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.

I always thought that the soul trap should be in addition to the pistol options, not instead of. Choose your pistol, choose your CCW, choose a piece of wargear.

 cuda1179 wrote:
I always thought that the soul trap should be in addition to the pistol options, not instead of. Choose your pistol, choose your CCW, choose a piece of wargear.

Oh for sure. And in past editions, I'm almost positive it was. Making it a pistol swap is, I suspect, the result of GW opting to model it as an object the archon is holding. And possibly an attempt to start creeping towards giving us options even if those options probably shouldn't actually be competing with eachother?

 ingtaer wrote:
Agreed, take that tangent to its own thread and quit derailing this one.

With respect I'd say "are splinter weapons effective enough into terminators for anti-infantry weapons when an intercessor outperforms them" is entirely on topic.

Probably, Dudeface, but I think the mods are saying that trying to define what does and doesn't count as a terminator equivalent for purposes of that discussion is tangential.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Probably, Dudeface, but I think the mods are saying that trying to define what does and doesn't count as a terminator equivalent for purposes of that discussion is tangential.

Possibly, but in that case yes, splinter weapons do need a buff vs TEQ, I just can't see how beyond a unilateral increase in AP, or some method of showing how toxins impact a model beyond the armour itself. Maybe some form of hit or movement impact as a result of the toxins impacting the surviving model? It doesn't over punish 1w models then at least.

I don’t agree. Terminators are meant to be tough. Yes, any armour is going to have weak points, but that’s all relative.

If my most heavily armoured areas are equivalent to say, 6” of steel? My thinner, more vulnerable areas could still be the equivalent of 3” of steel. So even on the thinnest area, small arms still have basically no chance of hurting me. And that’s what Terminator armour has always been. A reliable answer to small arms.

Just…let Terminators be a difficult opponent.

Instead, I think DE need to lean more into the kidnapping angle. Let some weapons reflect they want you alive, first and foremost. Injured if needs be, but uninjured being particularly prized. Once your in their grasp? They can winkle you out your tin can further down the road.

I’m thinking, just to use existent 40K tech? Stasis fields, tangle nets (maybe with EMP tech to switch off fancier armours), gravity traps etc.

That way, any would-be victims who can’t be rapidly or reliably subdued by poison (which needn’t always be deadly!) can be nabbed via other means.

If we subtlety reimagine the Shredder? We could end up with a mono-filament weapon that forces the foe to remain stationary lest they get julliened. Haywire weapons which shutdown Power Armour etc.

Basically, not everything has to be something that makes other things go splat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashkerly. Mentioning kidnapping has me curious about another toy they could have.

We know Battleshock partially represents squad members losing their nerve rather than being slain, yes? At least that’s my understanding.

How about some VP Mechanism, tied to the number of models lost to Battleshock, representing victims taken back to Commoragh.

Let it be something tallied at the end of the game, representing that the Dark Eldar come for more than just breaking your stuff. The Raids are there to gather new slaves. And so even if the raiding force takes a mauling? Provided enough slaves are gathered, it can still be a victory.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don’t agree. Terminators are meant to be tough. Yes, any armour is going to have weak points, but that’s all relative.

If my most heavily armoured areas are equivalent to say, 6” of steel? My thinner, more vulnerable areas could still be the equivalent of 3” of steel. So even on the thinnest area, small arms still have basically no chance of hurting me. And that’s what Terminator armour has always been. A reliable answer to small arms.

Just…let Terminators be a difficult opponent.

Instead, I think DE need to lean more into the kidnapping angle. Let some weapons reflect they want you alive, first and foremost. Injured if needs be, but uninjured being particularly prized. Once your in their grasp? They can winkle you out your tin can further down the road.

I’m thinking, just to use existent 40K tech? Stasis fields, tangle nets (maybe with EMP tech to switch off fancier armours), gravity traps etc.

That way, any would-be victims who can’t be rapidly or reliably subdued by poison (which needn’t always be deadly!) can be nabbed via other means.

If we subtlety reimagine the Shredder? We could end up with a mono-filament weapon that forces the foe to remain stationary lest they get julliened. Haywire weapons which shutdown Power Armour etc.

