Dark Eldar Changes, 8th

Quote :

Am I the only one distressed by the fact we can't see in the dark anymore?

The parasitic and immense city, whose name is whispered across the galaxy in terror. The Dark City, full of unimaginable horrors and wretched withered denizens, it's immense danger only offset only by the inability of its occupants to discern prey from a rather humanoid looking rock, due to the perpetual night that the metropolis is named for.

Logan Frost wrote:

Am I the only one distressed by the fact we can't see in the dark anymore?

Nope I made a comment about that in the Chat. We actually have an entire mission that can be played at night now and no night vision. When it was pretty much pointless we had it now that we actually would be able to benefit from it GW deletes it from our units.

sekac wrote:

My biggest frustration currently are bladevanes. When they first previewed the transport rules I got really excited. I assumed all the chains and blades works make our vehicles better on combat. But no, they are built-in mandatory downgrades. I know vehicle is S5, but ignore that! It is actually S4 because you have to use a CC weapon. Thanks.

I was frustrated by this as well.

They get cc attacks with -1 armour save but at -1 strength. Not great at all.

With no night fight in matched play format - I don't see the loss as an issue.

Painjunky wrote:

sekac wrote:

My biggest frustration currently are bladevanes. When they first previewed the transport rules I got really excited. I assumed all the chains and blades works make our vehicles better on combat. But no, they are built-in mandatory downgrades. I know vehicle is S5, but ignore that! It is actually S4 because you have to use a CC weapon. Thanks.

I was frustrated by this as well.

They get cc attacks with -1 armour save but at -1 strength. Not great at all.

You guys lost me - what do you mean by this?!?

I think they are talking about the fact that a venom is Strength 5 while bladevanes are Strength 4. So if you make an attack with the bladevanes you are sacrificing 1 point of strength for the -1 AP.

Haemies seem like the go to buff character now. They even give +1 T to our transport vehicles.

CurstAlchemist wrote:

I think they are talking about the fact that a venom is Strength 5 while bladevanes are Strength 4. So if you make an attack with the bladevanes you are sacrificing 1 point of strength for the -1 AP.

Yup and the raider is even worse going from S6 down to S4 if you want any use from the bladevanes.

I vote that Bladevanes are changed to S+4, rather than S4

Reavers now enjoy S7 AP-1, giving them the ability to kill things in Melee (like they're supposed to).

Venoms now enjoy the ability to swoop through our enemie's ranks, twisting and swerving to Tear flesh and ceramite alike.
Whilst our Raiders and Ravagers can now swoop across a battlefield at "Blistering Speed" speeds lesser than their heavily armoured counterparts, chopping all that pass beneath their prow to shreds, wounding Land Raiders on a 3+...

...
Maybe S+2 would be more reasonable.

I like your optimism but i fear this is not changing, its just typical GW level incompetence.

Just like how reavers needed to double in points AND get their only good weapon (caltrops) nerfed all to hell.
DE Reavers were on all the top level tournament tables. Up there with scatbikes and wraithnights and triptides and flying circus deamon summoning... Oh wait... no they weren't...

Painjunky wrote:

CurstAlchemist wrote:

I think they are talking about the fact that a venom is Strength 5 while bladevanes are Strength 4. So if you make an attack with the bladevanes you are sacrificing 1 point of strength for the -1 AP.

Yup and the raider is even worse going from S6 down to S4 if you want any use from the bladevanes.

That's the thing, it's not if you want, it's you must. Step 4 of the Fight Phase says you must choose a weapon from your data sheet. The only time you're allowed to use a generic close combat weapon is if you don't have one listed on your data sheet.

Bladevanes are not only bad, they are mandatory.

Every unit is equipped with a standard cc weapon too.

CptMetal wrote:

Every unit is equipped with a standard cc weapon too.

Source? I know that's how it's always been, but there's nothing I've read to confirm that in the current edition. In fact, the rules seem to say exactly the opposite is true.

sekac wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

Every unit is equipped with a standard cc weapon too.

Source? I know that's how it's always been, but there's nothing I've read to confirm that in the current edition. In fact, the rules seem to say exactly the opposite is true.

https://i.imgur.com/O272Anh.jpg

4. choose a weapon
If a datasheet does not list any melee weapon, the model is assumed to fight with a close combat weapon, which has the following profile

The profile is just User S and AP 0

amishprn86 wrote:

sekac wrote:

CptMetal wrote:

Every unit is equipped with a standard cc weapon too.

Source? I know that's how it's always been, but there's nothing I've read to confirm that in the current edition. In fact, the rules seem to say exactly the opposite is true.

