Splintermind reactions

I thought their criticisms of the codex as a whole were spot on. I just paid $50 to preorder a book that turns my 2000 point Aeldari army into a 1200 point Drukhari army and an 800 point Ynnari/Craftworld army. That sucks, and since that was on the very first page of the new rules it just put me in a bad mood as I read the codex. We were promised a complete rework from the ground up and it was just a new Power from Pain table and stat tweaks. I also agree about all the rules interactions. This may be a power-combo player's army, but I personally don't have any interest in mixing three or four different traits, relics, obsessions and auras and then having to explain to an opponent why it happens the way I say it does. When they said they would rather use the 8th edition codex I was right there with them.

The breakdowns of each unit I disagree with. It was silly of them to plant a flag on "no one will use hellions" hill. I know they are more casual players, but I wonder how much math they crunch before coming up with their conclusions. Here I am trying to convince the Drukhari community that you can still build durable Covens and Talos but when a well-known podcast calls them terrible and will get blown away by melta on turn 1 it's making my mission a lot harder. Also some very silly mistakes reading the rules- saying only Lhameans have Power from Pain (Court all have Power from Pain) and that Chain Flails didn't change at all (they lost reroll wounds). I did find the review very worthwhile, and I listened to the Covens part twice, but after one weekend of going through the leaked pages I already feel I had a better grasp of the changes.

Honestly I agree with them on the codex, I'm not a fan. Now I have bags/boxes of bits that I was intending on using to build beast packs, harlequin characters, and a wraithseer but for now they have to be put away as I figure out how to salvage the vision I had for my army.

I listened to the end of the 2nd part of their review to get their overall summary and, as I said in my earlier post, I think they have some good points. I then listened to the first part of the review and I'm close to the point at which I just switch off and ask myself how the hell these people were ever involved in the playtesting process when they don't actually appear to have a clue about many aspects of the game.

You won't be taking Hellions? Shock Prow is a terrible stratagem (yes, who would ever want to flat out kill 50% of the models that are in engagement range of a model that's probably about 10" long for 1 CP?)

Count Adhemar wrote:

I listened to the end of the 2nd part of their review to get their overall summary and, as I said in my earlier post, I think they have some good points. I then listened to the first part of the review and I'm close to the point at which I just switch off and ask myself how the hell these people were ever involved in the playtesting process when they don't actually appear to have a clue about many aspects of the game.

You won't be taking Hellions? Shock Prow is a terrible stratagem (yes, who would ever want to flat out kill 50% of the models that are in engagement range of a model that's probably about 10" long for 1 CP?)

Ok so it's an issue of the part 1! I had to swith off, I completely agree with you.

Guess I should just skip into part 2.

I am just sad they didnt talk about crusade at all, since they both seemed to agree that it was awesome.

I have used the new Hellions in two games so far. The first game they got hit with indirect fire and ended up deploying scramblers until dieing.

The second game they deployed scramblers then counter charged a large unit of vanguard vets with SS and light claw, killing them down to 1 model. They more than made their points up here.

Hellions are good now, you need a good place to hide them first turn or DS them.

While listening to the Podcast, I couldent stop asking myself "what are the credentials for these guys again?"

TBF, they did say a number of times "this Codex is stronger than last edition, you will win more games with this codex". However, I was not impressed AT ALL. It was like they dont know how Dark Eldar play.

Im about half way through Part 2 now, and I my mind kept coming back to "if this is how you feel, why dont you just go play White Scars?" It was like a Little Timmy saying how he wanted all of his units to be the shootiest and fightiest and fastest and cheapest, and why cant it be all these things?! I personally dont want my DE to be the bestest-ever, that is why I have a Marine army. I want this army to play Glass-hammer, which is exactly what we got here.

How they blew over Advance and Charge and kept implying that Re-roll advance and charge was better? Hellions are not great. Artests of the Flesh hasnt even been mentioned yet (I am not done Part 2 yet TBF)

Really didnt like this podcast episode. Enjoyed all their other work up to this point, and I will probably continue to listen to them. But this did upset me (to the extent that I can get upset over plastic space elves )

Ripper.McGuirl wrote:

One of the things that they also mentioned, that I struggle with as well, is how goddamn complicated all the interactions are. That is partly my issue with 8th/9th in general, where I can’t look at a unit and know what it does without knowing 57 other things that alter it. I do think it is most noticeable on the archon. “If you upgrade him, take this obsession, take that warlord trait, take this relic, build your army this way, and put him near these units (but not those ones), he’s a badass!”.