Basically, not everything has to be something that makes other things go splat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashkerly. Mentioning kidnapping has me curious about another toy they could have.

We know Battleshock partially represents squad members losing their nerve rather than being slain, yes? At least that’s my understanding.

How about some VP Mechanism, tied to the number of models lost to Battleshock, representing victims taken back to Commoragh.

Let it be something tallied at the end of the game, representing that the Dark Eldar come for more than just breaking your stuff. The Raids are there to gather new slaves. And so even if the raiding force takes a mauling? Provided enough slaves are gathered, it can still be a victory.

I think in terms of game balance they still need something. If you've suffered an internal wound from a neurotoxin, I aren't sure what the layers of steel offer.

Ofc the other option is likely more sensible and that's stop intercessors spamming 40 shots a unit.

Going through other half-remembered rules of old. And not just from 40K.

BFG wise, Dark Eldar ships had mimic drives. I do have the relevant book upstairs but can’t be arsed to go check. But it essentially messed with your enemy in the early game.

Something like that could be adopted into 40K. A rule or equipment option which mitigates first turn shooting. Give the DE player a solid chance at the first strike.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don’t agree. Terminators are meant to be tough. Yes, any armour is going to have weak points, but that’s all relative.

If my most heavily armoured areas are equivalent to say, 6” of steel? My thinner, more vulnerable areas could still be the equivalent of 3” of steel. So even on the thinnest area, small arms still have basically no chance of hurting me. And that’s what Terminator armour has always been. A reliable answer to small arms.

Just…let Terminators be a difficult opponent.

Instead, I think DE need to lean more into the kidnapping angle. Let some weapons reflect they want you alive, first and foremost. Injured if needs be, but uninjured being particularly prized. Once your in their grasp? They can winkle you out your tin can further down the road.

I’m thinking, just to use existent 40K tech? Stasis fields, tangle nets (maybe with EMP tech to switch off fancier armours), gravity traps etc.

That way, any would-be victims who can’t be rapidly or reliably subdued by poison (which needn’t always be deadly!) can be nabbed via other means.

If we subtlety reimagine the Shredder? We could end up with a mono-filament weapon that forces the foe to remain stationary lest they get julliened. Haywire weapons which shutdown Power Armour etc.

Basically, not everything has to be something that makes other things go splat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashkerly. Mentioning kidnapping has me curious about another toy they could have.

We know Battleshock partially represents squad members losing their nerve rather than being slain, yes? At least that’s my understanding.

How about some VP Mechanism, tied to the number of models lost to Battleshock, representing victims taken back to Commoragh.

Let it be something tallied at the end of the game, representing that the Dark Eldar come for more than just breaking your stuff. The Raids are there to gather new slaves. And so even if the raiding force takes a mauling? Provided enough slaves are gathered, it can still be a victory.

We used to have most of that. Haywire grenades used to be available to wyches in general, most generic characters, and I *think* most sergeant types. And of course, said haywire used to be about shutting tanks down rather than making them go boom. We used to have shardnets that kept enemies from falling back. The ghost of which now exists in the wyches' No Escape rule. We used to have chain snare upgrades for our vehicles representing the chains snagging people and leaving them dangling beneath the hull as they were hauled around the battlefield. Hellions used to be able to yoink characters out of squads with stun claws...

The slave taking mechanic also existed back in the 3rd edition book. It was cool, but any kind of "bonus VP" mechanic is hard to introduce into modern 40k because there isn't really a set constant for how many points you should expect to score. A Matched Play mission might have you aiming for 100 VP while a Crusade mission or the mission at the end of the core rules document might have you maxing out at only a handful of points. So if I can reliably score +5 VP from taking captives, that might be a cute little drop in the bucket or it might double my total score depending on what kind of mission I'm playing.

It probably works better as some sort of Crusade mechanic or something. Do our current crusade rules do anything like that? I don't think I've checked.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Going through other half-remembered rules of old. And not just from 40K.

BFG wise, Dark Eldar ships had mimic drives. I do have the relevant book upstairs but can’t be arsed to go check. But it essentially messed with your enemy in the early game.