4. choose a weapon
If a datasheet does not list any melee weapon, the model is assumed to fight with a close combat weapon, which has the following profile

The profile is just User S and AP 0

Right "If a datasheet does not list any melee weapon...

So kabalite warriors would swing with a CC weapon because they have no melee weapon on their datasheet. But there is no "if you don't want to use a melee weapon on your datasheet" clause. You select one or more of your melee weapons. If you have none, then you may use a CC weapon.

I was quoting the rules is all, not arguing, just being informal

Right, but you quoted it without comment to someone asking for a source for a claim that you can choose to use no weapon. Their quasi-miffedness is appropriate.

amorrowlyday wrote:

Right, but you quoted it without comment to someone asking for a source for a claim that you can choose to use no weapon. Their quasi-miffedness is appropriate.

Not miffed at all, quasi or otherwise. Apologies if I came across that way. It just hearkens back to the old "turn the power fist off" misconception long after that was no longer possible. It's important we start getting the little things right before it turns into a wide-spread bad habit.

Oh don't be. That's why I added the softening suffixes and the non-intentual prefix. At the end of the day what matters is: if you have a weapon you must use it. Period.

Are you a baker?

Dread Serpent wrote:

Haemies seem like the go to buff character now. They even give +1 T to our transport vehicles.

Only coven units, though. :-(

I just thought of something.

Overwatch doesn't have a special rule allowing flamers to ignore range.  So if you charge from 9", flamers can't hit you.  Assuming turn 2 or later, you've got just over a 1/2 chance of making it.  If charging something like a large unit of ork burnas, that might be worth it.

I was going to say that Mandrakes are largely immune to overwatch because of the -1 penalty to hit them, but OW rules state that you hit on 6 regardless of modifiers.

Watched the first 8th demo game on warhammer tv and they stated that overwatch indeed needs range. Therefore as it is "normal shooting attack" I'd argue it also needs los : )

Yeah the rules says treat it as a shooting attack like normal but during the assault phase and you always need 6's regardless of modifiers/BS.

Its treated as any normal shooting rules, Range, visibility etc..

This includes vehicles. We learn to not charge a StormRaven :/

I'd be very happy if you couldn't be overwatched when charging a unit looking the exact opposite direction. That's slways kinda bugged me.

Some other thoughts - Venoms are no longer our most point efficient unit for splinter dakka. In fact, a Kabalite at 13-24" is 7 points per shot, while a Benom at 1-18" is 7.91 points per shot. The Kabalite in rapid fire range, at 3.5 points per shot, gets the most splinter per point; edging out the Kabalite with splinter cannon in rapid fire range, who comes in at 3.67 points per shot.

Of course, Venoms have other advantages. But now I'm starting to think of flying forwards with warriors embarked, all guns blazing, then charging with the Transports (in turn 1!); depleting then tying up a unit til the heavy hitters arrive. Then if they're still alive they can rinse and repeat.

Creeping Darkness wrote:

I'd be very happy if you couldn't be overwatched when charging a unit looking the exact opposite direction. That's slways kinda bugged me.

Some other thoughts - Venoms are no longer our most point efficient unit for splinter dakka. In fact, a Kabalite at 13-24" is 7 points per shot, while a Benom at 1-18" is 7.91 points per shot. The Kabalite in rapid fire range, at 3.5 points per shot, gets the most splinter per point; edging out the Kabalite with splinter cannon in rapid fire range, who comes in at 3.67 points per shot.

Of course, Venoms have other advantages. But now I'm starting to think of flying forwards with warriors embarked, all guns blazing, then charging with the Transports (in turn 1!); depleting then tying up a unit til the heavy hitters arrive. Then if they're still alive they can rinse and repeat.

Precisely as before. The only thing that changed is the range.

I have a doubt. Why some people consider us as 3 different factions?

In matched play, we read that all the units in the army must have almost 1 Keyword FACTION. As "Imperium".
As "Aledari".

In Matched Play, we read that all the units in a Detachment must be of the same faction.
As we read up here, like "Aledari".



So why we are 3 different factions? What blocks me to play both Covens, Cult and Kabals into the same Army? Or even into the same Detachment? I still have the keyword Faction "Aeldari".



In fact, what blocks me to mix ELDAR, DE and HARLEQUINS (!!!) into the same Dethacment? They are all "Aledari".
I don't see any restricting rule which block to me do that. Of course I will miss all the synergies (for example, a Raider cannot embark any Harlequin or Eldar unit, etc) but I can't see any limit for that.