I don't mind most of the interactions I've seen in the book, but I really hate the whole BH mess.

As part of the Obsession, KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART units get +1 PfP.
But if the Archon is in a RSR detachment, instead <Kabal> units and all Blades for Hire (Incubi, Scourges and Mandrakes) also get +1 PFP.

The Archon's aura works on KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART CORE units and INCUBI. Okay.
But this is a RSR detachment so the Archon's aura instead works on REALSPACE RAIDERS CORE. This means that it works on Kabal, Coven and Cult units, as well as Incubi and Scourges, but not Mandrakes for some reason.

Now I give the Archon the Writ of the Living Muse.
This means that KABAL OF THE BLACK HEART CORE units within 6" reroll 1s to wound.
Oh but this is a RSR detachment so this ability also affects all Blades for Hire (Incubi, Scourges and Mandrakes).

Surely I can't be the only one who sees this as a convoluted mess of rules?

At best, it's just an absolute pain both to remember and to try and explain to anyone I happen to be playing. "No, you see, his reroll 1s to wound aura works on the Mandrakes but not on the Wyches - it's his reroll ones to hit aura that works on those. No, that one doesn't work on the Mandrakes . . ."

I don't know, it just seems like they could have skipped half of this stuff by letting the Archon's aura (and the Writ) work on all Blades for Hire by default.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I don't mind most of the interactions I've seen in the book, but I really hate the whole BH mess.

When you explain it like that, I see what you mean. However, we are supposed to be the Special Snowflake army, so we HAVE to be extra complicated and convoluted

Keeps those punks from buying up our Hellions

I like the book, to each their own

The chaps at Tabletop Tactics have put their review vid up. They love this codex. They said it’s the best codex of 9th...not because it makes DE the strongest army but it’s the best for fun, design and options.

And they were also play testers.

I wonder if some people that play test and find none of their suggestions make it into the book feel aggrieved by default lol Splintermind salty boys!

I got my copy today and I would say I like the codex but already I’m looking at the Heamy and I’m asking myself do I want this guy in my army? I’m a little miffed that his standard healing ability is initially fixed on the multi wound coven units which I don’t have any of. He does have some cool options for relics and warlord traits which may keep him in.

I tend to agree.

I do recall that one of the actual Drukhari players on Splintermind used a list consisting of (ultra durable) Prophets of Flesh, combined with (ultra undercosted) Harlequin Skyweaver spam. I could see that this codex somehat screws that particular setup

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I got my copy today and I would say I like the codex but already I’m looking at the Heamy and I’m asking myself do I want this guy in my army? I’m a little miffed that his standard healing ability is initially fixed on the multi wound coven units which I don’t have any of. He does have some cool options for relics and warlord traits which may keep him in.

His Master Warlord Trait lets him resurrect Wracks at least.

But yeah, one of the reasons I'm leaning more towards Cult right now is that I look at the Haemonculus and struggle to find a role for him.

At least from what I'm seeing, Coven seem to be leaning much more towards transport-based lists, which the Haemonculus is now ill-suited to support. He can't even take a Liquifier Gun or Hexrifle anymore to benefit from DT.

I guess if you're running DA he can keep Talos in the fight?


I've been wracking (hah!) my brain, trying to think of a tactical use for his resurrection ability beyond just recovering from something going wrong. The only thing I can think of is using him as a melee-suicide unit, but even with artefacts I don't think you can actually make him much good in melee.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I've been wracking (hah!) my brain, trying to think of a tactical use for his resurrection ability beyond just recovering from something going wrong. The only thing I can think of is using him as a melee-suicide unit, but even with artefacts I don't think you can actually make him much good in melee.

For me it's just a slap in the face to character sniping if someone builds a list heavy with that. I'm getting my aura and heals all game, yo.

Oaka wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I've been wracking (hah!) my brain, trying to think of a tactical use for his resurrection ability beyond just recovering from something going wrong. The only thing I can think of is using him as a melee-suicide unit, but even with artefacts I don't think you can actually make him much good in melee.

For me it's just a slap in the face to character sniping if someone builds a list heavy with that.  I'm getting my aura and heals all game, yo.

