New Dark Eldar Rumors

Rokuro wrote:

Skulnbonz wrote:

Darklight weapons (dark lances, blasters, blast pistols) all gain the blind special rule.

Huh? That sounds like someone completely misinterpreted what darklight is. For the record: Darklight weapons are lasers based on light from another dimension. They don't blind targets, they vaporize them. And why would a designated anti-tank weapon need that rule anyway?

If I may quote from the Codex: "Even to perceive a beam of darklight without the correct protection leaves permanent slash-scars upon the retina."

In terms of fluff, it is not completely unjustified, but like you I'd prefer something that actually helps against vehicles.

Rokuro wrote:

Skulnbonz wrote:

During night fighting all enemy units are treated as affected by the blind special rule and there are powers to make it dark on various rounds.

Night fighting past turn 1 sounds like a big formation rule. But how would anything justify the whole enemy army suddenly seeing even worse in the dark?

One Word: Aelindrach

The Strange Dark One wrote:

If I may quote from the Codex: "Even to perceive a beam of darklight without the correct protection leaves permanent slash-scars upon the retina."

In terms of fluff, it is not completely unjustified, but like you I'd prefer something that actually helps against vehicles.

True that.

Skulnbonz wrote:

One Word: Aelindrach

So we move the entire battlefield to the shadow dimension, or what?

Rokuro wrote:

The Strange Dark One wrote:

If I may quote from the Codex: "Even to perceive a beam of darklight without the correct protection leaves permanent slash-scars upon the retina."

In terms of fluff, it is not completely unjustified, but like you I'd prefer something that actually helps against vehicles.

True that.

Skulnbonz wrote:

One Word: Aelindrach

So we move the entire battlefield to the shadow dimension, or what?

I was more thinking that parts of Aelindrach "leak" into the battlefield temporarily or that Mandrakes are responsible for that in one way or another. Imho, once Aelindrach is involved, all bets are off.

@ Rokuro A 2D6 chart would give 11 separate results, as you can never roll a 1 on 2D6. You could also end up with 36 results with a D6 for a tens, and a D6 for ones(11-16, 21-26, etc....) Another option is do a d6 and if you roll a 6 add another D6 to it plus the roll of 6 result.

Rumors overall sound cool, probably not going to happen though.

CptMetal wrote:

Think about it that way: if you shoot at tanks, the Splinter Rifle is wasted, if you shot at Infantry, the Blaster wouldn't be anymore. And giving all our troops rending when fighting against blinded troops is super cool and potent!

I like the idea of blind and I like the idea of rending against blinded troops. But the blind needs to come from a different source as having it on AT guns is moronic.

What other weapon would you suggest? They already gave as many unique weapons

Perhaps different firing modes for the Phantasm grenade launcher? One that causes a blind test, one test causes pining and one that does soulfright damage..?

Those are better suggestions than the darklight version. Any blind effect needs to be on anti-infantry weapons. Why not splinter weapons? Even maybe *drum roll* a new use for Shredders?

Why should the shredder cause blindness? The dark light weapons at least have "light" as part of their names.

The fluff for the Shredder could be rewritten. The main issue is trying to make one weapon that does everything, instead of having different equipment that is specialised and used for different situations. DL should be AT, and as such shouldn't be laden with rules making it good for AI. The Shredder, which is AI, would be a better place for the source of blindness.

Maybe all the threads make people's eyes scratchy. Imagine a bunch of orks with spontaneous conjunctivitis.

Because it makes more sense to put an anti-infantry rule on an anti-infantry weapon.



As far as the rumors go, this seems pretty wishlisty. That being said, if I'd read the latest Necron, Eldar, or Space Marine books six to twelve months in advance I'd have thought the same thing. Here's hoping!

It's not a question what makes more sense game wise but what's more fluffy. Games workshop never cared for equal balance or what makes sense rules or game wise. It's about the fluff.

