as mini-soup that puts whoever sticks to a single regiment/chapter/dynasty/whatever at a big disadvantage.
Picking from different codexes actually allows more effective cherry picking so is bigger issue. What CC you want to bring from another IG regiment? Nothing. For CC you bring in marines or custodes. Cross codex has always resulted in MORE cherry picking.
tneva82 wrote: And those combined arm regiments are generally described as oddballs out there and often result of ad-hoc joints by casualties(and even then often not even from same world!).
Last time I checked, Valhallan 597th (light infantry + armoured cavalry) or Valhallan 12th (mechanized artillery + air defence/infantry contingents for artillery protection) weren't oddballs. Add another Valhallan regiment, tank one, that served alongside them (but had a lot less focus as Cain wasn't attached to it) and you have full gamut of forces from the same world. And that is just one book. You can find more examples in other IG book series, but really, modern army doesn't work that way. Last time completely non-combined arms regiments were a thing was long before Napoleon.
Picking from different codexes actually allows more effective cherry picking so is bigger issue. What CC you want to bring from another IG regiment? Nothing. For CC you bring in marines or custodes. Cross codex has always resulted in MORE cherry picking.
Catachans for one. They are easily better point for point in CC than vast majority of SM units. Or Ogryns. They work too with right buffs, which IG can provide in abundance for cheap.
Do tell me, in how many books you saw blob of Cadian mortars protected by blob of Catachan meatshields which is in turn protected by blob of Valhallan conscripts meant to absorb first charges to give Catachans protection/charge bonus against infiltrators/deep strikers? I'd rather see IG supported by SM and SoB as this at least has some pretense to being fluffy (and how actual armies work) than cherrypicked joke minmaxing all balance and character away.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Much of this is highly flawed, here's a simple rundown of why:
1-Define "faction". is "daemons" a faction, or each of the gods? are word bearers a different faciton from black legion? if not, why are thousand sons different from death guard? there is no clear line in 8th except "share at least one faction keyword"
2-see 1
3-except that breaks alot of abilities and weapons in the game. even something as simple as +1 S from a warlord trait and a power axe.
4-you broke horrors and anyone else casting on one dice, also smite is not nearly good enough to justify this. a few sources were too good, but they got nerfed already.
5-why? does anything actually break if I want to have a whole bunch of librarians? is this fixing anything that isn't fixed by managing the point-costs of said HQs properly? (and making them actually lead rather than being individual powerhouses, *cough*taucommanderlimitismoronicandtheworstfixeveer*cough*
6-so...now they show out of nowhere mid-fight? yea, giving cheap troops the ability to deepstrike at will, what can POSSIBLY go wrong.
Red Corsair wrote: Well, remember it can be any edge. So it's more like you can go on offense or use them as a disposable screen, grab that suicidal objective and if they survive burn 2 CP's and walk them on from any edge onto another objective or grab line breaker. It won't be great every game, but it's the threat of such an ability that will make your opponent either focus them down at the expense of a lot of fire power, or simply ignore them.
I can see what you mean about it being less interesting, but I think it's mainly a result of other armies getting the same ability already. Remember thats just a stratagem, the other two are way lewss useful since they utilize shooting for COVEN units only, and coven isn't really about shooting. You pretty much are leaning on the Talos at that point. Will be interesting if ravagers and raiders can continue to take the coven key word, if thats the case then hot damn will An Esoteric Kill, Delivered From Afar be busted as hell. Imagine a ravager sniping out all the backfield characters... Yea, no way ravagers can do it, but man even a raider hitting a character with a dark lance is pretty hilarious lol.
Ravagers can't, but Reapers, from Forgeworld, can take the Coven keyword.
Theyre pretty much a Ravager "But slightly different" - they have a D6 shot gun instead of 3 shots, and its actually got the Heavy type. But it has an alt fire mode that's Heavy 2D6 S6 AP- D1 which can be useful in some niche circumstances.
THAT thing can snipe a character all day long.
Reaper?Try a Tantalus, two guns with 6 S8, AP-3 D2 shots have a good chance of removing two characters per turn with this strat.
the_scotsman wrote: The amount of LD-stacking you can do in an eldar soup list is just awesome.
With the new coven, you can get:
-3 from proximity
-1 from Phantasm launchers
-2 from Hemlock
-1 from Terrify (which the Hemlock can cast)
-1 from the new Harlequin relic
-1 from the kill the WL strat
-1 from Spookmode on the PFP table (turn 4 if you take Black Heart)
Also, its pretty danged easy to stack to something like a -5. One Raider with 2 units of wracks or 3 grotesques and a haemie pop out to deliver that -3, and then you fly a Hemlock over and you've got definitely -5, maybe -6 to LD, on everything in a bubble.
I think we've found our horde-clearing dark eldar subfaction.
Never mind horde clearance. What I think is scariest from all those debuffs is the effect they have on Mind War. It's entirely possible to drop key characters down to Ld1 and drop enough mortal wounds to kill most units outright.
Add in the Harly psychic power Mirror of Minds which works a bit like Mind War.
Biggest problem I have with this is that DE no longer have any weapons that deal damage based on the Leadership stat, which I think would be an absolute requirement for the 8th ed version of the Freakshow list to actually work. PGL's don't help with the Psychic Powers either, since they do damage before the PGL is fired.
the_scotsman wrote: The amount of LD-stacking you can do in an eldar soup list is just awesome.
With the new coven, you can get:
-3 from proximity -1 from Phantasm launchers -2 from Hemlock -1 from Terrify (which the Hemlock can cast) -1 from the new Harlequin relic -1 from the kill the WL strat -1 from Spookmode on the PFP table (turn 4 if you take Black Heart)
Also, its pretty danged easy to stack to something like a -5. One Raider with 2 units of wracks or 3 grotesques and a haemie pop out to deliver that -3, and then you fly a Hemlock over and you've got definitely -5, maybe -6 to LD, on everything in a bubble.
I think we've found our horde-clearing dark eldar subfaction.
Never mind horde clearance. What I think is scariest from all those debuffs is the effect they have on Mind War. It's entirely possible to drop key characters down to Ld1 and drop enough mortal wounds to kill most units outright.
Add in the Harly psychic power Mirror of Minds which works a bit like Mind War.
Biggest problem I have with this is that DE no longer have any weapons that deal damage based on the Leadership stat, which I think would be an absolute requirement for the 8th ed version of the Freakshow list to actually work. PGL's don't help with the Psychic Powers either, since they do damage before the PGL is fired.
mmmmm i dunno LD1 means you are still guaranteed to at least kill 1 other person (off 1 kill). and the flee potential grows exponentially better after every other kill or more if you kill multi wound models.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Much of this is highly flawed, here's a simple rundown of why:
1-Define "faction". is "daemons" a faction, or each of the gods? are word bearers a different faciton from black legion? if not, why are thousand sons different from death guard? there is no clear line in 8th except "share at least one faction keyword"
2-see 1
3-except that breaks alot of abilities and weapons in the game. even something as simple as +1 S from a warlord trait and a power axe.