Agreed. Coven can be built on mass to be quite good but for me, Coven in a Realspace Raiders detachment are perhaps better suited for tactical reasons. That’s why I’m considering Dark Creed as my small add in to make a very tactical Heamy and a backfield 5 man unit of wracks.

I’m not sure I agree with SS that Covens are being pushed into transport heavy armies. Why exactly? Just because people have suggested shooting loads of LGs? I’m not sold on that. For me Covens are being moved into CC like the rest of the army in general.

Question is...is a list with Kabal/Cult perhaps a better list to go with over the benefit of a realspace raiders detachment. I’m now starting to think outside of that realspace raider idea and look at the patrols instead. I think I will have to tinker.

They did say a few things that I did find really puzzling. Like the comment re: Hellions. Another thing I found odd was that they complained about the Secondary Objectives because they were 'situational'.

Um.. most secondary objectives are situational... that's why you get to pick them on a per battle basis, to match the situation that you are in.

I do think that PfP should not have been our mono-faction rule, since, so far, mono-faction rules are have been bonuses you get for playing mono, and not penalties for not playing mono. Switching PfP and Blade Artists would have been fine with me. Fluffwise, it makes about as much sense as what we have now.

And I'm also a little salty about the removal of haemonculus wargear options, but the toolkit that it currently has isn't bad.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Oaka wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I've been wracking (hah!) my brain, trying to think of a tactical use for his resurrection ability beyond just recovering from something going wrong. The only thing I can think of is using him as a melee-suicide unit, but even with artefacts I don't think you can actually make him much good in melee.

For me it's just a slap in the face to character sniping if someone builds a list heavy with that.  I'm getting my aura and heals all game, yo.

Agreed. Coven can be built on mass to be quite good but for me, Coven in a Realspace Raiders detachment are perhaps better suited for tactical reasons. That’s why I’m considering Dark Creed as my small add in to make a very tactical Heamy and a backfield 5 man unit of wracks.

I’m not sure I agree with SS that Covens are being pushed into transport heavy armies. Why exactly? Just because people have suggested shooting loads of LGs? I’m not sold on that. For me Covens are being moved into CC like the rest of the army in general.

Question is...is a list with Kabal/Cult perhaps a better list to go with over the benefit of a realspace raiders detachment. I’m now starting to think outside of that realspace raider idea and look at the patrols instead. I think I will have to tinker.

A guy in our forum is like 16-0 with a list that feature 18 footslogging Grots, so I think Coven still work outside transports

I think we have to realise that soup in general was a very negative point and that had to be addressed.

PfP makes perfect sense to be the DE mono faction rule. Those DE that step out to fight alongside the weaker kin are not following the true path of the DE. I’m fine with that.

The game is very hard to balance even within a single codex. There has to be a balance if someone wants to simply pick the best units from different factions.

Also I don’t agree with the Harlequins being in a DE codex in the past meaning they should mix well now. It was a mistake the first time...two wrongs don’t make a right.

For me mixing factions should be a friendly way of playing where you can mix any unit you have no matter the faction. Winning or losing at that level shouldn’t be the end all of it. It’s just about having fun. If they want to have space marines with nids with orks then so be it...but they can’t then turn that into a super combo. Having pointy ears isn’t an excuse to drag them all into freely taking advantage of the rules to each faction.

Cerve wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Oaka wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

I've been wracking (hah!) my brain, trying to think of a tactical use for his resurrection ability beyond just recovering from something going wrong. The only thing I can think of is using him as a melee-suicide unit, but even with artefacts I don't think you can actually make him much good in melee.

For me it's just a slap in the face to character sniping if someone builds a list heavy with that.  I'm getting my aura and heals all game, yo.

Agreed. Coven can be built on mass to be quite good but for me, Coven in a Realspace Raiders detachment are perhaps better suited for tactical reasons. That’s why I’m considering Dark Creed as my small add in to make a very tactical Heamy and a backfield 5 man unit of wracks.

I’m not sure I agree with SS that Covens are being pushed into transport heavy armies. Why exactly? Just because people have suggested shooting loads of LGs? I’m not sold on that. For me Covens are being moved into CC like the rest of the army in general.

Question is...is a list with Kabal/Cult perhaps a better list to go with over the benefit of a realspace raiders detachment. I’m now starting to think outside of that realspace raider idea and look at the patrols instead. I think I will have to tinker.

