8e - Drukhari

Count Adhemar wrote:

I'm slightly more optimistic this morning, not over the GW article but over the comments made about it on the FLG website. Whilst I have to caveat this by saying that Reece and Frankie have been unfailingly upbeat about absolutely every unit or rule that has been discussed, Reece is practically throwing his toys out the pram at anyone getting negative over DE.

Reece wrote:

Haha, I suppose you DE players have some serious Stockholm syndrome going on to explain this total lack of trust! The article was saying that your transport vehicles are AMAZING. Like, seriously outstandingly good. Stop thinking about things as they are now, that is what is tripping you all up. NewHammer fundamentally changes the way your army plays. You’re comparing things we say are good to what you know now but that is like comparing a rule in 7th ed 40k to something in a different game: it’s silly and not at all informative nor useful in any way. There are rules interactions we can’t talk about yet that will make your eyes go wide when you can put all this information in context. Just a tad more patience =)

I mean, this is actually funny, Frankie and I are laughing our asses off at some of these comments. However, you all are working with what you have, which is an incomplete picture.

Just trust us. If you play Dark Eldar, you are going to be over the moon stoked at how much your army has improved. I will leave it at that. =)

Reading all of Reece's replies to comments on the Frontline Gaming post of the DE article has me hopeful as well. Not having seen the full rules for 8th, DE specific data sheets, or unit rules we are working with an incomplete picture. There is still to much unknown to make so many assumptions.

Trust is earned and once lost is hard to regain, I'll think about trusting them when they have actually proven trust is warranted. Until that time I will remain skeptical and take everything said by them and their heralds with a grain of salt.

Is anyone else curious as to what the remaining three stages of "trust" are?

Archon_91 wrote:

Is anyone else curious as to what the remaining three stages of "trust" are?

-Depression
-Suicide
-Haunting

Aaaaah thanks

Archon_91 wrote:

Is anyone else curious as to what the remaining three stages of "trust" are?

I'll hazard a guess:

2) Realisation. "Wait, this doesn't look better. This doesn't look better at all."

3) Denial. "No, it must be better. GW wouldn't lie to us again! They promised they'd changed!"

4) Acceptance. "No, it's worse."


Then there's the unmentioned 5th stage:

5) Blind Optimism. "Look, GW are releasing a new edition. And their marketing department says that it will be the best one ever and will fix everything that was wrong with the old one. I know they've lied every other time, but I'm sure this one will be different. I can just tell that they really mean it this time."

Time to reopen my salt mines

Wyches: 50% chance to play melee like 7th edition, OH WOW -1 ap on terrible non-utility weapons

Incubi: wow its nothing

Vehicles: looks the same as everyone elses vehicle changes.

Could they give us nothing about OUR army,

Tau: relevant info
daemons: relevant info
IG: super relevant info
CSM: wow its nothing
DE: wow its nothing

our picture is only imcomplete due to them choosing to tell us NOTHING about how DE play, except wyches will HALF the time play like 7th edition melee


I already rode this wild ride in 7th edition im not getting on any hype trains this time.

i dont get how people are willing to just say "ITS LOOKING GOOD" again, did they not play 5th where this army was at its most fun? (to me)

Honestly, I didn't run any of the units they touched on in the last edition. Gunboat raiders were weak, Incubi could eat terminators but, no one played terminators really, and wyches died to anything and had no damage output. They just touched on all the nubtraps in our army.

The article never mentioned venoms beyond confirming flicker fields are still a thing. No news of reavers or anything coven. Those were the units I relied on in the last edition. Until all the rules have been seen enjoy the salt mines

Count Adhemar wrote:

Ikol wrote:

The Wraithknight is a poor example as high Toughness, High Wound modelsw were not the primary target of a Darklance in 7th ed.  The primary target was Tanks.  having an 11.111% chance to one shot a Land-Raider or anything with an Armour Value per hit

I think you need to check your maths. To one shot a Land Raider with a Dark Lance was 5.55% per hit (5+ on penetration roll and 6 on the damage table) and that doesn't take into account any save the Land Raider may have had. And if you were relying on Dark Lances for your AT in 7e then you had some pretty serious problems as they were utter crap!

...

...

Wait...

Yep, you're correct, my bad.
And no, non Darklances ever appeared in my list (nearly). 2 Units of Haywire Scourges all the way in my opponents backfield.

Even so, I don't think that Wraithknights were an optimal target either.

I think it would be cool if the Dark Eldar big stuff gets BETTER as they take damage. A Grotesque getting more attacks, and faster as it bleeds to death would really be thematic.

megatrons2nd wrote:

I think it would be cool if the Dark Eldar big stuff gets BETTER as they take damage.  A Grotesque getting more attacks, and faster as it bleeds to death would really be thematic.

