New Codizes and what we think about them

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Tue Mar 15 2022, 12:23

Klick me for more...

I hope, thats not illegal. Suspect

_________________

When I'm good, I'm very, very good. But when I'm bad I'm better.

Wych Posts : 921 Join date : 2017-01-03

O.O yep ... yep ... yep ... yep ... yep ... codex creep isn't a thing, nope it's not a thing ... it isn't ... all codecies were balanced at the same time ... if I believe this hard enough it's true right?

Incubi Posts : 1921 Join date : 2018-04-02

I can't help but look at the creativity, flavour and wealth of options in the tyranid codex and then sigh as I remember our current book.

Would it be too much to ask for our next codex to maybe have the merest shred of effort put into it?

_________________

TeenageAngst wrote:: Never trust the French.

Hellion Posts : 80 Join date : 2021-05-05

krayd wrote:: So, does this mean that Crusher Stampede is going to get even nastier?

Probably.

With the right stuff you can have 4++ on all your monster for 2 turns.

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Thu Mar 17 2022, 13:02

Soulless Samurai wrote:: I can't help but look at the creativity, flavour and wealth of options in the tyranid codex and then sigh as I remember our current book.

Would it be too much to ask for our next codex to maybe have the merest shred of effort put into it?

Well, it was one of the earlier 9th ed books and for that its ok. Aside from that,
we always were the unloved stepchildren of GW, so my suggestion is:

Just be happy that our book had a great time to shine in the spotlight.
Better than in 7th...

_________________

When I'm good, I'm very, very good. But when I'm bad I'm better.

Incubi Posts : 1921 Join date : 2018-04-02

Zenotaph wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:: I can't help but look at the creativity, flavour and wealth of options in the tyranid codex and then sigh as I remember our current book.

Would it be too much to ask for our next codex to maybe have the merest shred of effort put into it?

Well, it was one of the earlier 9th ed books and for that its ok. Aside from that,
we always were the unloved stepchildren of GW, so my suggestion is:

Just be happy that our book had a great time to shine in the spotlight.
Better than in 7th...

7th had Corsairs.

AKA Codex Dark Eldar (Good Edition)

_________________

TeenageAngst wrote:: Never trust the French.

Wych Posts : 744 Join date : 2017-06-03

The issue with our book now is choices are more or less bundled together. In 9th edition list writing you can start 2 ways: by identifying dataslates that you want then find sub-faction benefits that compliment the loose assortment of units, then you tweak and hone from there. Or you start with a subfaction that interests you, then find dataslates that compliment that playstyle. For Drukhari, it's basically the same thing.

If you want to play Cronos, then the only sub-faction to consider is Dark Technomancers. If you think Dark Technomancers is a cool mechanic, then hopefully you also only like Cronos because it's trash everywhere else.

Most of the subfactions (aside from Cult of Strife and to a far lesser extent Black Heart) are so limited that there is rarely more than one unit that benefits noticeably.

So if you want to play competitive Drukhari, it's so simple, nobody could enjoy it. Study the meta, find a unit that plays well into it. Take 3 copies and the automatic obsession that goes with it. Do that once each for Kabal/Cult/Coven. Then fill remaining points with more wracks or more hellions.

I think Drukhari list building is probably the least interesting it has ever been. I hated it by the end of 8th. It's an uninspiring chore now, and we've still got a ways to go (and if the pattern holds more nerfs for us inbound).

*EDIT* to avoid being a complete bag of salt, I will say that I'm hoping that the Webway Gate and Corsairs give some spice to the Drukhari codex, and that GW fixes their tournament pack so Ynnari are actually legal. If they do, that'll really open up the range of options and decisions to make when list building.

Hellion Posts : 27 Join date : 2017-07-06

The flavor options and variety of a codex is 1:1 correlated with whether or not GW is willing to put out a new range of models that they need to sell to recover their cost. We have not had truly new models for a long time, hence we only have like 3 options per faction.

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Fri Mar 18 2022, 09:23

It's not that our Codex have few options btw. My second army is GK, you can figure out. 90% of the choices of our Codex is competitive and useful, so..

