Full rules and all Indexes

Yeah, I just wished they hadn't nerfed his Strength and AP so he could do something in melee

Count Adhemar wrote:

It has 2 of them

CptMetal wrote:

So 12 shots up close. And I want him near the enemy so I like that.

Oh schnaps! That ain't half bad.

He also gets 2 extra attacks due to his macro-scalpels so that ends up at 6 attacks, 3+ to hit, S6, AP-1, D2. Probably not as good as his 7e version but could still play a role against hordes.

It's really weird to me that we have to take into account the losses of models from morale. You have to think that all the models lost from shooting and melee will then factor into the loss of models from morale. So the total casualties ends up being from 3 phases, with every model you kill in the previous two phases being another in a later phase. Battles will no longer be dictated by how long you can stick in the fight, but instead how hard you can hit. Hence Wyches being in a weird spot. A cheap tarpit for sure, but as Americans do, why do days of close quarters infantry battles when you can finish it in a flash with a bomb?

I think the morale phase is going to be a real game changer in 8e and sadly, our fragile units are going to suffer. When Turn 4 arrives and we are immune to Morale then I think we will be breathing a sigh of relief. Grots are going to be particularly hard hit as Morale removes models, not wounds. At least they've had a Ld buff!

We are going to have some morale to deal with. But since we are used to MSU spam we should not worry to much about it. At ld 8 even with a unit size of 5 we will only ever lose 1 guy to morale. (4 wounds is only 1 guy left to flee, 3 wounds +6 =9 thus 1 guy flees).
Morale matters mainly for morale shenigans. Lower that ld to 7 or 6 and you might get lucky and kill half as much again in the morale phase.
Units of 10 are going to suffer, kill half and a few more might flee.
Those necron units of 20, kill 15 and you wipe the unit.
Although most big squad armies have some defense they can use (ork warboss and mob rule, guard comissars, necron ld 10, nids hive mind).
So yes a model here or there will die from the morale phase, and if you do not pay attention to it the repercussions are huge. But once you know how to deal with it there seems to be much smaller problems with it. But kill those buff bubbles and you can drink sweet tears during the morale phase.

To be fair a unit of 3 grotesque will never lose a model to morale because of lead 8.

This actually is something to remember for any unit that has lead 8 and 3 models (say because you lost some earlier).

Without leadership debuffs they are immune to the morale phase casualties.

Given the increase in damage output from many weapons but no corresponding increase in Grots Wounds total, I think we're going to see them in larger units now (or not at all).

I don't really follow that reasoning so could you elaborate?

To my mind being in a bigger unit gains them nothing.

They become a juicier target, we have no unit buffs to worry about and though splitfire everything is a thing the enemy is required to declare all shots before firing, multiple small units opens up the possibility he rolls poorly and leaves models alive.


That's my thought process at least.

On another note, since rakarth benefits from his own toughness buff he is tough 6 with (5?) Wounds and a (almost always) rerollable 4+ save followed by the 6+ for any wound that gets through.

His damage output seems middling but he sure is tough.

Just realised I hadn't yet replied to this joy:

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

*sigh* This is what I get for trying to be positive in this forum.

No, it's what you get for stating your opinion as objective fact. And then berating others for having 'incorrect' opinions.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

and answer you on the same tone you answered to my post, @TheShredder.

I can't wait.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

If you think our new characters are worse than their 7th counterparts you are out of your god dammned mind.

I've known that for years. Do you have an actual argument?

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

Either that or you have pulled out the fastest pink shade googles in the history of this game.

Is the speed of my goggles relevant to their effectiveness?

I don't know about you (I am out of my mind, after all), but any goggles I wear have a tenancy to move at the same speed I move at.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

The Archon in 7th was USELESS. The Succubi in 7th was USELESS. Haemonculi in 7th were ABSOLUTELY frak USELESS. Thats a FACT. And if you used one instead of a llhamaean to cover your CG slot you obviously dont give a frak about being competitive because those were at best 50 points straight up thrown in the thrash bin.

Remember what I said about you stating your opinion as fact? Yeah . . .

