Apparently....we might NOT be next

Red Corsair wrote:

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

Could still outflank a tallarn tank commander and get 40 s5 shots at +3 bs,  so still something to worry about vs tallarns.

Yea, and why on earth would you leave your flank open? Warriors are dirt cheap and gain us access to more battalions, back line your "weak" table edges.

OR use your chaf to force him into a weak postion unless he wants to sit off the table all game and when he comes in wrap him up from a unit charging behind terrain and laugh as that 250+ tank commander sits there all fething game.

Sure if I'm loading up on a whole bunch of cheap warriors units I may be able to cover most of my flank, but probably not all of it especially on both sides of the board. Especially considering the gun has a 24" range he really doesn't need to outflank that close to you, so good luck stopping that outflank.

That being said, punishers don't particularly scare me all that much. As you said it's only s5 ap-. Having faced hellhounds they are much more of a pain because it's much harder to tie them up in melee with all those automatic overwatch hits, plus their degrading bs doesn't matter at all for them. s6 D2 is also pretty solid for taking out our vehicles.

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

Could still outflank a tallarn tank commander and get 40 s5 shots at +3 bs,  so still something to worry about vs tallarns.

But, they can't use the Ambush rule and shot 40 shot, they count as having moved maximum distance as per FAQ. And their special rule doesn't mention the Grinding Assault rule so guess it's still a No No. (?)

Red Corsair wrote:

And so does a punisher.

I was under the impression that the OP was referring to average rolls.

e.g. Punisher vs Scourges:
40 shots
20 hits
13.3 wounds
6.67 failed saves
5.56 failed FNP rolls

You can argue about ranges and such but, on overage, the Punisher wipes out a 5-man squad (150pts with Dark Lances) in one turn. And that's just with its main gun. Most likely it'll also have 3 Heavy Bolters (bringing it to 166pts) that can to shoot at other stuff.

Red Corsair wrote:

They have range issues and rubbish BS on a gun with zero AP.

In terms of range issues... I guess? I mean, their main gun effectively has a 29" range (if you want to shoot twice). Not ideal, but hardly bad.

If the IG player is that worried about BS, he can always take a Tank Commander (I prefer the basic russes, but that's just me).

Red Corsair wrote:

They do feth all to our armor

Eh? Assuming no Haemonculus support, a Punisher with 3 Heavy Bolters will still strip 5-6 wounds from a Ravager, Raider or Venom. If there's a Haemonculus around, then that drops to 3-4 wounds on the Venom, but the others remain the same. Without a Haemonculus, there's a good chance it can kill a Venom outright, and either way it's stripping half the wounds from a Raider or Ravager. I'd hardly call that 'feth all'.

Red Corsair wrote:

and are not great vs our infantry in cover frankly.

Depends on the infantry. It'll kill ~5 Scourges in cover with its main gun (shooting twice) and using 3 Heavy Bolters. Stuff like Warriors will be easier to kill in cover, but also far less valuable, so there's that.

Red Corsair wrote:

If you guys are struggling vs punishers then just be thankful you aren't playing my Catachans that never leave home without at least two hellhounds.

I could be wrong, but I'd thought it was less about the Punisher specifically and more about the level of firepower other armies can put out, with the Punisher just being an example of such.

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

Could still outflank a tallarn tank commander and get 40 s5 shots at +3 bs,  so still something to worry about vs tallarns.

Yea, and why on earth would you leave your flank open? Warriors are dirt cheap and gain us access to more battalions, back line your "weak" table edges.

OR use your chaf to force him into a weak postion unless he wants to sit off the table all game and when he comes in wrap him up from a unit charging behind terrain and laugh as that 250+ tank commander sits there all fething game.

Sure if I'm loading up on a whole bunch of cheap warriors units I may be able to cover most of my flank, but probably not all of it especially on both sides of the board. Especially considering the gun has a 24" range he really doesn't need to outflank that close to you, so good luck stopping that outflank.

That being said, punishers don't particularly scare me all that much. As you said it's only s5 ap-. Having faced hellhounds they are much more of a pain because it's much harder to tie them up in melee with all those automatic overwatch hits, plus their degrading bs doesn't matter at all for them. s6 D2 is also pretty solid for taking out our vehicles.

