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.

As has been noted, Dakka has been kind of quiet lately. So my fellow true kin, let's complain about our index and dream about what we'd like to see. This isn't the proposed rules section; you can be as vague or specific as you'd like.

Here are some scattered thoughts:

GENERAL STUFF
* Power From Pain: I like the current version better than the 7th-9th version but still not quite as much as the 5th edition version. Which, granted, had its own issues. If this stays as-is, it's perfectly fine, but I wonder about doing like, reverse judgement tokens (buff individual units as they accumulate tokens) or possibly giving units/weapons modified stats/special rules for when they are/aren't empowered. Ex: Units hopped up on pain might hit harder but be easier to harm in return. Or maybe they hit harder but have a chance of being forced to charge even if they don't want to. I'm probably overthinking it.

* Blasters: Really should be S12 or at least Anti-Vehicle 4+. As with meltaguns, these things have always been single-shot anti-tank guns. Needing to fish for 5s with them just feels wrong.

* Bring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

KABAL STUFF
* I want archons to be buildable as duelists, raid leaders, or schemers. Give them the option of taking either a rule that makes their offense snowball when they kill things (soul trap), a targeted buff special rule that works from inside a raider (and maybe give their vehicle lone operative while they're in it), and a more interesting replacement for the current Devious Mastermind rule. Maybe something that interacts with reserves.

* Warriors. I don't like having to resolve 5+ gun profiles in a single unit. I also don't like being forced to take 10 bodies. Make the min-squad size 5 with the option to take 5 more. For every 5 dudes, you can take a shredder, blaster OR splinter cannon. 10-man squads can also take a dark lance or splinter cannon. You only get the sticky objective rule in squads of at least 10 models. Brings back a lot of flexibility and the option to customize the squad without giving sticky objectives to cheap units or increasing the number of lances a 10-man can bring. I'd also like to see "sybarite weapons" turn into a power sword and venom blade (Anti-infantry 2+, AP-1, maybe let it be D2.)

* The court. Split it up into a few different units.
A.) Lhameans become characters that improve the Poison rule of their squad by X. Or just give their squad's Poison weapons Lethal Hits or +1 Damage on critical wounds or something.
B.) Sslyth become their own unit joinable by at least archons if not all characters. Could be cool to see them get a few wargear options to expand/explore their lore a bit. But basically, these guys have always been at their best when they're allowed to be a group of chunky bullet sponges; neither as killy as grots nor as fast as clawed fiends.
C.) Medusae probably just become a cheap character you can splash into other squads. It kind of makes sense that they'd be hanging out around the battlefield taking in the sights from various angles.
D.) Ur-ghuls are the odd ones out. They don't really make sense as characters, but I'm not sure they're unique enough to warrant becoming full on beast pack units. Maybe just turn them into combat familiars that grant the archon some Extra-Attacks? Seems fitting for what is basically the archon's attack squig. This also saves you the awkwardness of the ghul taking up a seat in the raider.

CULT STUFF
* Succubus. Give her a choice of options similar to the archon. Let her choose between combat drugs (better beat stick; would love to see the 3rd edition overdose mechanics return), an aerial combatant (grant her squad's melee attacks to their transport while embarked? Or just a separate datasheet of a succubus on reaver jetbike?), and squad leader (let wyches use a strat for free each player turn.) Also, open up that armory and give her some options for either better attacks (glaive) or more attacks.

* Wyches. I want them to either kill or tarpit things. I miss haywire grenades. I miss wych weapons. I think I'd streamline the old combat drugs down to two options (having 6 was a quirky relic that doesn't need to be repeated): Strong Drugs and Fast Drugs. (Names pending.) At the start of each Fight phase, you decide which drugs you'll benefit from for the remainder of the phase. Strong Drugs up the Strength of all their melee weapons by 1. Fast Drugs improve their invuln saves by 1. It's tempting to have strong drugs make them tougher and have fast drugs give them extra attacks, but at that point you risk muddying the role of each drug/making one redundant.

I'd fold all the old wych weapons (impalers, nets, gauntlets, flails) into a single wych weapon profile. Maybe let it hit a little harder than a hekatarii blade, or maybe not. Depends on if they still need a boost to their offense. While a squad contains at least one model with wych weapons, enemy units suffer -1 to-hit. If that's too much, the to-hit penalty could be replaced with -1 to the enemy's number of attacks (minimum 1).

Haywire grenades could either be a squad-wide upgrade or just a weapon option (probably taking up the pistol slot) for the squad leader. I'd steer away from how other haywire weapons are handled and make it more of a debuff option. Anti-Vehicle 2+, otherwise modest damage-dealing potential, but a special rule that causes vehicles who suffer a wound from a haywire weapon to be at -1 to-hit until the start of the next Drukhari turn.

Oh, and we can probably lower the minimum squad size to 5 without any issue.

* Reavers. Work pretty well this edition. My only nitpick is that they don't really feel "fast." Even with their eviscerating fly-by, they stand a good chance of being too far from an enemy unit to pull off the fly-by (small bases, but long models make it tricky to really fly "over" an enemy. And if they *do* use their fly-by attack, they'll likely want to charge something that turn, at which point you get into the weirdness of getting bogged down in a fight that you can't leave until your next turn. I'd be tempted to give all their bladevanes Lance and then either a rule that lets them Fall Back at the end of the Fight phase or some sort of advance+charge-and-also-advance-better rule. The fallback means that you'd need to use your speed to protect them (by flying behind some ruins, and the latter would help recapture some of the old "turbo boost" feeling.

* Beast Packs. Break them up into multiple units that have their own jobs. The beast master gains lone operative and becomes a fun target for your opponent to hunt.
A.) Razorwings are a fast pile of wounds/volume of attacks.
B.) Clawed fiends are heavy hitters; basically grotesques without the need for a transport.
C. Khymarae phase through ruins and impassible terrain and spawn more models whenever battle shock is failed near them. In the Charge phase, all of these units will charge the closest enemy unit within 12" unless there's a beastmaster nearby. Beast masters can share their Ld with the beasts. You must have at least 1 beast master to have any beasts.

* Hellions. Would be pretty good if they were allowed to move through walls like infantry.

COVEN STUFF
* Haemonculus gets similar options to the other characters. Let him choose between being a poisoner (improves buffs poison weapons of his squad/transport), a monster-maker (pre-game buffs and mid-game heals to grots and engines), or a sadistic surgeon (heals models in nearby units in the command phase.) For wargear, let him choose between poisonous weapons like the ones he has now and "paralytic weapons" that let you lower the Attacks of enemy model in a nearby unit (but are less lethal than the poisonous weapons). Then let him choose between an eldritch talisman (one-use weapon with oomph; probably does mortals), a hex rifle, or something to interact with Power From Pain.

* Wracks. I don't like having 4 different gun profiles to resolve. Just let people mix & match as they see fit. Maybe put restrictions one any of the guns that would be too good if you spammed them. Otherwise, wracks are pretty okay. Maybe let the haemonculus "issue instructions" to them, basically turning them into range extenders for his poisoner/monster-maker/surgeon abilities.

* Pain Engines. Cronos is fine as-is, though it would need to be updated if PFP were changed. Talos is "good," but I'm still irked by how little variety there is between individual talos. Monster-maker haemi helps with that, but would kind of like to see a bunch of different weapon options on these guys if only for the sake of variety.

* Grotesques. Are supposed to be our bulky hammer unit. Currently just don't have the Attacks to be threatening, and aren't that durable. That said, I dislike proposing raw power boosts. Instead, let's give them a fluffy nod to the rules of yester-year. Once per game, you can "release the grots." The unit becomes battleshocked and stays that way for the rest of the game. It charges the nearest enemy unit during each charge phase. It also doubles its current/remaining wounds and the Attacks characteristic of its melee weapons for the remainder of the game. So a big boost to offense and defense, but only once you've given up some control of the unit making it possible for your opponent to mitigate it with sacrificial cheap units and good maneuvering.

MERCS
* Incubi seem like they work right now. My only nitpicks are:
A.) Tormentors seem pretty meh; the rule could stand to be dropped.
B.) I kind of miss the old gunhats, bloodstones, and shredder/blaster options. This is mostly a nostalgia thing though.
C.) Give them klaivex/shrine power options? (Hoping aspect warriors get their own version of this.)
D.) Let characters join them.

* Mandrakes are also in good shape. They're probably fine as-is. If we let characters join them, we'd want to clarify that they can bring the characters along when they Fade Away.

* Scourges are also in good shape. This is the first edition ever that giving they dark lances is a decent option.

TRANSPORTS
* Venom. Ditch the awkward unit splitting rule. With kabalites and wyches able to take 5-man squads, it isn't needed. Other than that, venoms are probably okay right now. They're a cute little transport/gunboat with an equally cute rule for scooping up squads after they charge. Should probably reword the Athletic Aerialists rule so that it can scoop up units on the turn they disembark though.

