8e - Drukhari

poison on witches?? Are you sure??

Not 100% on their cc weapons. I know their pistols were, and another weapon was. I *think* it was the knives

CptMetal wrote:

poison on witches?? Are you sure??  

As they should, if you have the best poison in the galaxy why not use it in battle. It always bugged me.

Please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true, please let that be true.

Did you see anything that could help combat psykers? It seems as only psykers can attempt to deny now, so we might need something to even the playing field

Edit: For stupid spelling mistakes

TheBaconPope wrote:

Did you see anything that could help combat payers? It seems as only psykers can attempt to deny now, so we might need something to even the playing field

Like stated in other places, hopefully the Helm of Spite and Crucible of Malediction will still be part of our armies and will be good tools to help us in this field.

Quote :

poison on witches?? Are you sure??

Oh ye of little faith.

Lol

I really didn't get to look through it much. I drove away cursing myself for not looking at some things that *ever one*, my self included, wanted to know. Like stats on a raider/venom. And movement for wyches and warriors. WWP.... the list could go on!

So, no concerns about being unable to disembark from a transport if it moved?

So wyches are, like Reecius said, really improved?
Expectations reaching dangerous levels...

The Shredder wrote:

So, no concerns about being unable to disembark from a transport if it moved?

I'm with ya here buddy, disembarking before a transport moves really hampers the mobility of our CC units. I make heavy use of Wyches in my list currently and this scares me (coupled with the fact that nothing we've seen confirmed for Wyches makes them sound any better than they currently are) I hope wyches have a crazy movement speed to compensate. Currently the transport move+disembark+charge from a raider is working pretty good for me. Reading the transport rules we just lost some mobility in that regards. Perhaps it'll have something for being open topped that allows us to disembark after it moves?

inevitable_faith wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

So, no concerns about being unable to disembark from a transport if it moved?

I'm with ya here buddy, disembarking before a transport moves really hampers the mobility of our CC units. I make heavy use of Wyches in my list currently and this scares me (coupled with the fact that nothing we've seen confirmed for Wyches makes them sound any better than they currently are) I hope wyches have a crazy movement speed to compensate. Currently the transport move+disembark+charge from a raider is working pretty good for me. Reading the transport rules we just lost some mobility in that regards. Perhaps it'll have something for being open topped that allows us to disembark after it moves?

I really don't think that they're going to let players easily get turn 1 charges like that.

You're going to have to ram your raiders down the enemy's throat on turn one - possibly charging with the raiders themselves, hopefully getting enemies to either fall back or stay put. If they stay put, then you disembark the wyches out the back (unless you charge a *massive* horde and or position yourself very poorly, they're not likely to surround the raider completely - it's a pretty big model) and charge them in. If they fall back, then disembark the wyches out the front, advance, and charge the fleeing units.

Yes, it might leave your Wyche raiders more vulnerable in the first turn - but hopefully there will be ways to mitigate that.. and there is also the rest of your army, which hopefully won't be sitting back and letting your wyches do all the work.

Quote :

I really don't think that they're going to let players easily get turn 1 charges like that.

Oh you will, believe me you will.

Yeah i agree they are trying to limit turn 1 charges, but it is still highly possible with DS'ing units (sense we can DS and charge) and some units that can Move+advance+charge. We will see some but imo turn 1 charge isnt game breaking when you only do it with a couple units.

Im not worried about move/disembarking at all, i'm worried our vehicles wont be strong enough to support us long enough to make it into melee.

Yes we might be able to move close enough on turn 1, but if it only takes 1-2 units to kill the vehicle, or charge the vehicle enough to make it so we cant disembark when it dies, thus removing our units form the game.

T5 is really low and a 5+ save isnt that good, we do have hope that we can jink for a -2 to hit mod, this would be really good for use.

amishprn86 wrote:

T5 is really low and a 5+ save isnt that good, we do have hope that we can jink for a -2 to hit mod, this would be really good for use.

Wait. Are there leaked stats for raiders yet? The Starweaver has a 4+ save, so I would think that we'd at least get that much. The T5, I could see (but maybe with more than 6W), though T6 might be a possibility.

The Shredder wrote:

By the way, am I the only one who thinks the transport rules will make our shooting units vastly superior to melee ones?

Your not the only one.

For all the talk about making CC units viable the transport rules suggest shooting units will still be the optimal choice.
I don't want to risk being surrounded by fast units and nuked passengers and all.