#TheLightOfFueganNeverForgets #ClawedFiendsOnceReignedSupreme #GratuitousTaggingOfHash

/sarcasm

Quote :

i dont get how people are willing to just say "ITS LOOKING GOOD" again, did they not play 5th where this army was at its most fun? (to me)

I didn't play 5th, but I played AoS, and that's straight where we're headed. AoS is a mind numbingly simple system. The fewer moving parts there are, the harder it is to break. Also every army they've spotlighted has been shown to be massively nerfed except us. I know we're going to be good this edition because I know what a good and bad strategy looks like, and we're going to have good strategies.

TeenageAngst wrote:

Quote :

i dont get how people are willing to just say "ITS LOOKING GOOD" again, did they not play 5th where this army was at its most fun? (to me)

I didn't play 5th, but I played AoS, and that's straight where we're headed. AoS is a mind numbingly simple system. The fewer moving parts there are, the harder it is to break. Also every army they've spotlighted has been shown to be massively nerfed except us. I know we're going to be good this edition because I know what a good and bad strategy looks like, and we're going to have good strategies.

I wouldn't say giving the T'au the ability to fall back and maintain the ability to act normally, having giving Eldar infantry access to mortal wounds and one of the fastest infantry units, and giving marines super-super soldiers to be "massive nerfs."

But buffing Melee units certainly does not help the T'au. Nor does the fact that they can no longer ignore cover or armor.

SOOOOO many people complaining that they wont be able to one shot vehicles with a Dark Lance.

Have you not been reading all of the updates on 8th? The WHOLE POINT is that no one should be able to one shot your favourite £45 land raider on turn one. That element of the game is going...this applies to all of us.

For me the best we could have hoped for is a Dark Lance that was on par with a Lascannon. I think this is pretty much how it has turned out.

AV has GONE! It has gone so what did you actually want the Dark Lance to do?

Whats important about heavy weapons now is very simple, they need to be able to deal multiple wounds. What's your opinion? Would you rather they did 3 damage or do you prefer the D6?

I also think the D Cannon looks good. With plenty of Primaris Marines and Terminators running about with 2 wounds the D Cannon will be lethal against multi wound infantry.

For what its worth I still think Wyches totally suck and Im hoping they get poisoned blades and get to pick on the drugs chart like they way people will be able to choose psychic abilities.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

For me the best we could have hoped for is a Dark Lance that was on par with a Lascannon.  I think this is pretty much how it has turned out.

See, I'd actually argue that Dark Lances being about equal to Lascannons was one of their biggest issues in 7th.

How many Marines or IG players do you see relying on lascannons to take out armour? Is the answer 'none'? Because I think it is.

What those races actually use is stuff like Meltas (to explode them) or Grav/Assault Cannons/ Missiles/Plasma (to strip HP).

Even Eldar have this option - having access to Meltas and D-weapons (to one-shot vehicles) and Shuriken/Splinter cannons to quickly strip HP. And, indeed, you'll notice that Eldar armies almost exclusively took these options over Bright Lances.

However, we were stuck with our crappy Lascannon knock-off, which lacked the strength to reliably penetrate vehicles, the AP to reliably explode them and the number of shots to reliably strip HP. And our melta-equivalent was just a short-range Dark Lance, complete with all the problems inherent to it.

Maybe the new Lascannon will be viable. However, we're really banking on this being the case because we have basically no other weapons to fall back on. We don't have a plethora of alternative weapons to use instead.


To be clear, I do agree with you that the fact that Dark Lances can't one-shot vehicles/MCs doesn't necessarily make them bad weapons. However, that will strongly depend on what other weapons can do. If every other race has access to weapons that can one-shot vehicles, then the inability for the Dark Lance to do this could be crippling.

Anyway, all I'm saying is that Dark Lances being comparable to Lascannons was a major part of why they were so awful in 7th. Hence, I don't think you can use that to make the assumption that they'll be good in 8th.

Like I said tanks being killed with one shot on turn one was a major focus of 8th edition...it has been said plenty of times that they intended to fix this issue.

So with that in mind I would predict that weapons that will one shot your tank with 2D6 damage will be rare and will come at a high points cost.

Now if the raider gets 6 wounds (which I think will be the minimum) then yes it could be one shotted by any D6 damage weapon...but it is only a transport after all for very few points.

You have mentioned the Melta Gun and the stats for that are the same as the Dark Lance except that at close range you roll 2D6 and pick the highest. That makes it more reliable at doing max damage but a much shorter distance. Who is to say we wont have our own Lance type melta weapons with the same rules?

We can all look forward to finding out what happens with Haywire which could be something like roll to wound 1= no damage 2,3,4,5 = D3 damage 6=D6 damage.