* Raiders. Okay, raiders are actually perfectly fine right now, but hear me out. In the past, we had all these awesome vehicle wargear options that have largely just vanished. I'd love to see those return. So what if we let people swap out their aethersails rule for something like:
A.) Nightshields. Enemies outside of 12" treat the raider as being X" further away for purposes of targeting the raider with ranged attacks. Alternatively, let the raider relocate X" the first time it's targeted with a shooting attack each round, but that might be feels-bad.
B.) Chain snares. Melee weapon with the Extra-Attacks rule. Because I enjoyed throwing my vehicles into melee last edition. 10th edition's weapon profiles mean we can tweak the Attacks and Strength stats of these to be whatever seems appropriate.
C.) Shock Prow. Like chain snares, but one really big attack instead of lots of little ones. Might give it Anti-vehicle/Anti-monster if we want to avoid making it good against terminators, etc.
D.) Torture Amp. Once per game during the phase, activate the amp. Enemy units within 3" must make a battleshock test.

Somewhat new to to DE, and I only have specific tastes, so I'll comment on what I'm interested in:

Wyldhunt wrote:GENERAL STUFFBring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Short of DE being a hard-counter to Tyranids while also being hard countered by Necrons and Daemons, I don't see a way that this could be implemented in a way that "feels" right. Poison can be reflected as just being part of the flavour of the weapon. We don't need rules for how bolter rounds explode after penetration, that's just flavour.

KABAL STUFF
* I want archons to be buildable as duelists, raid leaders, or schemers. Give them the option of taking either a rule that makes their offense snowball when they kill things (soul trap), a targeted buff special rule that works from inside a raider (and maybe give their vehicle lone operative while they're in it), and a more interesting replacement for the current Devious Mastermind rule. Maybe something that interacts with reserves.

I'd be interested in this - or, at the very least, having more pistol/melee options as sidegrades. Or just having three types of Archon - Combat Archon (can join Incubi, has gear that suits that sort of thing), Local Buff Archon (hands out benefits to the Kabalites nearby, maybe travels with a group of Trueborn? Functions as more of a Command Squad style, middling loadout), and Planner Archon (deployment shenanigans, disrupts enemy stratagems, but has a more modest loadout).

Or, something akin to a pistol/utility slot (which could include an esoteric device), a melee weapon slot, and then choosing a special rule. Either or. And, while I don't say it for the others in the same detail, I do like this approach you've taken for the lot of them. Having three "variants" of each leader, in a similar way to how Space Marines have their different Captain types (Phobos, Tacticus, Gravis, Terminator, Jump, etc)

* Warriors. I don't like having to resolve 5+ gun profiles in a single unit. I also don't like being forced to take 10 bodies. Make the min-squad size 5 with the option to take 5 more. For every 5 dudes, you can take a shredder, blaster OR splinter cannon. 10-man squads can also take a dark lance or splinter cannon. You only get the sticky objective rule in squads of at least 10 models. Brings back a lot of flexibility and the option to customize the squad without giving sticky objectives to cheap units or increasing the number of lances a 10-man can bring. I'd also like to see "sybarite weapons" turn into a power sword and venom blade (Anti-infantry 2+, AP-1, maybe let it be D2.)

I'm cool with them staying as 10s. I see why GW does it, and I quite like it. However, yeah, I do think that there's a LOT of weapons going around, and sticking to something more like two medium weapons and one heavy weapon fits better. Three is okay, four is a lot.

* Wyches. I want them to either kill or tarpit things. I miss haywire grenades. I miss wych weapons. I think I'd streamline the old combat drugs down to two options (having 6 was a quirky relic that doesn't need to be repeated): Strong Drugs and Fast Drugs. (Names pending.) At the start of each Fight phase, you decide which drugs you'll benefit from for the remainder of the phase. Strong Drugs up the Strength of all their melee weapons by 1. Fast Drugs improve their invuln saves by 1. It's tempting to have strong drugs make them tougher and have fast drugs give them extra attacks, but at that point you risk muddying the role of each drug/making one redundant.

I'd fold all the old wych weapons (impalers, nets, gauntlets, flails) into a single wych weapon profile. Maybe let it hit a little harder than a hekatarii blade, or maybe not. Depends on if they still need a boost to their offense. While a squad contains at least one model with wych weapons, enemy units suffer -1 to-hit. If that's too much, the to-hit penalty could be replaced with -1 to the enemy's number of attacks (minimum 1).

Strong agree. I love seeing a variety of mixed weapons, and I like the idea that each Wych knows how to get the most out of each one, to the point that they're all roughly as effective. Increased customisation of models FTW! And yeah, choosing between Strength and Speed is fun, though I'd see it more like giving Devastating Wounds or Sustained Fire to their melee attacks, as opposed to changing their durability. I like the idea that they're already as agile as they need to be.

Oh, and we can probably lower the minimum squad size to 5 without any issue.

Wyches fit this better than Kabalites, but also, I see why GW don't.

* Wracks. I don't like having 4 different gun profiles to resolve. Just let people mix & match as they see fit. Maybe put restrictions one any of the guns that would be too good if you spammed them.

I'm not massively familiar with Wracks, would it be easier to just have them all armed with "Wrack ranged weapon"? Or is that removing some of their identity? Again, new to DE, and I don't really vibe with Wracks.

* Incubi seem like they work right now. My only nitpicks are:
A.) Tormentors seem pretty meh; the rule could stand to be dropped.
B.) I kind of miss the old gunhats, bloodstones, and shredder/blaster options. This is mostly a nostalgia thing though.
C.) Give them klaivex/shrine power options? (Hoping aspect warriors get their own version of this.)
D.) Let characters join them.

Hmm. Incubi I feel need to be deadlier in melee, they look a little anaemic compared to other armies' elite hitters. And yes, Archons should be able to join them. Succubi and Haemonculi, maybe not, but Archons for sure.

* Raiders. Okay, raiders are actually perfectly fine right now, but hear me out. In the past, we had all these awesome vehicle wargear options that have largely just vanished. I'd love to see those return. So what if we let people swap out their aethersails rule for something like:
A.) Nightshields. Enemies outside of 12" treat the raider as being X" further away for purposes of targeting the raider with ranged attacks. Alternatively, let the raider relocate X" the first time it's targeted with a shooting attack each round, but that might be feels-bad.
B.) Chain snares. Melee weapon with the Extra-Attacks rule. Because I enjoyed throwing my vehicles into melee last edition. 10th edition's weapon profiles mean we can tweak the Attacks and Strength stats of these to be whatever seems appropriate.
C.) Shock Prow. Like chain snares, but one really big attack instead of lots of little ones. Might give it Anti-vehicle/Anti-monster if we want to avoid making it good against terminators, etc.
D.) Torture Amp. Once per game during the phase, activate the amp. Enemy units within 3" must make a battleshock test.

I'd honestly say to give ALL Raiders shock prows and chain snares, and they choose which they use in melee - either they're ramming with the prow, or they're sailing by and flensing the target. I feel that should just be part and parcel of their thing. Maybe not Anti-X though.
Not really a fan of the relocate ability, mainly because I could see it being used to get closer to an objective/frontline when the Raider wouldn't have been able to get that far anyway.

Change poison to toxin/toxic/corrosive or any other synonym that lacks the organic only connotation.

Then feel free to apply it to whatever you want. The background already said they used ammunition appropriate for their opponents, so just change the word.

Give all the characters their wargear back.

Treat anything not cult, kabal or coven as Court ie incubi, actual court, mandrakes (scourge?) and they are not affected by whatever ckc restrictions there are.


Build out the coven flesh monstrosities more. Plenty of room for options.

Could even have new cult units that are deliberately augmented by the covens for greater spectacle - 4 armed watches, beast legged etc.

At work for now, but I’ll think and post something more elaborate later.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Short of DE being a hard-counter to Tyranids while also being hard countered by Necrons and Daemons, I don't see a way that this could be implemented in a way that "feels" right. Poison can be reflected as just being part of the flavour of the weapon. We don't need rules for how bolter rounds explode after penetration, that's just flavour.

This is kind of a classic sticking point for poison. It's a bit vague on what exactly poison *does*. It made a little more sense back when having sufficiently high strength and being poisonous meant you could reroll failed to-wound rolls. If a haemonculus jabbing you hurt, then having that glancing blow deliver poison to your veins meant that a glancing blow could also be lethal. Meanwhile, if you weren't strong enough to reliably hurt something, poison meant that you could still hurt things thanks to only needing to jab them hard enough to get a little poison into their system.

Nowadays, it's like, what does poison even do? Is it a DoT? Does it make it easier to hurt things you couldn't without it? Easier to hurt things you could already hurt? Is it a debuff that only impacts things you couldn't kill?