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Fri Mar 18 2022, 14:24

I don't play competitively, so i can't comment about that, but for beer & pretzel games i gotta admit that our codex is still fun to build lists knowing that i'm not looking for the most optimal build ever.
Every day i come up with a new list or something new i want to try, be it Kabal only, Kabal + Cult, and then there are 3 or 4 obsessions i want to try, etc....

For instance, my other army is the Thousand Sons..........a lot more win with this codex than my Drukhari one, but damn! after 2 different list you already done everything you could do with the codex.....now that's what i call "boring" as a creative player even if the results are good.

Also, i don't want to throw stones at people playing competitive, but let's get back to when our 9th edition codex dropped: what was EVERYONE playing? one list and everyone stuck with it as if nothing else existed.....not what i would call a "creative" environment.
If you weren't playing Dark Technomancer you were simply WRONG.
People in competitive environment always search for the BEST list and then stick with it until the nerf hammer comes down, only to search for the next best list and stick with it ad nauseum.

Personally, i still think that our codex is really creative from a fun game perspective in a beer & pretzel format.

Wych Posts : 744 Join date : 2017-06-03

Kalmah wrote:: Also, i don't want to throw stones at people playing competitive, but let's get back to when our 9th edition codex dropped: what was EVERYONE playing? one list and everyone stuck with it as if nothing else existed.....not what i would call a "creative" environment.
If you weren't playing Dark Technomancer you were simply WRONG.
People in competitive environment always search for the BEST list and then stick with it until the nerf hammer comes down, only to search for the next best list and stick with it ad nauseum.

I disagree with this, largely. You're right that the book was very badly internally balanced at release such that Black Heart, Cult of Strife, and Dark Technomancers were the undisputed best obsession for each sub-faction. That WAS boring. But there were enough options that there were other viable things to do. For instance, I took Dark Tech Reapers to multiple tournaments which NOBODY was doing. I'm not a tournament winning player and I hate netlisting, but consistently maintain that 60-66% win rate. But even things that were semi-competitive (like Reapers) are just bad now, either because the meta was mostly 8th ed when our book came out and have now been pushed out, or because when GW wants to nerf us, they don't care what the other casualties are.

Talos were ONLY an "issue" with Artists of Flesh (they weren't, they were competitive, not broken), so GW's response was to nerf both Artists of Flesh AND Talos to make sure nobody comes up with any way to bring Talos back in the meta. We want them out of the meta now, and we want them to stay out forever.

GW wants to nerf Raiders so they changed Bring It Down so punish Raider spam, but it also hurts Reapers and any other vehicle that had exactly 10 wounds that nobody was spamming. They only cared about hurting Raiders, but don't care what the unintended consequences are.

They've delivered enough half-baked nerfs to us now that while they have successfully destroyed the clear best options, they've also prohibited a range of good-but-not-best options because they couldn't be bothered to stop and think before swinging the nerf bat with reckless abandon.

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Fri Mar 18 2022, 17:25

I gotta say that you're right that GW indeed handle their nerf hammer as bad as a kid would do in a whack-a-mole game.
Instead of just dealing with the nonsenses (example, they should only have changed the Dark Technomancer to the WR instead of just kicking out every ranged weapons from the Coven, etc...) they only destroy everything that cross their path.

That being said, i only wanted to point that competitive players (usually) only play with what is best and forget everything else..........hell, if the codex only had one obsession and this one was really good they would not even complain about it since they only are looking for what's best. Everything else is almost a waste of ink to them.

But again...........GW struggle a lot in balancing their game :/ (damn i'm scared to death for when the Tyrannids will come out!)

Wych Posts : 744 Join date : 2017-06-03

Kalmah wrote:: I gotta say that you're right that GW indeed handle their nerf hammer as bad as a kid would do in a whack-a-mole game.
Instead of just dealing with the nonsenses (example, they should only have changed the Dark Technomancer to the WR instead of just kicking out every ranged weapons from the Coven, etc...) they only destroy everything that cross their path.

