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

Without new models, how can it not be?

 Tyran wrote:

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.

Because its a xenos army, I give it even odds between that, and "you get to choose one Kabal, or one Cult, or one Coven for each detachment, and any units with the correct keyword benefit but other units get no special rules but don't break traits."

GW REALLY seems to think it's fair and fun and cool for units with no army wide rules to go up against armies with seven layer bean dip special rules.I know for me it's incredibly fun to take my GSC where all vehicles, all brood brothers, and all genestealer units get no traits, and play them against marines who get to reroll morale, rapid fire at full range, get +1A on the charge, get custom chapter tactics, -1AP on a bunch of weapons each turn, and get a superdoctrine.

 Ordana wrote:

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

Without new models, how can it not be?

Because the 3 generic HQ choices could be given a ton of options and wargear to make up for it.

Look at what was achieved for Harlequin characters just by allowing them to swap out their standard auras/abilities for alternatives. That could easily be done for Dark Eldar.

Same with wargear, it would take very little effort to expand the available selection (and, shock of all shocks, make the stuff actually worth taking - so that, for example, the Haemonculus isn't left with the Electrocorrosive Whip and 8 other weapons that are all objectively worse than the Electrocorrosive Whip).

They could add mobility options even without adding new models. They could do what they did with Crypteks and have a pile of Arcane Wargear or Gifts of the Haemonculi or whatever they want to call them, which could include a special hover pack or wings or any such. Plus all manner of other options for them to choose from.

They could allow HQs to buff units beyond their own subfaction (so that you can take a Haemonculus as the leader of a Kabal army, for example, without him being functionally useless).

Finally, there's the possibility of Stratagems. They could make Archons Dracons by default and then give DE a Stratagem to upgrade one to an Archon, with better stats and such. Same with upgrading a Haemonculus to a Haemonculus Ancient.

In essence, they could easily make DE's tiny selection of HQs actually feel far more diverse and varied than the models alone would suggest.

But no, that would take precious time away from developing Primaris Lieutenant #688261.

Took the words right out of my typing fingers Scotsman.

Here's hoping not only that they get it right for DE, but ALSO that they go on to fix it for GSC too!

PenitentJake wrote:
Took the words right out of my typing fingers Scotsman.

Here's hoping not only that they get it right for DE, but ALSO that they go on to fix it for GSC too!

GW has a doctrine they follow when it comes to what fluff translates to in terms of rules.

Is your army from codex space marine? Your fluff informs what rules you do get. Specialized units are still space marines, therefore everything gets CORE. heavy weapons guys are still space marines, therefore everybody gets +1A on the charge. Allied space marines are still battle brothers, therfore you get to take allies and keep your doctrine rules. Successor chapters are descended from the first founding chapters, therefore they get to keep all supplement rules and stratagems and relics.

Is your army not from codex space marines? your fluff informs what rules you don't get. Sorry bro, by fluff these necrons are part of the 'triarch' so they don't get subfaction traits or CORE, for some reason the aura buffs can't benefit this particular unit called Praetorians in the same way they can benefit this other unit called Lychguard. No, the praetorians dont get a points discount to account for losing out on all these benefits, don't be an idiot. Sorry, you chose to make your Orkz a specialist mob, that means they're for some reason no longer part of a Clan and don't get the relics traits strats auras etc from the clans. oooooh, you wanted your guard to have Militarum Tempestus stuff? Afraid that means you're not allowed to use a solid 50% of your codex, tough luck fluff says they don't actually use those tanks and stuff. I mean look fair's fair we don't let Blood Angels keep their specialist dreadnought types and also take the regular dreadno - oh, wait, we do actually do that, in case they want to use regular dreadnoughts. Sorry GSC player, it's called a genestealer CULT trait, and your purestrains aren't part of the CULT they're the genestealers THEMSELVES, and no, they don't get a hive fleet trait either, they're purestrains from the pure genetic lineage of specifically the genestealers. And we do represent that by them therefore not getting any trait, and being worse than hive fleet genestealers, who get to be troops, and get a trait, and get way better stratagems and rules and stuff.

 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.

That article doesn't mention BotP at all. It just says new strats. Did I miss something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I imagine we'll see the typical articles when it is coming up from pre-order.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 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.

That article doesn't mention BotP at all. It just says new strats. Did I miss something?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

I imagine we'll see the typical articles when it is coming up from pre-order.

Did you miss something? Nope. Just a lot of Eldar players wish listing and reading into the announcement.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

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.

Because its a xenos army, I give it even odds between that, and "you get to choose one Kabal, or one Cult, or one Coven for each detachment, and any units with the correct keyword benefit but other units get no special rules but don't break traits."

