my wishlist

Even with those increases, compare that to 125 points for a dissie raider and you begin to think GW hasn't got a clue what they're doing.

I feel like the "Focussed Fire" stratagem suggested should be just a trait for our ravagers as they are fluffwise built to take down even the toughest of armoured vehicles the imperium has ... Seeing as they have been mentioned as the primary boat used in fights in space (along with raiders) so these have to be able to punch though and destroy imperial space hulks ... And do enough damager to an Ork asteroid ships to make them suddenly change course and chase a small fleet of dark eldar into a plant just so Malys could steal the imperium's one Panacea bottle... And I say this only because they havent shown us anything bigger in terms of dark lance equipped boats ... And so far our biggest boat has the equivalent of 4 Disintegrator Cannons ... So not a whole lotta punch on that thing in terms of AT ... So what I'm saying is the idea is great, but I would rather it be a trait of the ravagers than a stratagem ...

Dark Eldar vehicles tend to be kinda lacking for raw number of weapons, if we're honest.

We also have very little that is able to output volume of shots and strength in a single package (outside of forgeworld), with our best being the Shredder. Compare this to, say, battle cannons, Pulse Lasers, Predator Autocannons... Honestly, just making Ravagers fire twice per turn wouldn't really be that big a deal compared to what some armies can put out with one gun.

Another frustrating game against Alpha Legion Chaos last night. (Whiny voice) 8th is so unfair. Dudes on foot were more unhittable than me!

Splinter rifles- cover -1. I want to stipulate that I believe a poison weapon could corrode surfaces, release noxious gas, etc and overwhelm the foe.

It infuriates the hell out of me that a Berserker becomes a terminator when parked in a ruin. Then said berserker can "warptime" and move twice, attack twice.... GRRR. We aren't fast enough to redeploy.

Maybe I should go back to previous editions. I am getting more and more salty with the state of the game.

Mppqlmd wrote:

I don't think "discarding a hit" is a game notion in 40k.

After today's Demon preview, would you like to re-assess this statement?

Skulnbonz wrote:

Mppqlmd wrote:

I don't think "discarding a hit" is a game notion in 40k.  

After today's Demon preview, would you like to re-assess this statement?

DUDE! Tzeentch is going to be meta now for Daemons. My friend only plays them and he was SO MAD that the Giant Chaos Spawn double in price (he was expecting it to go up, just not that much) and he played them as Tzeentch.... i cant wait to see what he thinks now (He has 3 of them).

Even if they both rolled low and 2 of them are 2's and 1 is a good roll of 3.... thats still a HUGE survivable increase boost.

I'll admit i'm a bit scared. This honestly makes me feel the more codex's comes out the more harder Rock, Paper, Scissor games are becoming, even more so than before (or GT style lists).



On topic now: After seeing the few Daemon sneak peaks. I would LOVE to have something like that on our Reavers or Hellions (Heck all Wych Cult units).

Quote :

After today's Demon preview, would you like to re-assess this statement?

So when Reavers get buffed (if they do), you're going to ask that question every person on the forum that said "Reavers are bad" ? A statement has to be true when it is formulated, and that's all.


I feel bad for the referees that will have to handle the situations where that rule is applied in a scenario with rerolls and modifiers to hit... the attack sequence was already a mess with "rerolls before modifiers", but now it makes no sense at all.

Way to go GW. That's what happens when instead of creating the Special Rules in the Rulebook, you just make them up along the way.

Can you give an example? I thought it was very black and white, but i might be missing something you are thinking of that i am not.

Re-roll all hits, lets say you need to hit on 3+
Locus 2d3 lowest was a 3
Roll all hits, re-roll all missing
Ended with a 2 and a 3
has modifier of +1
But before modifiers
so the 3 is now a miss due to locus
now do modifiers and locus goes away
the 2 becomes a 3 and hits

Re-rolls are always before you apply any modifiers. Its basically another step before Modifiers.

With modifiers coming after rerolls, you had that ludicrous scenario where you couldn't reroll your 3, because it wasn't a fail, but then it is changed into a 2, and it becomes a fail.

Now, you have more scenarios, like where you cannot reroll your 3, because it is technically a hit, but then it becomes a fail because Locust of Trickery.

It's not hard to grasp conceptually, but that kind of non-sense was already creating turmoil in tourneys, and it's not going to get any better. People are getting pissed off when you tell them that the roll can't be rerolled because it's not a fail, but then it immediatly becomes a fail after you lose the opportunity to reroll it. It feels like Game Design trolling.


Plus, they will have to FAQ questions like : "Does a 6 on Locust of Trickery" prevent abilities like "Death to the false emperor" from triggering ?"


Imagine you have both : you're hitting on 4+ and a reroll, but you have -1 to hit and "Locust of Trickery" proccing on 5s. You're hitting on 6 only, which is okay, but you can't reroll 4's and 5's, because they are technically hits... except they are not.

Yeah the system is bad, but i understand why, as a base system it works great, but as soon as you add any special rules for it, then it becomes a headache.

amishprn86 wrote:

Yeah the system is bad, but i understand why, as a base system it works great, but as soon as you add any special rules for it, then it becomes a headache.