That being said, i only wanted to point that competitive players (usually) only play with what is best and forget everything else..........hell, if the codex only had one obsession and this one was really good they would not even complain about it since they only are looking for what's best. Everything else is almost a waste of ink to them.

I think you might actually be surprised by the range of armies you'd see at a tournament. The conversation about competitive 40k is always from the top down. The cream always rises to the top (both in lists and players), so the entire conversation focuses around that. It's understandable, of course, because the goal of many tournament goers is to win--hopefully the whole thing. But there are a large number of us who like to try to win games, or at least have a fun close game in a loss, but who aren't willing to embrace the full netlist approach. Nobody talks about it, because a conversation about upper mid-tier tables isn't going to excite anyone, including me--and those are my people!

Competitve is not strictly about winning for very many people I've met throughout the years. Competitive 40k guarantees certain things that casual may or may not:

1) Both armies are painted. Paint is better than not.
2) Forced to socialize with strangers and navigate potentially tense moments. Good life skills.
3) Must think dynamically while time is of the essence. Good life skills.
4) An actual gauge of ability. Many casual players exist in a small group of close friends/family and their skill level is relative. There's nothing wrong with that, btw.
5) Everyone is on roughly the same page. There are rules, expectations, community norms (though each area is a bit different), and consequences. "Casual" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

But there absolutely is room for some creativity and personal touch in a competitive environment. But it only really works if an army has a wide range of semi-competitive options. You can still anchor an army with a solid core of competitive "goodstuff" and take a few sub-optimal yet cool choices to make it yours.

As the best things in our book get knocked down, that also limits how much "personal flair" I can justify. I was always on Realspace Raiders detachments because I liked the synergy and didn't mind terribly the loss of the Book of Rust relics and strats (hey, one less book to haul around!). But I just can't justify it anymore, I have to play Book of Rust hellions if I want to stand any semblance of a chance. One of the unintended casualties of removing core from talos/cronos is it was probably the last nail in the coffin for Realspace Raiders as a competitively viable list concept. There's just so little synergy that the heavy restrictions it creates make it not worth the ink. It was always worse than Raiding Force patrols but more interesting, now it's just extra-worse and the list of non-standard meta choices shrinks further.

Incubi Posts : 1921 Join date : 2018-04-02

Something of an aside but the decision to nerf Artisans of Flesh seems very strange at this point, given that every new codex seems to be featuring a lot of units that just have -1D as a default ability.

e.g. All the Eldar Wraith units now have this ability as standard, so do units like Carnifexes in the new Tyranid codex.

_________________

TeenageAngst wrote:: Never trust the French.

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Sat Mar 19 2022, 13:37

Soulless Samurai wrote:: Something of an aside but the decision to nerf Artisans of Flesh seems very strange at this point, given that every new codex seems to be featuring a lot of units that just have -1D as a default ability.

e.g. All the Eldar Wraith units now have this ability as standard, so do units like Carnifexes in the new Tyranid codex.

I guess they want to shift away from armywide -1 dmg abilities, and stick to giving it to specific units.

Wych Posts : 744 Join date : 2017-06-03

krayd wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:: Something of an aside but the decision to nerf Artisans of Flesh seems very strange at this point, given that every new codex seems to be featuring a lot of units that just have -1D as a default ability.

e.g. All the Eldar Wraith units now have this ability as standard, so do units like Carnifexes in the new Tyranid codex.

I guess they want to shift away from armywide -1 dmg abilities, and stick to giving it to specific units.

I guess they didn't realize it wasn't an army-wide ability.

I think they just expected Drukhari to disappear after the 3rd to last round of nerfs to us. But the meta warranted a dive into Artists of Flesh and GW was pissed we still had a presence at tournaments. The fact that Drukhari wwre still capable of winning GT (piloted by the best 40k player on the planet) was more than they could tolerate and that's what prompted the Artists of Flesh change. We had already been surpassed in power by GK and AotF was the last best play into the meta.

With Custodes and Tau, 40k is now the least balanced version of the game that has EVER existed. Nerfing armies before seeing how the meta evolves and then discovering that your newest armies are so incredibly broken that most other armies might as well not show up is just awful game design.

