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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
No I thought I understood your point, but wasn't 100% clear so I thought I'd inquire to be sure rather then assume. At which point you were rude. Implied I couldn't keep up, then told me not to get involved despite the fact your literally using a forum for discussion when the PM button is appropriate if you just wanted to discuss it with one user only.

Sorry, anecdotal is the wrong term. But the fact remains you are using one data point to make a conclusion. That link also only presents 4 lists, no total attendance, number of rounds or format. I have no idea what terrain was like or what the missions were but was interested in discussing that.

Right then, apologies if you didn't understand my point. Still not sure how I could've made it clearer.

Do you doubt that Venoms are one of the strongest and most spammed of all the units in the DE dex? Like do I really need to provide more evidence? This is common knowledge right? If you're still unsure I'd advise that you take a look at the 40k stats site I linked and check out the Dark Eldar lists. Take a look at how many Venoms are taken and see what you think.

It was less a case of me not understanding your point and me hoping there was more discussion with your point since it seemed so obvious. I guess I thought maybe you had something more to say beyond venoms are strong. If your saying they are broken, then I disagree. Again because context matters. There are multiple reasons why venoms are popular beyond them being too good.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Burnage wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:
No I thought I understood your point, but wasn't 100% clear so I thought I'd inquire to be sure rather then assume. At which point you were rude. Implied I couldn't keep up, then told me not to get involved despite the fact your literally using a forum for discussion when the PM button is appropriate if you just wanted to discuss it with one user only.

Sorry, anecdotal is the wrong term. But the fact remains you are using one data point to make a conclusion. That link also only presents 4 lists, no total attendance, number of rounds or format. I have no idea what terrain was like or what the missions were but was interested in discussing that.

Right then, apologies if you didn't understand my point. Still not sure how I could've made it clearer.

Do you doubt that Venoms are one of the strongest and most spammed of all the units in the DE dex? Like do I really need to provide more evidence? This is common knowledge right? If you're still unsure I'd advise that you take a look at the 40k stats site I linked and check out the Dark Eldar lists. Take a look at how many Venoms are taken and see what you think. E - here's the link to the other tournaments and number of players at Iron Halo; https://www.40kstats.com/top-4s

You'd probably be surprised by the number of DEldar players that think Venoms are pretty crap (I disagree with them, for what it's worth).

I don't think they are crap, but I do think the rule set encourages shooting platforms. I think raiders wracks and wyches need improvement rather then venoms needing to be brought down.

Voss wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Funny, how it was deemed necessary for some factions to be locked into the uncustomizable traits with added restrictions whilest other just get to make stuff.

It isn't that. Its just that GW changed the design paradigm in mid-stream. Again.

With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.

Oh, I hope so. If loyalist marines get their chapter tactics on vehicles, Chaos marines better start getting legion traits on theirs. Plus, Thousand Sons better get a second effect out of theirs, since their CERTAINLY doesn't work on vehicles right now.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Voss wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Funny, how it was deemed necessary for some factions to be locked into the uncustomizable traits with added restrictions whilest other just get to make stuff.

It isn't that. Its just that GW changed the design paradigm in mid-stream. Again.

With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.

Oh, I hope so. If loyalist marines get their chapter tactics on vehicles, Chaos marines better start getting legion traits on theirs. Plus, Thousand Sons better get a second effect out of theirs, since their CERTAINLY doesn't work on vehicles right now.

That ship sailed over a month ago. Codex marines do get their tactics on vehicles. Other marines just got the bonus attack for charging/being charged.

So GW are back to "40k is a setting, not a story", like so many of us have been saying since before the return of Roboute at the end of 7th.

That's a good thing IMO. That's the way it should be.

Voss wrote:
With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.

I've always thought 8th Ed could do with more rules.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So GW are back to "40k is a setting, not a story", like so many of us have been saying since before the return of Roboute at the end of 7th.

That's a good thing IMO. That's the way it should be.

Voss wrote:
With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.

I've always thought 8th Ed could do with more rules.

well GW's been removing customization options from their various units since late 7th edition. at least now we're getting some army customization to make up for it

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So GW are back to "40k is a setting, not a story", like so many of us have been saying since before the return of Roboute at the end of 7th

That's a good thing IMO. That's the way it should be.

What are you referencing? Everything so far seems to be about Drazhar's personal murder quest story, and nothing about the setting at all.

Voss wrote:
With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.

I've always thought 8th Ed could do with more rules.

Certainly seems to be the path they're on. I'd personally go for a nice bout of cutting the special snowflake fat and more USRs.