IMO the rerolls should come last, and every layer that happens after rerolls adds another level of stupid to the system.

Mppqlmd wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Yeah the system is bad, but i understand why, as a base system it works great, but as soon as you add any special rules for it, then it becomes a headache.

IMO the rerolls should come last, and every layer that happens after rerolls adds another level of stupid to the system.

Yes, this. Rerolls coming last is the most intuitive way, "you can reroll misses but if it's a hit which is going to become a miss then you can't reroll it" is crazy.

I understand why they've done it this way - rerolls are so common that they need something like this to keep them in check - but it's real weird game design.

Mppqlmd wrote:

So when Reavers get buffed (if they do),

HA! oh my god, I actually laughed when i read that...
reavers... buffed...

Oh man... anyway, no, no i will not call out everyone that said they suck, just the ones who told me what i wanted for a stratagem was not going to happen due to rule mechanics, when they implement the exact rule mechanics needed to make it a reality.

To be honest, i did not disagree with your sentiment, I was just hopeful something like this could happen, and it did, so that means no way we will see anything like it in our book.

Not that i'm pessimistic or anything...

Look in the rules development section for how I think Reavers could be made awesome with just a couple of minor tweaks and special rules. Thread is called Reavers Reborn.

Honestly, I think what we lack in most is tactical flexibility. Of our 3 troops choices only one has any option against tanks, compared to Imperial Guard who give everyone from conscripts up Frag and Krak grenades.

Yeah. I know we suck. That's no news. So: what are we going to do about it?

FuelDrop wrote:

Honestly, I think what we lack in most is tactical flexibility. Of our 3 troops choices only one has any option against tanks, compared to Imperial Guard who give everyone from conscripts up Frag and Krak grenades.

The Imperium (especially space marines) is known for being Swiss Army Knives, while we are more "specialized".
I love being specialized ! But it would be cool if my "specialized" Anti Tank unit was better at anti-tanking than the Swiss Army Knife.

So i'd say we don't need more polyvalence, we need our specialized troops to actually be superior at what they do.
Wyches and Wracks can't shoot ? Fine, but let them do something in cc then.

Mppqlmd wrote:

FuelDrop wrote:

Honestly, I think what we lack in most is tactical flexibility. Of our 3 troops choices only one has any option against tanks, compared to Imperial Guard who give everyone from conscripts up Frag and Krak grenades.

The Imperium (especially space marines) is known for being Swiss Army Knives, while we are more "specialized".
I love being specialized ! But it would be cool if my "specialized" Anti Tank unit was better at anti-tanking than the Swiss Army Knife.

So i'd say we don't need more polyvalence, we need our specialized troops to actually be superior at what they do.
Wyches and Wracks can't shoot ? Fine, but let them do something in cc then.

This! give our specialists better melee than their points in generalists.

Also, I think that Warriors should be our swiss army knife unit. Most of our stuff is specialized out the wazzoo, but it would not hurt for Warriors to have Rifle, Pistol, and grenades for anti armour and anti-infantry.

Wyches getting anti armour grenades again would not go amiss either, tbh. Covens don't bother with conventional grenades of course, they have far better options than that!

Kabalites getting 'nades is possible (coz they already have them....), but they will probably never get pistols with the current kit. If they get a 'nade, i'd rather see a Krak one.

However, they could get some bayonnetta weapon that grants +1 A in CC. Or maybe i'm daydreaming.


Wyches could (should ?) get they HW 'nades back. They were deleted because haywire was too strong (3 haywire hits destroying a tank), but now that tanks have at least 12 Wounds, it's no longer top meta so it wouldn't hurt to be able to spam it.

FuelDrop wrote:

Honestly, I think what we lack in most is tactical flexibility. Of our 3 troops choices only one has any option against tanks, compared to Imperial Guard who give everyone from conscripts up Frag and Krak grenades.

While I am not saying they are not more flexible, they (conscripts and regular infantry squads) do not have krak grenades (I think only the scions have those).
Not saying we cannot get something, but I think wishing for more then regular grenades is little use. The thing is for us our standard grenades are str4 which is a large improvement over our poison weaponry, while for guard infantry they usually are better of shooting their lasguns because of orders.

|Meavar wrote:

FuelDrop wrote:

Honestly, I think what we lack in most is tactical flexibility. Of our 3 troops choices only one has any option against tanks, compared to Imperial Guard who give everyone from conscripts up Frag and Krak grenades.

While I am not saying they are not more flexible, they (conscripts and regular infantry squads) do not have krak grenades (I think only the scions have those).
Not saying we cannot get something, but I think wishing for more then regular grenades is little use. The thing is for us our standard grenades are str4 which is a large improvement over our poison weaponry, while for guard infantry they usually are better of shooting their lasguns because of orders.

Would be good if our warriors got ANY grenades.

You know what would be cool? A new court character that can improve Splinter weapons. Say if you're within 6" of this character, then splinter weapons wound on 3+ instead of 4+. I don't feel that is unreasonable.
I also really love the idea of vehicles moving over half their movement gaining bonuses. No other army really encourages their units to move like that and as DE I think it would be very fluffy.

Or just give us back Duke and he can do that.