Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 vipoid wrote:
What benefits?

Dark Eldar detachment could have the most OP enhancements in the game. Unlikely, sure, but it is an unknown at this point. As with every rule we have seen so far, without the whole picture you can't be 100% sure how things are going to end up.

I'm not saying it won't be bad btw, just we don't know yet.

Yea I can see that being one of the first rules they break to add double enhancements back.

And then I read statements from the article like this:

"The Venom’s light carrying capacity often made it difficult to squeeze an entire squad onto its deck. In the new edition, you won’t have to – you can split your Kabalites or Wyches into two units, boarding one on the Venom while the other makes its own way.."
Wtf are they even talking about? The capacity is perfect. Unit sizes were fine. The issue was relevance, and then cost, and to lesser extent durability. These guys are out of touch with their own game.

dominuschao wrote:
Yea I can see that being one of the first rules they break to add double enhancements back.

And then I read statements from the article like this:

"The Venom’s light carrying capacity often made it difficult to squeeze an entire squad onto its deck. In the new edition, you won’t have to – you can split your Kabalites or Wyches into two units, boarding one on the Venom while the other makes its own way.."
Wtf are they even talking about? The capacity is perfect. Unit sizes were fine. The issue was relevance, and then cost, and to lesser extent durability. These guys are out of touch with their own game.

Perhaps it's alluding to Warriors and Wyches now having minimum unit sizes of 10?

That is what I was thinking too.. with a venom being an "unlock" for combat squads.

You want 5 man squads? Then you my friend need a venom.

Edit- Yea advance + charge is gone. In its place wych cult units will have access to a stratagem for that.

It might be a minimum unit size thing.

It also allows you to park a dark lance or splinter cannon somewhere and not burden the rest of the unit with the heavy/assault mismatch.

That is true. So a squad could potentially include 2 blasters 1 dark lance inside a venom.
Seems okay.
To me we have this option with full squads in raiders and they saw use primarily as trueborn for very specific purpose but when that need was over they aren't taken. Much of that is cost though.

In 10th I could enjoy a pseudo old version trueborn build that would be real nice in theory. Assuming blasters are worth it. Wounding basic transports on 5s isn't a lot of incentive though and the splinter cannons are looking even less relevant then in 9th.

Wow so very underwhelming

Member when the Dark Lance was an actual anti-tank weapon to be feared and not just a Lascanon ......I do. Now it loses 12" range and adds.....+1 damage....what a load of bullgak

 Mr Morden wrote:
Wow so very underwhelming

Member when the Dark Lance was an actual anti-tank weapon to be feared and not just a Lascanon ......I do. Now it loses 12" range and adds.....+1 damage....what a load of bullgak

Ironically, from their first 3rd edition codex onwards, a major complaint was that the Dark Lance was no longer 'just a lascannon'...

For anyone who wants a summary approach to the article..


Drukhari spoiler summary

No need for specific restrictions like no wych hero in kabalite squads when units allowed are in hero datasheet.

If marines can't put reqular captain in gravis squad etc can't expect xenos to have more freedom.

tneva82 wrote:
No need for specific restrictions like no wych hero in kabalite squads when units allowed are in hero datasheet.

If marines can't put reqular captain in gravis squad etc can't expect xenos to have more freedom.

Different saves and T values are super hard to figure out though!

Between Chapter Approved and White Dwarf I don't think it will be long before we see alternative Detachments for the non codex armies.

Hmm. The drukhari preview doesn't seem terrible, but the main feeling it leaves me with is *nervousness*?

Splinters wounding on a 3+ isn't actually huge against marines, but it probably lets us clear out light infantry without having to commit to melee. So that's nice. Much discussion about how to represent poison has been had in the past. This is an okay approach.