I will grant you that all of our HQs in 7th were bad and/or underpowered. However, I wouldn't go so far as to call them useless:
- Coven Haemonculi were actually pretty decent in terms of helping Grotesques or the Dark Artisan formation. They made the former unit Fearless on turn 1 and accelerated the rate at which they gained access to the useful abilities in the Coven PfP chart (IWND, Zealot, EW). In the DA formation, they provided a WWP that allowed the unit to drop into the enemy's back lines or such and eventually gave them access to Zealot.
You also had the option of using them in non-Coven units (like Incubi) to hand out Fearless and Zealot. Hardly optimal, but could be fun.
- Succubi were the only source of AP2 in our HQ section. I know that many others used them in squads of Grotesques (usually from the Grotesquerie formation - the requisite Haemonculus would go with one unit and the Succubus would go with the other). The Succubus would be protected by the Grots and could help them against their weakness of armour (as well as giving them her Ld on turn 1, before they become Fearless). Not really my thing, but probably more because Succubi just don't interest me. Certainly a lot of other people on this site seem to have had success with this.
- Archons were the cheapest source of WWPs, the only HQ that could have an invulnerable save outside of combat and the only HQ that could actually take a decent ranged weapon. It also had some stuff that was dubious, but fun when it worked - like the Soul Trap. My main issues with them were that Shadowfield was stupidly overcosted and that their weapons lacked bite. In terms of usage, they actually had quite a few - from providing an extra venom and blaster to fulfilling a similar role to the Succubus above in a unit of Grotesques (worse AP but better protection), or accurately deploying a unit with WWP. As with the Succubus above, I know that others have had success with the Archon. I found him largely unreliable, but he was certainly fun on the occasions when the Huskblade + Soul Trap combo got going.

With regard to using the Lhamaean, it depends what list you were building. If you were making a straight DE shooty list then yeah, she was probably the best choice. However, if you were using Coven stuff then you'd usually be taking a Haemonculus and if you were using a Grotesquerie you might well want to take another HQ as well.

The other aspect is that you might want to take a 'proper' HQ simply for the feel of the thing. The Lhamaean may well have been the most optimal HQ, but I believe a lot of people still wouldn't have wanted an army led by her.

Speaking personally, I only used her when I had at least one 'proper' HQ elsewhere, because I just didn't like the idea of playing an army with no characters. Call me Mr. Uncompetitive, but I've simply no interest in playing an army that feels like it was designed by an accountant.

Anyway, my point is that there is a big difference between HQs that are underpowered or overcosted and HQs that are useless. The DE HQs in 7th were demonstrably in the former category because they did have uses. There was no non-HQ unit that could take a WWP. There was no non-HQ unit that could improve the PfP of a unit of Grotesques. There was no non-HQ unit that could add their Ld to a unit of Grots. etc. Perhaps you didn't like those uses or didn't think they were idea for them, but the fact is we had no alternatives.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

Now Succubi HAVE a purpose. Now Archons HAVE a purpose. Now Haemonculi HAVE a purpose

You say this, yet I see nothing whatsoever to back it up. Indeed, if anything, I would argue that every single use they had has been surgically removed.

What is the purpose of Archons besides being cheap HQs? You can't claim melee support, because his weapons are objectively worse than those of a Haemonculus (who also gets an extra attack). You can't claim WWP, because they don't exist anymore. Literally the only thing the Archon has is his 6" Ld aura. Whoop-de-doo. In addition to having a feeble range for a mobile army, it doesn't even work when he's in a transport (and he will be in a transport because he still has no Bike or Skyboard option). Oh, and it also doesn't work on about 2/3 of the army - because it only affects Kabal units (not Wyches or Coven stuff).

He gets Shadowfield for free now, so that's something. Shame he can't use it to protect a unit anymore.

I just don't get what his great new use is. If it's his aura, then I'd suggest that it's niche at best and far less useful than being able to take a WWP (or, God forbid, a decent weapon).

If your argument is that he's cheap, I feel obliged to point out that this is because he doesn't do anything. Much like the Lhamaean HQ you touted, it seems his only function is to be the cheapest HQ available, which isn't want I'd want for the scheming, backstabbing leader of the army.


With regard to Succubi, what purpose do they have now that they didn't before? I'm presuming it's their minuscule Wych buff, but that then comes at the expense of being able to help out non-Wych units.