4-you broke horrors and anyone else casting on one dice, also smite is not nearly good enough to justify this. a few sources were too good, but they got nerfed already.
5-why? does anything actually break if I want to have a whole bunch of librarians? is this fixing anything that isn't fixed by managing the point-costs of said HQs properly? (and making them actually lead rather than being individual powerhouses, *cough*taucommanderlimitismoronicandtheworstfixeveer*cough*
6-so...now they show out of nowhere mid-fight? yea, giving cheap troops the ability to deepstrike at will, what can POSSIBLY go wrong.
Email GW yourself lol. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince them. I mean, it;s entertaining how so many people keep trying to rebut my ideas like I am writing the rules myself but it's not the best use of your time. I was simply sharing a few ideas I had, don't like em? That's fine lol.
Red Corsair wrote: Well, remember it can be any edge. So it's more like you can go on offense or use them as a disposable screen, grab that suicidal objective and if they survive burn 2 CP's and walk them on from any edge onto another objective or grab line breaker. It won't be great every game, but it's the threat of such an ability that will make your opponent either focus them down at the expense of a lot of fire power, or simply ignore them.
I can see what you mean about it being less interesting, but I think it's mainly a result of other armies getting the same ability already. Remember thats just a stratagem, the other two are way lewss useful since they utilize shooting for COVEN units only, and coven isn't really about shooting. You pretty much are leaning on the Talos at that point. Will be interesting if ravagers and raiders can continue to take the coven key word, if thats the case then hot damn will An Esoteric Kill, Delivered From Afar be busted as hell. Imagine a ravager sniping out all the backfield characters... Yea, no way ravagers can do it, but man even a raider hitting a character with a dark lance is pretty hilarious lol.
Ravagers can't, but Reapers, from Forgeworld, can take the Coven keyword.
Theyre pretty much a Ravager "But slightly different" - they have a D6 shot gun instead of 3 shots, and its actually got the Heavy type. But it has an alt fire mode that's Heavy 2D6 S6 AP- D1 which can be useful in some niche circumstances.
THAT thing can snipe a character all day long.
Reaper?Try a Tantalus, two guns with 6 S8, AP-3 D2 shots have a good chance of removing two characters per turn with this strat.
the_scotsman wrote: The amount of LD-stacking you can do in an eldar soup list is just awesome.
With the new coven, you can get:
-3 from proximity
-1 from Phantasm launchers
-2 from Hemlock
-1 from Terrify (which the Hemlock can cast)
-1 from the new Harlequin relic
-1 from the kill the WL strat
-1 from Spookmode on the PFP table (turn 4 if you take Black Heart)
Also, its pretty danged easy to stack to something like a -5. One Raider with 2 units of wracks or 3 grotesques and a haemie pop out to deliver that -3, and then you fly a Hemlock over and you've got definitely -5, maybe -6 to LD, on everything in a bubble.
I think we've found our horde-clearing dark eldar subfaction.
Never mind horde clearance. What I think is scariest from all those debuffs is the effect they have on Mind War. It's entirely possible to drop key characters down to Ld1 and drop enough mortal wounds to kill most units outright.
Add in the Harly psychic power Mirror of Minds which works a bit like Mind War.
Biggest problem I have with this is that DE no longer have any weapons that deal damage based on the Leadership stat, which I think would be an absolute requirement for the 8th ed version of the Freakshow list to actually work. PGL's don't help with the Psychic Powers either, since they do damage before the PGL is fired.
As of now your right, probably will be right in the end, but one can hope they added back in something that works off leadership. Maybe the crucible was fixed? Can't wait to find out either way.
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
Much of this is highly flawed, here's a simple rundown of why:
1-Define "faction". is "daemons" a faction, or each of the gods? are word bearers a different faciton from black legion? if not, why are thousand sons different from death guard? there is no clear line in 8th except "share at least one faction keyword"
2-see 1
3-except that breaks alot of abilities and weapons in the game. even something as simple as +1 S from a warlord trait and a power axe.
4-you broke horrors and anyone else casting on one dice, also smite is not nearly good enough to justify this. a few sources were too good, but they got nerfed already.
5-why? does anything actually break if I want to have a whole bunch of librarians? is this fixing anything that isn't fixed by managing the point-costs of said HQs properly? (and making them actually lead rather than being individual powerhouses, *cough*taucommanderlimitismoronicandtheworstfixeveer*cough*
6-so...now they show out of nowhere mid-fight? yea, giving cheap troops the ability to deepstrike at will, what can POSSIBLY go wrong.
Email GW yourself lol. You don't need to convince me, you need to convince them. I mean, it;s entertaining how so many people keep trying to rebut my ideas like I am writing the rules myself but it's not the best use of your time. I was simply sharing a few ideas I had, don't like em? That's fine lol.
There's nothing to convince or not convince GW of re: your e-mail to them, so we rebut it here, where you openly posted it, as part of the discussion you yourself are taking part of in this thread.
Wow that's some word salad. Can you edit it 3 or 4 more times please?
Edit, I sincerely was lost on what you were saying the first read through but I see your point. Sorry for the snark Plantuath, I didn't intend it to read that way.
Honestly, I regret even sharing my ideas. I shared them initially to encourage others to email GW as well, and less to convince people of the voracity of my ideas. Which admittedly was silly and not the right approach.
Normally I'd be more casual at discussing my ideas only when this was literally the first response:
Red Corsair wrote: I emailed the FAQ team, I'd encourage others as well. They asked us too.
I suggested:
1. Disallow the use of army specific stratagems by armies that are more then 1 factions.
2. Multifaction armies no long receive the +3 CP's for bettleforged
3. Modifiers never stack, ie. only ever -1 or +1 and opposing mods cancel eachother out
4. Smite casting cost of 7+
5. Remove supreme command, if they want more HQ;s they should use the auxiliary chart at -1 per unit penalty. Currently no one ever uses that chart because it is never needed.
6. Remove infiltration, give nurglings, scouts and rangers either deepstrike or scout moves but remove the current ability to cover the board and prevent every other faction from deploying.
I would never employ any of these horrible suggestions if it were for me, you basically understand nothing of the game let alone the current problems
So at this point I'd rather discuss my favorite armies release rather then continue to have my apparently garbage FAQ ideas nit picked on every page.
I wonder if we'll see anything to help with character mobility. I suspect we won't get bikes or boards for Archons back due to the new policy of only having rules if there's a model, but it would be great if it were easier to fit a character in with a raider squad without losing a special weapon. At least making Incubi 3-10 instead of 5-10 so you can do 4 incubi + character in a Venom would help. Court of the Archon coming down in price a lot would also help, but even then I don't want to run multiples of those.
If wyches can have up to 4 attacks, and be 4+ poison in CC, they could put a massive blow on a tactical squad, more than enough for them to fail a moral test.
So, i can see why it was hinted that Reavers are going to be good again.
Currently, you can get 6 Reavers, with 2 Blasters and 2 Grav Talons for 220 points, that can now advance across the board first turn 24" and then charge. Could run 2 groups, 1 with +1 A and the other with +1 WS. Hell, a 3rd with +2 move could be handy as well. Screens suddenly mean nothing.
