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.

 warmaster21 wrote:

Though in 5th edition you could just stick her in a squad of allied axeblades and enjoy being majority T5, wraithblades to kill anything lilith would bounce on and lilith would prevent them from getting tarpitted. and she ignored all armor.. and had a Bs9 plasma grenade that almost never scattered. and against most trash ws3 or 4 she had like 10 attacks due to getting +5-6 extra attacks from league apart. (i do miss some of the wacky de/eldar things you could do with battle brother allies)

*Nasally nerd voice*
Um, akshoowally, neither wraith blades nor ally rules were a thing in 5th, and she couldn't throw grenades at the time either. And wraith guard weren't T5 until index 40k in 8th edition (though they went back to T6 once we got our current codex).

Sorry. Pedantic nerdery. I, too, miss some of the flavorful rules drukhari used to have. The 5th edition dark eldar codex is probably my favorite 40k purchase.

EDIT: Also, man do I miss the old 3rd edition combat drug dispensers. You could basically pump up to 6 drugs into your characters and squad leaders, but the more drugs you used the more likely you were to overdose and hurt/kill yourself. I always loved that piece of wargear. I felt it really captured the sex, drugs (literally), and rock & roll thing the spiky elves had going on.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You guys are sort of assuming the website's updated on the basis of the new codex, and not some content writer being told "here's the existing codexes, make up something cool for each faction's chapter variant".

"Uh, do we have a Dark Creed wrack or something?"
"Hahaha. Of course not."

Whats a dark creed? Does it have something to do with Space marines?

"Dark Creed sounds like he would make a great Primaris Lieutenant.."

*Bossman looks over at George*
"Thats briliant.. Make it happen Goerge, I want the design on my desk by monday"
"Ohh and Goerge..."

"yes sir?"

"You can just change the arm of the previous one to an axe instead of a sword. You deserve an early finish"

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Where did they promise that

It was during one of the Sunday preview/discussion videos, IIRC.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
and why would PfP go away?

I don't want it to go away. I just don't want it to be this sad Table of Dreariness.

It's basically the same lazy, boring dollop of faecal matter that was first smeared on the codex back in 7th edition, and the passage of time has not improved its odour.

Well one of your basic troopers gained an extra attack and a flicking 4+ when they've been 6+ for a majority of the game's existence, and that's just not knowing what else hasn't been previewed.

If that's not a rework just because Lelith doesn't do D2 and you're butthurt I really don't know what to tell ya.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Tyel wrote:
You guys are sort of assuming the website's updated on the basis of the new codex, and not some content writer being told "here's the existing codexes, make up something cool for each faction's chapter variant".

"Uh, do we have a Dark Creed wrack or something?"
"Hahaha. Of course not."

Whats a dark creed? Does it have something to do with Space marines?

Its a dark creed, the model is in the dark, it doesn't matter nobodys going to play it anyway just put a silhouette in there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Call me crazy but I think *just maybe* with the vector calculus that marine players have to do to determine whether they're in spectronometer doctrine or fenestration mode on turn 4 and which half-dozen army-wide rules that grants, we have reached the level of complexity in the game where we could support Power from Pain being an ability where a unit gains Power from causing Pain again.

You know.

With tokens you gain when you hurt enemy units.

the_scotsman wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Call me crazy but I think *just maybe* with the vector calculus that marine players have to do to determine whether they're in spectronometer doctrine or fenestration mode on turn 4 and which half-dozen army-wide rules that grants, we have reached the level of complexity in the game where we could support Power from Pain being an ability where a unit gains Power from causing Pain again.

You know.

With tokens you gain when you hurt enemy units.

I'd love a change to PfP. Charging up our "pain batteries" never really felt quite right. Plus, it's basically 5 special rules, half of which don't really do anything (especially if you're not a melee unit). That's just kind of clunky. The 5th edition system was flawed, but way more viscerally satisfying. And as half of that system's problems stemmed from the complication of having characters join and leave units, it might actually work better now than it did back in the day. You'd still (ideally) want to fix the problem of having all your hard-earned pain tokens vanish when the unit holding them gets killed though; most drukhari units are very easy to remove.