Voss wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So GW are back to "40k is a setting, not a story", like so many of us have been saying since before the return of Roboute at the end of 7th

That's a good thing IMO. That's the way it should be.

What are you referencing? Everything so far seems to be about Drazhar's personal murder quest story, and nothing about the setting at all.

Voss wrote:
With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.

I've always thought 8th Ed could do with more rules.

Certainly seems to be the path they're on. I'd personally go for a nice bout of cutting the special snowflake fat and more USRs.

If it was about Drazhar's fluff he should be fighting Karandras, instead of randomly fighting banshees.

Voss wrote:
What are you referencing? Everything so far seems to be about Drazhar's personal murder quest story, and nothing about the setting at all.

Wait... was this not posted here? It's a reddit summary of the Awakening preview. Specifically the last point is what I'm referring to:

-The way GW handles AoS and 40K storytelling differently. AoS is an episodic setting that has its lore expanded and progressed with each release. AoS follows a linear storyline. 40K storytelling revolves around creating a big backdrop and then sprinkling it with stories and also give the fans the option of using the backdrop to tell their own stories. What they did in 8th ED is just repainting the backdrop. Though there are ongoing narrative arcs, GW is not interested in telling a linear ongoing story in 40K.

Voss wrote:
Certainly seems to be the path they're on. I'd personally go for a nice bout of cutting the special snowflake fat and more USRs.

USRs? Then we wouldn't have our precious "bespoke" rules!

 Kirasu wrote:

If it was about Drazhar's fluff he should be fighting Karandras, instead of randomly fighting banshees.

I didn't say it was about his fluff. I said its about his murder quest, that's the story being presented:

Warhammer Community wrote: Blood of the Phoenix also includes a 40-page campaign book with everything you need to get started. It tells of Drazhar’s hateful quest to slay a Phoenix Lord in combat to cement his place among the Drukhari as a warrior of unrivalled skill forever

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/10/07/blood-of-the-phoenix-unboxinggw-homepage-post-1/

Drazhar wants to kill a phoenix lord, to prove he's got the biggest sword in the shrine. There aren't really any setting elements involved.

The only other element we've seen is story time about Eldar having dreams about becoming Ynnari and dying. Or just dying.


------
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
What are you referencing? Everything so far seems to be about Drazhar's personal murder quest story, and nothing about the setting at all.

Wait... was this not posted here? It's a reddit summary of the Awakening preview. Specifically the last point is what I'm referring to:

-The way GW handles AoS and 40K storytelling differently. AoS is an episodic setting that has its lore expanded and progressed with each release. AoS follows a linear storyline. 40K storytelling revolves around creating a big backdrop and then sprinkling it with stories and also give the fans the option of using the backdrop to tell their own stories. What they did in 8th ED is just repainting the backdrop. Though there are ongoing narrative arcs, GW is not interested in telling a linear ongoing story in 40K.

Words, words.
Proof and pudding come to mind. But lack of a coherent narrative (which is how I translate 'not interesting in telling a linear ongoing story'), doesn't mean its going to be setting over story.

Voss wrote:
Certainly seems to be the path they're on. I'd personally go for a nice bout of cutting the special snowflake fat and more USRs.

USRs? Then we wouldn't have our precious "bespoke" rules!

They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

In particular, I don't think it means 'reroll 1s' or +1/-1 to hit.

Voss wrote:

 Kirasu wrote:

If it was about Drazhar's fluff he should be fighting Karandras, instead of randomly fighting banshees.

I didn't say it was about his fluff. I said its about his murder quest, that's the story being presented:

Warhammer Community wrote: Blood of the Phoenix also includes a 40-page campaign book with everything you need to get started. It tells of Drazhar’s hateful quest to slay a Phoenix Lord in combat to cement his place among the Drukhari as a warrior of unrivalled skill forever

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/10/07/blood-of-the-phoenix-unboxinggw-homepage-post-1/

Drazhar wants to kill a phoenix lord, to prove he's got the biggest sword in the shrine. There aren't really any setting elements involved.

The only other element we've seen is story time about Eldar having dreams about becoming Ynnari and dying. Or just dying.


------
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Voss wrote:
What are you referencing? Everything so far seems to be about Drazhar's personal murder quest story, and nothing about the setting at all.

Wait... was this not posted here? It's a reddit summary of the Awakening preview. Specifically the last point is what I'm referring to:

-The way GW handles AoS and 40K storytelling differently. AoS is an episodic setting that has its lore expanded and progressed with each release. AoS follows a linear storyline. 40K storytelling revolves around creating a big backdrop and then sprinkling it with stories and also give the fans the option of using the backdrop to tell their own stories. What they did in 8th ED is just repainting the backdrop. Though there are ongoing narrative arcs, GW is not interested in telling a linear ongoing story in 40K.