Damage Dd3 on the blast pistol is a little heart-breaking, but okay. Reduced lethality. Will probably just field more splinter pistols/rifles and fewer blast pistols. Blasters only being S8, based on what we've seen so far, seems like they'll struggle to reliably wound tougher enemy vehicles. Which is the thing they (as baby lance weapons) are kind of supposed to be good at. Our army is full of poison weapons that may as well not roll against vehicles, so the dark light is supposed to pick up the slack. The dark lance itself seems fine.

"Sybarite weapons" continues the trend of reduced flavorful options and triggers nostalgic flashbacks the customizable characters and squad leaders of yester-year. That said, their profile seems... fine. Probably wouldn't give up a rifle or pay points for it. You definitely aren't supposed to get kabalites into melee, and the days of cheeky sybarites punching above their weight class with blast pistols and melee gear are gone. (Not that that was ever optimized, but it was a fun option in casual games.) I guess I'll use my kitted out sybarites as archons going forward?

On the plus side, the "Sadistic Raiders" rule is a welcome addition and should do a lot to let drukhari feel mobile instead of hunkering down on an objective like a sluggish mon-keigh.

I feel like I should be more excited about this version of Power From Pain. We're back to being rewarded for hurting and killing things, which has been one of my asks for a while. Using it to run faster and get to-hit rerolls makes sense for how the pain-eating is described in lore. Maybe it's just too abstract to hit the same way? FNP 4+ and Furious Charge probably made *less* fluff sense back in 5th edition, but they were really tangible. Or maybe it's just because the pain tokens aren't attached to specific units so they don't feel "invigorated" until you spend the tokens. I'll probably warm up to this.

Venom combat squads aren't inherently bad, but they're also not something I was asking for. The fact that we got them anyway makes me worry that our minimum squad sizes are going up to 10, which would be annoying. Assuming kabalites retain the ability to take 2 specials and a heavy in a 10 man squad, I guess you could have fun divvying up your squads between transports, but sticking all your darklight eggs in a single venom basket seems like a good way to lose a lot of expensive models fast.

The 6+ invuln kind of hurts. In an edition where they're reducing lethality, they took away our main form of defense. Well, I guess they just halved its effectiveness, but a 6+ invuln almost seems worse than no invuln. I wonder how many points GW would shave off the cost if they just took the invuln away entirely? Hopefully Stealth will help balance things out, but I doubt it. Maybe there will be a speed-centric detachment that gives our vehicles better invulns if they move/advance?

Hopping back into transports after you kill stuff is neat. But like, I don't think that venom is going to last long enough to for it to offer much protection to incoming attacks on your opponent's turn. I guess the point is just to get around the "you can't embark/disembark in the same turn" rule so you can zip over to another target on the following turn. Incubi mighit like this?

Haywire remains spicy vehicle poison. Which is fine. Ye olde haywire rules were one of my favorite things in the game (trading the ability to actually kill a vehicle reliably for reliably stunning it instead). The mortal wound versions of haywire lost that magic for me, and this hasn't brought it back. But that's a me problem.

Lelith seems stabby. So that's nice.

Alliance of Agony seems pretty meh. It's a kill-more-betterer strat that sort of implies all three of our generic HQs will remain different flavors of beatstick. Which is a little disappointing if true. Especially if they don't return some customization options to the haemi. I was hoping our HQs would get harlequin/exarch-style special rule options. So let the archon choose between a beatstick rule, a buff-your-raiders rule, and a smart-guy-coordinating-things rule. Let the haemi choose between leaning into healing/buffing his expirements, having his own little collection of hyperlethal poison/arcane gear, and turning himself into a melee monster with various body mods. Let the succubus choose between being a duelist, a speed junkie, and a hunt-leader (support for MSU wyches/beasts).

Overall, there just isn't much in there that makes me excited to play the faction. There *are* a few things in there (the BP changes, combat squad venoms, the venom invulns) that make me wonder/worry about GW's understanding of the faction/what they have planned for them.

Does the stratagem imply that Archons, Succubi and Hameonculi will all be lone-operatives, do you think?

 vipoid wrote:
Does the stratagem imply that Archons, Succubi and Hameonculi will all be lone-operatives, do you think?