As Hellebore points out, it's probably reasonable to assume that drukhari are packing the appropriate splinter-enhancers for whatever they're fighting, but admittedly it still gets a little weird. After all, if you're packing corrossive or EMP splinters for necrons, you should probably be able to shoot those same splinters at a vehicle, right?

If we were to get rid of special poison rules, I could see them just making splinters D2 or something (not only did you get shot, but now there's poison in you), but that feels kind of specifically anti-marine and would be a non-factor vs things like guard. You could also just make splinters S3 with no special rule like in 3rd edition, but it's sort of too bad to get rid of one of the things that helped set the army apart for a long time. Maybe if the lhamean became a character we could have baseline splinters just be conventional guns, but then the lhamean could hand out fancy, complicated special poison. So the poison flavor is still there for those who want it.

Strong agree. I love seeing a variety of mixed weapons, and I like the idea that each Wych knows how to get the most out of each one, to the point that they're all roughly as effective. Increased customisation of models FTW! And yeah, choosing between Strength and Speed is fun, though I'd see it more like giving Devastating Wounds or Sustained Fire to their melee attacks, as opposed to changing their durability. I like the idea that they're already as agile as they need to be.

I considered doign something like DW vs SF for the drugs. The reason I steered away from it was that they're both ultimately just different ways of boosting your offense. It means that one of the two drugs is always the "correct" choice against a given target and the other drug is just a trap for those who don't want to crunch numbers or carry around a spread sheet. By making one offensive and the other defensive, you can sort of choose how you want to play a given situation. Plus, I really like wyches in a tarpit role, and a boost to their invuln means that a wych not only *might* survive thanks to her speed but she's actually more likely to survive than not. Then again, wyches don't actually have a way to prevent fallbacks this edition. Maybe the speed drug should be some kind of fallback deterrant instead of a defensive boost, and then wych weapons serve as the means by which you keep the wyches alive.

Side Note: I kind of liked the idea of the Strength drugs having some further offensive benefit but then also granting enemies +1 to hit wyches in melee, but that seemed like it might be too complicated for an already complicated unit.

I'm not massively familiar with Wracks, would it be easier to just have them all armed with "Wrack ranged weapon"? Or is that removing some of their identity? Again, new to DE, and I don't really vibe with Wracks.

Honestly, my wracks are all 3rd edition pewter grotesques. On paper, however, they're actually some of the more unique weapons left to our faction, with some guns making you explode and kill your friends with your wildly-growing skeleton, liquid goo flamers, hexrifle snipers, etc. If you were to roll them all into a single profile, I'm not even sure what that profile's job should be. Auto-hitting liquifiers? Esoteric hex rifle snipers? Mortal wound-generating osseofactors?

I'd honestly say to give ALL Raiders shock prows and chain snares, and they choose which they use in melee - either they're ramming with the prow, or they're sailing by and flensing the target. I feel that should just be part and parcel of their thing. Maybe not Anti-X though.

I wouldn't hate that. I just wasn't sure if that felt like too much to be a sidegrade for the other options.

Not really a fan of the relocate ability, mainly because I could see it being used to get closer to an objective/frontline when the Raider wouldn't have been able to get that far anyway.

The way I pictured it is that the relocate ability would be something like 3". So if you really wanted to be on an objective, you'd take the aethersails instead. But the relocate is probably a bad idea. I just enjoyed the thought of hologram projectors being represented by physically shifting the model slightly out of position to hide from enemy guns. But in practice, that would probably result in raiders poking their noses out 2.5" from behind a wall and just shuffling forward and back a couple inches all game. Which kind of detracts from the fantasy. Counting as being farther away probably works better. No gotchas. Has clear counterplay. Represents the fluff pretty well.

Treat anything not cult, kabal or coven as Court ie incubi, actual court, mandrakes (scourge?) and they are not affected by whatever ckc restrictions there are

That could be interesting. Would you give each unit a bespoke rule for when it's in a court specifically? For instance, a scourge granting the squad move-shoot-move probably doesn't make sense, but I'm not sure how well having a random haywire blaster in the court would work out. But on the other hand, having a mandrake that lets the whole unit relocate could be cool.

Build out the coven flesh monstrosities more. Plenty of room for options.

Could even have new cult units that are deliberately augmented by the covens for greater spectacle - 4 armed watches, beast legged etc.

Definitely support expanding flesh monster options. On the other hand, I definitely don't want GW to just like, release winged grotesques that all feel identical to one another. Maybe it would be cool to have a monster-maker detachment that lets you choose from a list of augmentations for each unit.

Hellebore wrote:Change poison to toxin/toxic/corrosive or any other synonym that lacks the organic only connotation.

Then feel free to apply it to whatever you want. The background already said they used ammunition appropriate for their opponents, so just change the word.

That still doesn't really fix why it fluffwise doesn't work on Monsters or Vehicles. I mean, we end up with a situation where Abaddon can be "poisoned", but Guilliman can't. Hence why honestly, I think it's better to just not have it, and then if you REALLY want to make your weapons poisonous, take a Lhamean character (suggested above!) and they can hand out the Anti-Monster, Anti-Cavalry, Anti-Infantry rules (hell, perhaps something like the Lhamean has a variety of poisons it can dish out, and every time the unit is selected to Shoot or Fight, it can choose which Anti-X to have, and some could be more potent than others - so the Anti-Infantry is a 2+, but the Anti-Monster is a 4+ or 3+)

That could be fun!

Wyldhunt wrote:As Hellebore points out, it's probably reasonable to assume that drukhari are packing the appropriate splinter-enhancers for whatever they're fighting, but admittedly it still gets a little weird. After all, if you're packing corrossive or EMP splinters for necrons, you should probably be able to shoot those same splinters at a vehicle, right?

If we were to get rid of special poison rules, I could see them just making splinters D2 or something (not only did you get shot, but now there's poison in you), but that feels kind of specifically anti-marine and would be a non-factor vs things like guard. You could also just make splinters S3 with no special rule like in 3rd edition, but it's sort of too bad to get rid of one of the things that helped set the army apart for a long time. Maybe if the lhamean became a character we could have baseline splinters just be conventional guns, but then the lhamean could hand out fancy, complicated special poison. So the poison flavor is still there for those who want it.

Agreed - there isn't really a way to be able to "poison" Necrons but not a Rhino, or poison a Termagant but not the Tervigon that spawned it. Hence why I really like the idea of either a stratagem or attached Lhamean auxiliary that can re-apply an Anti-X effect.

Strong agree. I love seeing a variety of mixed weapons, and I like the idea that each Wych knows how to get the most out of each one, to the point that they're all roughly as effective. Increased customisation of models FTW! And yeah, choosing between Strength and Speed is fun, though I'd see it more like giving Devastating Wounds or Sustained Fire to their melee attacks, as opposed to changing their durability. I like the idea that they're already as agile as they need to be.

I considered doign something like DW vs SF for the drugs. The reason I steered away from it was that they're both ultimately just different ways of boosting your offense. It means that one of the two drugs is always the "correct" choice against a given target and the other drug is just a trap for those who don't want to crunch numbers or carry around a spread sheet. By making one offensive and the other defensive, you can sort of choose how you want to play a given situation. Plus, I really like wyches in a tarpit role, and a boost to their invuln means that a wych not only *might* survive thanks to her speed but she's actually more likely to survive than not. Then again, wyches don't actually have a way to prevent fallbacks this edition. Maybe the speed drug should be some kind of fallback deterrant instead of a defensive boost, and then wych weapons serve as the means by which you keep the wyches alive.

I do see what you mean - in which case, I would lean into that they broth provide non-offensive potential - one for survival with the increased Inv, and the other maybe increases the Run and Charge speed of the unit?

Side Note: I kind of liked the idea of the Strength drugs having some further offensive benefit but then also granting enemies +1 to hit wyches in melee, but that seemed like it might be too complicated for an already complicated unit.

Agreed, I think that's a bit over complex!

I'm not massively familiar with Wracks, would it be easier to just have them all armed with "Wrack ranged weapon"? Or is that removing some of their identity? Again, new to DE, and I don't really vibe with Wracks.

Honestly, my wracks are all 3rd edition pewter grotesques. On paper, however, they're actually some of the more unique weapons left to our faction, with some guns making you explode and kill your friends with your wildly-growing skeleton, liquid goo flamers, hexrifle snipers, etc. If you were to roll them all into a single profile, I'm not even sure what that profile's job should be. Auto-hitting liquifiers? Esoteric hex rifle snipers? Mortal wound-generating osseofactors?

Ah, thank you for educating me! And yeah, that's not really a unified set of weapons there. Short of leaning into the Vanguard Veterans treatment of "all these weapons have the same stats now", that's a tough one to crack if we're still sticking with the models as they currently are. My honest solution would be to make new sculpts of Wracks, with a variety of weapon options - perhaps Liquifiers as the base gun, and then any model can replace to a Hexrifle or Osseofactor - akin to Devastators?