Something like that could be adopted into 40K. A rule or equipment option which mitigates first turn shooting. Give the DE player a solid chance at the first strike.

Kind of like ye olde Night Fighting rules or Night Shields. :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I think in terms of game balance they still need something. If you've suffered an internal wound from a neurotoxin, I aren't sure what the layers of steel offer.

Ofc the other option is likely more sensible and that's stop intercessors spamming 40 shots a unit.

Yeah. I think the original point on the splinters vs bolters topic was basically just that splinters are both more specialized than intercessor bolters and also less effective into targets where their strengths are supposed to shine point-for-point. But I think that intercessors putting out 4 shots apiece with Oath of Moment is a bit whacky, and I think that kabalites having up to 5 special weapons in a 10 man squad makes it tricky to compare them in 10th edition.

As for neurotoxins vs armor, that kind of gets back to the question of what you want venomous weapons to do in the first place. I think there are a bunch of different viable, fluffy ways to go with it, but they all probably require a fair bit of overhauling, and any one-size-fits-all approach will probably be a bad fit for one kind of poison weapon or another.

That sort of thing, yeah. Not a foolproof “you can’t shoot me at all in the first turn” necessarily. That might be too boring to face.

But something like “add 6” to all enemy range” wait. Add, or subtract? Hopefully you get what I mean.

Slave Taking could be expressed as nominating X number of enemy units which are the true quarry, and scoring VPs for taking them out.

All about fighting dirty and with cunning as much as scalpel precision.

Slave Taking could be expressed as nominating X number of enemy units which are the true quarry, and scoring VPs for taking them out.

This is basically the sort of thing we had with faction-specific secondaries in 9th edition. In a 10th edition context, they'd probably be best suited to being some sort of Crusade Agenda.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Slave Taking could be expressed as nominating X number of enemy units which are the true quarry, and scoring VPs for taking them out.

This is basically the sort of thing we had with faction-specific secondaries in 9th edition. In a 10th edition context, they'd probably be best suited to being some sort of Crusade Agenda.

Agree with this.

If you are going to have faction specific secondaries they need to be balanced far better then GW has shown the ability to do. If not when you match up against an army with a broken one, it’s an uphill battle as they are going to max it out casually, while you need to work at yours. Matched play should be mostly even.

Crusade agenda is a much better spot for fluffy things like this. Win or loose the game? Whatever! I’ve got my slaves to take back for the pits (and the units that took them get bonus XP to buy upgrades)

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Slave Taking could be expressed as nominating X number of enemy units which are the true quarry, and scoring VPs for taking them out.

This is basically the sort of thing we had with faction-specific secondaries in 9th edition. In a 10th edition context, they'd probably be best suited to being some sort of Crusade Agenda.

Agree with this.

If you are going to have faction specific secondaries they need to be balanced far better then GW has shown the ability to do. If not when you match up against an army with a broken one, it’s an uphill battle as they are going to max it out casually, while you need to work at yours. Matched play should be mostly even.

Crusade agenda is a much better spot for fluffy things like this. Win or loose the game? Whatever! I’ve got my slaves to take back for the pits (and the units that took them get bonus XP to buy upgrades)

Two of their current Crusade Agendas ARE about taking slaves and herding prey, so...

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Slave Taking could be expressed as nominating X number of enemy units which are the true quarry, and scoring VPs for taking them out.

This is basically the sort of thing we had with faction-specific secondaries in 9th edition. In a 10th edition context, they'd probably be best suited to being some sort of Crusade Agenda.

Agree with this.

If you are going to have faction specific secondaries they need to be balanced far better then GW has shown the ability to do. If not when you match up against an army with a broken one, it’s an uphill battle as they are going to max it out casually, while you need to work at yours. Matched play should be mostly even.

Crusade agenda is a much better spot for fluffy things like this. Win or loose the game? Whatever! I’ve got my slaves to take back for the pits (and the units that took them get bonus XP to buy upgrades)

Two of their current Crusade Agendas ARE about taking slaves and herding prey, so...

Well there we go then.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 BorderCountess wrote:

 Nevelon wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Slave Taking could be expressed as nominating X number of enemy units which are the true quarry, and scoring VPs for taking them out.