Actually Custodes are a perfect example of their incompetence. They made a disgustingly broken book, then play testers looked at it and said "this probably won't be a competitively viable book unless you drop the points." It turns out everyone that said that was 100% wrong in their analysis but Custodes got a day 1 points drop anyway. Oops. Maybe we should have used data instead of hunches? No no no, that's not how we do things!

Incubi Posts : 1921 Join date : 2018-04-02

Not related to the points about balance but I was just looking at some of the rules in the new Eldar/Harlequin codex.

I presume you all known by now Harlequins can be taken as a sort of bonus detachments in either Eldar or Dark Eldar armies. You've also got Ynnari, which can combine all three.

In either case, you can have a Harlequin Warlord and still give bonus warlord traits to Harlequin or Eldar characters. Likewise, you can have an Eldar Warlord and still give bonus warlord traits to Eldar or Harlequin characters.

You might, however, notice that something is missing here. There is no option to give bonus warlord traits to Dark Eldar characters if you have a Eldar or Harlequin warlord. Nor an option to give bonus Warlord traits to Eldar or Harlequin characters if you have a Dark Eldar warlord.

Of course, this is also on top of Ynnari now being a Craftworld detachment (so DE/Harlequin armies can't even exist anymore), and also on top of Eldar and Harlequins keeping their core abilities when they're mixed, whilst Dark Eldar lose Power from Pain.

Is it really too much to ask that Dark Eldar not get the arse-end of every single rule and interaction?

_________________

TeenageAngst wrote:: Never trust the French.

Wych Posts : 921 Join date : 2017-01-03

So who's ready for our next codex to include exactly 12 units and be the last 3 pages of the Eldar codex? While not actually being able to truely interact with anything else in the book without severe punishment?

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Sun Mar 20 2022, 08:15

The more I read about either new rules, new codexes for other armies, and especially the new Eldar codex, the more I feel like just boxing everything until the 10th edition codex for Dark Eldar drops. :S The only thing holding me back is that I do have some Eldar and Harlequin units, so I might just switch to Eldar/Harlequins until the next Drukhari codex.
That might take years though, because I have a feeling Drukhari won't get a new codex, but will just be included in the next new Eldar codex, like Harlequins and Ynnari. :S

_________________
For my introduction and pics of some of my models:
http://www.thedarkcity.net/t17117-noob-alert

Incubi Posts : 1921 Join date : 2018-04-02

Gelmir wrote:: The more I read about either new rules, new codexes for other armies, and especially the new Eldar codex, the more I feel like just boxing everything until the 10th edition codex for Dark Eldar drops. :S The only thing holding me back is that I do have some Eldar and Harlequin units, so I might just switch to Eldar/Harlequins until the next Drukhari codex.
That might take years though, because I have a feeling Drukhari won't get a new codex, but will just be included in the next new Eldar codex, like Harlequins and Ynnari. :S

Yeah, I feel the same way at the moment.

I was hoping that Ynnari might offer an opportunity to mix things up a little but I had a go on Battlescribe and building a list is like pulling teeth.

I might like to try and recreate my past Ynnari lists with a DE warlord but, as discussed in my previous post, this cuts me off from the stratagems that would let Harlequin or Craftworld characters have warlord traits. And I must have at least 50% Craftworld characters because of the obnoxious 50/50 rule.

Well fine, I'll make a Harlequin character my Warlord and give him the Ynnari warlord trait- oh, my mistake, I can't do that either. You see, Ynnari are a Craftworld and thus, despite the whole point of them being to mix factions, non-Craftworld characters can't take the only Ynnari warlord trait or the only Ynnari relic. Sigh.

Whatever. Guess I'll start things off with the old DE favourite, Incubi. Oh, but a unit of 5 costs 20pts more for no reason whatsoever. I guess sometimes benefitting from +1 to hit would otherwise be far too powerful on a unit that's already WS2+. Neutral

Well, I'll persevere. Obviously my Incubi will need a transport so I guess I'll include a Venom. Oh, hang on, once again I must pause because I can't include a Venom (or Raider) unless I also include a Wave Serpent. Doesn't matter if I have anything to go in it, it's just vital that one is included for every DE transport, despite the significant disparity in cost and typical numbers and usage.