GW REALLY seems to think it's fair and fun and cool for units with no army wide rules to go up against armies with seven layer bean dip special rules.I know for me it's incredibly fun to take my GSC where all vehicles, all brood brothers, and all genestealer units get no traits, and play them against marines who get to reroll morale, rapid fire at full range, get +1A on the charge, get custom chapter tactics, -1AP on a bunch of weapons each turn, and get a superdoctrine.

Yep - GW just doesn't get this. each army needs to be getting an equal amount of free rules and you can't use free rules to fix bad units. I mean - it worked well with marines in 8.5 if you just ignore the fact some extremely OP supplements came out at the same time but ideally units should be balanced around points and a certain amount of "bonus/free" rules should be included in that cost. There is just no world in which one army is getting free rules and the other isn't and the game is going to be even remotely balanced.

@Tamwulf the article got edited. It used to mention that we would be getting all the stratagems from Psychic awakening. There were no stratagems in the psychic awakening. No need for your snide remarks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That article doesn't mention BotP at all. It just says new strats. Did I miss something?

Only that the WarCom article has been edited.

It originally said "Alongside the pick of those from the current Drukhari codex and Blood of the Phoenix, the new codex features a whole host of new Stratagems."

The underlined part has since been removed.

I think it is quite hilarious that one of the top five (!) reasons why this will be the best DE codex ever is that... you can field everything from it and don't get hamstrung by it. It should never have been any different in the first place! Selling it as one of the best innovations of the upcoming book is ridiculous at best.

Isn't this standard?

I remember thinking DG were going to be kind of meh until the reveals actually started.

Tyel wrote:
Isn't this standard?

I remember thinking DG were going to be kind of meh until the reveals actually started.

Even with the reveals.

People cried salt over these forums when most of the DG abilities were previewed. And next week with the Drukhari Reviews the same will happen.

Best advice that I was given the other day was just not to read much on the Internet and judge the Codex when the reveal hits (20th probably, on Youtube).

Who knows, maybe the book is just gakky. But maybe not.

I really hope we get some good stuff in this edition, but I don't have much hope based on what I've seen. The changes to the Splinter Cannon killed my hype for the new book. I'm not even sure what to hope for as far as changes, but with any luck there's something in the book that will scare my groups DG player.

They didn't even say you can mix within detachments, just that it'd be "easier than before" to field mixed armies. For all we know, all that means is that the old take three patrols + get refunded CP is being expanded so you can take one free detachment of each subpart - whether a patrol or something else, and whether you take two or three - but they still have to be kept totally separate.

yukishiro1 wrote:
They didn't even say you can mix within detachments, just that it'd be "easier than before" to field mixed armies. For all we know, all that means is that the old take three patrols + get refunded CP is being expanded so you can take one free detachment of each subpart - whether a patrol or something else, and whether you take two or three - but they still have to be kept totally separate.

Yea this would probably make the most sense.

yukishiro1 wrote:
They didn't even say you can mix within detachments, just that it'd be "easier than before" to field mixed armies. For all we know, all that means is that the old take three patrols + get refunded CP is being expanded so you can take one free detachment of each subpart - whether a patrol or something else, and whether you take two or three - but they still have to be kept totally separate.

I can still hold out some hope that one, just one, xenos faction gets a bit more flexibility than loyalist marines do in one area when it comes to their armywide abilities. But it is a faint hope.

Maybe GW will realize that Dark Eldar are intended to be a fractious, selfish, unsynergistic army stylistically, and make up for that with abilities like the current Combat Drugs - individual unit buffs you can powergame but which necessitate you effectively either screwing over some of your units, or taking a large menagerie of different units within the Wych Cult framework to optimally use the different buffs - including a Beastmaster and some Beasts because they actually use +2LD drugs well instead of taking another unit of Reavers or Wyches, taking one unit of wyches with 3 Shardnets and a Power Sword to take advantage of +1S drugs and another wych squad with 1 Shardnet 2 Gauntlets and an Agonizer to use +1A drugs.

And maybe they'll realize that because Archons, Succubi, and Haemonculi can only buff a couple of potential units, they can be made into strong individualistic HQs or they can customize those buffs to be really useful with the often just one single unit type they now will affect, like how the new Drazar's buff that only affects Incubi is really in line with what Incubi want to be doing on the battlefield, and a unit of Incubi with Drazar there to boost them up is much more of a different beast than the usual dedicated anti-MEQ role Incubi fill.

Boy I can hope, but the new necron codex really doesn't give me a ton of confidence with just how much rules spaghetti they threw at the wall to try and sell those new cryptek variants, and just how much of it fell back onto the floor.