Words, words.
Proof and pudding come to mind. But lack of a coherent narrative (which is how I translate 'not interesting in telling a linear ongoing story'), doesn't mean its going to be setting over story.

Voss wrote:
Certainly seems to be the path they're on. I'd personally go for a nice bout of cutting the special snowflake fat and more USRs.

USRs? Then we wouldn't have our precious "bespoke" rules!

They keep using that word. I do not think it means what they think it means.

In particular, I don't think it means 'reroll 1s' or +1/-1 to hit.

Hey that’s a little unfair don’t forget the exploding 6s there bespoke too

USRs are awful because they mean that the codex doesn't contain all information within.

I remember when I first got into the hobby I had my 2nd Ed Eldar Codex and the majority of rules in there for my units were referenced in another book that I didn't own. It was frustrating and bogus. Dropping them was a great idea because it means the rulebook is actually just the rulebook (rather than the codex USR reference book) and codexes are just that.

I could think of nothing worse than returning to USRs.

Plus we already have a few that are required - Flyers all have the same rules for example.

Lack of USR results in same rule working differently. Especially with GW. Remember how dark angels had weaker stormshield just because? Or how their smoke launchers worked totally differently to other smoke launchers?

Lack of USR leads to total mess. Just like 8th ed in fact!

Given the popularity and relative balance of this edition compared to every other, and given that this edition is the first to do away with USRs I am inclined to disagree.

Rules can be fixed. USRs that confuse and frustrate new players cannot.

Voss wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Funny, how it was deemed necessary for some factions to be locked into the uncustomizable traits with added restrictions whilest other just get to make stuff.

It isn't that. Its just that GW changed the design paradigm in mid-stream. Again.

With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did. Expect future 8.5 codexes (or as is more likely the case for other factions, their Psychic Awakening books) to hand out random blobs of customization like this eldar stuff.

Yay, no thanks. Chaos won't get anything like that soon and the specification for the renegades to be mark bound make it clear that nothing is going to happen.

This isn’t Proposed Rules forum, guys. We don’t have USRs. No point discussing them in N&R as GW haven’t shown any indication of their return, and that would require a rewrite of every book anyway. Not happening any time soon.

Voss wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Funny, how it was deemed necessary for some factions to be locked into the uncustomizable traits with added restrictions whilest other just get to make stuff.

It isn't that. Its just that GW changed the design paradigm in mid-stream. Again.

With SM as the harbinger of 8.5, expect more customization options everywhere. Just like how marines 8.0 didn't get <chapter> traits on vehicles, but later codexes did.

There are more recent Codexes like GSC that don't get tactics on vehicles either. There's no paradigm change there. Just a book-by-book thing GW does or doesn't do for unknown reasons.

They even retroactively further restricted the Chaos Marines this last time out. Not enough to be restricted to infantry/bikes/dreads. Let's remove it from the already multiple nerfed Cultists.

I have to be honest - as a DE player I'm still waiting for even a single rule that makes me the slightest bit interested in purchasing this book.

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest - as a DE player I'm still waiting for even a single rule that makes me the slightest bit interested in purchasing this book.

Don't you mean a single new HQ that actually is generic?
Edit: With mobility options?

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest - as a DE player I'm still waiting for even a single rule that makes me the slightest bit interested in purchasing this book.

design your own cabal rules aren't intreasting?

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest - as a DE player I'm still waiting for even a single rule that makes me the slightest bit interested in purchasing this book.

design your own cabal rules aren't intreasting?

not if you can't customize the leader of the cabal

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest - as a DE player I'm still waiting for even a single rule that makes me the slightest bit interested in purchasing this book.

Don't you mean a single new HQ that actually is generic?
Edit: With mobility options?

That would certainly be the dream. In fact, if one was revealed I might even break my rule of never preordering anything ever.

However, I'd happily settle for something to just make the exiting generic HQs more interesting.

Or, hell, Ynnari rules that are actually worth a damn, so that I at least have an alternate way to play them that isn't utter garbage and doesn't require the forced inclusion of special characters.

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest - as a DE player I'm still waiting for even a single rule that makes me the slightest bit interested in purchasing this book.

design your own cabal rules aren't intreasting?

Not to me, no. Even less so after seeing how dreary the options for such are.