This is taken from an FAQ I found posted on Facebook about the new edition:

"How do invulnerable saves work?"
"Much the same. You can choose to use your invul instead of your armor and they ignore AP. Some saves like Power from Pain/Feel no pain let you save after you take damage. You'll be able to roll for each damage received."

To me this sounds like a defensive buff in the form of Power From Pain. I'm also guessing that it will offer some form of offensive boost as well.

Considering that they have just released the stats for a reaper Chainsword, which in 8th edition will just do a straight up 6 wounds. So i think we can safely assume theres not going to be any weapon that can 1 shot a vehicle. Seeing as most vehicles we have seen have 8 wounds. I think d6 wounds at -4 is pretty much as good as a standard weapon is going to get and pretty good.
yes you can just as often roll a 1 as a 6 but, but if you have a dedicated anti-vehicle / monster team then in reality your going to not just have 1 dark lance but 3 or 4, meaning youll likely be doing more than just a d6.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Would you rather they did 3 damage or do you prefer the D6?

It depends on the rest of the system. From the sounds of things though, I would rather have the reliability of 3 damage than the 3.5 "average" damage from 1d6.

Somebody saying, "Trust me, it's awesome!" is non-information. The purpose of that statement is to generate at least enough excitement to get people to give the new game a fair chance. It may also be a sincere statement, but since it's also subjective, I may disagree once I've read the rules and played this thing.

Learning parts of the rules but not the complete rules is pretty much non-information as well. Without knowing the full context, or the details where the proverbial devil is, all we really have are guesses that are a little more educated.

We still don't really know anything.

Here's an educated guess though (which may already have been pointed out - all of the discussion threads are blurring together for me at this point, and I've skimmed over a lot of posts). Splinter weapons are currently S 1, which (as I understand it) will wound vehicles on 6s. Venoms being able to hurt vehicles seems like a result of core rules changes, not changes to splinter weaponry.

It seems likely (educated guess) that the Poison rule will specify keywords it does or does not work on. Without knowing what those keywords are and which models have them, I don't think we know anything.

I think the other important question regarding splinter weapons is what our rate of fire will be. It probably won't stay the same. Splinter cannons have worked differently in every codex. Splinter racks may or may not be a thing. Without knowing that, we don't know how useful being able to hurt vehicles with splinter weapons will be.

We don't really know anything.

Fortunately, we have Shadow War to play while we wait until we can see. :-)

I just don't get how someone can say Wyches may be in the top 3 of most improved units, and then give us a rule that won't work 50% of the time, and say their specialist weapons are super great because -1 AP, so 2 out of 10 models will have -1 AP...

What am I missing? the only real reason they'd be better as far as I can see are the universal rules they're changing in this edition, but those same rules benefit just about every assault based unit out there just as much.

Cherrycoke wrote:

what am I missing?

What you are missing is the full rulebook, our ruleset and their dataslate, with stats, full equip and options.

Cherrycoke wrote:

I just don't get how someone can say Wyches may be in the top 3 of most improved units, and then give us a rule that won't work 50% of the time, and say their specialist weapons are super great because -1 AP, so 2 out of 10 models will have -1 AP...

What am I missing? the only real reason they'd be better as far as I can see are the universal rules they're changing in this edition, but those same rules benefit just about every assault based unit out there just as much.

Well, we're missing a lot, actually. We're missing the dataslate/statline. Just because he said that the specialist have -1 AP, it doesn't meant that this is *all* they have.

What I *really* want to know is whether or not the 4+ dodge save carries over to any phase during which the wyches are locked in close combat, so they can use it vs. pistols being fired at them in close combat. Sure, Frankie mentioned it working in the fight phase, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the save is exclusive to the fight phase, and I don't think that the people making these quick write-ups are analysing/dissecting their words when they write them nearly as much as the players reading them are.

Logan Frost wrote:

What you are missing is the full rulebook, our ruleset and their dataslate, with stats, full equip and options.

Yeah, but so are the people saying wyches are improved.

krayd wrote:

Just because he said that the specialist have -1 AP, it doesn't meant that this is *all* they have.

Granted. However, if they had gained some amazing new stuff, don't you think GW would have wanted to put it in the marketing blurb?

Instead, these are the things GW chose to try and generate hype:
- Wych weapons are still worthless.
- They still don't get their 4++ save outside of combat.
- If you use them as a tarpit (which appears to be the only thing they could possibly do), then they have a ~50% failure rate that's independent of all other factors (i.e. even if you play them perfectly, they'll still completely fail at their role half the time).

I know there's a lot of stuff we don't yet know, but these highlights don't exactly inspire me with confidence.