"here's the new spookytek! We've leveraged the AWESOME new morale system in 9th to give him a truly terrifying ability - -1 to LD AND -1 to Attrition tests!!! Wow! Apropos of nothing, here's the new change to the Angels of Death rule we've been working on - whoops, that new ability doesn't work."

You also can't trust warhammer community content even when it does specifically make a claim. Not that long ago, we had that debacle where the warhammer community article claimed you could include all Inquisition forces in other detachments without breaking them, only for the book to come out and to find out that no, it was only Inquisitors, just like before. Incredibly, they still have the old article up, still falsely advertising a feature that doesn't exist, despite multiple emails asking them correct it.

All Inquisition forces can be added into an Imperium Detachment without other units losing their Detachment abilities.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/06/23/pariah-inquisition-rulesgw-homepage-post-1/

Unfortunately, those articles are just marketing spin, you can't assume their content is right even when it makes particular claims, much less when it makes general, vague statements.

I guess it might be a bit confusing for new players, but it really wouldn't be hard to go:

"This Battalion is a Black Heart/Strife/Coven of 12 Detachment. Therefore Kabal/Cult/Coven units get their respective rule".

While also putting *all* mercenary units into one of the above, because pretending Scourge would be mad broken if say they rerolled 1s to wound with splinter carbines is comedy gold. "No, pls, Mandrakes with a 4++ (you know its getting nerfed) would literally break the game".

Tyel wrote:
I guess it might be a bit confusing for new players, but it really wouldn't be hard to go:

"This Battalion is a Black Heart/Strife/Coven of 12 Detachment. Therefore Kabal/Cult/Coven units get their respective rule".

Agree 100% and hope this is how they decide to do it.

Tyel wrote:

While also putting *all* mercenary units into one of the above, because pretending Scourge would be mad broken if say they rerolled 1s to wound with splinter carbines is comedy gold. "No, pls, Mandrakes with a 4++ (you know its getting nerfed) would literally break the game".

While I agree that giving Mercs this access wouldn't make them broken, it was probably done for fluff reasons more than balance. Mercs are not part of Kabals, Cults or Covens; they don't train with them, they don't live with them, they don't learn from them or teach them. Literally the only time they work together is when they are paid, and their loyalty is only as deep as the pockets of their employers. There is no fluff reason why they would fight in a manner similar to their employer, so if you did want to give them access to Obsessions, you'd have to find a way to make that fluffy.

It's a lot like the Raiding force rules that way: despite the fact it was awkward game-wise (especially in 9th where game size detachment limits crippled the system), it did make sense from a fluff perspective. I have since learned to see that there are certainly fluffy circumstances that could justify intra-faction Obsession sharing. And yeah, I suppose that particular Covens, Kabals, or Cults could have long term allegiances written into their fluff... But then you faction-lock your Mercs.

One way they could handle both issues is create a Pregame Strat like this:

Long-Term Alliance: 1-3 CP

Use this strategem before the first Battle Round. For each Command point spent, you can choose an additional sub-faction or Mercenary group to benefit from your Warlord's Obsession. If you choose a sub-faction which already has an Obsession, it is replaced by the Warlord's Obsession.

Then it becomes grounded in the Fluff. If you're a Crusade player, it would be even cooler, because purchasing the ability with Requisition points makes it permanent, so the alliance represented by the rule is a persistent part of the story. If it was me, when I built the terrain to represent my warlord's base, I would decide which Commorragh pieces I needed: got an alliance with a Wych Cult? Better have an Arena. Want some Mandrakes? Where's your gate to Aelindrach? And no self respecting pack of Scourges will work with anyone unless they have an Aerie.

The problem is its such a limiting factor. I really don't see why you should pay CP to get a bonus when almost every other faction's units in the game (sorry GSC) get one for just showing up.

They did this with Ynnari Incubi and it just felt like a massive "screw you" (kind of like the Codex in general, but...). I mean did anyone think giving Incubi strength from death in an incredibly shooting orientated edition was going to be mad overpowered, just because they *didn't* get a Kabal trait which would have been very marginally helpful anyway?

Arguments on fluff are never convincing - because you can justify (and change) anything you like. So I tend to think game mechanics predominate. GW made the "Mercenaries" (who were not meaningfully mercenaries imo until the codex) nothing in particular so you could put them in any detachment. If for example Mandrakes were in Covens then its another limiter on running them - as now you need a Haemonculus, maybe some wracks etc. Ditto if say Incubi and Scourge were put in Kabals.