I'd like the possibility of giving more special weapons to kabalite units. After all if trueborn are really gone I'd end up with lots of blaster guys and several of them may not see battle again if only one blaster per kabalite squad is allowed like in the the index.
A min squad of five dudes with two blasters in a venom would be amazing.
Kdash wrote: So, i can see why it was hinted that Reavers are going to be good again.
Currently, you can get 6 Reavers, with 2 Blasters and 2 Grav Talons for 220 points, that can now advance across the board first turn 24" and then charge. Could run 2 groups, 1 with +1 A and the other with +1 WS. Hell, a 3rd with +2 move could be handy as well. Screens suddenly mean nothing.
With out points drops and stat changes thats still a complete trash unit, no matter how good the Cult traits are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote: Hellions has Hit and Run now..... And the RWJF can already move 92" if you wanted (its an ability just for it).
So its cool to see some of the new info, but some of it isnt new.
Edit: grammar, english hard
Hellions already have Hit and Run, that was a mistake on Silvergalds part.
tneva82 wrote: Wych obsessions seems...Bit uninspired compared to others. +1A or advance+charge probably most popular.
My hope here is that someone realized that the +1A and +1S drugs are pretty universally better than the others (which are situationally OK, but the former two are mostly just always something every unit wants. For example, T5 reavers are neat, but if I could get +1S reavers AND a unit of +1S wyches...I'd just do that, every time) and they added those stats into the army wide obsessions while redesigning/improving some of the other drugs.
Otherwise, yeah, it seems strange that while Kabals and Covens get these intricate, very interesting Obsession bonuses, Wyches just get highly bland but effective stat boosts (you can pretty much consider Advance+Charge a movement stat boost, though it does some obnoxious things like not let you use those pistols you paid for)
A "hits of a 6 count as 3 hits" drug would be an amazing replacement for the current +1A drug for instance, because it amounts to +1/2A base but is also stackable with other auras and abilities to pump it up.
So basic wyches are 2 attacks base, +1 for the blade, +1 from a drug and +1 from the trait being 5 attacks base, 6 on the syren? I was wondering how viable they would be in a venom as a small unit but that's not bad at all.
Mantle wrote: So basic wyches are 2 attacks base, +1 for the blade, +1 from a drug and +1 from the trait being 5 attacks base, 6 on the syren? I was wondering how viable they would be in a venom as a small unit but that's not bad at all.
It is nice, but I don't think it fixes their core issues.
No escape is still extremely situational and unreliable.
They still fold like paper to shooting.
They still cost a ton for what they actually accomplish. I think they need one more decent buff to be really good - a price drop, maybe an always-on 5++, improved specials that actually make them capable of threatening other unit types than basic GEQs, and then you'd start seeing wyches being ok for really the first time ever.
9 point Wyches with 5 attacks are still only marginally better at killing GEQs than are Guardsmen (without orders) while being hugely more fragile. Hopefully they got a price cut too.
tneva82 wrote: Wych obsessions seems...Bit uninspired compared to others. +1A or advance+charge probably most popular.
My hope here is that someone realized that the +1A and +1S drugs are pretty universally better than the others (which are situationally OK, but the former two are mostly just always something every unit wants. For example, T5 reavers are neat, but if I could get +1S reavers AND a unit of +1S wyches...I'd just do that, every time) and they added those stats into the army wide obsessions while redesigning/improving some of the other drugs.
Otherwise, yeah, it seems strange that while Kabals and Covens get these intricate, very interesting Obsession bonuses, Wyches just get highly bland but effective stat boosts (you can pretty much consider Advance+Charge a movement stat boost, though it does some obnoxious things like not let you use those pistols you paid for)
A "hits of a 6 count as 3 hits" drug would be an amazing replacement for the current +1A drug for instance, because it amounts to +1/2A base but is also stackable with other auras and abilities to pump it up.
Actually, +1S is completely useless on Reavers, Bladevanes have a set strength of 4.
I'm hoping there's more to the Cult Obsessions than just the stat change, but they're not a bad start on finally making Wych's better.
tneva82 wrote: Wych obsessions seems...Bit uninspired compared to others. +1A or advance+charge probably most popular.
My hope here is that someone realized that the +1A and +1S drugs are pretty universally better than the others (which are situationally OK, but the former two are mostly just always something every unit wants. For example, T5 reavers are neat, but if I could get +1S reavers AND a unit of +1S wyches...I'd just do that, every time) and they added those stats into the army wide obsessions while redesigning/improving some of the other drugs.
Otherwise, yeah, it seems strange that while Kabals and Covens get these intricate, very interesting Obsession bonuses, Wyches just get highly bland but effective stat boosts (you can pretty much consider Advance+Charge a movement stat boost, though it does some obnoxious things like not let you use those pistols you paid for)
A "hits of a 6 count as 3 hits" drug would be an amazing replacement for the current +1A drug for instance, because it amounts to +1/2A base but is also stackable with other auras and abilities to pump it up.
Actually, +1S is completely useless on Reavers, Bladevanes have a set strength of 4.
I'm hoping there's more to the Cult Obsessions than just the stat change, but they're not a bad start on finally making Wych's better.
Good point. Damn, thats some skornegy right there. I guess I didnt notice because T5 is the standard one I take on my Reavers (but that's mostly to get a good unit using the T drug so I can unlock another +A wych unit.)
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the real question to ask here is: Will today's preview give the full details on how they buffed Wyches as an apology for the now-infamous "most improved unit in 8th" joke amongst the DE community?
(for those that don't remember, because it's easy to forget: Wyches were called the "most improved unit in 8th edition" in the dark eldar index preview. By that, it turned out they meant that they left them precisely and exactly the same and slapped a fairly crappy new special ability on them that gave them a 50% chance to avoid some units walking away from them and leaving them out in the open to be shot to bits. Something they didn't have to worry about at all in 7th ed, when they were still considered one of the worst units in the game.
The article also advised using them to prevent Crisis Suits from falling back, which you actually can't do. Whoops.)
I am guessing the Hekatari blade changed. Probably lost the +1 attack and we can only hope gained something like -1 ap. It was a huge problem that the special weapons and leaders all lost out by taking better weapons.
Red Corsair wrote: I am guessing the Hekatari blade changed. Probably lost the +1 attack and we can only hope gained something like -1 ap. It was a huge problem that the special weapons and leaders all lost out by taking better weapons.
Well, the leader and the shardnet anyway. Chainflails and Hydras both also get the +1A through their rules.
+1S obsession definitely seems like a pretty clear winner trait-wise, unless you're going for a bunch of turn 1 charges. The addition of the Commissar Morale thing definitely puts it solidly over the top. That's a pretty awesome combo.
Strife is OK (I'm thinking access to a much-improved Lelith might help this one look better in comparison if she got buffs).
Confirmation that the Succubus did not get locked into her kit build (with the Agonizer/Glaive) and instead gets to keep access to the blast pistol is good news. That Glaive desperately needs some kind of buff to damage to make her good at what she's supposed to do, though.
We're still waiting on details for special weapons, but I think between +1A, -2pts, and a 6++ vs shooting wyches might be...not..terrible now. Weird.