I don't understand why list-building needs to be this pointlessly obnoxious.

Let me just contrast this with the new Tyranid book. Since it had been almost entirely leaked, I thought I'd see if I could make any viable lists with the models I owned. Well, the first problem I ran into was that I wanted to use a lot of HQs but a battalion only has 3 slots. Oh, but I'm using Zoanthropes so my Neurothrope doesn't take up a slot. I also have Warriors, so my Tyranid Prime is also slotless. As, in fact, is my Broodlord, thanks to my Genestealers.

In other words, while DE and Ynnari offer problems and difficulties in list-building, Tyranids instead provide solutions to make list-building easier.

Better yet, unlike with Dark Eldar, my units can actually fulfil their basic roles without requiring artefacts and warlord traits. Hence, I can pick those for reasons of fluff and flavour, rather than to make a melee unit actually worthwhile in melee.

Spoiler:

I don't claim that the new nid book is perfect or anything, but it's just so much nicer to work with. I really wish our book (and, for that matter, Ynnari) would adopt that sort of design philosophy, rather than locking everything away in 24 different and mutually-exclusive filing cabinets. Razz

_________________

TeenageAngst wrote:: Never trust the French.

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Sun Mar 20 2022, 18:49

I have to agree with most of what Soulless Samurai has said here. I'm hoping there will be a FAQ to remedy at least some of this but just compare the "Champion of the Aeldari" strat with the Drukhari equivalent, Tolerated Ambition. The former specifically allows for the use of Harlequins as allies, as per the Travelling Players rule. If your Warlord is ASURYANI or HARLEQUIN you can pick another WL trait for an ASURYANI or HARLEQUIN character in your army. The Drukhari version only allows you to pick an additional WL trait if your WL is DRUKHARI and it must be for another DRUKHAR character model.

In other words, if your WL is Drukhari and you are using the Travelling Players rule to add a 'quins patrol you cannot give any Harlequins characters a WL trait. If your WL is Asuryani however and you do exactly the same thing, you can. Incredibly frustrating and tbh, I'll just ignore that when playing with my mates. But that won't be an option if I want to play in anything organised.

_________________
New Codizes and what we think about them - Page 10 YhBv3Wk

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting. In what world could you possibly beat me?

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Mon Mar 21 2022, 16:33

Do you all really enjoy to see our rules mixed with those lesser cousins? Bah!

Incubi Posts : 1921 Join date : 2018-04-02

Cerve wrote:: Do you all really enjoy to see our rules mixed with those lesser cousins? Bah!

Depends what you mean.

As far as mixing with Harlequins goes, I'm not too bothered given that they used to be in our codex. Razz

I can't say I've ever been a great fan of mixing with Craftworlders, though. Aside from anything else, I just never really cared for most of their aesthetics, sans Warlocks and Farseers. Conversions notwithstanding, I think Harlequins are much closer to our aesthetic than Eldar (the Starweaver in particular looks almost exactly like a slightly enlarged Venom). Regardless, this is precisely why I dislike the new Ynnari rules because I'm forced to mix with Eldar to use them at all. I used to be able to run Ynnari lists that were all-DE, all-Harlequins, or a mix of the two. But now Craftworld Eldar have shoehorned themselves into every lists, demanding 50% inclusion in every single slot, whilst also pushing Harlequins and DE out of what used to be universal Warlord traits and relics.

To be honest, I'd care a lot less about mixing in general if our own book felt more complete. Instead, there's so little in the way of flavour and options that I'm pushed towards outsourcing those things from the other Eldar factions. Even something as basic as a 'shooty HQ' build has to be pinched from Harlequins (Death Jester or Shadowseer) or Eldar (Autarch). Same goes for if I want a Support HQ that does more than stand in the middle of my units, presumably empowering them with its raw stench.