That would be a little weird, right? Sticking an archon in a squad of incubi or warriors and a succubus with a squad of wyches, etc. seems pretty intuitive.

 vipoid wrote:
Does the stratagem imply that Archons, Succubi and Hameonculi will all be lone-operatives, do you think?

No. It says the units of the characters.

 vict0988 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Does the stratagem imply that Archons, Succubi and Hameonculi will all be lone-operatives, do you think?

No. It says the units of the characters.

Oh yeah, you're right.

Well there goes that small crumb of hope.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Does the stratagem imply that Archons, Succubi and Hameonculi will all be lone-operatives, do you think?

No. It says the units of the characters.

Oh yeah, you're right.

Well there goes that small crumb of hope.

Why do you want them to be lone operatives?

Blasters s8 yes. So is meltagun.

Reduled lethality means just that. Less damag being done.

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you want them to be lone operatives?

Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you want them to be lone operatives?

Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.

There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.

I really feel like they should have done more to make the index detachments more generic. Drukhari are getting the worst of it for sure with the detachment dictating that you must play all three subfactions but they're far from the only one getting pretty heavy listbuilding mandates.

The previews for SM, CSM, and Tyranids made me believe they did this properly but it's pretty clear they did not think about how the index phase of the game's lifespan will affect listbuilding at all.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I really feel like they should have done more to make the index detachments more generic. Drukhari are getting the worst of it for sure with the detachment dictating that you must play all three subfactions but they're far from the only one getting pretty heavy listbuilding mandates.

The previews for SM, CSM, and Tyranids made me believe they did this properly but it's pretty clear they did not think about how the index phase of the game's lifespan will affect listbuilding at all.

It doesn't dictate that you must do anything, you can take 3 archon, no haemy or succubus, but you just get less benefit.

To address a common misinterpretation RE: triple HQ:

Some people (ie in the summary) are saying you get additional pain tokens for your HQ units. This isn't exactly true.

You get ONE extra pain token for each TYPE of HQ you include. 3 Archons does not net you 3 additional pain tokens, and the wording in the summary posted earlier in the thread seems to imply otherwise.

This also means NOT taking tripple HQ doesn't JUST prevent you from using the strat, it also limits the amount of starting pain tokens you get. Want to field a Kabal army?

Well, not only do you lose the strat, you also get to start with a measly 2 PT, where someone who does go tripple can use the strat and start with 4 PT (which is the maximum starting PT based on what was previewed). Someone who selects 2/3 TYPES of HQ can't use the strat, but they get to start with 3 PT instead of 2.

They thing that no one is saying yet (because most people here prefer to play 2k anyways) is how bad these rules are for smaller game sizes. At 2k, it's easy to bring a Kabal, a Cult and a Coven on the raid. At 1k? Not quite as easy. And sure, 10th killed support for 500 point games (unless it's Combat Patrol or Arks of Omen), but if you were playing at 500 points as say, a starting point for a Crusade, these rules are even worse.

Any index detachment should be as scalable as possible, because it's what we're all stuck with 'til dex time.

These abilities do not scale well.

I didn't particularly like what I saw here, but I do acknowledge that it could have been worse.

Tsagualsa wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you want them to be lone operatives?

Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.

There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.

I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.

They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.

But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
Between Chapter Approved and White Dwarf I don't think it will be long before we see alternative Detachments for the non codex armies.

Nah that will be for various differnt Marine ones like their WD one - Tomekeepers is it? Maybe if another faction gets new models they may tie it in then.

Seems like an incentive to write balanced lists. You get a bonus for taking all 3 leaders. Those leaders probably have some synergies with their own types, so you are incentivised to take some of them too. It seems to be part of a general trend against simply finding the most effective unit and stacking it.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you want them to be lone operatives?

Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.

There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.

I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.

They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.

But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.

Well said Sir! Well Said!

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you want them to be lone operatives?

Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.

There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.

I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.