The same goes for the Haemonculus (although he does now appear to be better in combat than other two, for reasons that continue to elude me). He's by far the best of the three, but his use comes at the expense of everything else he used to do. Not only that, but it's now exclusive to Coven units - so you can't use him to augment a unit of Warriors or Incubi or any such.


If you like our HQs better like this, fine, you're certainly entitled to your opinion. However, to claim that they are objectively better is ludicrous. Their uses are now rigidly-defined with zero option for fun or interesting combos. What's more, I'd argue that the Archon and Succubi's uses are at best niche and at worst completely pointless. And that's before you even get into the other stuff they've lost (namely all their wargear that was even remotely interesting), along with their weapons being bland, boring and just generally crap.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

and all of them actually reflect the fluff pretty well.

Keep telling yourself that.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

You want to run a Succubi with grotesques? you can still do. It might not be the best choice but neither was it in 7th and dont pretend like it was because it was straight up garbage against every meta list out there.

As I said earlier, I know others ran it with success, but I've no idea what sort of meta they were against.

Regardless, let's say that it was indeed sub-optimal. What puzzles me is that you seem to think the new one has somehow improved. I'm not seeing it. Are you seriously saying that you're going to be terrorising people with Wych lists? Because that's the definition of sub-optimal.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

Oh, and our CGs had no benefit whatsoever for having huge WS in 7th because they couldnt be played as a  single unit and the WS was measured by the unit they were in.

I have no idea what "CGs" refers to. It's not an abbreviation I'm familiar with and I can't see any obvious unit beginning with those initials.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

So your point that they are somehow worse now that they hit on 2+ instead of 3+ is laughable at best. This is specially notable on the succubi that can easily access S6, while before she ran around with an apparently amazing S4.

I have no clue what any of this is in reference to.


To sum up my points regarding characters:
- You are provably wrong when you say that our characters in 7th were "useless".
- I am happy to concede that our characters in 7th were overpriced/underpowered. What I disagree with is the idea that they have improved in 8th. The changes seem like sidegrades at best.
- The uses you tout for them are singular, niche and far less diverse than the uses in 7th.
- They have lost virtually everything that made them interesting or flavorful (and let's face it - they didn't have much to start with). The Archon and Succubi have had their elite WS and Initiative replaced with a generic 2+ and nothing, respectively. Because of changes to weapons and stats, the Haemonculus is now better in combat than an Archon. And both the Haemonculus and Archon have lost every piece of interesting wargear they had access to, with their weapons being made into bland, homogenised lumps of nothing. My main issue isn't even that our characters are necessarily worse in 8th - it's that they're devoid of any soul or character.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

You think power from pain is not relevant?

Depends on your army.
- If you're playing a shooty army, you'll probably get little use out of the new PfP until about turn 4, but you wouldn't get much out of the old one either.
- If you're playing a non-Coven melee army, you might get a bit more mileage out of the new one than the old one (depending on whether you consider Furious Charge to be more or less useful than +1 to hit). However, I don't give it any points for the rerolling charge distances part, given that our army used to get that as standard in 7th.
- If you're playing a Coven army, I think you'll be really disappointed. The new PfP chart looks nowhere near as useful as one with Fearless, IWND, Zealot and EW.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

You think power from pain isFrom what i've read so far we the only codex that get a base save against mortal wounds.

We're also the ones who get the least mileage out of that save, outside of maybe Talos and Cronos. Here's the thing - ignoring mortal wounds is great on models that are naturally resilient. When your model has a 2+/3+ save, mortal wounds are about the only thing that can really threaten you - so anything that gives you a chance to ignore those is gold. However, when you're T3 with a 5+ save (or worse), it's really not hard to put a ton of wounds on you. Mortal wounds are just gravy. So, whilst we can ignore them, it's of little consequence because they're only marginally worse for us than normal wounds.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

We are the only codex that get to hit on 2+ on all their regular combat units. We even frak ignore morale completely turn 4 onwards. In 7th PFP was only useful to reaver jetbikes, because the mass S6 everywhere made it completely useless in your regular T3 dudes.

Did your meta have literally no weapons with strength lower than 6?