Okay, so at 8 points each with 3 attacks and their pistol before traits and drugs, they're actually reasonable anti-GEQ.
With +1A and +1S they make back about 70% of their points vs Infantry. Which is great and better than Genestealers. Actually getting them there is going to be an issue and I'm still not sure you want to take them without reasonable stratagem support, but this is definitely worth a look.
Idk, with 3" from a raider plus an 8" move then advance and charge from red grief, they seem pretty easy to pull a turn 1 assault off with. Sure they will hit the screen, but it looks like thats what they are going to be tailored for.
I mean jet bikes seem insane from red grief as well. 26" move before charging with fly? A 3 man unit will be nearly impossible to screen out from back fields. Tagging their ranged support seems laughably simple.
Red Corsair wrote: Idk, with 3" from a raider plus an 8" move then advance and charge from red grief, they seem pretty easy to pull a turn 1 assault off with. Sure they will hit the screen, but it looks like thats what they are going to be tailored for.
I mean jet bikes seem insane from red grief as well. 26" move before charging with fly? A 3 man unit will be nearly impossible to screen out from back fields. Tagging their ranged support seems laughably simple.
The other nice thing about Red Grief is the possibility to pull off turn 1 charges from deep strike with the webway strat. That bump from 51% odds to about 70% odds is pretty nice. It's definitely the "alpha strike" version of the wych cults. Overall I think Strife is going to be made or broken by how good Lelith is in the codex, but the other two seem to have good pros and cons.
Sucks that we have the worst fight twice strat in the game so far, given we are the "speedygofast" melee army. Hilariously though, it seems to have absolutely no conflict with Soulburst as Ynnari are currently written.
Imagine a perfect storm where a unit of 20 Ynnari wyches miraculously starts the psychic phase 4" away from enemy units and uninjured. Using doubled combat drugs, they have 5A each for the round.
Word of the pheonix - Fight as if it's the Fight Phase - pile in, make 101 attacks
Fight phase - 101 attacks, use Stratagem
Stratagem, 101 attacks.
I hope you brought extra dice, because you need 303 of them.
EDIT: no, wait, actually you just need to end the movement phase within 4" of an enemy unit. Unless I'm reading it wrong, Word of the Pheonix allows you to make a pile in move and fight as if it were the fight phase. So you can just waltz into combat, ignoring overwatch.
Screw ynnari lol.
EDIT: The total is actually 303, because you can only soulburst once per turn, but I forgot doubled attack drugs.
Well I am glad to see my mandrakes will get much better, I liked them before, I cannot imagine them having more APlol. My corpse Thief claw also is excited. I really hope they fixed all the weapons, they were wet tissue paper in the index.
Red Corsair wrote: Well I am glad to see my mandrakes will get much better, I liked them before, I cannot imagine them having more APlol. My corpse Thief claw also is excited. I really hope they fixed all the weapons, they were wet tissue paper in the index.
My mandrakes have been MVPs in several games, I can't believe they're getting even better!
Red Corsair wrote: Well I am glad to see my mandrakes will get much better, I liked them before, I cannot imagine them having more APlol. My corpse Thief claw also is excited. I really hope they fixed all the weapons, they were wet tissue paper in the index.
My mandrakes have been MVPs in several games, I can't believe they're getting even better!
Same here, the 18" range allows them to deploy and still shoot stuff up. If they bumped to ap-2 I might start to feel even dirtier taking 20.
Red Corsair wrote: Well I am glad to see my mandrakes will get much better, I liked them before, I cannot imagine them having more APlol. My corpse Thief claw also is excited. I really hope they fixed all the weapons, they were wet tissue paper in the index.
My mandrakes have been MVPs in several games, I can't believe they're getting even better!
Same here, the 18" range allows them to deploy and still shoot stuff up. If they bumped to ap-2 I might start to feel even dirtier taking 20.
Too bad the models are all super expensive finecast. I converted 10 using Dryads (just cut off the leaves, really), but someday, I might replace them with tree revenants now that they exist. They're more mandrake-y.
Red Corsair wrote: Well I am glad to see my mandrakes will get much better, I liked them before, I cannot imagine them having more APlol. My corpse Thief claw also is excited. I really hope they fixed all the weapons, they were wet tissue paper in the index.
My mandrakes have been MVPs in several games, I can't believe they're getting even better!
Same here, the 18" range allows them to deploy and still shoot stuff up. If they bumped to ap-2 I might start to feel even dirtier taking 20.
Too bad the models are all super expensive finecast. I converted 10 using Dryads (just cut off the leaves, really), but someday, I might replace them with tree revenants now that they exist. They're more mandrake-y.
New fish elf sword guys are to me the perfect plastic mandrake proxy. I like the creepy eyeless face better than the weird shadow samurai vibe theyve got going on now.
I made mine using scourge and wych legs, with vampire count ghoul torsos, wrack arms and dark elf executioner and sisters of slaugher heads. They look incredibly creepy and dynamic.
Red Corsair wrote: Well I am glad to see my mandrakes will get much better, I liked them before, I cannot imagine them having more APlol. My corpse Thief claw also is excited. I really hope they fixed all the weapons, they were wet tissue paper in the index.
My mandrakes have been MVPs in several games, I can't believe they're getting even better!
Same here, the 18" range allows them to deploy and still shoot stuff up. If they bumped to ap-2 I might start to feel even dirtier taking 20.
Too bad the models are all super expensive finecast. I converted 10 using Dryads (just cut off the leaves, really), but someday, I might replace them with tree revenants now that they exist. They're more mandrake-y.
New fish elf sword guys are to me the perfect plastic mandrake proxy. I like the creepy eyeless face better than the weird shadow samurai vibe theyve got going on now.
Red Corsair wrote: I made mine using scourge and wych legs, with vampire count ghoul torsos, wrack arms and dark elf executioner and sisters of slaugher heads. They look incredibly creepy and dynamic.
You can also get with anyone who's building Dark Riders instead of Doomfire Warlocks and grab those leftover parts.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else annoyed how inspired this codex is compared to the AdMech one? Or how inspired the Necron codex is to the AdMech one?
GW started off with the standard 'chapter tactics' and such in Chaos Marines and Space Marines. From there, they did plenty of copy-pasting over the next 6 codexes. Now, they're realizing that they have to push the bill a little if these xenos armies are going to behave any differently than any others.
Considering how quickly they're pushing out these codexes, it's no surprise that some would feel left in the dust. I think that they did right by the AdMech with what they had, but AdMech just suffer from not having certain models that they need. Dark Eldar as a range are much larger than AdMech, so there's more to play with rules-wise.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Is anyone else annoyed how inspired this codex is compared to the AdMech one? Or how inspired the Necron codex is to the AdMech one?
Some codexes are pretty damn old in the timeline. The community only really found it's legs in the game by September when big tournaments and codexes made their debut, so the experience on GW's end was pretty limited. It also helps that DE are very multi-faceted on their own.
Don't forget that the Drukhari have also had a lot of attrition over the years. We lost a lot of HQ and then flavor. Feels like they are trying to compensate for how gakky they've been to the factions.