I'd honestly say to give ALL Raiders shock prows and chain snares, and they choose which they use in melee - either they're ramming with the prow, or they're sailing by and flensing the target. I feel that should just be part and parcel of their thing. Maybe not Anti-X though.

I wouldn't hate that. I just wasn't sure if that felt like too much to be a sidegrade for the other options.

Oh, I more mean that this could/should honestly just be the base gear for Raiders!

Treat anything not cult, kabal or coven as Court ie incubi, actual court, mandrakes (scourge?) and they are not affected by whatever ckc restrictions there are

That could be interesting. Would you give each unit a bespoke rule for when it's in a court specifically? For instance, a scourge granting the squad move-shoot-move probably doesn't make sense, but I'm not sure how well having a random haywire blaster in the court would work out. But on the other hand, having a mandrake that lets the whole unit relocate could be cool.

I think what might be meant by this is that Incubi/Mandrakes/Scourges are just taken as a bodyguard unit, without being Kabal/Cult/Coven - not as individual models. Though I can see with things like the traditional Court models a similar arrangement to the Company Heroes unit - or rather, that ancients can be taken as individual units, so too could members of the Court, with a "fluffy" court made up of one of each having even more powerful abilities as a concentration of power.

The issue with having Mandrakes and Scourges in the court is that there isn't really a way for, say, an Archon to teleport with the Mandrakes or fly with Scourges, and GW seem to be trying to prevent awkward movement discrepancies like that.

Great thread idea and I like a lot of these suggestions.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


* I want archons to be buildable as duelists, raid leaders, or schemers.

100% agree. I'd also like a jetbike archon kit and card. I'm not sure I'm 100% behind a skyboard archon, but jetbike for sure. I don't usually like the idea of named characters over generic equivalents, but for me the hellion leader niche is too connected to Baron Sathonyx.

I want Asdrubael Vect and the Dias. This army needs a centerpiece.

And as far as centerpieces go, I wouldn't turn down a plastic GW-priced Tantalus either- the court rules as is (which we'll get to in a minute) at the very least make the Tantalus a great transport, accommodating the Archon, a retinue of 4 and a unit of 10 Kabalites.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


I don't like having to resolve 5+ gun profiles in a single unit. I also don't like being forced to take 10 bodies.

100% Agree- for Kabalites, Wyches and Wracks... Also for Trueborn, Blood Brides and Haemoxytes... More on that in aminute.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


A.) Lhameans become characters that improve the Poison rule of their squad by X. Or just give their squad's Poison weapons Lethal Hits or +1 Damage on critical wounds or something.

I love this idea SO much. It feels like you ripped it right out of my head. In my Crusade, the Lhamean is the equal of the archon, and half the court is under her control, rather than his. This is just the fluff, but 9th ed rules allowed me to express it on the table- you could take up to 4 of each court type based on game size- so up to one of each for Patrol, up to 2 of each for Incursion, etc. So the Archon's Court had 2 Sslyth to start... and until the Archon gained control of a poison distillery using the Ascendant Lord Crusade rules, that was all he had. Once he got the distillery, she deemed him worthy, and she showed up with a Medusa who would always be loyal to her alone, and a collection of four Ur-Ghuls, who she is willing to offer as trade,

I love the idea of making a Lhamean a character- and I'd like her to be able to be used with or without an Archon, with or without a Court, with or without a unit of Kabalites, in any combination, but...

 Wyldhunt wrote:

B.) Sslyth become their own unit joinable by at least archons if not all characters. Could be cool to see them get a few wargear options to expand/explore their lore a bit. But basically, these guys have always been at their best when they're allowed to be a group of chunky bullet sponges; neither as killy as grots nor as fast as clawed fiends.
C.) Medusae probably just become a cheap character you can splash into other squads. It kind of makes sense that they'd be hanging out around the battlefield taking in the sights from various angles.
D.) Ur-ghuls are the odd ones out. They don't really make sense as characters, but I'm not sure they're unique enough to warrant becoming full on beast pack units. Maybe just turn them into combat familiars that grant the archon some Extra-Attacks? Seems fitting for what is basically the archon's attack squig. This also saves you the awkwardness of the ghul taking up a seat in the raider.

None of these are bad ideas, but I prefer the old 9th ed combo unit (minus Lhamean) in all its flexible glory, though I also like 10th's idea of being able to attach a Court to an Archon and a unit of Kabalites- that combined with a flexible Court build might be to tough.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Succubus. Give her a choice of options similar to the archon. Let her choose between combat drugs (better beat stick; would love to see the 3rd edition overdose mechanics return), an aerial combatant (grant her squad's melee attacks to their transport while embarked? Or just a separate datasheet of a succubus on reaver jetbike?), and squad leader (let wyches use a strat for free each player turn.) Also, open up that armory and give her some options for either better attacks (glaive) or more attacks.

I don't like a Succubus without access to Combat Drugs, but I'd like a Reaver Succubus model and card.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Wyches. I want them to either kill or tarpit things. I miss haywire grenades. I miss wych weapons. I think I'd streamline the old combat drugs down to two options (having 6 was a quirky relic that doesn't need to be repeated): Strong Drugs and Fast Drugs. (Names pending.) At the start of each Fight phase, you decide which drugs you'll benefit from for the remainder of the phase. Strong Drugs up the Strength of all their melee weapons by 1. Fast Drugs improve their invuln saves by 1. It's tempting to have strong drugs make them tougher and have fast drugs give them extra attacks, but at that point you risk muddying the role of each drug/making one redundant.

As a Crusader, 9th's drug rules are excellent. But what I want is a Wych Kill team box with an upgrade sprue with additional wych weapons, old and new.

I want the same for Wracks.

Then I want cards for using the upgraded units of all three types to represent Trueborn, Blood Brides and Haemoxocytes, or without the upgrade frames, similar to what's been done with Corsairs and Kroot. I know some won't like this because they really liked the old extra weapon Trueborn, but I like the diversity provided by KT upgrade frames forming additional units, rather than just having the augmented unit as the base option.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


* Beast Packs. Break them up into multiple units that have their own jobs. The beast master gains lone operative and becomes a fun target for your opponent to hunt.
A.) Razorwings are a fast pile of wounds/volume of attacks.
B.) Clawed fiends are heavy hitters; basically grotesques without the need for a transport.
C. Khymarae phase through ruins and impassible terrain and spawn more models whenever battle shock is failed near them. In the Charge phase, all of these units will charge the closest enemy unit within 12" unless there's a beastmaster nearby. Beast masters can share their Ld with the beasts. You must have at least 1 beast master to have any beasts.

I'd be okay with this. I was also okay with 9th's system. Very much dislike 10th's structured build beast units, just like I hate 10th's structured build Court.

* Hellions. Would be pretty good if they were allowed to move through walls like infantry.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

* Haemonculus gets similar options to the other characters. Let him choose between being a poisoner (improves buffs poison weapons of his squad/transport), a monster-maker (pre-game buffs and mid-game heals to grots and engines), or a sadistic surgeon (heals models in nearby units in the command phase.)

These Archetypes work, As with some of the Archon Archetypes, I think GW will try to achieve the "Feel" of HQ based Archytpes using detachments. The enhancements allow you to customize the HQ unit, a detachment rule synergizes those with units and the Strats provide thematic situational buffs that help units who may not feel as connected to the leader HQ's archetype.

Probably going off topic but...

I'd start with the lore.

I feel in recent editions GW have really got confused over what DE are, how they operate in the fluff and in turn therefore how they appear on the table. This culminated in 8th and 9th in taking what was already a tiny faction and trying to split it, somewhat unnaturally, into 3.5 factions.

10th arguably undid this, but in the process took out essentially all synergy and left characters able to join a single unit. Not exactly great.

Now re-writing the lore, going beyond "5th edition but through a mirror darkly, something something, Vect is a living muse" has clear risks. But it comes back to "how they operate in the fluff". "Dark Eldar are raiders" - okay, an army that is old school Venom Spam seemed like a raider. But a force which leans more into other units not so much.

I've always liked the fact Dark Eldar are effectively "pain Vampires" rather than "Corsairs but even edgier".

Returning to pain tokens should I think allow you to visualise that. But I'm not super happy with the system they've got (which I can't imagine them changing). I felt the older rising tide mechanic was closer to how I see the fluff on this. Dark Eldar start the fight as half-starved gnarled, almost desperate sort of things - and as the suffering flows, become younger, faster, stronger, on the way to being quasi-daemonic demigods that snuffed out stars. Currently the system feels more like the reverse - you run in, pop all your pain pills to maximise the alpha strike, and then sort of limp out the end of the game. This may admittedly be how a lot of DE players want to play - but it doesn't fit my vision of the fluff. Its also intrinsically hard to balance - and I think inevitably leads to being either overpowered or trash, with limited scope to be in the middle. (Because your alpha strike either lands, or it doesn't.)