EDIT:

Not Online!!! wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have to be honest - as a DE player I'm still waiting for even a single rule that makes me the slightest bit interested in purchasing this book.

design your own cabal rules aren't intreasting?

not if you can't customize the leader of the cabal

You know me too well.

No, i can just extrapulate how you feel, out of the perspective of someone that has a list even more cut to ribbons by GW.

Traits are worth jack if the army itself is not complete enough in roster thanks to cuts.

Not Online!!! wrote:
No, i can just extrapulate how you feel, out of the perspective of someone that has a list even more cut to ribbons by GW.

Traits are worth jack if the army itself is not complete enough in roster thanks to cuts.

Pretty much.

The thing is, DE already has a pretty good selection of army traits. Maybe a couple could do with a slight leg-up but I think they're already one of the better aspects of the codex. Hence, adding a bunch more really isn't going to fix anything.

Know what I would have loved to see? Something like the new Exach powers for each of the DE HQs. Boom. We'd still only have 3 generic HQs, but at least you'd have a lot more options for customisation and/or better focusing them towards a particular role.

 vipoid wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
No, i can just extrapulate how you feel, out of the perspective of someone that has a list even more cut to ribbons by GW.

Traits are worth jack if the army itself is not complete enough in roster thanks to cuts.

Pretty much.

The thing is, DE already has a pretty good selection of army traits. Maybe a couple could do with a slight leg-up but I think they're already one of the better aspects of the codex. Hence, adding a bunch more really isn't going to fix anything.

Know what I would have loved to see? Something like the new Exach powers for each of the DE HQs. Boom. We'd still only have 3 generic HQs, but at least you'd have a lot more options for customisation and/or better focusing them towards a particular role.

It's mostly an issue for armies that are supposedly determined by their individualistic HQ in their behaviour imo.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
No, i can just extrapulate how you feel, out of the perspective of someone that has a list even more cut to ribbons by GW.

Traits are worth jack if the army itself is not complete enough in roster thanks to cuts.

Pretty much.

The thing is, DE already has a pretty good selection of army traits. Maybe a couple could do with a slight leg-up but I think they're already one of the better aspects of the codex. Hence, adding a bunch more really isn't going to fix anything.

Know what I would have loved to see? Something like the new Exach powers for each of the DE HQs. Boom. We'd still only have 3 generic HQs, but at least you'd have a lot more options for customisation and/or better focusing them towards a particular role.

It's mostly an issue for armies that are supposedly determined by their individualistic HQ in their behaviour imo.

I've said it before and I'll say it a million times, that what 40k really needs is for EVERY army to have a box like the Space Marine Commander box. And IMHO the next time GW puts out one of their survey's we should press for it.

Problem is, while diversity is nice, the Eldar stuff is functionally still a side-grade, not an upgrade to the Space Marines 8.5 power-level.

Iron Hands and Ulthwe were both a 6+++.

GW: Hey Iron Hands players, would you like to add 5+ overwatch, less degrading on vehicles, -1 AP to weapons, +1 attack on all units, move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty, free re-roll 1s on heavy weapons, extra wounds on more units, point drops, ridiculous new WL traits, strats, relics and more to go with that 6+++ ?

GW: Hey Ulthwe players, would you like to trade your 6+++ for a -1 AP to Shuriken under 12" (but not on the rending, and you'll lose Eldrad and the Ulthwe strat/relic/WL trait)?

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Problem is, while diversity is nice, the Eldar stuff is functionally still a side-grade, not an upgrade to the Space Marines 8.5 power-level.

Iron Hands and Ulthwe were both a 6+++.

GW: Hey Iron Hands players, would you like to add 5+ overwatch, less degrading on vehicles, -1 AP to weapons, +1 attack on all units, move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty, free re-roll 1s on heavy weapons, extra wounds on more units, point drops, ridiculous new WL traits, strats, relics and more to go with that 6+++ ?

GW: Hey Ulthwe players, would you like to trade your 6+++ for a -1 AP to Shuriken under 12" (but not on the rending, and you'll lose Eldrad and the Ulthwe strat/relic/WL trait)?

assuming Eldar don't get the ability to take two traits like marines do.

good point on drukhari tactic thread. That 6 to wound on poison weapon=dam2 is going to be fun rolling vs multi wound models. Forget dice rolling. Roll to hit, start rolling to wound and saves one by one. Whee.

From Kikasstout, the french rumor monger.

About Chaos Space Marines :

For those who are wondering, I red somewhere there will no modification to Chaos Traits in Psychic Awakening Volume 2. Only things planned are Warlord Traits, Stratagems and Relics for each legion (except BL, DG, TS and renegade chapters like Flawless Host).