I pitched an idea in the Proposed Rules forum not too long ago where pain tokens got attached to units that took casualties. So enemy units basically started projecting buff auras for your army. And enemy units at half strength gave better buffs. I felt that it gave drukhari some incentive to play with their food rather than wiping out entire units, and it gave a similar feeling to the 5th edition pain token system without having the pain suddenly "dry up" when the unit with the tokens died.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well one of your basic troopers gained an extra attack and a flicking 4+ when they've been 6+ for a majority of the game's existence, and that's just not knowing what else hasn't been previewed.

To be fair, we are talking about Kabalites (shooty infantry normally deployed in open-topped transports) gaining one S3 AP0 D1 attack, and going from a 5+ save to a 4+. It's not literally nothing, but not really something to set the pulse racing.

Sort of feel pain tokens were a win more mechanic. Its not I guess impossible to write around that, but I can't say the 7th/8th table upset me much.

Really would prefer to keep as is and get a new interactive thing on top. "Pain synonym doctrines" etc.

Tyel wrote:
Sort of feel pain tokens were a win more mechanic. Its not I guess impossible to write around that, but I can't say the 7th/8th table upset me much.

Really would prefer to keep as is and get a new interactive thing on top. "Pain synonym doctrines" etc.

Ugh. I know we will, but don't remind me of how bad the bloat is.

I guess it could be viewed as a win more mechanic, and it was tied to destroying units which is obviously stupid, you could be facing knights or custodes. but I did like the idea that a damaged unit could be deadlier than a fresh one if they were all covered in enemies blood and crazy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Well one of your basic troopers gained an extra attack and a flicking 4+ when they've been 6+ for a majority of the game's existence

Kabalites have been 5+ for most of the game's existence, not 6+.

Also, I'm not sure what you think these changes even prove. Ignoring for now that an extra S3 AP0 D1 attack on a model that doesn't want to be anywhere near melee in the first place is about as useful as a porthole on a whale, these changes aren't remotely interesting.

Indeed, if you'd bothered to read my post (which you clearly didn't, as evidenced by your next sentence), my main complaint wasn't that the PfP table was weak but that it was boring. There's nothing exciting about the bonuses it offers, and no involvement whatsoever in how they're obtained.

I don't claim that the 5th edition PfP mechanic was perfect by any means, but it was far more involved and created a sense of units earning their pain tokens.

I'm not asking that the 5th edition system just be ported wholesale back into the 9th edition codex, but is it really too much to ask that they consider a mechanic slightly more involved than 'table that increases each turn, regardless of the state of the game and with no involvement from either player'?

The sad thing is, there are actually several mechanics across 40k and AoS that could make for a more interesting way to measure the accumulation of pain. As an example, look at the Slaanesh rules for Depravity - which occurs in the Morale (equivalent) phase and counts all the units that have lost models (without being wiped out) or characters that have lost wounds (without dying). Surely you could turn this into a workable system for accumulating Pain Tokens?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If that's not a rework just because Lelith doesn't do D2 and you're butthurt I really don't know what to tell ya.

Apparently you're drunk on your own farts because I didn't even mention Lelith in the post you quoted.

Do I think it's silly that a character most notable for her duelling skills has been relegated to chaff-cleared? Yes. Do I care? Outside of how it reflects GW's attitude towards Xenos in general, not really, no. It would perhaps be nice to know that Lelith is appropriately skilled, but it makes little difference to me personally as I don't like special characters in general and so am unlikely to want to use her - regardless of how strong or weak her rules are.

Mostly I just think she's a somewhat useful indicator of what might be to come.

Tyel wrote:
Sort of feel pain tokens were a win more mechanic. Its not I guess impossible to write around that, but I can't say the 7th/8th table upset me much.

Really would prefer to keep as is and get a new interactive thing on top. "Pain synonym doctrines" etc.

Not at all b.c you have characters to give them out and units to generate more and even spread them. A beast pack starting with 2, a Incubi starting with 1, then if the Beasts dies Baron would take the token and move them to the Wych unit near by.

Yes it can be a win more, but honestly doesn't that fit with DE? Killing on the table could also show gathering of slaves, which would be more token no?

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Not at all b.c you have characters to give them out and units to generate more and even spread them. A beast pack starting with 2, a Incubi starting with 1, then if the Beasts dies Baron would take the token and move them to the Wych unit near by.