Beyond that - I think its the trap of not wanting to invalidate other people's armies, but also wanting to do something more. I.E. I'd quite like Kabalites to be the basic troops of the army - while Wyches and Wracks are made more elite. This means they can be further up the food chain, rather than being pushed down. But clearly this is bad for someone running around with 6 units of wyches.

My main concern is that we will get a very skewed set of detachments, rather like Ad Mech. There will be two notionally generic ones (including the current version) - and then one to buff Kabals/Cults/Covens respectively. Which may be okay if you really want to lean into that - but as said, I think its exactly where DE don't need to go.

I can agree with the Pain Vampires over edgy Corsairs fluff concern, and I'll say that I'd consider modifications to the pain token system- it's why I didn't comment about them in my previous post.

But I will object to the whole "8/9 taking us further from the fluff" because I think the ACTUAL issue is that most people's method of play (2k matched) represents such a tiny, tiny part of what Drukhari actually are in the fluff.

Drukhari raid realspace when an Archon manages to threaten, blackmail, bribe, buy or enslave enough disparate elements to form a raid, whereas they spend literally every waking moment defending themselves against other members of their own society or scheming against them back home in Commorragh, where they live 99.9% of their lives.

Now certainly their are exceptions, and rules have to be flexible enough to allow people to represent those exceptions on the table, because there's always going to be a guy who says "My army doesn't live in Commorragh." But what I've described above IS the official GW fluff and has been since the beginning.

And while I agree that it's acceptable and should be possible for an Archon to lead a group of Incubi for example, it IS important to remember that the actual GW fluff is that in most cases, if an Archon was on fire, Incubi wouldn't piss on him to put him out unless they were very, very well paid.

In Commorragh, the need for life giving pain is supplied primarily by spectating in the arena antics of Wych cults. So no one goes to a raid without watching an arena fight first. If your army does, it means your archon is not as smart as most other archons, or doesn't have the clout with the cults to treat his forces to some pre-battle spectacle and inspiration.

And of course, you know what I'm going to say next, right?

9th ed Crusade is literally the only edition of the game that actually allows you to play the army in a way that is so intimately linked to the actual GW established fluff... But very, very few Drukhari players actually have a group of like minded friends that allow them to play this way.

But if you do, having 5 or 6 Drukhari players that play 25 PL games against each other in Commorragh to gather the resources and establish the tenuous alliances with each other that are actually necessary to stage a realspace raid, and then playing that 2k realspace raid as a team vs. a single player non-Drukhari force....

That IS the GW established fluff. And I wish EVERYBODY had a group of friends who would let them try this even once. For me, it was peak Drukhari, even if there were other issues with the dex (no Archons or Succubi on bikes, missing characters, Truborn, Blood Brides and Haemoxocytes as mere upgrades rather than fully realized elite units, etc).

Again, exceptions must be possible for the sake of "your dudes," but lets not pretend that just because exceptions must be possible that norms don't exist.

And it's also not to say that even the amazing (IMHO) 9th ed Ascendent Lord style of play can't be improved- it certainly can.

Tyel wrote:

I feel in recent editions GW have really got confused over what DE are, how they operate in the fluff and in turn therefore how they appear on the table. This culminated in 8th and 9th in taking what was already a tiny faction and trying to split it, somewhat unnaturally, into 3.5 factions.

That is a thing. As nice as it was to feel like GW was acknowledging that DE had some depth to their lore, I feel like the emphasis on these divisions has probably done more harm than good from the 7th edition codex onward. In 5th edition when the divisions were really emphasized, they basically just translated to having kabal, cult, and coven troops so you could lean into one of those themes. But you could still, for instance, have your haemonculus join a wych squad, and that was even a pretty good option as it meant your wyches became tankier and better at tarpitting. In 7th-9th, the divisions were so strong that you had to jump through hoops to field all the units in the faction without losing some sort of subfaction/formation bonus. Now in 10th, there's (currently) not a reason to avoid taking any units, but you also straight up just can't have characters join any squad but the single one they're assigned.

"Dark Eldar are raiders" - okay, an army that is old school Venom Spam seemed like a raider. But a force which leans more into other units not so much.

To be honest, I've always felt that the raider angle was pretty well represented. Boats are almost mandatory in the army and kind of bring the raider flavor with them. If you're avoiding boats, you're probably either running...
A.) Fast things that can be fluffed as ranging ahead of the main force, delivering a flank attack, going after a key target needed to support the larger raid, etc. Or...
B.) A coven list. Which are often suggested to be present to try out their experiments, provide meat shields for the other raiders, entertain the haemonculus, etc. So if you fluff them as being raiders, it's easy enough to justify, and if you fluff them as being there for some other whim of the haemonculus, they represent that pretty well too.

I've always liked the fact Dark Eldar are effectively "pain Vampires" rather than "Corsairs but even edgier".

Returning to pain tokens should I think allow you to visualise that. But I'm not super happy with the system they've got (which I can't imagine them changing). I felt the older rising tide mechanic was closer to how I see the fluff on this. Dark Eldar start the fight as half-starved gnarled, almost desperate sort of things - and as the suffering flows, become younger, faster, stronger, on the way to being quasi-daemonic demigods that snuffed out stars. Currently the system feels more like the reverse - you run in, pop all your pain pills to maximise the alpha strike, and then sort of limp out the end of the game. This may admittedly be how a lot of DE players want to play - but it doesn't fit my vision of the fluff. Its also intrinsically hard to balance - and I think inevitably leads to being either overpowered or trash, with limited scope to be in the middle. (Because your alpha strike either lands, or it doesn't.)

See, the thing with the "rising tide" mechanic was that it lacked the visceral and overt connection to the violence actually occurring. You could (and at some points were actively encouraged to) spend the first turn or two hiding your army behind walls while their pain batters charged up and then deliver a beta strike. Which felt very off to me. Honestly, despite its flaws, I think 5th edition's version of Power From Pain is probably still the best version. You get pain tokens for hurting/killing things. They pile up over time rather than going away when you spend them. I imagine there's probably a way to clean up 5th's version so that assigning/redistributing pain tokens is a bit less weird and scales better.

Other alternatives:
A.) Something like Ynnari soul bursts where you get a boost or a bonus action or something as soon as a unit dies. Of course, soul bursts were such a headache for GW to balance that I'd be reluctant to go this route, sadly.
B.) Get rid of pain tokens entirely, and instead just give drukhari some rules that trigger off of how injured a unit is. Ex: Bonuses to attack/charge units that are below starting/half strength. Bonuses against battle shock while near such units. Maybe strats or special rules have stronger effects when near injured enemies. That sort of thing.

Beyond that - I think its the trap of not wanting to invalidate other people's armies, but also wanting to do something more. I.E. I'd quite like Kabalites to be the basic troops of the army - while Wyches and Wracks are made more elite. This means they can be further up the food chain, rather than being pushed down. But clearly this is bad for someone running around with 6 units of wyches.

I'm not sure I see the issue that you see. If you want to run kabalites in greater numbers than your wyches/wracks, you can just choose to do that right? If the issue is that you want to make wyches and wracks stronger but also so expensive that they don't function as "troops", then I feel like that might be overstating how strong such units are meant to be. Although even then, there's some wiggle room there. You could just have a cult or coven detachment that makes those units a little bit stronger in some fashion.

My main concern is that we will get a very skewed set of detachments, rather like Ad Mech. There will be two notionally generic ones (including the current version) - and then one to buff Kabals/Cults/Covens respectively. Which may be okay if you really want to lean into that - but as said, I think its exactly where DE don't need to go.

I see your point, but I also feel like that's the point of having the generic detachments, right? It's reasonable to have a "realspace raiders" detachment that either emphasizes warriors in boats or else doesn't emphasize one of our subfactions over the others at all. And then we can have subfaction-specific detachments for those who want to lean into a gimmick that would be a bit too much as a datasheet rule. So for instance, covens can get a build-a-bear mechanic for customizing their grots and engines. Cults could get a Red Grief style detachment that focuses on speed and mobility or a drug mechanic that lets you trade more buffs for self-inflicted overdose wounds, etc.

And while I agree that it's acceptable and should be possible for an Archon to lead a group of Incubi for example, it IS important to remember that the actual GW fluff is that in most cases, if an Archon was on fire, Incubi wouldn't piss on him to put him out unless they were very, very well paid.

Well, the assumption is that incubi don't really leave their shrines unless they're well-paid. And they're uniquely good about not backstabbing their employers when they are well-paid. Thus why they've historically been *the* dark eldar bodyguard unit for archons. (Somewhat subverted when the court became a thing.)