This is basically the sort of thing we had with faction-specific secondaries in 9th edition. In a 10th edition context, they'd probably be best suited to being some sort of Crusade Agenda.

Agree with this.

If you are going to have faction specific secondaries they need to be balanced far better then GW has shown the ability to do. If not when you match up against an army with a broken one, it’s an uphill battle as they are going to max it out casually, while you need to work at yours. Matched play should be mostly even.

Crusade agenda is a much better spot for fluffy things like this. Win or loose the game? Whatever! I’ve got my slaves to take back for the pits (and the units that took them get bonus XP to buy upgrades)

Two of their current Crusade Agendas ARE about taking slaves and herding prey, so...

Well there we go then.

As much as we pick on GW for their failures/misses, they do get a lot of things right. Props to them when they do.

Honestly, the original rules for mandrakes were really tricky in my local group back during 3rd edition, they usually made it into combat the first or second turn after they showed up.

Would it be so bad for kabalites to have a toxin list that they chose from every time they shot?

say 3, and one is good against high wounds and toughness, one is good against chaff and one is good against armour.

multi shard autoloading guns are hardly a stretch for them.

Just flick to the anti carnifex rounds. Doesn't mean they can kill 5 carnifexes a turn, but it means the whole squad can do something against them.

DE don't play fair, they will always attempt to have the underhanded advantage. Having the ability to choose the type of attack they use for their guns to pick on the specific target they've chosen seems in character.

Something like:

splinter rifle rapid fire 1 24" S4 AP- D1

agoniser rounds - Devastating wounds against monsters and vehicles
Shredder rounds - sustained hits against infantry or mounted
Acidifer Rounds - -2 AP

 Hellebore wrote:
Would it be so bad for kabalites to have a toxin list that they chose from every time they shot?

Probably not. I think it just sort of "feels weird." The closest mechanic we've had for precedent is probably the special ammo profiles that used to be available on sternguard and are still(?) available to Death Watch. In those cases, you were dealing with not just marines but especially expensive marines. Whereas kabalites have always(?) been relatively cheap due to their squishy statline. So giving a relatively cheap unit a rule that basically lets them mathhammer their basic guns into performing better on the fly risks feeling like a roundabout and possibly overcomplicated way of just upping their lethality. You could probably get a similar end result by just making splinter rifles A3 or something.

That said, the kabalite cartel detachment does something sorta kinda similar and applies those buffs not just to splinter weapons but to all kabalite or mercenary weapons both ranged and melee. Granted, that's using up the detachment rule slot, but you can probably imagine a scaled-down version that gets slapped on kabalites specifically. Or alternatively, make it a special rule for a lhamean or haemonculus or something. The lhamean tosses a "venom catalyzer grenade" at a target, and anyone shooting that target can use the improved profile on their splinter weapons.

I could also see a version of splinter weapons where they choose between a an offense-buffing profile and a debuff profile. So imagine a splinter rifle with the current statline, minus the anti-infantry rule. Then every time you shoot, you can choose between:
Venom Rounds: Your attacks wound non-vehicles on 3+ regardless of Toughness.
Paralyzer Rounds: You're stuck with the crummy low-strength profile, but one non-vehicle target suffers -1 to-hit and -2" to movement in the following turn.

So even with just two options, by shifting the focus of one of the profiles away from offense and towards utility, splinter rifles suddenly have a job even when they're presented with targets that they're very good at killing.

The argument of you can achieve the same by making them a3 is true for all rules. Ultimately you don't need lethal hits or devastating wounds as rules. But we use them for a small amount of flavour.

So it's not really persuasive to me
And if it was solved by more attacks then the aforementioned deathwatch would have gotten it instead of bespoke custom rounds.

This is why I mentioned it as a battle focus idea previously as a range of effects you can pick on of each per round.

Imo kabalites are too hordey at the moment so anything to make their hammer harder and their cost higher is preferred. Maybe if they had a generic mutie slave horde unit that's not grotesques or whatever that any cult can deploy it would make sense. But even their cloning system doesn't make endless warriors.