Yes it can be a win more, but honestly doesn't that fit with DE? Killing on the table could also show gathering of slaves, which would be more token no?

Its been a while so my memory may not be exact, but as the_scotsman said, you got them from killing units. So... you are sort of compounding success. If you kill something your unit becomes better, if you failed for whatever reason (Knights, Custodes, Death Guard, some Marine builds perhaps all being reasonable shouts) you are going to be left sort of.. stationary.

Since you are getting the buff on killing units (or wounds or whatever, skew remains) rather than turn order, I think the buffs would need to be more powerful - but as a result the cost of not having them would be higher.

So depends on your mentality really. If you like "when it works, it really works" thats fine. But it tends to be harder to balance, and I think would *tend* to result in DE being weak against the good factions. Unless good is MSU spam or something like that. (It wouldn't for example necesarilly be the worst versus Harlequins for instance.)

Basically I'm skeptical you can balance "Marines get Doctrines all the time. Sisters get... whatever their magic buffs are called. Necrons drew the xenos straw on Command Protocols but they are always up if a character's nearby... and DE lose regular PFP for a old system where some units start with a buff and others get more depending on kills".

The sad thing is, there are actually several mechanics across 40k and AoS that could make for a more interesting way to measure the accumulation of pain. As an example, look at the Slaanesh rules for Depravity - which occurs in the Morale (equivalent) phase and counts all the units that have lost models (without being wiped out) or characters that have lost wounds (without dying). Surely you could turn this into a workable system for accumulating Pain Tokens?

To be fair two aelf factions have similar "turn to turn" system rules as Drukhari(Idoneth and Daughters of Khaine) so I wouldn't be surprised if they kept that. It seems to be an "elf" trait at this moment in time.

Pain Tokens was a bad system and should stay buried, I mean depravity caused a lot of issues when it came out. The problem with "points for wounds/kills" is that it often forces you into very small and specific builds that locks out all other units. Both HoS(Hero builds) and BoK(MSU builds) suffer from this. I play BoK and the points for kills is a pain in the ass due to how random it can be how many points you get. I can get lucky one game and get all the blood points or none in the next game. Which is why so many players end up not trying to rely on blood points except for an automatic dispel here and there.

It also means that Drukhari can never be balanced if they have to rely on wounding/kills as not all opponents are equal when it comes to killing. I love the 5th edition codex but I would love to "not" have its kingmaker role again where a Drukhari player rarely won, but would always be the RNG to screw with other people and make another faction the winner. AoS has also tried to keep 2000 points to around 100-120 wounds(even then there are armies that can break that limit) and I doubt 40k has tried to balance the game at a similar level.

However, I can imagine pain tokens return as a rule in Crusade as Crusade is really the best option for such a randomizer trait. In Matched Game Pain Tokens are literally a pain.

Tyel wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Not at all b.c you have characters to give them out and units to generate more and even spread them. A beast pack starting with 2, a Incubi starting with 1, then if the Beasts dies Baron would take the token and move them to the Wych unit near by.

Yes it can be a win more, but honestly doesn't that fit with DE? Killing on the table could also show gathering of slaves, which would be more token no?

Its been a while so my memory may not be exact, but as the_scotsman said, you got them from killing units. So... you are sort of compounding success. If you kill something your unit becomes better, if you failed for whatever reason (Knights, Custodes, Death Guard, some Marine builds perhaps all being reasonable shouts) you are going to be left sort of.. stationary.

Since you are getting the buff on killing units (or wounds or whatever, skew remains) rather than turn order, I think the buffs would need to be more powerful - but as a result the cost of not having them would be higher.

So depends on your mentality really. If you like "when it works, it really works" thats fine. But it tends to be harder to balance, and I think would *tend* to result in DE being weak against the good factions. Unless good is MSU spam or something like that. (It wouldn't for example necesarilly be the worst versus Harlequins for instance.)

Basically I'm skeptical you can balance "Marines get Doctrines all the time. Sisters get... whatever their magic buffs are called. Necrons drew the xenos straw on Command Protocols but they are always up if a character's nearby... and DE lose regular PFP for a old system where some units start with a buff and others get more depending on kills".