But if you do, having 5 or 6 Drukhari players that play 25 PL games against each other in Commorragh to gather the resources and establish the tenuous alliances with each other that are actually necessary to stage a realspace raid, and then playing that 2k realspace raid as a team vs. a single player non-Drukhari force....

That would be rad. The 9th edition crusade rules really were just begging to be expanded upon.

PenitentJake wrote:But I will object to the whole "8/9 taking us further from the fluff" because I think the ACTUAL issue is that most people's method of play (2k matched) represents such a tiny, tiny part of what Drukhari actually are in the fluff.

Not gonna quote the whole thing, but yes, I do agree with the idea that how DE spend most of their lives is different from the tabletop game.

My issue comes from two things: MOST factions in the game operate differently to how a normal game is played. Orks are very similar in needing to convince/amass allies to Waaagh! with them. Eldar and Space Marines very rarely deploy symmetrically against their opponents. Guardsmen are often supported by a tonne of fortifications or creeping artillery. When Tyranids fight, the very planet itself is also augmenting the Tyranids. But, all of these don't exactly lend to a format that can be married to a pickup game, and a LOT of players play like that. And they shouldn't lose that option.

My second ties to that - while I'm a player who prefers the asymmetric and narrative, that's just not the image that GW have when it comes to how they/most people play. And we simply can't ignore that. So, no matter how "lore accurate" certain systems are (Space Marines getting to double their points, because they have better operational manoeuvrability, Dark Eldar being controlled by 6 different players, Guardsmen getting to deploy in a full trench system), that's just not gonna fly with how *most* people play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Tyel wrote:

I feel in recent editions GW have really got confused over what DE are, how they operate in the fluff and in turn therefore how they appear on the table. This culminated in 8th and 9th in taking what was already a tiny faction and trying to split it, somewhat unnaturally, into 3.5 factions.

That is a thing. As nice as it was to feel like GW was acknowledging that DE had some depth to their lore, I feel like the emphasis on these divisions has probably done more harm than good from the 7th edition codex onward. In 5th edition when the divisions were really emphasized, they basically just translated to having kabal, cult, and coven troops so you could lean into one of those themes. But you could still, for instance, have your haemonculus join a wych squad, and that was even a pretty good option as it meant your wyches became tankier and better at tarpitting. In 7th-9th, the divisions were so strong that you had to jump through hoops to field all the units in the faction without losing some sort of subfaction/formation bonus. Now in 10th, there's (currently) not a reason to avoid taking any units, but you also straight up just can't have characters join any squad but the single one they're assigned.

Personally, I am a fan of characters being able to join only certain units. The issue is that in some cases (Incubi!!), it's just not done right. But I really don't see a Succubus fighting alongside Kabalites, because that's practically an invitation to be backstabbed.

I like the divisions between the different types, that FEELS really DE for me, but they do need to be made in such a way that units aren't just useless if they're not taken with their appropriate faction leader, or that you don't *need* all three to be present.
Wracks showing up without their Haemonculus feels fine, but a Haemonculus showing up on their own without any of their Coven feels not good.

And while I agree that it's acceptable and should be possible for an Archon to lead a group of Incubi for example, it IS important to remember that the actual GW fluff is that in most cases, if an Archon was on fire, Incubi wouldn't piss on him to put him out unless they were very, very well paid.

Well, the assumption is that incubi don't really leave their shrines unless they're well-paid. And they're uniquely good about not backstabbing their employers when they are well-paid. Thus why they've historically been *the* dark eldar bodyguard unit for archons. (Somewhat subverted when the court became a thing.)[/quote Agreed. Incubi are removed from questions of loyalty, and it's for THAT reason they're such popular bodyguards. If Incubi are bodyguarding your Archon, then yeah, they're absolutely being well paid. I feel that Incubi and the Court (as analogous to the Space Marine Company Heroes, as an option for normally independent characters to join one mega-unit) should be available to ALL Archons/Succubi/Haemonculi as bodyguards, but that also Archons/Succubi/Haemonculi should also then only be able to be accompanied by their own forces - as in, Archons can only be accompanied by Kabalites, Trueborn, Incubi, the Court, etc

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

PenitentJake wrote:But I will object to the whole "8/9 taking us further from the fluff" because I think the ACTUAL issue is that most people's method of play (2k matched) represents such a tiny, tiny part of what Drukhari actually are in the fluff.

Not gonna quote the whole thing, but yes, I do agree with the idea that how DE spend most of their lives is different from the tabletop game.

My issue comes from two things: MOST factions in the game operate differently to how a normal game is played. Orks are very similar in needing to convince/amass allies to Waaagh! with them. Eldar and Space Marines very rarely deploy symmetrically against their opponents. Guardsmen are often supported by a tonne of fortifications or creeping artillery. When Tyranids fight, the very planet itself is also augmenting the Tyranids. But, all of these don't exactly lend to a format that can be married to a pickup game, and a LOT of players play like that. And they shouldn't lose that option.

My second ties to that - while I'm a player who prefers the asymmetric and narrative, that's just not the image that GW have when it comes to how they/most people play. And we simply can't ignore that. So, no matter how "lore accurate" certain systems are (Space Marines getting to double their points, because they have better operational manoeuvrability, Dark Eldar being controlled by 6 different players, Guardsmen getting to deploy in a full trench system), that's just not gonna fly with how *most* people play.

I like to play a lot of "smart" armies (Alpha Legion, eldar, Poisoned Tongue), and I feel like I run into this a lot. Like, I constantly find myself wishing I could represent my Alpha Legion setting the stage for battle with a bunch of traps and ambushes that let them attack the enemy with overwhelming force and secure a one-sided victory... But of course that isn't much fun for my opponent. A standard game of 40k represents those moments when my sneaky smart dudes are forced to take a fight that's more even than they'd like.

I feel like a lot of the elements described above might be better off in a more macro-level game where your army's modus operandi can be represented but your opponent doesn't have to sit around being disadvantaged by it for multiple hours. Something closer to RISK or Titanicus than a skirmish-level game.

Personally, I am a fan of characters being able to join only certain units. The issue is that in some cases (Incubi!!), it's just not done right. But I really don't see a Succubus fighting alongside Kabalites, because that's practically an invitation to be backstabbed.

I like the divisions between the different types, that FEELS really DE for me, but they do need to be made in such a way that units aren't just useless if they're not taken with their appropriate faction leader, or that you don't *need* all three to be present.
Wracks showing up without their Haemonculus feels fine, but a Haemonculus showing up on their own without any of their Coven feels not good.

I think I have to politely disagree with you here. I feel like you'd normally steer clear of fielding a succubus with kabalites for mechanical reasons (she wants to stab, they want to shoot), but narratively a succubus with a retinue of kabalites is just an archite with a preference for ranged support so she can steal the melee glory. Or possibly an archon who is obsessed with melee but doesn't want to be bothered with running an arena and having to compete with the neighboring cults. My point is, there are valid fluff explanations for a succubus hanging out with kabalites, and if it doesn't somehow feel gamey to do so, it should probably be allowed. And I feel like most (all?) dark eldar units can be retinues with the explanation, "My wealthy character paid someone a lot." Maybe mandrakes, but I feel like you can probably just say that they have the ability to drag others into the shadows with them.

Haemonculi showing up without other coven folks is actually the example that came to mind of things you should be able to do. I can think of several BL novels featuring haemonculi that are basically just courtiers for archons. In some cases, they explicitly lack ties to supporting covens.

Agreed. Incubi are removed from questions of loyalty, and it's for THAT reason they're such popular bodyguards. If Incubi are bodyguarding your Archon, then yeah, they're absolutely being well paid. I feel that Incubi and the Court (as analogous to the Space Marine Company Heroes, as an option for normally independent characters to join one mega-unit) should be available to ALL Archons/Succubi/Haemonculi as bodyguards, but that also Archons/Succubi/Haemonculi should also then only be able to be accompanied by their own forces - as in, Archons can only be accompanied by Kabalites, Trueborn, Incubi, the Court, etc

I don't know. Haemonculi have a decently-long history of being able to mix in with non-coven units. Especially in older stories written when coven armies weren't really a thing. If a succubus or archon really want to pay a haemonculus to whip up a batch of grotesques and build a control device for them, that doesn't seem very out of character. Admittedly, it would be a little weird for a succubus or archon to hang out with wracks or scourges, but the game mechanics also don't really encourage you to do that either (even if you *were* technically allowed to join such units.) And if players do want to do that sort of thing, I feel like it's probably because they have some narrative they want to display on the table even though it isn't mechanically optimal.

