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.

JOHIRA wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:Is there any ideas on what the Slaughterer is? (ie: armaments, how it differs from the Ravager)

Maybe an anti-light-infantry version?

That's what I think, given the name.

JOHIRA wrote:Question about grotesques- I never played DEldar but a good friend of mine did back in 3rd edition. He didn't seem to like the grotesques because they were too slow in his opinion. Is that the general opinion these days? Could grotesques be something that would not be missed if they didn't make the new version?

In the "cons" side, they are slow because they need to be leaded by an independant character to be able to aquire a Raider, end the character must be with them to make them able to use the vehicle. They also have a "Stupidity" rule, don't know the name in English. Also can be expensive.

In the "pros" side, they have special rules for toughness (a FNP rule, not the same USR that we can see in the rulebook), and special rules for the combar resolution.

I like having Grotesques in the army (fluff-wise). Not because they are great, they aren't. But I've always seen the DE like a 3-sided factions. Tha Kabals, the Wych cults, and the Haemonculi and their experiments (Talos and Grotesques). I think it makes DE "tastier", being an army with very few fluff to add some flavour to them. So I would like definitely to have them in the army, with better rules (or point value).

Grotesques work great with Wyches on a NON-Fearless unit. Rack up the wounds, and then make them auto-fail their LD test. And this even works on Marneus Calgar's special rule. As the choice is taken away from you by the Grotesque special rule =D

Hopefully they will get some kind of cool change to the rules, but most likely they will just make them fearless, give them USR FnP, and then some special rule akin to the one they already have.

Oshova

Post edited to remove unneeded slur on people, don't do that on dakka.

Oshova wrote:As the choice is taken away from you by the Grotesque special rule =D

Taken away you say? Just like that rule will be, come the new Codex. Don't expect some change. Expect everything to change.

I'm hoping for the better.


Well noted

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Oshova wrote:As the choice is taken away from you by the Grotesque special rule =D

Taken away you say? Just like that rule will be, come the new Codex. Don't expect some change. Expect everything to change.

I'm hoping for the better.


Well noted

HBMC is right.

Apart from the names of units and wargear, pretty much every special rule and item stat has changed.

Just like Arby's Guard Codex.

How do you think the really funky DE weapons/rules going to be handled anyhow? More in line with USR or once again their own flavor?

H.B.M.C. wrote:Just like Arby's Guard Codex.

Bingo.

HBMC has pointed out many times before that GW is loathe to fine tune a list, make crappy units (or items) better and tone down the OTT ones.

Rather they seem hell bent of re-inventing the wheel for each codex and making a whole pile of new units lame, and others super +1 awesome for no particular reason other than they can.

The army as a whole often ends up fighing in a similar way, but with vastly different lists.

This army will still be High initiative, low toughness and fast, fast fast, fast with light vehicles.
But as this is almost a complete overhaul from scratch expect almost everything else to change.

Is that good or bad news?

I'd say good given the codex model W_G just described. As long as existing and potential DE players get the general playstyle that they expect, the rest will work itself out.

Manchu wrote:I'd say good given the codex model W_G just described. As long as existing and potential DE players get the general playstyle that they expect, the rest will work itself out.

Just like Nid players did?




















I jest. I like the new Nids.

Are Harlequins making it into the new codex?

Yeah, Harlequins are supposed to be in.

I don't mind it if the Dark Eldar 'dex is fully fleshed out (like Guard) I just hope that they don't go OTT (like IG), but maybe Phil Kelly can do it justice...

puma713 wrote:I jest. I like the new Nids.

See, it all works out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Just Dave wrote:Yeah, Harlequins are supposed to be in.

I don't care how awesome their rules are, they're too hard to paint.

Just Dave wrote:I just hope that they don't go OTT (like IG), but maybe Phil Kelly can do it justice...

Phil Kelly wrong the Wolves Codex.

The Wolves Codex has Jaws.

Figure out the rest yourself.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:HBMC has pointed out many times before that GW is loathe to fine tune a list, make crappy units (or items) better and tone down the OTT ones.

Rather they seem hell bent of re-inventing the wheel for each codex and making a whole pile of new units lame, and others super +1 awesome for no particular reason other than they can.

Which isn't a terrible method of game design if you aim is to keep the game fresh... I just wish they'd tone it down a little. I've said on numerous occasions how I really like the 5th Ed Marine Codex (about the only 5th-Ed related thing I actually like - Orks don't count, they were end of 4th), but I like it in spite of itself. I like it because it is such a celebration of pendulum game design (one need only look at Terminators vs Assault Terminators in 4th and 5th to see that sudden sweeping change), not because it is a clear revision of a previously flawed Codex. I like it because it is so blatant (ret-conning new units into the fluff, tons of special characters), and lacks any attempt at subtlety. The Marine Codex is a parody, essentially, of everything GW stands for when it writes a Codex, and I love it because of that.

Conversely, Arby's Guard Codex did much the same thing, but came out soooooooooooooo dull. I found that book so tediously boring and so uninspiring that, well, the Valks I bought when it came out remain in their shrink wrap even today. It just killed my interest in Guard.

I hope the DE Codex is more like the Marine one than the Guard one.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Phil Kelly wrong the Wolves Codex.

The Wolves Codex has Jaws.

Figure out the rest yourself.