Now only if they'd make some plastic Grots and Mandrakes.
Ghaz wrote: Hmm. I toyed with the idea of an almost all Reaver army when 8th dropped. I'll have to give them another look when the codex comes out.
I've got the fixings for one amassed in my closet Never pulled the trigger due to Reaver gimpiness and their speed being somewhat shruggable in a world of deep striking things, but I'd be lying if I haven't been excited to hear Wych Cult updates
The thing that has me a little concerned about this codex, second hand I guess since I'm not a player of it, is the fact that this system of splitting faction traits three ways leaves a lot of units out of it. Scourges, Mandrakes, Incubi ect.
Oh boy, I've been missing my 5 Talos Pain Engines so much and here they are, allegedly the most improved unit in the whole army! Not to mention Reavers and Scourges... I'm quite optimistic.
changemod wrote: The thing that has me a little concerned about this codex, second hand I guess since I'm not a player of it, is the fact that this system of splitting faction traits three ways leaves a lot of units out of it. Scourges, Mandrakes, Incubi ect.
They would never have gotten traits anyway. There outsiders from the background.
Think auxillia for guard. They are similar to rattling or bulgryn units.
changemod wrote: Out of the three I mentioned, only mandrakes actually fit that description.
Warhammer Community wrote:The forces of the Drukhari are broadly divided into three categories – Kabals, Wych Cults, and Haemonculus Covens (not to mention free agents like the Incubi or Scourges).
changemod wrote: Out of the three I mentioned, only mandrakes actually fit that description.
You should read some back ground then, it's pretty good stuff I think. Incubi are mysterious outsiders that are contracted to protect the archon because he can't trust his own. They aren't even seen outside their armor and nobody messes with them or their alters. Scourge pay haemonculi handsomely to be modified so they can contract themselves in a similar manner to spy and deliver messages between rivals.
What is with this place and arbitrary condescension?
I simply said that dividing traits into three sub groups left a lot of units out. Had it been done as traits for Dark Eldar as a whole, then both scourges and incubi would fit. As is, they are left out specifically because they aren't aligned to kabals, cults or covens which are the three divisions given traits.
And since I don't feel like another argument tonight I'll pre-clarify that I'm not suggesting they should have done it differently, just noting that it means an unusually large chunk of the codex is left out.
changemod wrote: What is with this place and arbitrary condescension?
I simply said that dividing traits into three sub groups left a lot of units out. Had it been done as traits for Dark Eldar as a whole, then both scourges and incubi would fit. As is, they are left out specifically because they aren't aligned to kabals, cults or covens which are the three divisions given traits.
And since I don't feel like another argument tonight I'll pre-clarify that I'm not suggesting they should have done it differently, just noting that it means an unusually large chunk of the codex is left out.
Yeah but they are supposed to be left out. If they had done the traits like other factions, they'd still have been left out.
One thing that i am not looking forward to with this codex - especially if it is as strong as i'm starting to think it is... Is that all the people that want "soup" banned/restricted are going to be wailing hysterically.
There is going to be a lot of Dark Eldar soup lists out there looking to benefit from at least 2 of the 3 traits and warlord traits.
Kdash wrote: One thing that i am not looking forward to with this codex - especially if it is as strong as i'm starting to think it is... Is that all the people that want "soup" banned/restricted are going to be wailing hysterically.
There is going to be a lot of Dark Eldar soup lists out there looking to benefit from at least 2 of the 3 traits and warlord traits.
I mean, the people who object to soup are mostly objecting to inter-faction soup. The 3 detachment limit that most tournaments use actually ends up making it very hard to include Dark Eldar in Eldar soup. I think that basically no one is going to object to bringing both a Cabal and a Cult detachment.
Kdash wrote: One thing that i am not looking forward to with this codex - especially if it is as strong as i'm starting to think it is... Is that all the people that want "soup" banned/restricted are going to be wailing hysterically.
There is going to be a lot of Dark Eldar soup lists out there looking to benefit from at least 2 of the 3 traits and warlord traits.
Maybe. But the only way to effectively play my existing Dark Eldar is to "soup" them. The other options are: leave two thirds of my army at home or get absolutely no faction benefit.
Not sure where the Dark Eldar stuff started and the Necron ended, so I read the past few pages.
With all 3 faction previews out and not much mention on the HQs, is it a safe bet that Dark Eldar will continue with the Haemonculi tax and ignore Archons and Succubus still?
I was really hoping for a winged archon or succubus on bike etc. Any confirmation of what Drazhar does? I saw some mention that it was rumored he could attack twice now but didn't see anything else?
Earth127 wrote: They claim to have massively buffed Succubi and wyches in general.
Yeah but given the state of succubi and wyches that is a pretty low bar to hurdle but I can hope I guess. I would put money on Succubi getting a mechanic to inflict mortal wounds maybe the same with wyches. Could be worth looking at AoS Wych elves as a guide.
Earth127 wrote: They claim to have massively buffed Succubi and wyches in general.
Yeah but given the state of succubi and wyches that is a pretty low bar to hurdle but I can hope I guess. I would put money on Succubi getting a mechanic to inflict mortal wounds maybe the same with wyches. Could be worth looking at AoS Wych elves as a guide.
Pretty sure an extra attack, as well as an invuln, as well as access to the best legion traits and detachment CP in the game, AS WELL AS A POINT REDUCTION for the wyches is a pretty massive buff. That's not a trash tier unit anymore for sure.
Earth127 wrote: They claim to have massively buffed Succubi and wyches in general.
Yeah but given the state of succubi and wyches that is a pretty low bar to hurdle but I can hope I guess. I would put money on Succubi getting a mechanic to inflict mortal wounds maybe the same with wyches. Could be worth looking at AoS Wych elves as a guide.
Pretty sure an extra attack, as well as an invuln, as well as access to the best legion traits and detachment CP in the game, AS WELL AS A POINT REDUCTION for the wyches is a pretty massive buff. That's not a trash tier unit anymore for sure.
Well, it's +1A, 6++ against shooting and a 1pt reduction in cost. It's not amazing by itself, but it certainly helps and the consensus eslwhere seems to be that they'll make for a very good unit for shifitng chaff. The Cult Obsessions and the Combat Drugs also go someway to vastly improving their versatility as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
changemod wrote: What is with this place and arbitrary condescension?
I simply said that dividing traits into three sub groups left a lot of units out. Had it been done as traits for Dark Eldar as a whole, then both scourges and incubi would fit. As is, they are left out specifically because they aren't aligned to kabals, cults or covens which are the three divisions given traits.
And since I don't feel like another argument tonight I'll pre-clarify that I'm not suggesting they should have done it differently, just noting that it means an unusually large chunk of the codex is left out.
To be fair, it's looking like Trueborn have been removed from the codex so that'll leave Scourges as the army's defacto speacial/heavy weapons team. Since Blasters have been improved and the unit itself will see a points reduction I think their place in the army is assured despite the lack of the Kabal, Cult or Coven Obsessions.