That was the baseline mechanic but there were several ways to generate pain tokens, and I'm not saying that it needs to go back to that. Heck, it could be more tied to your actions with your units. Maybe making a super close-range shooting attack or making a charge generates a pain token, regardless of the outcome of that attack/charge.

I liked the token system purely for thematic reasons in keeping with the background. However a simple turn by turn buildup is more reliable and I guess "safe" with less randomness and variability, and thus easier to plan around.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/03/11/the-best-drukhari-codex-ever-here-are-5-new-reasons-why/

Good News!

Remember all the Dark Eldar stratagems from Blood of the Phoenix? You know, the ones that never existed because GW couldn't be arsed putting even the smallest iota of effort into our faction?

Well it's official - we get to keep every last one of those non-existent statagems.

 vipoid wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/03/11/the-best-drukhari-codex-ever-here-are-5-new-reasons-why/

Good News!

Remember all the Dark Eldar stratagems from Blood of the Phoenix? You know, the ones that never existed because GW couldn't be arsed putting even the smallest iota of effort into our faction?

Well it's official - we get to keep every last one of those non-existent statagems.

hey look on the bright side the cronos is getting an extra attack. thats right on the map babyy its gonna have THREE S5 Ap-1 d1 WS4+ attacks on a dreadnought-sized model.

I can FEEL the EXCITEMENT!!!

whilest i can understand the maybee you get to keep custom traits?


we still haven't seen a single new model beyond lelith right?

Not Online!!! wrote:
whilest i can understand the maybee you get to keep custom traits?


we still haven't seen a single new model beyond lelith right?

Nope, no sign of anything beyond her.

So it looks like it won't be so good? You lucky people, that's got to be at least another 20 pages worth of complaining over all threads, enjoy!

Not Online!!! wrote:
whilest i can understand the maybee you get to keep custom traits?

I'll try to contain my excitement at the prospect.

Not Online!!! wrote:
whilest i can understand the maybee you get to keep custom traits?

One of the few things I was hoping for was for Dark Technomancers to be kicked through the doors of oblivion. Now I might not even get that.

That article was terrible. They really had nothing good they could show off, lol.

Still no REAL information.

Guess we get that next week.

The Crusade stuff sounds more interesting than I expected, but who can tell when the article seems designed to be vague?

Crispy78 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
whilest i can understand the maybee you get to keep custom traits?


we still haven't seen a single new model beyond lelith right?

Nope, no sign of anything beyond her.

We are not marines, a eldar release in a year is even more than expected


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
That article was terrible. They really had nothing good they could show off, lol.

This is really bothering me, it means they put 0 effort in it, otherwise we would see an article a day on how the new codex is awesome

It is a pure filler article. With the drawn out release schedule and everything that is happening it appears that they are desperate to put something out in vain attempt to drum interest.

 Eldarsif wrote:
It is a pure filler article. With the drawn out release schedule and everything that is happening it appears that they are desperate to put something out in vain attempt to drum interest.

A pity there's nothing interesting in the codex, otherwise they could have used that.

Not Online!!! wrote:
whilest i can understand the maybee you get to keep custom traits?


we still haven't seen a single new model beyond lelith right?

Those custom traits were straight garbage as a whole.

I thought about going back to other dex prereleases and seeing if all of the articles that contain actual information were in the week before pre-release.

I think there's a chance they may have been.

I mean, we've seen Some real info- Piety and Pain got a video; we've seen profiles for 4 units (though not all the special rules for them, which made the reveals feel... Empty).

But I think what I need most is to know how Obsessions work in mixed detachments. I really think that is the biggest thing that's happening this Codex, and GW needs to tell us how it's going to work.

Honestly, I'm more interested in learning whether the entire HQ section is still hot garbage.

PenitentJake wrote:

But I think what I need most is to know how Obsessions work in mixed detachments. I really think that is the biggest thing that's happening this Codex, and GW needs to tell us how it's going to work.

That's pretty easy to guess. <Kabal> units get Kabal Obsessions, <Wych Cult> units get Wych Cult Obsessions, and <Haemunculus Coven> units get Haemonculus Coven Obsessions, the same as it works now, with the only difference is that you can mix them in a single Detachment without losing the Obsessions.