They just suck and I'd like to see them better. Beyond just making them an elf horde

The three rounds thing does appeal, even if you tie it to CP. Not only would it act as some restraint, preventing every Kabul squad being a hard counter? But in terms of the background it represents each squad/warband being self funded, and so whilst yes it may have access to nastier venoms and pizzens and that? They’re a premium cost not to be used carelessly.

To revisit my proposal for Venom sized support craft? Bubble Shield to grant an Inv to models within range. Or a Webway portal mounted on the back, allowing it to deposit multiple squads. For more offensive options adapted weapons we see in Craftworlds. A Vibro-Weapon of modest hittiness, the main purpose being to slow down the target via suddenly unsure footing, a Mono-filament weapon you can cast onto Objectives to lower OC?

The sort of support weapon that needs something to support for best results.

I feel like the thread is just "what DE need is for Kabalites with Splinter Rifles to be better".

Focusing on poison is to my mind bizarre, because its such a minority concern. I guess there's the Kabalite detachment which is "kabalites in transports, the list". But otherwise you are hardly likely to bring enough splinter-armed kabalites to be bothered.

You don't win games by lining up kabalites and shooting stuff to death. You haven't done... well, ever frankly. Old-school venom spam was a thing - but that was when 6 shots was good because even TEQ would roll 1s to save from time to time and only had 1 wound.

Its like whenever Marines are struggling you get debates about how "bolters" are too weak - as if Marine lists regularly consist of 60 tactical marines. (You - yes you - reading this, I know you run a list of 60 tactical marines, but most do not.)

Tyel wrote:
I feel like the thread is just "what DE need is for Kabalites with Splinter Rifles to be better".

Focusing on poison is to my mind bizarre, because its such a minority concern. I guess there's the Kabalite detachment which is "kabalites in transports, the list". But otherwise you are hardly likely to bring enough splinter-armed kabalites to be bothered.

The reason the rules for poison matter is that it's not just the weapon of Kabalites.

It's also:
- The weapons of the Hand of the Archon
- The weapons of Hellions
- The weapons of Reavers
- The weapons of Scourges
- The weapons of Venoms
- (Some) of the weapons of the Razorwing Jetfighter
- The weapons of Wracks
- The ranged weapons (such as they are) of HQs
- The melee weapons of HQs

(And I'm not even including the units like Lhamaeans and Sslyth that were chopped from 10th.)

It's like saying to Marines that it doesn't matter if their 400 versions of Bolt-weapons are all given useless profiles because Tactical Marines aren't that important.

I’d prefer they just make the guns work well, without picking poisons. The underlying assumption for that kind of thing is that the unit is using the correct toxin for the target anyway.

Special ammo for sternguard was a special thing for a single elite unit. And I used the same rounds like 80% of the time. Options were nice for those other times, but honestly smoother gameplay is another feature to consider. Especially for a core unit and a gun found in a lot of places.

If they bring back trueborn, it might be fun to have options for exotic poisons for a specialist elite unit. But for a bread and butter staple of the army? Keep it simple.

Tyel wrote:
I feel like the thread is just "what DE need is for Kabalites with Splinter Rifles to be better".

Focusing on poison is to my mind bizarre, because its such a minority concern. I guess there's the Kabalite detachment which is "kabalites in transports, the list". But otherwise you are hardly likely to bring enough splinter-armed kabalites to be bothered.

You don't win games by lining up kabalites and shooting stuff to death. You haven't done... well, ever frankly. Old-school venom spam was a thing - but that was when 6 shots was good because even TEQ would roll 1s to save from time to time and only had 1 wound.

Its like whenever Marines are struggling you get debates about how "bolters" are too weak - as if Marine lists regularly consist of 60 tactical marines. (You - yes you - reading this, I know you run a list of 60 tactical marines, but most do not.)

This is a painfully reductive take though, maybe it should be possible for a kabalite force to be offensively useful? Maybe the bolter shouldn't be pillow fisted?

Any argument rooted in "why does it need to be viable because it isn't/wasn't previously", can immediately be thrown out imo.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Venom Rounds: Your attacks wound non-vehicles on 3+ regardless of Toughness.

I don't think they should also wound Monsters on a 3+.
Make it non-Monsters and non-Vehicles on a 3+, Monsters on a 5+, and Vehicles they get no bonus against.