Mandrakes are also one of our best units in the index thanks to natural Deep Strike, -1 to hit and in larger squads can be a reliable source of mortal wounds. They've hinted on facebook that they've received a points reduction and a boost to AP (no clue whether this is for shooting or combat though) which would certainly go a long way to keeping their place in the army.
Incubi are a worry, they offer one of our best sources of high AP close combat but it can already be difficult to make them work. They'll need a points reduction from their current 18, but they'll need some synergy with our HQ's to be worth it.
This art direction is quite interesting. They seem to be moving a bit further away from "dark elf" in space toward deranged vampiric/demonic elf.
In a way this reflects the fluff better, but it's interesting that that art is not hyper-sexualized and exaggerated sleek she elves but instead quite gritty and true-to-form sleek bodies. In comparison to new Daughters of khaine art who still have their elaborate makeup and all.
But they all share the same tag. Like dreads are still Space Marines.
Kabals and Cults are rather specific to a sub-set of dark eldar.
Take for example deamons in CSM codex (before they got their own). They are in the codex, but without the heretic astartes tag, they break the detachment.
Emeraldw wrote: I agree with the concern about the issues with scourges and Incubi.
Not that they should receive traits, but because including them breaks the patrol detachment involved and they lose benefits as a result.
I guess you need to always take an extra patrol for your outsiders guys. Which is just akward.
You couldn't take them in a Patrol for your argument anyways. You would take Vanguard or Outrider Detachments, either of which would give you 1 Command Point each.
I'm about 99% sure at this juncture that it was mentioned they do not count against you for the purposes of your Detachment, it just has to be purely Kabal, Cult, or Covens.
Emeraldw wrote: I agree with the concern about the issues with scourges and Incubi.
Not that they should receive traits, but because including them breaks the patrol detachment involved and they lose benefits as a result.
I guess you need to always take an extra patrol for your outsiders guys. Which is just akward.
You couldn't take them in a Patrol for your argument anyways. You would take Vanguard or Outrider Detachments, either of which would give you 3 Command Points each.
I'm about 99% sure at this juncture that it was mentioned they do not count against you for the purposes of your Detachment, it just has to be purely Kabal, Cult, or Covens.
I'm not sure why I have to take Outriders or Vanguards for Scourges and Incubi. I could just take a throw away HQ and wracks to make a patrol. I don't always want 3 of something.
As I said, it isn't impossible, it is just really awkward for what has always been one army.
Emeraldw wrote: But they all share the same tag. Like dreads are still Space Marines.
Kabals and Cults are rather specific to a sub-set of dark eldar.
Take for example deamons in CSM codex (before they got their own). They are in the codex, but without the heretic astartes tag, they break the detachment.
Guard features a rule called "regimental advisors" which gives you specific permission to include several units without breaking <faction> benefits. Same with Eldar and Pheonix Warriors.
There is no reason to believe Deldar will work any differently.
Emeraldw wrote: But they all share the same tag. Like dreads are still Space Marines.
Kabals and Cults are rather specific to a sub-set of dark eldar.
Take for example deamons in CSM codex (before they got their own). They are in the codex, but without the heretic astartes tag, they break the detachment.
Guard features a rule called "regimental advisors" which gives you specific permission to include several units without breaking <faction> benefits. Same with Eldar and Pheonix Warriors.
There is no reason to believe Deldar will work any differently.
Fallen also work like this! Daemons break the Detachment as they are ment to be summoned. So my guess is it will be save for Dark Eldar to include their "unaligned" units into any list.
Emeraldw wrote: I agree with the concern about the issues with scourges and Incubi.
Not that they should receive traits, but because including them breaks the patrol detachment involved and they lose benefits as a result.
I guess you need to always take an extra patrol for your outsiders guys. Which is just akward.
You couldn't take them in a Patrol for your argument anyways. You would take Vanguard or Outrider Detachments, either of which would give you 3 Command Points each.
I'm about 99% sure at this juncture that it was mentioned they do not count against you for the purposes of your Detachment, it just has to be purely Kabal, Cult, or Covens.
Vanguard and outrider only give you 1CP each.
I imagine that they will have a rule for "free agents" that means they don't effect the trait of their parent detachment as they're hired bodyguards etc.
Emeraldw wrote: I agree with the concern about the issues with scourges and Incubi.
Not that they should receive traits, but because including them breaks the patrol detachment involved and they lose benefits as a result.
I guess you need to always take an extra patrol for your outsiders guys. Which is just akward.
You couldn't take them in a Patrol for your argument anyways. You would take Vanguard or Outrider Detachments, either of which would give you 3 Command Points each.
I'm about 99% sure at this juncture that it was mentioned they do not count against you for the purposes of your Detachment, it just has to be purely Kabal, Cult, or Covens.
Vanguard and outrider only give you 1CP each.
I imagine that they will have a rule for "free agents" that means they don't effect the trait of their parent detachment as they're hired bodyguards etc.
Thanks for that, I don't know why I went and put 3 each.
As free agents of Commorragh, Incubi are free to fight with who they choose, and while they don’t benefit from Drukhari Obsessions, you’ll also be able to take them in your lists without having to worry about losing yours. We’d recommend combining this Stratagem with Drazhar in particular – after all, he can now fight twice in the turn he charges.
I really like Lightning Fast Reactions. When you know they're about to focus down on something you need to keep alive (or force them to spend even more firepower eliminating).
Gonna go doublecheck the wording, but I'm pretty sure you can combo Agents of Vect with Labyrinthine Cunning to (attempt to) generate CP and then deny them using their stratagem. MWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!
Edit: yep! They spend the CP, you roll for Labyrinthine Cunning, then you play Agents of Vect, then you roll Labyrinthine Cunning AGAIN.
Agents of Vect is pricey, but I can see that being pretty huge agains't certain stratagems. Crucible is underwhelming though, went from standard issue gear, to one use per army and costing CP while still being hit or miss.
They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
Soul Trap's OK, will depend on any changes they've made to the Archon. At present there isn't a character out there that he can kill.
Lightning Fast Reactions is almost the same as it is for Craftworlders and it's not really much use with them at 2CP. It makes no sense that it doesn't work on Haemonculus Coven vehicles.
Agents of Vect sounds brilliant, expensive but really cool.
Onslaughts a very nice strat for Incubi, Craftworlds have a similar strat that I get good use out of but this one is strictly better since 6's count as 2 hits rather than generating an extra attack.
Nice improvement to Drazhars Murderous Assault ability.
This is the first preview that for me has been entirely a swing and a miss.
Only stratagem I'd ever consider using here on a regular basis is the incubi "fight a little better" one, and it's unfortunate that it doesn't actually combo with Drazar's buff or the turn 3 buff (can't do that, might make Drazar actually have a point!). That's going to be entirely dependent on a buff to Incubi as well to make them more compelling.
Haemonculus Psyker-tickler was weak as a free piece of wargear you could use once per haemonculus per battle. It's even more situational as a 2cp once per battle period stratagem. Other than a way to rub a GK player's nose in it for daring the play GKs, I don't see a ton of utilty in this. Kabal of the Black Heart strat would be good for 2cp, very questionable for 3cp. I can see it being OK for dunking stuff like the Tau/Guard "hit that model a whole bunch" strat, Wrath of Mars, something like that, but there aren't a ton of army lists revolving around one crucial strat that we can counter here.