A guy in our forum is like 16-0 with a list that feature 18 footslogging Grots, so I think Coven still work outside transports

Wow lol well fair play 16-0 is pretty good. Thanks for that it’s interesting because so many people just go hey I could do this now and assume that’s competitive and perhaps the only way. Combos are one thing but putting it all into a competitive list is something different. That’s why I’ve started to question realspace raiders. I see more competitive lists outside of it.

Cerve wrote:

A guy in our forum is like 16-0 with a list that feature 18 footslogging Grots, so I think Coven still work outside transports

Oh nice.

Do you have a link to his list?

krayd wrote:

I do think that PfP should not have been our mono-faction rule, since, so far, mono-faction rules are have been bonuses you get for playing mono, and not penalties for not playing mono. Switching PfP and Blade Artists would have been fine with me. Fluffwise, it makes about as much sense as what we have now.

I keep seeing this point, and I don't understand it. Other armies lose their monofaction bonus for souping, so do we. How is it that it counts as a penalties for us but count as only "not bonuses" for other armies? It's exactly the same. The difference is in your perception of the rules, not in the rules themselves.

From a 9th Ed. game design perspective, this change was obvious. The 3 proceeding books all have a mono-faction benefit that changes as the game progresses through the turns and other built-in rules. Our book is simply following an established pattern. I fully expect all armies to follow this same pattern. You simply view it as a punishment because you're comparing it to previous editions and not to other books in 9th edition.

From a lore perspective, it absolutely makes sense. A drukhari going about their day does not start out mildly empowered by the pain around them and by the end of the day they're absolutely bouncing off the walls with pain-energy. It is only when Drukhari attack en masse that their collective soul-vampirism gets turbo charged. More slaughter, more pain, more souls to taste.

Would it make any sense at all that their blades become dull if an Asuriani is nearby? No. Their blades are the same if there is 1 Drukhari or an army. However, their pain-resonant frequency gets cranked if there's a full scale Drukhari battle.

sekac wrote:

krayd wrote:

I do think that PfP should not have been our mono-faction rule, since, so far, mono-faction rules are have been bonuses you get for playing mono, and not penalties for not playing mono. Switching PfP and Blade Artists would have been fine with me. Fluffwise, it makes about as much sense as what we have now.

I keep seeing this point, and I don't understand it. Other armies lose their monofaction bonus for souping, so do we. How is it that it counts as a penalties for us but count as only "not bonuses" for other armies? It's exactly the same. The difference is in your perception of the rules, not in the rules themselves.

From a 9th Ed. game design perspective, this change was obvious. The 3 proceeding books all have a mono-faction benefit that changes as the game progresses through the turns and other built-in rules. Our book is simply following an established pattern. I fully expect all armies to follow this same pattern. You simply view it as a punishment because you're comparing it to previous editions and not to other books in 9th edition.

From a lore perspective, it absolutely makes sense. A drukhari going about their day does not start out mildly empowered by the pain around them and by the end of the day they're absolutely bouncing off the walls with pain-energy. It is only when Drukhari attack en masse that their collective soul-vampirism gets turbo charged. More slaughter, more pain, more souls to taste.

Would it make any sense at all that their blades become dull if an Asuriani is nearby? No. Their blades are the same if there is 1 Drukhari or an army. However, their pain-resonant frequency gets cranked if there's a full scale Drukhari battle.

I think the frustration comes from the fact that mono-faction bonuses are generally new mechanics that are given to an army. In our case, instead of thinking up something new, they took our signature army rule and just...slapped it there instead. Then they put a vastly less powerful rule as our racial ability in it's place.

I'm going to strongly disagree with your lore reasoning here. We're shown plenty of examples where raids are conducted in conjunction with Craftworld/Harlequin forces. Heck, three codexes ago Harlequins were included in our army! Dark Eldar feed off of the negative emotions, pain, and death of others. It doesn't have to be directly caused by them. Like, the rest of the Eldar arsenal is still brutally painful. Shuriken weapons are metal as hell, both craftworlds and Harlequin forces make ample use of monofilament weaponry, which is likewise a horrifically brutal weapon in itself.

I just find it unreasonable that a farseer and a squad of rangers being generally nearby are such a phenomenal buzz kill to a raid's methed up murder fest that all participants lose their vamperic abilities.

More directly, the way it's implemented is noticeably lazy rules writing, especially compared to the effort put into similar abilities.