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

Also, you repeteadly state that hitting wasnt our problem, but wounding. Excuse me? Wyches, grotesques, wracks, hellions... basically every unit except Incubi and Talos hit on 4+ before.

With the exception of the Talos (WS5 was enough to his most things on 3s), sure. But so did the vast majority of the units fighting against them - including most other melee units.

What's more, in spite of hitting on 4s, Grotesques were still a powerful unit in 7th, whilst wyches, hellions and wracks were a laughing stock. What is the difference? Could it be that they're the only ones that had a decent strength score? Not to mention meaningful toughness.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

Now they hit on 3+ base and 2+ on turn 3 onwards (or even before if you pick the +1WS drug) I refuse to beleive that you dont aknowledge the great improvement that this represents on our melee offensive capabilities.

Lat's say you have a line of people and then a few of them are 3 steps back from the others. Now you tell them all to take 3 steps forward. The men who were behind will still be 3 steps behind, because everyone else moved forward as well.

Yes, our units now hit better in combat. So do the units of every other army. Not only that, but with the loss of initiative and the changes to transports, those units could well be striking before ours.

This is buff that will only serve to help those units that were already good. It will do nothing to help units that were bad, like Wyches, because their enemies will find it just as easy to hit them and their main weakness (strength) has not been addressed.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

Either way Im not saying wyches are da bomb, but at the very least are an utility unit that taken in MSU can pin down effectively shooty units (each unit triggers its own no escape roll) and capable of dishing some harm. Hydra gauntlets are pretty good and cheap, and you can take 2 in a 5 woman squad.

I find it more than a little odd that you began by sneering at anyone who did not take the most optimal HQ choice possible in 7th, yet you're now praising a unit that you yourself admit is far from optimal.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

CHANGES IN PLAYSTYLE

AKA L2P, nubz!

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

Its not about playing fair, its about balance. Venomspam has been the only way to field dark eldar competitively for the last 3 editions and I personally am tired of it and Im glad to be able to explore other builds, something I see you having problems on doing as most of your complaints are that you cant field exacly the same as you did before and it working the same or better. Times change, meta swifts and editions pass. Get on with the times, try different stuff, experiment.

You do understand that there is a difference between wanting other lists to be more viable and wanting you current list to be made less viable?

People who played venom spam might have wanted some more variety, but I highly doubt that they wanted their venom spam to be made sub-optimal in the process.

More importantly though, who the hell do you think you are? You do not have the right to tell others how they are or are not allowed to have fun. You do not have the right to tell others what armies they should or should not play.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

DONT WORRY ITS ALMOST OVER.

Thank God.

BizarreShowbiz wrote:

A big part of the reason I dont post nearly as often here as I used to is because ever since the Gathering Storm II book dropped and it turned out not to be a Dark Eldar supplement this forum has turned into a botomless pit of toxicity, self-pity, negativity, bad manners and out of tone responses to harmless oppinions or questions, And it honestly saddens me because it used to be such a cool place to write and read stuff about plastic toys.

I can't help but wonder if you're projecting here, as you seem to have provided nothing but that which you claim to hate:
- You complain about tone, and yet I'd argue the tone of this post is far more hostile and unpleasant than the tone of the post you claimed to be mirroring here.
- You complain about negativity, whilst being nothing but negative about anything not from the current edition.
- You complain of manners, whilst accusing anyone who disagrees with you of being out of their mind.
- You complain about toxicity, whilst trying to tell people how to have fun.

In short, if you wish to improve the tone of this forum, perhaps you should try leading by example, instead of spewing the same toxicity and bad manners that you claim drove you away in the first place.

As long as he's explaining that, The Red King, can you explain your previous point about 3 man units of Grots being immune to morale failures? This is a weakness of mine (it involves numbers and those are not my thing).

I wish you guys would spend as much time inventing dirty tricks anf tactics, as you spend argueing

nerdelemental wrote:

As long as he's explaining that, The Red King, can you explain your previous point about 3 man units of Grots being immune to morale failures? This is a weakness of mine (it involves numbers and those are not my thing).

Well if a 3 man unit loses 2 models, at the end of the phase it rolls a d6 and adds 2 to it. The highest you can get from that is an 8 which is their leadership value so no additional models are removed.