An example near and dear to me: My wych cult's fluff includes that they have close ties to mandrakes. They have a mysterious pact where they "loan" some of their members to the mandrakes, and eventually those members are returned, either as pale, mindless husks, or as pseudo-mandrakes that can tap into shadow and balefire effects. In practice, this just means that I have a succubus painted up like a mandrake with a fireball in one hand that uses the rules for a blast pistol. In previous editions, I could choose to run her with the mandrakes to reinforce their narrative. It wasn't optimal, but it was quirky. Now I can't do that at all.

That said, this isn't a hill I intend to die on. As previously stated, there mostly isn't a mechanical incentive to run a succubus with scourges or wracks or whatever. I'd be pretty okay with just being able to join characters to incubi.

Things I want:

1. Vect
2. Character options
3. Courts/Beast packs that have selectable numbers of members.
4. 20 man Warrior squads again.
5. Buff to Wyches and Incubi

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Somewhat new to to DE, and I only have specific tastes, so I'll comment on what I'm interested in:

Wyldhunt wrote:GENERAL STUFFBring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Pretty sure DE have weird poisons that can affect non-organic things, kinda like nurgle has contagions that rot vehicles

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Somewhat new to to DE, and I only have specific tastes, so I'll comment on what I'm interested in:

Wyldhunt wrote:GENERAL STUFFBring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Pretty sure DE have weird poisons that can affect non-organic things, kinda like nurgle has contagions that rot vehicles

True, but that doesn't get into the issues then of "how come it works on Necrons but not vehicles" or "how come it works on Abaddon but not Guilliman or a Carnifex"?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Somewhat new to to DE, and I only have specific tastes, so I'll comment on what I'm interested in:

Wyldhunt wrote:GENERAL STUFFBring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Pretty sure DE have weird poisons that can affect non-organic things, kinda like nurgle has contagions that rot vehicles

True, but that doesn't get into the issues then of "how come it works on Necrons but not vehicles" or "how come it works on Abaddon but not Guilliman or a Carnifex"?

Because the real solution to that problem would be to add a Biological/Technological/Magical keyword to units and make Poison Anti-Biological (and Haywire Anti-Technological)

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Somewhat new to to DE, and I only have specific tastes, so I'll comment on what I'm interested in:

Wyldhunt wrote:GENERAL STUFFBring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Pretty sure DE have weird poisons that can affect non-organic things, kinda like nurgle has contagions that rot vehicles

True, but that doesn't get into the issues then of "how come it works on Necrons but not vehicles" or "how come it works on Abaddon but not Guilliman or a Carnifex"?

In fairness, couldn't you say the same about Haywire?

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Somewhat new to to DE, and I only have specific tastes, so I'll comment on what I'm interested in:

Wyldhunt wrote:GENERAL STUFFBring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Pretty sure DE have weird poisons that can affect non-organic things, kinda like nurgle has contagions that rot vehicles

True, but that doesn't get into the issues then of "how come it works on Necrons but not vehicles" or "how come it works on Abaddon but not Guilliman or a Carnifex"?

In fairness, couldn't you say the same about Haywire?

True. Haywire is basically just poison for vehicles.

 vipoid wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
Somewhat new to to DE, and I only have specific tastes, so I'll comment on what I'm interested in:

Wyldhunt wrote:GENERAL STUFFBring back the Poison rule. Just have a small section somewhere in the codex saying that weapons with the Poison(x+) rule have the Anti-Infantry, Anti-Beast, Anti-Swarm, and Anti-Cavalry X+ rules. I'm reluctantly okay with not having poison work against monsters for the sake of balance and simplicity.

The problem is that there's outright some armies that just aren't organic (looking at you, Necrons and Daemons!) Why would poison work on an automata, or a creature of pure warpstuff, but not a Carnifex?

Pretty sure DE have weird poisons that can affect non-organic things, kinda like nurgle has contagions that rot vehicles

True, but that doesn't get into the issues then of "how come it works on Necrons but not vehicles" or "how come it works on Abaddon but not Guilliman or a Carnifex"?

In fairness, couldn't you say the same about Haywire?

My argument for that is that Haywire only functions on larger vehicles (and by larger, I mean anything bigger than a Centurion Warsuit). And, we do see that GW recognises this, in that Riptides are classed as Vehicles, not Monsters.

Again, would be fixed by instead having "biological/technological/magical" as tags though.

The thing about bio/tech/magic tags is that they don't necessarily serve the game's needs even though they describe the fluff well.

Poison that can negate T5 on centurions or efficiently take on orks is very different from Poison that can cost-effectively harm, say, a Great Unclean One or a tervigon. Similarly, a haywire blaster is generally thought of as a specialized weapon that is really good against big things but just meh against other targets. If you suddenly make it a fantastic all-rounded when playing against necrons, you make it that much harder to balance/price.

 Wyldhunt wrote:


* Pain Engines. Cronos is fine as-is, though it would need to be updated if PFP were changed.

I'll disagree on this.
Thier current special rules are Allright. And there's nothing wrong with thier basics stat block.
But without even a pt of AP Cronos are pretty anemic.

And then we have the problem shared by both Talis & Cronos - unit size. 10e dropped this to 1-2 vs the previous 1-3 models. :(
This might not be of any concern for those of you who only field a couple of these models at a time.
Me though? I like dreadnought type things - dreads. Kans, pain engines. Etc.
So I built & painted full units of both Talos and Cronos. I don't really appreciate having 1/3 of each unit now sitting idle on my shelve.
I want my unit sizes back to 1-3. Especially for the Talos.

Honestly, Wyldhunt has already covered most of what I would like to see. Just one thing I feel like talking about:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Tyel wrote:
I've always liked the fact Dark Eldar are effectively "pain Vampires" rather than "Corsairs but even edgier".

Returning to pain tokens should I think allow you to visualise that. But I'm not super happy with the system they've got (which I can't imagine them changing). I felt the older rising tide mechanic was closer to how I see the fluff on this. Dark Eldar start the fight as half-starved gnarled, almost desperate sort of things - and as the suffering flows, become younger, faster, stronger, on the way to being quasi-daemonic demigods that snuffed out stars. Currently the system feels more like the reverse - you run in, pop all your pain pills to maximise the alpha strike, and then sort of limp out the end of the game. This may admittedly be how a lot of DE players want to play - but it doesn't fit my vision of the fluff. Its also intrinsically hard to balance - and I think inevitably leads to being either overpowered or trash, with limited scope to be in the middle. (Because your alpha strike either lands, or it doesn't.)

See, the thing with the "rising tide" mechanic was that it lacked the visceral and overt connection to the violence actually occurring. You could (and at some points were actively encouraged to) spend the first turn or two hiding your army behind walls while their pain batters charged up and then deliver a beta strike. Which felt very off to me. Honestly, despite its flaws, I think 5th edition's version of Power From Pain is probably still the best version. You get pain tokens for hurting/killing things. They pile up over time rather than going away when you spend them. I imagine there's probably a way to clean up 5th's version so that assigning/redistributing pain tokens is a bit less weird and scales better.

Other alternatives:
A.) Something like Ynnari soul bursts where you get a boost or a bonus action or something as soon as a unit dies. Of course, soul bursts were such a headache for GW to balance that I'd be reluctant to go this route, sadly.
B.) Get rid of pain tokens entirely, and instead just give drukhari some rules that trigger off of how injured a unit is. Ex: Bonuses to attack/charge units that are below starting/half strength. Bonuses against battle shock while near such units. Maybe strats or special rules have stronger effects when near injured enemies. That sort of thing.

I would agree with this. Though I'd add that my biggest issue with the 'rising tide' mechanic is that it was unbelievably boring. Even in editions when it was strong, it was a completely passive buff that granted a series of passive buffs to an army that already had already lost a ton of tricks and general interactivity.

If I was going to redo the mechanic, I would definitely start with 5th as a baseline, with troops getting individual pain tokens from killing units, and getting stronger the more they have. I'd perhaps also try to balance things with the aim of getting more tokens (just so you've got a bit more to play around with).

While there's a bit more to keep track of, I think this system would lend itself far better to bringing out the character of DE.

For example:

- You could have a mechanic whereby a unit within 6" can try to steal another unit's pain token when it gets a kill (perhaps with a successful leadership check), emphasising the competitive infighting and betrayal within the DE.

- Archons could go a step further and redistribute a number of pain tokens during their turn, as they reward their favoured warriors.

- Could also have them (or other HQs) kill models in a nearby friendly unit to generate an extra token for themselves.

- Haemonculi could start with a token and generate one each turn for themselves or a unit within 6".

- Succubi and Wyches could generate an extra pain token on a melee kill for a nearby unit (emphasising the additional benefits of their spectacular kills).

- Could also have weapons or such that don't do as much damage but generate extra pain tokens on kills.

- Mandrakes could gain an enhanced Baleblast when they have enough tokens.

- A Mandrake HQ (I can dream ) could even spend Pain Tokens to cast something resembling spells.