Yeah, but he also wrote the Ork Codex and the Eldar Codex and those two seem to be weathering 5th edition better than some of the 5th ed codexes (Nids). I personally can forgive JAWS seeing how like his previous codexes you can still run multiple armies from one book.

On-Topic: I would be more excited to buy DE if I knew more of what's actually coming out. Rumors are fine and all, but I'd kill for something more concrete like what video games do when they have a release, or maybe even Magic the Gathering.

UsdiThunder wrote:On-Topic: I would be more excited to buy DE if I knew more of what's actually coming out. Rumors are fine and all, but I'd kill for something more concrete . . .

Let's cross our fingers that in nine more days, we'll have a mess of pics. And then Whitedragon can change his avatar!

Here's an interesting thought. If Harlequins are in the DE Codex and are upgraded to 5th ed standards how does that work with the Eldar Codex version. They are supposed to be the same unit just in different books.

It works exactly like the Codex says it is. The Dark Eldar get the awesome harlies, and normal Eldar keep using what they have.

Just like any of the 50+ different Space Marine books. Whats in their codex?

If Harlequins are in the DE Codex and are upgraded to 5th ed standards how does that work with the Eldar Codex version. They are supposed to be the same unit just in different books.

Similar or identical units or wargear having different rules in different books would be nothing new. Example: Dark Angel Terminators with Stormshields, Codex Space Marine Terminators with Stormshields.

Manchu wrote:

Just Dave wrote:Yeah, Harlequins are supposed to be in.

I don't care how awesome their rules are, they're too hard to paint.

Truer words were never spoken!

BrassScorpion wrote:Similar or identical units or wargear having different rules in different books would be nothing new.

Doesn't mean we should be happy about it.

What kinds of new characters are expected? I'm guessing no psyker . . .

I hope Kruellagh gets better rules. I really love her model. The Emasculators title, however, gives me the shivers.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

BrassScorpion wrote:Similar or identical units or wargear having different rules in different books would be nothing new.

Doesn't mean we should be happy about it.

More true words!

We should absolutely NOT have to put up with that kind of shoddy rules writing and/or editing.

That, or GW should officially errata the stuff.

Manchu wrote:What kinds of new characters are expected? I'm guessing no psyker . . .

I hope Kruellagh gets better rules. I really love her model. The Emasculators title, however, gives me the shivers.

Is there a reason behind that, btw? My brother and I were discussing what might be in the new codex and we were dicussing psykers. Is there a backstory as to why there are no dark farseers or locks?

Likening it to the prophecy that a male sorceror would destroy Malekith, so no male sorcerors are allowed, is there a story behind the lack of psykers for DE?

Back on topic - if they don't get psykers, we were thinking that they may have some nice psychic defense or psychic-muting abilities/wargear. But I guess we'll have to see.

Manchu wrote:

UsdiThunder wrote:On-Topic: I would be more excited to buy DE if I knew more of what's actually coming out. Rumors are fine and all, but I'd kill for something more concrete . . .

Let's cross our fingers that in nine more days, we'll have a mess of pics. And then Whitedragon can change his avatar!

I hope so, but somehow I don't think we're going to get "the big reveal" at GDUK, just a limited reveal. That GW announcement didn't really promise a lot, and I tend to think the big reveal will be saved for when the minis go up on preorder like usual. That makes much more business sense IMO...you want to give customers that outlet to buy, buy, buy when that big wave of excitement hits. Note that I'm not saying GW shouldn't do a more structured "drip" campaign leading up to the preorder. They should.

Manchu wrote:What kinds of new characters are expected? I'm guessing no psyker . . .

I hope Kruellagh gets better rules. I really love her model. The Emasculators title, however, gives me the shivers.

Probably more anti-psyker stuff than anything.

And by many rumor accounts (so there's still hope), Kruellagh is getting axed out of the codex entirely. Sorry.

gorgon wrote:I hope so, but somehow I don't think we're going to get "the big reveal" at GDUK, just a limited reveal.

Maybe they learnt something from the whole 'mystery box' debacle from last year and have decided that stringing your customer base along with the promise of an announcement (only to give them nothing and deliver it via E-mail the day after the event) is a bad idea, and that they will, for once, use their annual trade show to show off new minis.

I was personally hoping for dark avatar and some sort of farseer like psycher, I always thought the avatar was almost more fitting in the dark eldar dex considering a blood sacrifice of a youg prince is required and I never thought it seemed very appropriate for the good elves, haha. Maybe I will convert my own ans use him as a stand in for the Talos....

Red Corsair wrote:I was personally hoping for dark avatar and some sort of farseer like psycher, I always thought the avatar was almost more fitting in the dark eldar dex considering a blood sacrifice of a youg prince is required and I never thought it seemed very appropriate for the good elves, haha. Maybe I will convert my own ans use him as a stand in for the Talos....

The Eldar are not 'good', per se.

del'Vhar wrote:Question about grotesques- I never played DEldar but a good friend of mine did back in 3rd edition. He didn't seem to like the grotesques because they were too slow in his opinion. Is that the general opinion these days? Could grotesques be something that would not be missed if they didn't make the new version?

It's not that grotesques are necessary, its just a matter of DE having a lot less options than newer dexes, i really can't imagine GW would live them just with what they have now.
A new codex would need new models to sell, after all.