That's why I could think that the new witch models could be true. They see that they don't sell and think it's the bad models so they make new ones accompanied by new rules

I can see your point in regards to fluff, but just because GW can doesn't mean they should. I know GW isn't exactly sane with game design, and they could very well put blind on Dark Lances, but they shouldn't

CptMetal wrote:

Why should the shredder cause blindness? The dark light weapons at least have "light" as part of their names.

Cavash wrote:

The fluff for the Shredder could be rewritten. The main issue is trying to make one weapon that does everything, instead of having different equipment that is specialised and used for different situations. DL should be AT, and as such shouldn't be laden with rules making it good for AI. The Shredder, which is AI, would be a better place for the source of blindness.

Maybe all the threads make people's eyes scratchy. Imagine a bunch of orks with spontaneous conjunctivitis.

The Shredder is a monofilament weapon that, controversally, doesn't have the Monofilament rule. It only has Shred, because that's in the name and the current codex's author obviously rushed it.

Aside from the obvious Monofilament, the rule I think makes the most sense to add to it is Pinning.
A weapon that ensnares targets in a razor-sharp net, without slicing and dicing them immediately, but making them helpless against further attacks instead; doesn't that sound right up the Dark Eldar's alley?

Salt.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect a dark eldar update before the chaos marine one (scheduled summer 2017).  I can't find it of course but I have a graph of all the 40k codex updates since RT, which have become fairly regular and predictable since 5th edition.  There are quite a few books in line for updates before our (15 month old?) book.

None of the 40k news sites I follow even published this list, and they do tend to throw up even unrealistic rumors.  The wych kit being redone, as the count mentioned, sounds particularly fishy.

I mean - vyper jet bikes (which are a more useful unit in a much more popular army) are still the same god-awful kit from like 1993 and they're going to resculpt wyches?

Could you upload tar graph for us?

Calyptra wrote:

Salt.

As always.

Playing Dark Eldar is a salty-sweet experience after all.

I think we won`t see new dex before 2017

Still sounds good. Some rumors still better than no rumors at all

I think that various events led to a number of codices in the last round of updates being done on the fly, for legal rather than game development reasons. I think our last codex may have been too early in development, but got rolled out anyway. It wouldn't surprise me to see some of those codexes that got this treatment being given new books to put them into line with where they were supposed to be if their last codex had been given enough development time.

I WOULD be surprised if they resculpted wyches, though.

I think if there is any truth to the wych re-sculpt, as has been said already it's quite possibly a bloodbrides kit.

I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would think blind on darklight weapons had any possible benefit in the game. You only shoot darklight at infantry when there are no tanks left, and making it more effective at its primary role is of far more importance.

I'm assuming that the supposed wounding by wyches on a choice of attributes would be on the basis of a limited selection (me personally, I'd choose attacks most of the time!) but their main issue is against marine style infantry, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter what stat you look at, unless it's the aforementioned attacks, or wounds, it doesn't benefit wyches at all.

I'm calling heart-stopping quantities of salt on most of this.

To be fair, Blind would be pretty handy against Gargantuan Creatures. I wouldn't want to pay extra points for it though.

Not that I'm too worried, looks like pretty solid wish listing to me.

If we're going to wishlist though, how about Darklight (or lances in general) do an extra hull point/wound damage on a 6 to pen/wound? Represents a critical hit and helps us with attrition.

Cavash wrote:

I can see your point in regards to fluff, but just because GW can doesn't mean they should. I know GW isn't exactly sane with game design, and they could very well put blind on Dark Lances, but they shouldn't

I'd be fine with it (assuming that they didn't increase the cost of DLs). I've played numerous games where I've slagged all of my opponent's armor, and I've had nothing left but soft targets for my lances.

I will believe this when I see it... Sounds to good

killedbydeath wrote:

I will believe this when I see it... Sounds to good

Agreed.
And what about Vect and company?

This looks and sounds a whole lot like the very extensive and elaborate CSM rumors from a little while back. It turned out to be complete wishlisting and made up by a sinlge guy.

As much as I'd love to take my DE off the shelf, I'll believe this when I see some actual evidence.