This isn't even about having a lot of models. Harlequins only have 4 characters in their book - 2 HQs and 2 Elites - and yet they manage to make them far more rounded and diverse than the 7 in our book. Harlequins have the Troupe Master (a pure melee HQ, comparable to the Succubus), the Shadowseer (a support unit that can be tailored towards a huge variety of roles via its powers and Pivotal Role ability, also not too bad in melee), the Death Jester (a sniper but one that can be tailored towards pure shooting, support, or even a mix of shooting and melee), and the Solitaire (a very fast, solo melee character). IOW, you've got a pretty good range of skills - Troupe Master and Solitaire for melee, Death Jester for long-range shooting, and Shadowseer for everything in between.

What about DE's 7 characters? Well, in terms of generic characters, we've got the Succubus (a melee character), the Archon (a melee character who's worse at melee), the Haemonculus (an aura on legs who also brings some mediocre melee), and finally the Beastmaster (a 40pt tax). These are supplemented by our special characters like Drazhar (a melee character), Lelith (a much weaker melee character), and Urien Rakarth (an aura on legs who doesn't even bring mediocre melee).

Put it this way - if we were to trade our entire HQ section for just the 4 Harlequin characters and their Pivotal Roles, I doubt the prospect of allies would ever cross my mind again. Wink

_________________

TeenageAngst wrote:: Never trust the French.

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Mon Mar 21 2022, 23:09

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Cerve wrote:: Do you all really enjoy to see our rules mixed with those lesser cousins? Bah!

Depends what you mean.

As far as mixing with Harlequins goes, I'm not too bothered given that they used to be in our codex. Razz

I can't say I've ever been a great fan of mixing with Craftworlders, though. Aside from anything else, I just never really cared for most of their aesthetics, sans Warlocks and Farseers. Conversions notwithstanding, I think Harlequins are much closer to our aesthetic than Eldar (the Starweaver in particular looks almost exactly like a slightly enlarged Venom). Regardless, this is precisely why I dislike the new Ynnari rules because I'm forced to mix with Eldar to use them at all. I used to be able to run Ynnari lists that were all-DE, all-Harlequins, or a mix of the two. But now Craftworld Eldar have shoehorned themselves into every lists, demanding 50% inclusion in every single slot, whilst also pushing Harlequins and DE out of what used to be universal Warlord traits and relics.

To be honest, I'd care a lot less about mixing in general if our own book felt more complete. Instead, there's so little in the way of flavour and options that I'm pushed towards outsourcing those things from the other Eldar factions. Even something as basic as a 'shooty HQ' build has to be pinched from Harlequins (Death Jester or Shadowseer) or Eldar (Autarch). Same goes for if I want a Support HQ that does more than stand in the middle of my units, presumably empowering them with its raw stench.

This isn't even about having a lot of models. Harlequins only have 4 characters in their book - 2 HQs and 2 Elites - and yet they manage to make them far more rounded and diverse than the 7 in our book. Harlequins have the Troupe Master (a pure melee HQ, comparable to the Succubus), the Shadowseer (a support unit that can be tailored towards a huge variety of roles via its powers and Pivotal Role ability, also not too bad in melee), the Death Jester (a sniper but one that can be tailored towards pure shooting, support, or even a mix of shooting and melee), and the Solitaire (a very fast, solo melee character). IOW, you've got a pretty good range of skills - Troupe Master and Solitaire for melee, Death Jester for long-range shooting, and Shadowseer for everything in between.

What about DE's 7 characters? Well, in terms of generic characters, we've got the Succubus (a melee character), the Archon (a melee character who's worse at melee), the Haemonculus (an aura on legs who also brings some mediocre melee), and finally the Beastmaster (a 40pt tax). These are supplemented by our special characters like Drazhar (a melee character), Lelith (a much weaker melee character), and Urien Rakarth (an aura on legs who doesn't even bring mediocre melee).

Put it this way - if we were to trade our entire HQ section for just the 4 Harlequin characters and their Pivotal Roles, I doubt the prospect of allies would ever cross my mind again. Wink

Yes but...they have like 6 units. Of course their HQs are so different each other.