Units in CC will also suffer casualties and then lose additional models to morale. You could avoid this for a turn by simply standing back and shooting.

I could see spamming DLs and dissies and splinter (for hordes) as a preferable option.

krayd wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

T5 is really low and a 5+ save isnt that good, we do have hope that we can jink for a -2 to hit mod, this would be really good for use.

Wait. Are there leaked stats for raiders yet? The Starweaver has a 4+ save, so I would think that we'd at least get that much. The T5, I could see (but maybe with more than 6W), though T6 might be a possibility.

DE write up said 5+ against shooting only, starweavers are t5 so assuming Venoms at least are T5 as well and with no saves in melee rend -1 or -2 basically makes it no point
Also Flamers/Heavy flamers auto hit jinks wont matter, sense flamers are stronger now we will most likely see them also sense they are D6 damage, i can assume they will be good skimmer killers.

Raiders i'm making an assumption will be better than Venoms. Venoms + Trueborn Splinter Cannons might be popular tho. Im guessing Raiders will have 8 Wounds and Venoms 6

Edit::

Painjunky wrote:

The Shredder wrote:

By the way, am I the only one who thinks the transport rules will make our shooting units vastly superior to melee ones?

Your not the only one.

For all the talk about making CC units viable the transport rules suggest shooting units will still be the optimal choice.
I don't want to risk being surrounded by fast units and nuked passengers and all.

Units in CC will also suffer casualties and then lose additional models to morale. You could avoid this for a turn by simply standing back and shooting.

I could see spamming DLs and dissies and splinter (for hordes) as a preferable option.

I think shooting for us has improved a lot. Raiders with Splinter Ranks (If we keep those) will be hugely strong. I also think we will ahve some different key units for "shock damage" like Hellions DS'ing, shooting and attempting to charge (you can DS without scatter, DSing into cover will be HUGE!, especially if you can "jump/fly" over terrain)

amishprn86 wrote:

krayd wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

T5 is really low and a 5+ save isnt that good, we do have hope that we can jink for a -2 to hit mod, this would be really good for use.

Wait. Are there leaked stats for raiders yet? The Starweaver has a 4+ save, so I would think that we'd at least get that much. The T5, I could see (but maybe with more than 6W), though T6 might be a possibility.

DE write up said 5+ against shooting only, starweavers are t5 so assuming Venoms at least are T5 as well and with no saves in melee rend -1 or -2 basically makes it no point

I think there is a bit of a disconnect between you two, krayd is speaking of the armor save while you are speaking of the Invulnerability save. So a Starweaver has an armor save of 4+ but we don't know if or what it gets for an invulnerability save while we know that the raider has a 5++ versus shooting but we don't know what it's armor save will be.

CurstAlchemist wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

krayd wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

T5 is really low and a 5+ save isnt that good, we do have hope that we can jink for a -2 to hit mod, this would be really good for use.

Wait. Are there leaked stats for raiders yet? The Starweaver has a 4+ save, so I would think that we'd at least get that much. The T5, I could see (but maybe with more than 6W), though T6 might be a possibility.

DE write up said 5+ against shooting only, starweavers are t5 so assuming Venoms at least are T5 as well and with no saves in melee rend -1 or -2 basically makes it no point

I think there is a bit of a disconnect between you two, krayd is speaking of the armor save while you are speaking of the Invulnerability save. So a Starweaver has an armor save of 4+ but we don't know if or what it gets for an invulnerability save while we know that the raider has a 5++ versus shooting but we don't know what it's armor save will be.

Yes a 5++ my bad but still in melee you dont get hat, its only vs shooting. And Venoms are same Toughness as Starweavers, so i'm 100% sure Venoms and Raiders are T5.

Yes we might have a 4+ save but i dont think we will. Starweavers always were better at survival and i'm assuming it will stay the same.

Starweavers are essentially the same as venoms - Same AV, HP... its essentially the same vehicle.

I am 100% expecting a 4+ save on venoms alongside a 5++ and a 4+ on raiders as well - minimum.

krayd wrote:

I really don't think that they're going to let players easily get turn 1 charges like that.

Surely they could let us move a bit though?

As it stands, the rules completely negate the entire purpose of the transport. What's more, they make it that Raiders are no better at transporting melee units than Rhinos.

krayd wrote:

You're going to have to ram your raiders down the enemy's throat on turn one - possibly charging with the raiders themselves, hopefully getting enemies to either fall back or stay put.