 Nevelon wrote:
I’d prefer they just make the guns work well, without picking poisons. The underlying assumption for that kind of thing is that the unit is using the correct toxin for the target anyway.

Special ammo for sternguard was a special thing for a single elite unit. And I used the same rounds like 80% of the time. Options were nice for those other times, but honestly smoother gameplay is another feature to consider. Especially for a core unit and a gun found in a lot of places.

If they bring back trueborn, it might be fun to have options for exotic poisons for a specialist elite unit. But for a bread and butter staple of the army? Keep it simple.

Potentially a perk of Trueborn? Representing the difference between smelly Kaballite and even Minor Nobles when it comes to the division and availability of resources within Commoragh. Kaballites stuck with “one size pizzens most”, Trueborn flexing their comparative wealth with a selection of more potent pizzens and toxins, allowing them to hunt higher value targets. The sort which, let’s face it, they’d only liberate from the mere plebs anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heck, let Trueborn really load for bear. Blast Pistols, Agoniseds, fancy ammo for Splinter Carbines, field traps, all the gear, hopefully some idea etc.

Replying to a few comments earlier:

RE: Dias (Vect)/ Not good for Malys

This is why the Dias reboot needs to be a plastic Tantalus with an uprade sprue released as a dual build. Again, GW hasn't figured out that dual builds are a way to increase sales of named kits.

I can by one Yriel. If GW were smarter, they could have sold me the same kit 3 times by making it a Yriel/ Generic Corsair Prince dual build kit.

RE: Mercenaries and leaders in lore and on the table

The answer that you got to this question was about the Court and Beasts... Which I never thought of as Merceneraries: Courts are pure Kabal (it's in the name- they aren't called Court of the Succubus or Haemonculus) and beasts are pure Wyches.

The actual mercenaries we have are:

Incubi + Drazhar
Mandrakes + Kheradruahk (AKA Decapitator, no model yet (or ever))
Scourges + no HQ

I believe that when GW updated the fluff around Madrakes, they were telegraphing an eventual Kheradruahk release.

As for Scourges, I want to build a Scourge HQ based on Krethusa the Croneseer from AOS, but there's no card for the character, so I'd have to make one. She'd be great though.

I plan to keep my bat-winged Scourges and feathered Scourges separate- painting their armour in different colours to indicate that they are two separate cults. Krethusa, obviously, is a feathered HQ. Morathi on foot COULD be a batwing HQ, but her wings aren't really practical bat wings- plus I can't by just jump infantry Morathi, and I don't want to pay for her giant snake model when I'm not going to use it.

I would strongly support the addition of Kheradruahk and a Scourge HQ, but again, I'd prefer a Named/ Generic dual build for both... But GW just can help but leave that money in my wallet.

I just want to be able to give my haemonculus his arcane wargear again. Why are his slave-students, the wracks, allowed to use their owner-teachers' guns when he isn't? I don't care about the math, or about the balance. I modeled my haemonculus to have a hexrifle and a flesh gauntlet because I thought that looked cool, but then he wasn't allowed to use anything besides his basic melee weapon. I just want fun rules again. We had them in 5th, why can't we have them now?

Hellebore wrote:The argument of you can achieve the same by making them a3 is true for all rules. Ultimately you don't need lethal hits or devastating wounds as rules. But we use them for a small amount of flavour.

So it's not really persuasive to me
And if it was solved by more attacks then the aforementioned deathwatch would have gotten it instead of bespoke custom rounds.

Valid points. I guess for me personally, picking between DW, better AP, and +1 Damage all just feel too similar. It doesn't feel like I'm doing a different cinematic effect (the way a dragonfire round usually feels different from a kraken bolt round) so much as it feels like I'm just solving a math problem. There isn't a "cinematic" enough distinction between DW and better AP for it to feel like it's ultimately much different from just upping the Attacks on the rifles, I guess. But I acknowledge that that might just be me.

This is why I mentioned it as a battle focus idea previously as a range of effects you can pick on of each per round.