If (and it may not happen) that limitation is gone - and you can throw whatever DE units into whatever DE detachment you like - then the reason these units shouldn't get a faction trait is just crap player-alienating design. But since we know what's happened with Necrons I'm not holding out. It might not be necessary - Incubi may well blend things with 3 WS2+ S5 AP-3 2 damage attacks for 16 points. But its still going to grate.

PenitentJake wrote:

While I agree that giving Mercs this access wouldn't make them broken, it was probably done for fluff reasons more than balance. Mercs are not part of Kabals, Cults or Covens; they don't train with them, they don't live with them, they don't learn from them or teach them. Literally the only time they work together is when they are paid, and their loyalty is only as deep as the pockets of their employers. There is no fluff reason why they would fight in a manner similar to their employer, so if you did want to give them access to Obsessions, you'd have to find a way to make that fluffy.

It's a lot like the Raiding force rules that way: despite the fact it was awkward game-wise (especially in 9th where game size detachment limits crippled the system), it did make sense from a fluff perspective. I have since learned to see that there are certainly fluffy circumstances that could justify intra-faction Obsession sharing. And yeah, I suppose that particular Covens, Kabals, or Cults could have long term allegiances written into their fluff... But then you faction-lock your Mercs.

One way they could handle both issues is create a Pregame Strat like this:

Long-Term Alliance: 1-3 CP

Use this strategem before the first Battle Round. For each Command point spent, you can choose an additional sub-faction or Mercenary group to benefit from your Warlord's Obsession. If you choose a sub-faction which already has an Obsession, it is replaced by the Warlord's Obsession.

Then it becomes grounded in the Fluff. If you're a Crusade player, it would be even cooler, because purchasing the ability with Requisition points makes it permanent, so the alliance represented by the rule is a persistent part of the story. If it was me, when I built the terrain to represent my warlord's base, I would decide which Commorragh pieces I needed: got an alliance with a Wych Cult? Better have an Arena. Want some Mandrakes? Where's your gate to Aelindrach? And no self respecting pack of Scourges will work with anyone unless they have an Aerie.

I'm going to quote scotsman here because I think he put it a lot better than I can:

the_scotsman wrote:

Is your army from codex space marine? Your fluff informs what rules you do get. Specialized units are still space marines, therefore everything gets CORE. heavy weapons guys are still space marines, therefore everybody gets +1A on the charge. Allied space marines are still battle brothers, therfore you get to take allies and keep your doctrine rules. Successor chapters are descended from the first founding chapters, therefore they get to keep all supplement rules and stratagems and relics.

Is your army not from codex space marines? your fluff informs what rules you don't get. Sorry bro, by fluff these necrons are part of the 'triarch' so they don't get subfaction traits or CORE, for some reason the aura buffs can't benefit this particular unit called Praetorians in the same way they can benefit this other unit called Lychguard. No, the praetorians dont get a points discount to account for losing out on all these benefits, don't be an idiot. Sorry, you chose to make your Orkz a specialist mob, that means they're for some reason no longer part of a Clan and don't get the relics traits strats auras etc from the clans. oooooh, you wanted your guard to have Militarum Tempestus stuff? Afraid that means you're not allowed to use a solid 50% of your codex, tough luck fluff says they don't actually use those tanks and stuff. I mean look fair's fair we don't let Blood Angels keep their specialist dreadnought types and also take the regular dreadno - oh, wait, we do actually do that, in case they want to use regular dreadnoughts. Sorry GSC player, it's called a genestealer CULT trait, and your purestrains aren't part of the CULT they're the genestealers THEMSELVES, and no, they don't get a hive fleet trait either, they're purestrains from the pure genetic lineage of specifically the genestealers. And we do represent that by them therefore not getting any trait, and being worse than hive fleet genestealers, who get to be troops, and get a trait, and get way better stratagems and rules and stuff.

^
I think he's completely right about this. It's ridiculous that SM fluff is used to justify them getting rules on top of rules on top of rues, yet our fluff is used only to justify us *not* getting rules.

Sorry but the idea that we have to use CPs just to unlock our own fething army rules is just insulting.

I don't even see why we need to be split up this way in the first place. It just turns us into 3 separate armies, each with no options.

Are we not limited enough already without being split into 3 sodding subfactions with no synergy or cross-compatibility whatsoever?


Also, to be clear, it's not just a matter of mechanical strength but also how the army feels. The fact that putting an Archon with Incubi or Mandrakes grants them 0 benefits (not even his crappy aura) just feels bad. It's not fun when your HQs appear to have been designed to support an army that doesn't actually exist. And while you can argue that Incubi have Drazhar (I don't think it's a good argument, but whatever), there isn't a single HQ that supports Mandrakes or Scourges. So if GW can't be arsed making a Mandrake Prince or a Scourge Lord, the least they can do is allow our existing HQs to synergise with them.