Ironically, I could see a "Tons of CP" strategy, where you take Black Heart for the Warlord trait, Haemonculus coven with the CP trait, and hopefully there's a CP-related Wych Cult trait, so you grab that as well, and then you take some kind of big centerpiece model....like say...Vect in a Tantalus, and you counter your opponents attempts to use stratagems to bring it down.
So basically, this is where I'd put my big centerpiece named HQ....IF I HAD ONE!!!
-1 to hit stratagem is the exact same one CWE get for 1cp, but ours costs 2. Feelsbadman. I guess its because CWE don't get as many -1 to hit units and traits as dark eldar? Wait..no, that's not right, CWE can stack up to -3 to hit on some units using that stratagem...
People havent you play against BA bombs or poxwalker farms?! That Vect stratagem basically kill those armies! Its a situational stratagem ok but it can absolutely desteoy some lists
Imateria wrote: They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
You say "what moron thought this was a good idea?", I say "Christ where can I get one of these to run it up into a bunch of Synapse critters!"
Imateria wrote: They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
It went from a relic that would have never been taken to a stratagem which may occasionally be used.
Galas wrote: People havent you play against BA bombs or poxwalker farms?! That Vect stratagem basically kill those armies! Its a situational stratagem ok but it can absolutely desteoy some lists
Galas wrote: People havent you play against BA bombs or poxwalker farms?! That Vect stratagem basically kill those armies! Its a situational stratagem ok but it can absolutely desteoy some lists
^This guy gets it.
Plus with labrynthine cunning it's usually going to cost less.
Also, strange folks don't think LF Reflexes strong. Having -2 to hit mandrakes or razorwing JF, or a bomb of hellions seems very good to me. If it was only 1 CP it would be beyond busted, auto use ever phase until your broke.
I think this preview made the critical error of putting the worst stratagem we have seen yet front and center, and them saying they chose it because it's their favorite None of the others are bad and some are meta shifting.
Imateria wrote: They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
You say "what moron thought this was a good idea?", I say "Christ where can I get one of these to run it up into a bunch of Synapse critters!"
Not all Synapse Creatures are Psykers, and having used the Crucible against Thousand Sons, Tzeentch Daemons and Grey Knights a few times I know for a fact it doesn't do much, but at least it used to be free before.
Imateria wrote: They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
It went from a relic that would have never been taken to a stratagem which may occasionally be used.
No, it went from a free piece of wargear that would occasionally get used for disappointing results to a 2CP stratagem that will never, ever be used.
Red Corsair wrote: Agents of Vect is pricey, but I can see that being pretty huge agains't certain stratagems. Crucible is underwhelming though, went from standard issue gear, to one use per army and costing CP while still being hit or miss.
Actually I think it's much better as a strategem as you won't be taking useless gear against armies that don't have psychers.
Whether or not it gets used at all is a different story though, might be useful in a pinch of you have a couple of spare Cp.
Imateria wrote: They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
It went from a relic that would have never been taken to a stratagem which may occasionally be used.
No, it went from a free piece of wargear that would occasionally get used for disappointing results to a 2CP stratagem that will never, ever be used.
Depends on what it could have been in the codex, be it a relic or a standard piece of gear (free or not). Regardless it is an option and not just gone altogether.
Agents of vect is potentially a game changing strategem. Anything from chaos marines cacophony, to blood angels assult, to untargetable poxwalkers, to eldar seer council can just be shut down. Boom. End of story.
Strategem combos are what make top tier lists and even the prospect of having to fact this makes any strategy unreliable and thus meta shifting.
Another thing that potentially offsets the high CP costs of some of these stratagems is that not only do you get the ONE really solid CP regenerating warlord trait from Black Heart, you can potentially have THREE cp spamming traits (assuming the Wych Cults get a command-based trait of some sort)
If you combine Labyrinthine Cunning (Your Command Points+Opponent's Command Points)/6 with the Soothsayer trait from the most competitive Haemonculus Coven (+D3 at the start of the battle) you're going to see a lot of extra points.
Anticipating roughly 3 points from LC in a game, you can get 5 extra from these 2 traits on average plus any Wych CP trait.
Which essentially amounts to canceling their best strat once for free. Which is why it's so incredibly auto take IMO. I think a lot of folks are underestimating Black Heart, sure kabalite gun boats are fun, but these two elements plus vehicles shrugging wounds on a 6 are all super strong. Just use cult or coven to clear hordes.
This codex looks exceptional. Possibly the best designed codex we've seen, at least in terms of everything fitting together. Point values may or may not be an issue but black heart alone could change tournament meta with agents of vect, making eldar soup even scarier.
I'm honestly curious how good this will be. I don't really play against dark eldar very often, but they certainly look strong from these previews.
SilverAlien wrote: This codex looks exceptional. Possibly the best designed codex we've seen, at least in terms of everything fitting together. Point values may or may not be an issue but black heart alone could change tournament meta with agents of vect, making eldar soup even scarier.
I'm honestly curious how good this will be. I don't really play against dark eldar very often, but they certainly look strong from these previews.
Couldn't agree more. The faction and stratagem synergy looks fantastic. We'll see what kind of buffs/nerfs the individual units get when we get the codex in hand.
I have a two start collecting boxes of Dark Eldar I never got to... Might be a good time to start building these guys up Here's hoping that they release plastic grotesques and Incubi and mandrakes at some point so this range can be all in plastic. Seeing all the latest elven releases for other factions gives me so many conversion ideas. Sslyth for example can be made from these no problem:
Spoiler:
While as someone mentioned, the sea elf swordsmen would make for amazing Mandrakes:
Spoiler:
I always found it interesting how poorly represented DE are considering how fleshed out their range is. (30+ kits!) Hopefully we see more of them out with this new codex.
Cruxeh wrote: Well, you could always grab the many leftover bits from your Talos/Cronos and a Crypt Horros/Vargheists kit. That's how I built my grotesques.
Yes, I'm planning to do just that once I find a suitable body. I know people use Varghaists, rat orges etc. I'm currently admiring this guy's work with some Hordes bodies as a base.
Oaka wrote: Can you reroll a '1' from the Vect stratagem by using the reroll stratagem?
No die may be rerolled more than once. But you could prevent your opponent from using the Command Reroll strategem when they roll a 1.
That’s not what Oaka asked.
That said, I have to say yes; Agents of Vect is in itself a stratagem played to ‘interrupt’ another so playing a second to interrupt it seems fine. Also kinda crazy.
Imateria wrote: They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
It went from a relic that would have never been taken to a stratagem which may occasionally be used.
It wasn't a relic in index xenos, it was free wargear each Haemonculus got and was still seen as being not good.
Imateria wrote: They've succeded in making the horribly mediocre Crucible of Malediction even worse. It's gone from a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game to a short range, 50/50 chance to hurt Psykers once per game for 2CP. What moron thought this was a good idea?