TheBaconPope wrote:

sekac wrote:

krayd wrote:

I do think that PfP should not have been our mono-faction rule, since, so far, mono-faction rules are have been bonuses you get for playing mono, and not penalties for not playing mono. Switching PfP and Blade Artists would have been fine with me. Fluffwise, it makes about as much sense as what we have now.

I keep seeing this point, and I don't understand it. Other armies lose their monofaction bonus for souping, so do we. How is it that it counts as a penalties for us but count as only "not bonuses" for other armies? It's exactly the same. The difference is in your perception of the rules, not in the rules themselves.

From a 9th Ed. game design perspective, this change was obvious. The 3 proceeding books all have a mono-faction benefit that changes as the game progresses through the turns and other built-in rules. Our book is simply following an established pattern. I fully expect all armies to follow this same pattern. You simply view it as a punishment because you're comparing it to previous editions and not to other books in 9th edition.

From a lore perspective, it absolutely makes sense. A drukhari going about their day does not start out mildly empowered by the pain around them and by the end of the day they're absolutely bouncing off the walls with pain-energy. It is only when Drukhari attack en masse that their collective soul-vampirism gets turbo charged. More slaughter, more pain, more souls to taste.

Would it make any sense at all that their blades become dull if an Asuriani is nearby? No. Their blades are the same if there is 1 Drukhari or an army. However, their pain-resonant frequency gets cranked if there's a full scale Drukhari battle.

I think the frustration comes from the fact that mono-faction bonuses are generally new mechanics that are given to an army. In our case, instead of thinking up something new, they took our signature army rule and just...slapped it there instead. Then they put a vastly less powerful rule as our racial ability in it's place.

I'm going to strongly disagree with your lore reasoning here. We're shown plenty of examples where raids are conducted in conjunction with Craftworld/Harlequin forces. Heck, three codexes ago Harlequins were included in our army! Dark Eldar feed off of the negative emotions, pain, and death of others. It doesn't have to be directly caused by them. Like, the rest of the Eldar arsenal is still brutally painful. Shuriken weapons are metal as hell, both craftworlds and Harlequin forces make ample use of monofilament weaponry, which is likewise a horrifically brutal weapon in itself.

I just find it unreasonable that a farseer and a squad of rangers being generally nearby are such a phenomenal buzz kill to a raid's methed up murder fest that all participants lose their vamperic abilities.

More directly, the way it's implemented is noticeably lazy rules writing, especially compared to the effort put into similar abilities.

Sure, it's not the cleanest interpretation of Power from Pain, but neither are any of the other 9th edition turn-based progressive abilities. Are space marines unable to coordinate well enough to use their Combat Doctrines, because there are 21 Imperial Guardsmen on comms? Do Death Guard stop farting because there are daemonettes nearby? No and no. But that's how 9th edition works. Racial abilities stay, turn based abilities are mono-faction only.

There probably should be an in-between version of PfP for us, just as there should be an in-between version of Combat Doctrines, Aura of Decay, and Command Protocols. But in 9th, that isn't the way it works for any army. We were never going to get a special exception.

GW put Harlequins in our codex because they were being lazy. Please don’t see that as a reason to suggest they should be a part of a DE army today. They shouldn’t be...they don’t take enough prisoners!

Fluff-wise I can vaguely see an argument for not taking CW allies but there's literally zero reason not to take Harlequins. It's been part of their fluff for many, many years that they are the link between the fractured branches of the Eldar people and are pretty much the only ones who can freely travel from Commorragh to the craftworlds and back again.

My main issue though is the mechanics. Power from Pain is a racial ability for Drukhari. Losing it because there's a Solitaire lurking in the shadows over there makes no sense whatsoever. It also hurts different portions of our army in vastly different ways. Kabals can arguably ally as normal if they want to, especially if you're not buying into GW's cunning plan of sending Kabalites into close combat. Covens on the other hand are borderline unplayable without PfP and Cults also take a massive hit.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

GW put Harlequins in our codex because they were being lazy. Please don’t see that as a reason to suggest they should be a part of a DE army today. They shouldn’t be...they don’t take enough prisoners!

Under that argument, Incubi shouldn't be in our codex either.
Harlequins should be blades for hire, like Incubi and Mandrakes. They became to big for that now, sure. So at least we should just be allowed to ally with them.