These are just a few ideas, obviously, but the main point is that a system where units collect individual pain tokens seems much better suited to representing the Dark Eldar than one with a shared pool. After all, DE are very individualistic and will happily betray one another to get ahead if they think they can get away with it, so it just seems more sensible for their army mechanic to reflect that, rather than treating them like a cohesive whole.

Honestly, Wyldhunt has already covered most of what I would like to see. Just one thing I feel like talking about:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I've always liked the fact Dark Eldar are effectively "pain Vampires" rather than "Corsairs but even edgier".

Returning to pain tokens should I think allow you to visualise that. But I'm not super happy with the system they've got (which I can't imagine them changing). I felt the older rising tide mechanic was closer to how I see the fluff on this. Dark Eldar start the fight as half-starved gnarled, almost desperate sort of things - and as the suffering flows, become younger, faster, stronger, on the way to being quasi-daemonic demigods that snuffed out stars. Currently the system feels more like the reverse - you run in, pop all your pain pills to maximise the alpha strike, and then sort of limp out the end of the game. This may admittedly be how a lot of DE players want to play - but it doesn't fit my vision of the fluff. Its also intrinsically hard to balance - and I think inevitably leads to being either overpowered or trash, with limited scope to be in the middle. (Because your alpha strike either lands, or it doesn't.)


See, the thing with the "rising tide" mechanic was that it lacked the visceral and overt connection to the violence actually occurring. You could (and at some points were actively encouraged to) spend the first turn or two hiding your army behind walls while their pain batters charged up and then deliver a beta strike. Which felt very off to me. Honestly, despite its flaws, I think 5th edition's version of Power From Pain is probably still the best version. You get pain tokens for hurting/killing things. They pile up over time rather than going away when you spend them. I imagine there's probably a way to clean up 5th's version so that assigning/redistributing pain tokens is a bit less weird and scales better.

Other alternatives:
A.) Something like Ynnari soul bursts where you get a boost or a bonus action or something as soon as a unit dies. Of course, soul bursts were such a headache for GW to balance that I'd be reluctant to go this route, sadly.
B.) Get rid of pain tokens entirely, and instead just give drukhari some rules that trigger off of how injured a unit is. Ex: Bonuses to attack/charge units that are below starting/half strength. Bonuses against battle shock while near such units. Maybe strats or special rules have stronger effects when near injured enemies. That sort of thing.


I would agree with this. Though I'd add that my biggest issue with the 'rising tide' mechanic is that it was unbelievably boring. Even in editions when it was strong, it was a completely passive buff that granted a series of passive buffs to an army that already had already lost a ton of tricks and general interactivity.

If I was going to redo the mechanic, I would definitely start with 5th as a baseline, with troops getting individual pain tokens from killing units, and getting stronger the more they have. I'd perhaps also try to balance things with the aim of getting more tokens (just so you've got a bit more to play around with).

While there's a bit more to keep track of, I think this system would lend itself far better to bringing out the character of DE.

For example:

- You could have a mechanic whereby a unit within 6" can try to steal another unit's pain token when it gets a kill (perhaps with a successful leadership check), emphasising the competitive infighting and betrayal within the DE.

- Archons could go a step further and redistribute a number of pain tokens during their turn, as they reward their favoured warriors.

- Could also have them (or other HQs) kill models in a nearby friendly unit to generate an extra token for themselves.

- Haemonculi could start with a token and generate one each turn for themselves or a unit within 6".

- Succubi and Wyches could generate an extra pain token on a melee kill for a nearby unit (emphasising the additional benefits of their spectacular kills).

- Could also have weapons or such that don't do as much damage but generate extra pain tokens on kills.

- Mandrakes could gain an enhanced Baleblast when they have enough tokens.

- A Mandrake HQ (I can dream ) could even spend Pain Tokens to cast something resembling spells.

These are just a few ideas, obviously, but the main point is that a system where units collect individual pain tokens seems much better suited to representing the Dark Eldar than one with a shared pool. After all, DE are very individualistic and will happily betray one another to get ahead if they think they can get away with it, so it just seems more sensible for their army mechanic to reflect that, rather than treating them like a cohesive whole.

I like the vibes here and agree with the general sentiment. I'm not sure how lore-accurate it is to consciously re-allocate/steal pain energy from your fellow drukhari, but there's a lot to like. My only concerns here are:
A.) If you include too many different ways to generate pain tokens, things get a little complicated, and it may water down the visceral feeling that comes from, "Kill stuff. Get token."
B.) If tokens can be easily accumulated, then the benefits for having tokens either need taper off/stop after a certain number of tokens, or else the benefits have to be minor enough that your first few tokens aren't that big a deal. If you can reliably stick 2 tokens on a wych unit every turn and every token results in +1 Attacks or something, then you'd be looking at wyches with like 7 attacks after just a couple turns.

I feel like the easy/simple approach would be to:
* Start with 5e as a baseline. One token per enemy unit killed. 10th edition's character rules actually neatly avoid the pain token reallocation weirdness that came from the IC rules in 5th.
* When a dark eldar unit dies, its pain tokens go to the nearest friendly dark eldar. This addresses the issue of opponents basically being able to snipe our pain tokens out of existence. So you won't get halfway through the battle and find your army is still thirsty/pain free because your forward elements died.

POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES/ADD-ONS
* Maybe have excess pain tokens go to the next-nearest unit? Prevents agonizing over wasted tokens if your incubi happen to be closer to the enemy's front lines. Also means you can just put a cap on how much of a boost pain tokens grant rather than having to figure out a way for them to scale endlessly.
* Maybe give some units (characters especially) their own PFP table. That is, maybe an ancient archon or his haemonculus buddy are thirstier and can drink more pain than their newbie minions. So where kabalites might not see any benefits beyond 2 or 3 pain tokens, their boss might be able to rack up a bunch of extra Attacks or Strength or whatever by having his chart go up to like, 6 benefits.
* If the nearest unit is a boat, give the pain token to a (random?) embarked unit. Half the point of our boats being lightly armored is that the drukhari want to able to taste the pain on the air.
* Have pain tokens degrade/go away over time? Adds a little bookkeeping but would allow you to make pain token generation more common/would let you stack up a bunch of tokens on one unit without the number of tokens in play getting out of hand. Gives the sensation that the thrill/sustenance provided by violence is slipping away (positive?), but also means you won't look at your army post-battle and have that satisfying feeling of your units being "full." (Negative?)
* Rather than one token per kill, each dark eldar unit within X" of the last model to be removed as a casualty gets a pain token. Helps pain scale when running MSU or playing an enemy with a low unit count. Kind of fluffy given that wyches killing/torturing a small number of people at a time in the arenas is apparently enough for the entire audience to take a bite. Means you generate lots of tokens fast though.
* Generate pain tokens the first time an enemy unit is reduced below half-strength? Makes tokens more common. Makes sense when dealing with 20-man blobs. Makes enough sense when dealing with MSU. Main downside is bookkeeping.
* Maybe accumulating "too many" pain tokens results in debuffs? Like, you're so high on pain energy that you start getting reckless/sloppy. Fluffy, but probably not good as a game mechanic.
* Friendly units being destroyed also generates pain tokens? Probably redundant with the "pass along your tokens when you die" option.

POSSIBLE BENEFITS OF PAIN TOKENS
* A 5th edition style table. You get specific, cumulative benefits for having at least X tokens up to a maximum of Y. Excess tokens do nothing. Simple. Some units will like that table more than others though.
* Per the above, but there are a few different tables to better fit the fluff of various units. Tokens granting melee buffs is kind of meh for warriors. Main downside is added rules volume. Have to memorize multiple tables.
* Infinite scaling buffs. PFP grants one or two specific buffs that scale up infinitely based on pain tokens. Ex: +1" Movement for each token, and +1 to melee Attack profiles for every two tokens. Upside is that it rewards you for accumulating lots of tokens and thus can support a token-generation option where lots of tokens are being generated. Downside is that the first few tokens are underwhelming.
*5th edition style table with infinite scaling for X+ tokens? Example: 1 token = FNP, 2 tokens = FNP and the lance rule on melee weapons, 3+= FNP, lance, and +1 to melee Attacks characteristics for each token beyond the first 2. Lets you front-load stronger benefits and still rewards accruing lots of tokens, albeit at a reduced rate.
* No tables or scaling benefits at all. Instead, as long as a unit has at least one token, it is empowered. Each datasheet has its own benefits for being empowered including better stats, new or improved special rules, etc. Upsides: simple and tailored to each unit. Downsides: Have to remember the benefits for each individual unit. Doesn't really reward glutting a unit on tons of pain (although I guess you could make a special rule that allows archons or coven units or whomever to benefit from extra tokens). I could see this option working well if pain tokens expire and you generate multiple pain tokens easily.