The Red King wrote:

I don't really follow that reasoning so could you elaborate?

To my mind being in a bigger unit gains them nothing.

It's not so much that a bigger unit gives them something it's that smaller units are so vulnerable now as so many weapons deal multiple wounds and Grots still only have 3 wounds each. So I think we'll either see big units of Grots or no units at all.

But multiple wounds dont spill over now unless mortal wounds.

Thanks, lessthanjeff! Yes. Got it!
Count Adhemar, I have agreed with that logic since I first saw their stats, but isn't the notion of their morale immunity something to consider. Even a 4 man squad (what I ran in 7th) should be reliably immune.
And swarming multiple units could get them chewed up but I [currently - no actual playtesting] think the key to DE success in 8th is numerous minimum squads. Even without the access to big weapon choices a big squad grants.

But I still don't follow. Vulnerability to multiple damage weapons is only increased by being in large units isnt it?

Msu forces the opponent to at least make choices (even with splitfire).

Relying on your opponent to make bad choices or roll poorly is not a valid strategy or defense I admit, but there is no bonus that I can see to taking a large unit.

It allows mortal wounds to spill into the rest of the unit (which can happen to a 3 man unit but a large unit is a juicier target).
It makes them vulnerable to losing pricey models to morale phase.
It gives them a great big target for every lascannon equivalent (LEQ?) Because it allows the opponent to quickly and more reliably make back the points spent.

It's possible I'm missing something glaringly obvious but if so I am missing it completely.

Also Lessthanjeff explained it before I could. Thank you.

CptMetal wrote:

I wish you guys would spend as much time inventing dirty tricks anf tactics, as you spend argueing

Okay, that's a fair request.

I'm thinking that shooting is still the way to go this edition. And much as I like the idea of infantry-DE, I believe we're too expensive (relative to our fragility) to pull it off. So, I think we'll still have to rely on our transports.

With the changes to Venoms and the removal of splinter racks, we could see the roles of our transports reversed - with Raiders becoming the backfield units (or at least having no pressing need to get close) and Venoms being more aggressive.

I think we'll also want to stay in our transports for as long as possible. Doing so will give us much more mobility and range than before, and the consequences of being in a transport that explodes are far less harsh (as least as far as our cheap units are concerned). I'm also thinking in terms of our old tactics of basically taking on pieces of the enemy army - using our mobility to stay out of LoS/range of at least some of their army for as long as possible.

Here are a few possible builds:

5 Warriors w/ Blaster - 50, Venom w/ 2 Splinter Cannons - 95
145pts Total
6 Splinter Shots at 24-36"
10 Splinter Shots at 18"-24"
16 Splinter Shots at 12"-18"
20 Splinter Shots at <12"
1 Blaster Shot

5 Warriors w/ Blaster - 50, Raider w/ Disintegrator - 125
175pts Total
4 Splinter Shots 12"-24"
8 Splinter Shots <12"
1 Blaster Shot
3 Disintegrator shots

10 Warriors w/ Blaster and Splinter Cannon - 100, Raider w/ Disintegrator - 125
225pts Total
3 Splinter Shots at 24-36"
11 Splinter Shots at 18"-24"
14 Splinter Shots at 12"-18"
22 Splinter Shots at <12"
1 Blaster Shot
3 Disintegrator shots

Really, these are all designed with the same goal in mind - get into rapid-fire range of an enemy ASAP and open up on it.

The Venom build is markedly cheaper (though you do lose out on the powerful Disintegrator shots) and the Venom doesn't decrease in effectiveness as it takes damage. However, it has barely half the wounds of the Raider, so bear that in mind.

Then there are Trueborn:

5 Trueborn w/ 4 Blasters - 115, Venom w/ 2 Splinter Cannons - 95
210pts Total
6 Splinter Shots at 24-36"
12 Splinter Shots at <18"
4 Blaster Shots

5 Trueborn w/ 2 Blasters and 2 Splinter Cannons - 115, Venom w/ 2 Splinter Cannons - 95
210pts Total
12 Splinter Shots at 24-36"
24 Splinter Shots at <18"
2 Blaster Shots

(Could also do this with 2 Shredders if you want to focus more on anti-infantry)

5 Warriors w/ 4 Blasters - 115, Raider w/ Disintegrator - 125
[u]240pts Total[u]
4 Blaster Shots
3 Disintegrator shots


Any thoughts on these builds?