Inferno canons are only 1 damage now. 2d6 auto hits though.

@ shredder, no offense but if your scourge are not spending the game in cover you should probably stop worrying about winning in general. That's also assuming your numb enough to let a 24 inch range tank get close enough on a unit that null deploys and moves 14 inches.

In regard to the rest of that post, your just playing vacuum hammer. I respect the users on here enough to assume they at least have a basic grip of how our army works. If your opponent is playing guard and is forced to use a punisher vs your ravager then they are in a desperate spot. I play guard, a punisher is GARBAGE against our vehicles, and a triple HB punisher is 166, 11 points more then a ravager and it will get mauled in a 1 v 1. Not even close.

Guard wrecks DE at the moment, not arguing that, but as a seasoned guard player I can tell you punishers and outflanking shenaigans are the least of our worry. It's the mass infantry with orders that we can't chew through especially when anchored by shield wall bullgryn.

I only hope our grotesques are close to as decent as my bullgryn unit currently are.

Red Corsair wrote:

In regard to the rest of that post, your just playing vacuum hammer.

says the man who thinks you can cover board edges with warriors on foot, then the next post claims that the punisher is Gak against our vehicles.
How is a 40 shot punisher against warriors on foot I wonder?

red corsair wrote:

shredder, no offense but if your scourge are not spending the game in cover you should probably stop worrying about winning in general.

No offense, but if you are running scourges at all, you should probably stop worrying about winning as well.

Quote :

It's the mass infantry with orders that we can't chew through

would rather try to chew through that than a leeman russ parking lot backed by heavy flamer sentinels. Infantry our entire army is effective against. Russes and armor not so much.

Farewell, actual topic for this thread. We hardly knew you.

Red Corsair wrote:

@ shredder, no offense but if your scourge are not spending the game in cover you should probably stop worrying about winning in general.

As I said in my post, even with cover a Punisher can still expect to kill a 5-man Scourge squad. It'll have to fire its Heavy Bolters as well, but still.

Red Corsair wrote:

That's also assuming your numb enough to let a 24 inch range tank get close enough on a unit that null deploys and moves 14 inches.

Given that I already said I was looking at average damage output and nothing else, I'm not sure what your point is.

I was just saying was that comparing the possible or maximum damage of Scourges to the average damage of a Punisher is disingenuous.

Red Corsair wrote:

In regard to the rest of that post, your just playing vacuum hammer.

I'm pleased to hear that I succeeded in doing the only thing I set out to do.

Not quite sure why you felt the need to explain the topic of my own post to me, but hey ho.  

Red Corsair wrote:

I respect the users on here enough to assume they at least have a basic grip of how our army works. If your opponent is playing guard and is forced to use a punisher vs your ravager then they are in a desperate spot. I play guard, a punisher is GARBAGE against our vehicles, and a triple HB punisher is 166, 11 points more then a ravager and it will get mauled in a 1 v 1. Not even close.

You're moving the goalposts a bit here. In your earlier post, you claimed that the Punisher did "feth all" against our armour. I was just showing that that simply isn't the case - on average a Punisher can do quite a bit of damage to our armour (including one-shotting a Venom).

If you want to argue instead that you can outmanoeuvre the Punisher, sure, that's fine. But don't blame me for responding to the argument you actually made.

Red Corsair wrote:

Guard wrecks DE at the moment, not arguing that, but as a seasoned guard player I can tell you punishers and outflanking shenaigans are the least of our worry. It's the mass infantry with orders that we can't chew through especially when anchored by shield wall bullgryn.

Oh, I absolutely agree. As a DE player I haven't faced IG, yet alone a Punisher. As an IG player, I play mostly infantry army and don't actually use Punishers (I find I need more anti-heavy stuff than anti-infantry stuff).

As I said before, my post wasn't about DE tactics vs. Punishers, it was just looking at the average damage output of a Punisher against our stuff. That's it.

Skulnbonz wrote:

Red Corsair wrote:

In regard to the rest of that post, your just playing vacuum hammer.

says the man who thinks you can cover board edges with warriors on foot, then the next post claims that the punisher is Gak against our vehicles.
How is a 40 shot punisher against warriors on foot I wonder?

red corsair wrote:

shredder, no offense but if your scourge are not spending the game in cover you should probably stop worrying about winning in general.