Tyel wrote:
The problem is its such a limiting factor. I really don't see why you should pay CP to get a bonus when almost every other faction's units in the game (sorry GSC) get one for just showing up.

Agree 100%. I think it would have been interesting if GW had built little limitations like this into all factions; if it's done fairly, it is an interesting way to differentiate factions and create meaningful differences. I say "interesting" rather than "good," because whether or not it worked would all be in the execution- it would have equal potential to be terrible.

Tyel wrote:

They did this with Ynnari Incubi and it just felt like a massive "screw you" (kind of like the Codex in general, but...). I mean did anyone think giving Incubi strength from death in an incredibly shooting orientated edition was going to be mad overpowered, just because they *didn't* get a Kabal trait which would have been very marginally helpful anyway?

Funny you should mention that- I kinda liked the rule, my only problem is that nerfed Strength from Death is a terrible ability. If the trait had been worth having, the strat would have been awesome. And I thought it was really cool that Incubi, with their isolation from larger Drukhari society represented by their lack of access to Obsessions, could be so embraced by the Ynarri that they would have a sense of kinship and loyalty, represented by their access to the trait. Personally, I thought the strat should have applied to Banshees, as they were the ones who actually fought on Yvraine's side, or that at the very least, the trait should have been available to them in addition to the Incubi.

Of course, my perspective is horribly skewed by the fact that I am a narrative player who plays Crusade almost exclusively and really doesn't care whether I win or lose, as long as the story is a good one. The tournament/ competitive mindset is pretty alien to me- I get it, but I just don't understand why anyone would choose it over immersive Crusade/ campaign/ narrative play unless they genuinely couldn't find anyone else who wanted to play that way.

From a game mechanics point of view though, I do agree with you, especially since these types of restrictions aren't fairly distributed between all factions.

Tyel wrote:

Arguments on fluff are never convincing - because you can justify (and change) anything you like. So I tend to think game mechanics predominate.

I agree that mechanics have to predominate. I still like rules to reflect fluff, but not at the expense of playability and fairness. I wish it was easier to get both.

Tyel wrote:

But since we know what's happened with Necrons I'm not holding out.

Unfortunately, this is also a fair, and likely assessment.

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

That article doesn't mention BotP at all. It just says new strats. Did I miss something?

Only that the WarCom article has been edited.

It originally said "Alongside the pick of those from the current Drukhari codex and Blood of the Phoenix, the new codex features a whole host of new Stratagems."

The underlined part has since been removed.

There is a certain sad comedy to the fact that even the writer of the article probably assumed DE got some new starts during PA. I find that very telling and not in a good way. My fear rises for the dark city denizens.

Dark eldar is, and always has been, an army of various scattered mercenary microfactions brought together.

Hellions are their own gangs.

Reavers are their own gangs.

If anyone can explain to my why it's fluffy that a Sslyth, a thing that's not even a fething dark eldar at all, has <kabal> but scourges for some reason are not sufficiently...um...paid by the...same archon that presumably hired the Sslyth? then I'll owe you a donut.

The Archon OWNS the Sslyth; it's a slave. It does exactly what the Archon tells it to do, because if it doesn't, it will be killed and no one will miss it.

The Scourge belongs to a flock, who may even haunt the Archon's spire. If he kills it, at the very least, he is unlikely to ever receive the aid of that flock again, and if the flock is powerful, he may create a situation where the flock becomes an enemy, perhaps allying with other enemies.

Hellions and Reavers can certainly be their own gangs, but many make their living in the arena, which means playing nice with Cults.

PenitentJake wrote:
The Archon OWNS the Sslyth; it's a slave. It does exactly what the Archon tells it to do, because if it doesn't, it will be killed and no one will miss it.

Yeah I'm going to point out that the Sslyths are mercenaries. They're not a slave race, they get paid like incubi to be a bodyguard.

My mistake.

Not sure the relationship is as consequential as the relationship with sub-factions that live in Commorragh, but I suppose if they are mercs, it could be.

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".

A lot of units could start with 1, some could give out some too. You could start the game with 3-4 units with a couple if you wanted too.

Tyel wrote:
The problem is its such a limiting factor. I really don't see why you should pay CP to get a bonus when almost every other faction's units in the game (sorry GSC) get one for just showing up.

.

Uh you realize right there's plenty units beside gsc who don'tt get regiment/chapter/klan/whatever bonuses? I play neither gsc nor de yet 5/5 of my armies deal without such bonuses. Some of those are also staple of hard lists in hard faction.