It went from a relic that would have never been taken to a stratagem which may occasionally be used.
It wasn't a relic in index xenos, it was free wargear each Haemonculus got and was still seen as being not good.
Good amount of frustration as the HQ mobility issue wasn't fixed (for those that don't know, DEhqs have no mobility upgrades and because all DE infantdy has a minimum squad size of 5 and extra bonuses for getting to 10 the HQs basically don't fit in transports). besides that one big issue and a few units that are still frustratingly sad (hellions...you coulda been a contendah!) The codex is extremely good.
There are combos that make Coven units just vile in terms of durability (+1T, 4++ rerolling 1s and a FNP anyone?), Wyches are a great deal better at cleaning through chaff hordes, and kabalites are incredibly cheap for what they do.
Overall my impression is pretty positive. I'd have 100% taken 6 and 11 capacity transports over the point drops they were given though. In a heartbeat.
Good amount of frustration as the HQ mobility issue wasn't fixed (for those that don't know, DEhqs have no mobility upgrades and because all DE infantdy has a minimum squad size of 5 and extra bonuses for getting to 10 the HQs basically don't fit in transports). besides that one big issue and a few units that are still frustratingly sad (hellions...you coulda been a contendah!) The codex is extremely good.
There are combos that make Coven units just vile in terms of durability (+1T, 4++ rerolling 1s and a FNP anyone?), Wyches are a great deal better at cleaning through chaff hordes, and kabalites are incredibly cheap for what they do.
Overall my impression is pretty positive. I'd have 100% taken 6 and 11 capacity transports over the point drops they were given though. In a heartbeat.
Isnt the fix kinda baked into the game though with the understrength unit rule?
Good amount of frustration as the HQ mobility issue wasn't fixed (for those that don't know, DEhqs have no mobility upgrades and because all DE infantdy has a minimum squad size of 5 and extra bonuses for getting to 10 the HQs basically don't fit in transports). besides that one big issue and a few units that are still frustratingly sad (hellions...you coulda been a contendah!) The codex is extremely good.
There are combos that make Coven units just vile in terms of durability (+1T, 4++ rerolling 1s and a FNP anyone?), Wyches are a great deal better at cleaning through chaff hordes, and kabalites are incredibly cheap for what they do.
Overall my impression is pretty positive. I'd have 100% taken 6 and 11 capacity transports over the point drops they were given though. In a heartbeat.
Did anyone post actual changes to the Talos? I couldn't find that. I saw a substantial points drop, and maybe some fiddling with the attacks, but was there anything else?
The Dark City -- it's a forum for Dark Eldar players. There's most of the book over there, but I'm still hoping GW changed some weapons profiles that haven't been spoiled. If they thought the Blaster needed fixing but not the Liquifier, then they're off their rockers.
I have to say the HQ mobility thing is annoying. Would it have killed them to up the capacity of transports by one? I understand that they don't want to give them bikes or wings, but then there really needs to be an easy way to fit them in the transports.
Crimson wrote: I have to say the HQ mobility thing is annoying. Would it have killed them to up the capacity of transports by one? I understand that they don't want to give them bikes or wings, but then there really needs to be an easy way to fit them in the transports.
Well just use a Transport slot that isn't being used? Not every single unit is gonna be in a Transport like Mandrakes for example. That's when you load up those HQ people and their retinue in a Venom or Raider, right?
Crimson wrote: I have to say the HQ mobility thing is annoying. Would it have killed them to up the capacity of transports by one? I understand that they don't want to give them bikes or wings, but then there really needs to be an easy way to fit them in the transports.
I'm actually a bit pissed they didn't give access to bikes at least.
We haven't had bikes for characters since 3rd. Anyone expecting them to gain those things really shouldn't have given their hopes up. You don't see rhinos or drop pods magically gaining a seat, and nothing is stopping folks from running an extra transport or two for the characters. Plus, the ideal crew for an archon is incubi or a court, or both, they all can easily fit inside a raider without sacrificing gear. Not saying I can't relate with the peoples irritation, but it really should not be such a shocker to anyone that's been playing the army already.
All in all this is easily the best codex the Dark Eldar have ever had, I've been playing them as my favored faction since they were released in the starter back in 3rd 20 years ago. I am actually looking forward to fielding hellions, thats never been a thing lol.
Well just use a Transport slot that isn't being used? Not every single unit is gonna be in a Transport like Mandrakes for example. That's when you load up those HQ people and their retinue in a Venom or Raider, right?
AFAIK, a minimum unit size of all units is five, so you can't put HQ with any unit in a Venom, unless you burn a detachment and a command point for an understrength unit. You can fit them in a Raider, but then then the unit that goes with them loses the extra weapons unlocked by being ten elf strong (many Dark Eldar units work like that.)
Mantle wrote: Archon + 4 court members of your choice + venom? That's the only way I can see fitting them in to a transport without having one on their own
Which is kinda risky for such expensive models. I just want to have Succubus and a small squad of Wyches in one Venom.
Well just use a Transport slot that isn't being used? Not every single unit is gonna be in a Transport like Mandrakes for example. That's when you load up those HQ people and their retinue in a Venom or Raider, right?
AFAIK, a minimum unit size of all units is five, so you can't put HQ with any unit in a Venom, unless you burn a detachment and a command point for an understrength unit. You can fit them in a Raider, but then then the unit that goes with them loses the extra weapons unlocked by being ten elf strong (many Dark Eldar units work like that.)
Crimson wrote: I have to say the HQ mobility thing is annoying. Would it have killed them to up the capacity of transports by one? I understand that they don't want to give them bikes or wings, but then there really needs to be an easy way to fit them in the transports.
Well just use a Transport slot that isn't being used? Not every single unit is gonna be in a Transport like Mandrakes for example. That's when you load up those HQ people and their retinue in a Venom or Raider, right?
Only problem is if theyre in their own transport, they have a 1/6 chance of getting insta-gibbed when your opponent inevitably decides to focus the one with the commander in it.
Luckily, a lhamean is currently something stupid like 10pts after chapter approved, so I usually will put one court member in each HQ venom, but it feels like such an awkward roundabout way of doing things when A) this is supposed to be THE mobility army and literally everyone else gets fast HQ options (fething Necrons, "the slow faction" has THREE HQ mobility options...) and B) it costs a ton of both points and money/painting to do up all the extra transports I have to have.
The alternative is the incredibly lore-friendly "HQs jogging alongside the transports". i've used the Crossfit Succubus with 10" move drugs more than once, lol.
Well just use a Transport slot that isn't being used? Not every single unit is gonna be in a Transport like Mandrakes for example. That's when you load up those HQ people and their retinue in a Venom or Raider, right?
AFAIK, a minimum unit size of all units is five, so you can't put HQ with any unit in a Venom, unless you burn a detachment and a command point for an understrength unit. You can fit them in a Raider, but then then the unit that goes with them loses the extra weapons unlocked by being ten elf strong (many Dark Eldar units work like that.)
As do many other units in the game.
which is why almost every transport in the game comes with an extra slot or two for sticking commanders in. You know, not many of them, but
Liquifier, then they're off their rockers.