I don't know guys, I can't see our Codex in this gloomy way.
First of all: the design. Our army is NOT an "aura" army. Not a castle one. We are an army full of egoism and selfpride, every single DE loves himself and no other.
In game, every unit works alone. We are raiders, we play on boat/bikes/similar and everyone is for himself. Yes we have aura abilities, but those are:
1) The simple Archon, which is more like mandatory to have it, everyone have this rule these days;
2) Haemonculus, which is fine from the bg perspective. Coven units are not full of pride, they're more like slaves themselves, it's perfectly fine that their doc boost them;
3) Drazhar. Because he IS Drazhar, a legend.
HQ sides: ok so because we are super pride lords, we WANT relics! We WANT traits, that's design! If you are an Archon, a Succubus, or an Haemonculus, you MUST (bg) have some sort of personal trait, title, the most shiny tools, etc. Every single lord of Commorragh is famous for his trait, so it's perfectly fine that the Codex push players to build up their lords with Traits and Relics. It's not "being poor written", it's a precise choice of design. If you want anonymous leaders go play SpaceMarines with their lieutenant number 67. In this scenario, we have multiple choices from the same datasheet. For example the Archon could be builded as:
1) Full heavy melee oriented (Djinn+Hatred Eternal, or Savage if you play Skulls)
2) Full Support (AncientEvil+Animus/Writ)
3) Mixed Bag (Djinn+AncientEvil usually)
4) Sniper support (embarked with Trueborns, helping the Jester closing kills)
5) CP farmer
etc
Succubus have n-ways to kill. Even the Haemi can be a Grot/Monster healer, a Wracks healer, or even a character killer (with Twelves), or just support+carrier for Animus. Damn he is even good with the Helm for his habit to being deployed on foot.

I belive there is A LOT of flavour on our army, precisely in what we're missing. It's like playing Skaven and whining because they have no cavalry. We have a lot of choices in what is our being: Raiders of the warp. Nothing less, nothing more. In fact, if you see the background, we shouldn't be able to play battles as other armies. On the board the army FEELS definitely Drukhari. We are just pirates, degenerate people, yes we are powerful, but we're basically cyber vampire Vikings.
And because of that, we are multiple small armies in one. This suggest that a single Kabal alone with no Cult/Coven will not have the strenght to fight any other race army alone. On BG when a Kabal call a Raid, first of all it calls their best Wychcult and ask help to his Haemonculus (Realspace Raid anyone?), then sometimes it even let other Kabals to join. Even the great Kabal of the BlackHeart usually tend to use others when possible.
It is written deeply in our bg. How to represent this on the table? Multiple <Obsessions>. Multiple small armies.

I think this is the BEST Codex ever written for Drukhari, in a BG:Rules perspective. I know it is restrictive sometimes, but that's precisely how our bg works. Being able to just pick up every unit like 6ed and before feels...boring. Like every other army. I hope to gave a different point of view to every one that unfortunately doesn't like this book. I'm just an enthusiasm guy (Skari docet) but, for real, if you think it about how we works on bg, you can see that our set of rules is fitting perfectly.

Yes of course we could have more choices on relics etc, but that's not a book issue. Let's be honest: every book have a lot of relics, and then you see always the same 2-3. It's not that other books are better than us. The Craftworld one for example it's pretty similar to us. Harlequins have pivot roles (as we have Master promotions, less in numbers, but with retinues), but again: they have like 6-7 choices at all, they MUST have more written options. Custodes are the same, GKs are the same, every Codex with a small number of datasheets have a bigger choices of rules, it's the only way to make them viable.

PS: for the Ynnari, I agree that it's a bit annoying the 50% Craftworld needed. But I can live with it. And I LOVE the Yncarne, it is (and still) the funniest piece to play of the entire game imho. So yeah, it hitted me too...I guess one day I'll buy some Craftworld and that's it.

Subject: Re: New Codizes and what we think about them Mon Mar 21 2022, 23:51

Regardless, Ynarri are in need to some FAQing, both to make them playable in the tourney pack, and to find out if the design team actually *intended* for Ynarri to lose Strands of Fate when taking their allowed Drukhari and Harlequin units. Otherwise, I don't see too much reason for the point increases.