They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.

But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.

I think it's more of the granular design philosophy they want with the focus on each datasheet. Instead of giving out a buff that's middling because it can be attached to anything, they want stronger buffs that are targeted toward a smaller pool of units. This allows a bit easier balance and allows for stronger abilities since you are only balancing against that subset.

The way to fix this of course would be to have more models to help fill in this gap.

@Mr Morden: I'm flattered! I accept praise in the form of post exaltations.

 Trickstick wrote:
Seems like an incentive to write balanced lists. You get a bonus for taking all 3 leaders. Those leaders probably have some synergies with their own types, so you are incentivised to take some of them too. It seems to be part of a general trend against simply finding the most effective unit and stacking it.

I'm not sure "balanced" is the right word here. No one is complaining about people taking thematic triple succubus lists to represent the canon lore that cults are generally lead by a trio of succubae. I imagine my opponent would thank me for fielding a trio of haemonculi in an all-coven force rather than splashing in a more optimized archon.

Incentivizing us to field one of each HQ type encourages us to build lists with a variety of units, but whether or not that variety is more balanced remains to be seen. And if it *is* more balanced, that kind of implies there's an OP kabal, cult, or coven unit that they probably should have balanced directly rather than trying to get people to buy less of them by investing in wracks or whatever. What this *does* do is discourage people from playing monofaction lists. Ex: If I want to run my Poison Tongue kabal and their mercenary allies (incubi, scourges, mandrakes) without inviting any succubae or haemis along, I'm at a 2 pain token penalty compared to the guy who happened to want to bring those units anyway.

It doesn't seem like a big deal to me, but it's fair that not everyone wants to run an archon, haemonculus, succubus, warrior, wych, and wrack unit at the center of every army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sasori wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why do you want them to be lone operatives?

Because I don't consider 'Here is your 1 HQ. Here is the 1 unit it is permitted to join.' to be remotely fun.

There's only so much you can do with an army that is as old as Dark Eldar - they stem from a vastly different design philosophy, don't have that many units, and fewer yet that are currently available to purchase, and suffer further from basically being three subfactions that - due to their old desing philosophy - were not really meant to intermix on the unit level. It's just a shambles, and probably will remain so until they get a substantial relaunch and redesign.

I don't feel like that's a fair take. The various factions mixed and matched all the time back in the day. Fifth edition wyches loved having a haemonculus attached to give them a pain token so they could tarpit their first target better. Before they took away our bike options, archites could absolutely hang out with reavers and bike haemis. The Baron (an archon on the run) was frequently found hanging with hellions, and wyches loved the extra drugs the Duke brought to the party.

They got the "three subfactions" thing about right in 5th edition when they gave kabals/cults/covens a two generic HQs and a troop unit each. Since then, emphasizing the differences between those subfactions has had really mixed results. The 7th edition covens splat was pretty neat, but the 9th edition codex had to bend over backwards to let you use all the units in your book together without penalizing you for it. The wonkiness of the subfactions wasn't a problem back in the day; it's the way they leaned into it in editions where allies were more forgiving and haven't really pulled back on that since allies became punishing again that's the issue.

But really, it shouldn't be a big deal to let archons hang out with grotesques or wyches if they want to. And we're really, really overdue to be given our bikes/boards/wings.

I think it's more of the granular design philosophy they want with the focus on each datasheet. Instead of giving out a buff that's middling because it can be attached to anything, they want stronger buffs that are targeted toward a smaller pool of units. This allows a bit easier balance and allows for stronger abilities since you are only balancing against that subset.

The way to fix this of course would be to have more models to help fill in this gap.

That's fair. Or, if you let the characters choose from a list of options like I pitched above, you could just tie the squad buff options to certain keywords, unit types, etc. So if you want to give the haemonculus the option to be a support character who buffs the characteristics of his squad but only want him to do that with wracks and grots rather than, say, incubi, you just include that limitation in the wording for his hypothetical squad-buffing rule.