I think I missed that. My bad. Weirdly, I'm not sure if poison a prevalent/core enough part of drukhari identity for me to want it as our army rule. Almost all craftworlders are fast and agile enough for Battle Focus to make sense. I'm not sure half the things that have poison care about said poison enough to warrant making it an army rule, but I wouldn't be opposed if GW went that route. Basically just represents a limited supply of special ammo the drukhari are reluctant to use up in a hurry.

Imo kabalites are too hordey at the moment so anything to make their hammer harder and their cost higher is preferred. Maybe if they had a generic mutie slave horde unit that's not grotesques or whatever that any cult can deploy it would make sense. But even their cloning system doesn't make endless warriors.

They just suck and I'd like to see them better. Beyond just making them an elf horde

I'm not opposed to less hordey kabalites, but I also don't mind them being where they're at (about as hordey as sisters). In practice, about half a kabalite squad is packing some kind of special weapon that makes them satisfyingly lethal. And when I'm splitting the squad up with a venom, they're usually being used in a sneaky fashion, either stickying objectives while trying to remain hidden or else using the venom's rule to take potshots with heavy weapons and then re-embark/hide. So I don't generally feel like I'm throwing warriors away the way I do, say, termagants.

They're kind of a utility unit that *needs* a transport (or two) per squad to get the most out of them, but they're either chipping respectable chunks of damage off the enemy or performing useful action monkey services at a respectable price depending on how you use them. And they never feel like they're guardsmen levels of expendable.

Tyel wrote:I feel like the thread is just "what DE need is for Kabalites with Splinter Rifles to be better".

Focusing on poison is to my mind bizarre, because its such a minority concern. I guess there's the Kabalite detachment which is "kabalites in transports, the list". But otherwise you are hardly likely to bring enough splinter-armed kabalites to be bothered.

I think it's easy to latch on to poison weapons as a thing that could stand to be handled better/differently because of the wonky interactions such weapons currently have with various unit types. It's weird that fenrisian wolves are bizarrely immune to our poisons, for instance. Kabalites are mainly getting latched onto because they're the battleline unit with the basic poison rifle. To my mind, poison weapons aren't necessarily, *terrible*. They just feel kind of lazily done. Like someone didn't want to write out "anti-infantry, anti-beast, anti-mounted" on every relevant profile and also couldn't be bothered to just lump it all into a "Poison" rule in the army rule section. And the mechanics vs fluff of poison have been a little weird off an on throughout the ages. Like back when a splinter rifle was equally good at hurting a space marine as it was a guardsman. Basically, poison is a rule that dark eldar players generally like, but which always feels like it's handled just a bit strangely.

JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Venom Rounds: Your attacks wound non-vehicles on 3+ regardless of Toughness.

I don't think they should also wound Monsters on a 3+.
Make it non-Monsters and non-Vehicles on a 3+, Monsters on a 5+, and Vehicles they get no bonus against.

Sure. I think that's reasonable. Mainly I was just pitching the concept of having a version of the gun that focuses on some sort of support/utility (debuffs) and then a different profile that actually does damage. That way, you can easily nod to the idea that kabalites are loading up the appropriate type of toxin for the job, but you don't end up feeling like you're "solving a math problem" by just auto-selecting whichever round is most mathematically efficient against a given target.

I still only have like.. perspective of Dark Eldar from 3-5th edition.

I know one thing I would do with the splinter rifle and units with the weapon in general, is I would provide unit option/upgrades for them.

Default would be standard Strength 3, AP5, Rapid Fire.

Units with them would have option for Soul Seeker Ammo (re-roll misses, ignore cover save), or Poison ammo (4+ wound no matter toughness), Splinter pistols and splinter cannons would use the same ammo.

I would also have options for upgrading the rifle itself from Rapid Fire to Assault, or upgrade the rifle so that it is similar to a Kroot Rifle (gives +1 attack in close combat). And kabalite warrior units would also be able to switch their rifle for a pistol and combat weapon.
I'd open up the weapon upgrade flexibility so that 1 in 5 warriors can select a dark lance, splinter cannon, blaster, or shredder (or other options that are available) instead of splitting them into "heavy" and "assault" categories. That way you could have specialized assault or heavy support squads.

That would make, I feel, kabal warriors, hellion squads, reaver jetbike squads, and scourge squads, all more flexible.