In terms of other shooting, Scourges could be useful as suicide units to take out powerful enemy units. However, I should note that Heat Lances are insanely expensive. A unit of 5 Scourges is 70pts. Giving 4 of them Heat Lances costs an addition 100pts for a total of 170pts. Also note that you con't drop into melta range (as you have to be more than 9" away). I think 1-2 of these squads could still be worth it for dealing with hard targets, but blimey those guns are expensive.

I also considered Reavers, but I think they're far too expensive now. 3 of them with a Heat Lance and Grav Talon (so that they can charge the unit afterwards to finish it off) is 120pts. Getting a second Heat Lance will require another 3 models and will bring the squad to 240pts. Even if you drop the Grav Talons, you're still at 230pts and you have half the shots of the Scourges, plus you can't just arrive on the board within range of your target. Maybe they'll have a use in combat, but for anything Shooting-related, Scourges seem the way to go.

Mandrakes look interesting now, though I'm not sure what I'd use them for specifically.

One last thing - upgrades like Shock Prow and Agonisers are incredibly cheap now. Might be worth putting them on most units for the hell of it.


I might have more thoughts later (I haven't tried arranging this into an actual army yet), but I'm going to leave it there for now.

The Red King wrote:

But I still don't follow. Vulnerability to multiple damage weapons is only increased by being in large units isnt it?

I don't really see it that way. If you have a small unit of Grots it requires minimal expenditure of effort to reduce the unit to a point where it' no longer a threat. A larger unit takes commensurately more effort to overcome.

Quote :

It allows mortal wounds to spill into the rest of the unit (which can happen to a 3 man unit but a large unit is a juicier target).

I don't think you can call that out as a particular problem for a large unit of Grots. It applies to any unit.

Quote :

It makes them vulnerable to losing pricey models to morale phase.

True

Quote :

It gives them a great big target for every lascannon equivalent  (LEQ?) Because it allows the opponent to quickly and more reliably make back the points spent.

If your opponent has sufficient LEQ weapons to take out a large unit of Grots would you rather they are pointing at a 40 point Grot or a 200 point Ravager?

I'm not saying that large units should be taken but I don't really see the point of small units. They face all the problems of a large unit but are easier to take down.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I'm not saying that large units should be taken but I don't really see the point of small units. They face all the problems of a large unit but are easier to take down.

This could be an important point in general.

With the steep increase in transport costs, we may have to be a lot more careful in terms of how and when we use them.

I consider the best defense to be not getting shot.

With a small unit your opponent faces the choice of targeting them with his entire unit of (lets say las devs) and reasonably expecting to waste about 2 lascannon shots or splitfire the unit and risk poor rolls doing almost nothing.

The more choices your opponent makes the more chance he has of making the wrong one.

That's just how I feel about it though. Playtesting needed of course.

Several small units in raiders makes a nice objective grabbing taxi, and you save points on transports

I see no real reason to field bigger units. The number of elites we can field went up, and you can share transports. Just take more units, they do not get more weapon options. You do not have to get as much as possible into contact during the charge phase, so you can just put the other 2 grots behind the first so you do not block charges of your second unit.

And multiple small units are not easier to take down then one large unit.
Your enemy must still nominate how he splits his shots, thus might have overkill although it is less likely. Small units do not suffer from morale, so he must kill all of them instead of just a few.

9 grots split into 3 units will need 9 dead grots. If 4 die you still have 5 left
A large unit of 9 grots need between 6 and 9 dead grots to die. If 4 die you have 3-5 grots left. How does this need more expedenture to make them less usefull?

The only advantage of a large grot unit is that you can choice who your last surviving grot is. In the case of 3 units your opponent can pick the worst 2 out of 3.

I'd forgotten we could share transports now.

Could be interesting in terms of putting 2 5-man units into each Raider.

The Shredder wrote:

I'd forgotten we could share transports now.

Could be interesting in terms of putting 2 5-man units into each Raider.

2 5man squads of assault troops is better in almost every way to 1 10 man. Particularly with Incubi.