First off, why not just use a shooting unit in that Raider?

Second, I think you're really overestimating the ability of a Raider to survive in melee (especially since they won't have their 5++).

krayd wrote:

If they stay put, then you disembark the wyches out the back (unless you charge a *massive* horde and or position yourself very poorly, they're not likely to surround the raider completely - it's a pretty big model) and charge them in. If they fall back, then disembark the wyches out the front, advance, and charge the fleeing units.

But that's if they do nothing. It seems very likely that they will destroy or severely damage your Raider in melee. If the latter, then they can fall back and finish it with shooting - disembarking your wyches who will then be lambs to the slaughter. Hell, they could even charge and survivors and take advantage of the fact that you no longer have initiative.[/quote]

You're assuming that witches won't be worth anything compared to Warriors.

That's the old warhammer, I hope that will change in the next edition.
And you're operating without any reliable information or at least not enough information.

Why do I say so?
Because the next edition isn't even out and I'm sick of all those doom sayers.

CptMetal wrote:

You're assuming that witches won't be worth anything compared to Warriors.

What I'm saying is that the transport rules look geared towards helping ranged units, whilst impeding melee units.

- Warriors can utilise the full movement of their transports, in addition to their open-topped nature. Wyches gain little benefit from either - since they are forced to disembark before their transport moves in order to charge. And, whilst they can shoot their pistols out of the transport, if you're doing this then the obvious question is why you're not using warriors instead.

- Warriors are also better able to attack from their transports - either aggressively or to defend it from enemy melee units. They get double the overwatch shots and double the shots when their transport is engaged in melee. What's more, they are using their primary weapons whilst wyches are using their secondary ones.

- It gets even more unbalanced when you look at Incubi - as they can't benefit from our transports being open-topped at all (since they don't even have pistols).

The point is, wyches are already on the back-foot because of these transport rules. So, in order to be useful, they will have to not just be equal to warriors but actually be significantly better than warriors (relative to their cost). From what we've seen so far, there is no sign that this is the case.

CptMetal wrote:

And you're operating without any reliable information or at least not enough information.

On the contrary - we have the rules for transports in black and white. We also know that wyches have received no significant improvements in survivability, and that the improvements to their weapons are marginal at best.

CptMetal wrote:

Because the next edition isn't even out and I'm sick of all those doom sayers.

Excuse me whilst I contact the Oxford English Dictionary to inform them that 'doomsaying' now means 'extrapolation and deduction based on the available evidence and past trends'.

Sigh
Witches probably have poison close combat attacks and drugs that are worth stuff and can tie units up. Not to mention special weapons that might have Rending or something like that. That is actually be useful. It's not an auto win unit but can still be very useful. Tie up that damn wraith guard. Make them useless for the rest of the game.

They probably will charge turn 2 the latest: speed ahead and survive the fire.
We got enough units, so it will probably work. Then get out and attack.
Profit.
I.know that you think we got all the information we need but we actually don't

CptMetal wrote:

Sigh
Witches probably have poison close combat attacks and drugs that are worth stuff and can tie units up. Not to mention special weapons that might have Rending or something like that. That is actually be useful. It's not an auto win unit but can still be very useful. Tie up that damn wraith guard. Make them useless for the rest of the game.

They probably will charge turn 2 the latest: speed ahead and survive the fire.
We got enough units, so it will probably work. Then get out and attack.
Profit.

Possibly. However, your optimistic assessment seems to be making a lot of assumptions that have no basis either in past editions or in the leaks we've seen thus far.

CptMetal wrote:

I.know that you think we got all the information we need but we actually don't

First of all, it would be nice if you didn't resort to trying to read my thoughts. I have never once claimed -nor even suggested - that we have all the information we need. All I have done is theorised around the information we know to be true.

I have even said many times that I could well be wrong, depending on the rules we don't yet know about. However, what I won't do is assume that every unit that currently looks bad will have a rule that will magically fix all its problems. If a unit looks bad based on the information we have so far, then I will assume it will be bad until I see actual rules that indicate otherwise (not baseless conjecture or blind optimism).

Second, it seems odd that you're accusing me of this, and yet you yourself seem to think you have enough rules to be really optimistic about wyches. If you think we don't have enough information to theorise, fine. But you can't then turn around and start theorising yourself, based on no more information than I used.