No offense, but if you are running scourges at all, you should probably stop worrying about winning as well.

Quote :

It's the mass infantry with orders that we can't chew through

would rather try to chew through that than a leeman russ parking lot backed by heavy flamer sentinels.  Infantry our entire army is effective against. Russes and armor not so much.

Hey look, it's the guy that thought you could outflank a Cadian Character using a Tallarn stratagem trying to through shade at me in regard to how to beat IG... Hilarious.

I don't run DE competitively currently, and when I did in 8th I didn't run more then a single scourge unit for backfield disruption and objectives. What I did run and was undefeated up until October when I was bored was a  variation on a list with 6 ravagers or razorwing JF two 10 man mandrake units and foot warriors and single clawed fiends spammed about with Eldar HQ's. BTW I regularly had people annoyed because they couldn't drop anywhere near my important threats  because it's very simple to block outflankers and DS units using single fiends and warriors.

Suggesting a punisher will wreck warriors when it can't get on the table is another MASSIVE goal post shift, now I guess it's hard deployed though. I also Don't agree we have anti tank issues when we can spam dark lances so easily. BTW if a guard russ parking lot is blowing you off the table turn one from their deployment zone, I'd suggest you get some 8th edition terrain. That's not me being snarky, I see way to many videos and pictures of tables with pretty terrain that does nothing in game.

@ shredder, I am not moving a post at all. Part of being able to inflict damage is range bands. Having a gun ship with a 14" move and 36" range assault guns IS part of your durability.

I see what your saying now, I hope we get some decent AI in our own dex.

Red Corsair wrote:

@ shredder, I am not moving a post at all. Part of being able to inflict damage is range bands. Having a gun ship with a 14" move and 36" range assault guns IS part of your durability.

Sure, but then it's weird you chose to bring up the weapon's strength and lack of AP.

If it's out of range then neither of those matter.

Red Corsair wrote:

I see what your saying now, I hope we get some decent AI in our own dex.

Would be nice. Though, personally, I'm far more interested in getting more HQ options.

Von Snabel wrote:

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

Could still outflank a tallarn tank commander and get 40 s5 shots at +3 bs,  so still something to worry about vs tallarns.

But, they can't use the Ambush rule and shot 40 shot, they count as having moved maximum distance as per FAQ. And their special rule doesn't mention the Grinding Assault rule so guess it's still a No No. (?)

Hu I didn't think of that but come to think of it that makes a lot of sense, not being able to use the double shoot twice ability makes the outflank ability much worse for leman russes. Probably better for hellhounds.

@Red Corsair: didn't realize hellhound guns are only one damage now, but 2d6 is still pretty scary, not something I want to leave alive. I completely agree though it's not guard vehicles that are the problem for us, if we take plenty of blasters/dark lances leman russes are very manageable. The infantry hordes on the other hand firing lots of lasgun shots with orders is just always going to outshoot kabalites with poison.

Red Corsair wrote:

Hey look, it's the guy that thought you could outflank a Cadian Character using a Tallarn stratagem trying to through shade at me in regard to how to beat IG... Hilarious.

I don't run DE competitively currently,

No, it's the guy who DOES play DE competitively, at major tournaments. (atc / adepticon where I won best DE by the way... at both.)
So, as a competitive DE player, let me inform you that yes, scourges DO suck, as do reavers, talos, almost all coven units, wyches and hellions. What does not suck? Warriors and our boats. That is pretty much it, and our boats are overcosted, and not by a little.
I am not 'Throwing shade', I am simply stunned at the fact that you thought lining warriors on a board edge is a viable tactic against most, if not all, tournament armies. If you want to play good ol' joey bag o donuts every game, and claim you are undefeated, more power to you, but in reality a punisher... yes, a lowly punisher is better than most of our units, and can be buffed with -1 to hit via psychic, as well as given orders to "strike and shroud", etc... you also seem to forget that if that ravager or scourge unit are shooting at the punisher, the three basalisks, three wyverns and two manticores are being ignored.

You say you play guard. You say punishers suck and do, and i quote "Feth all". I say you are wrong.
we can agree to disagree.

I hope we can agree that at the very least, with superheavies, leeman russes, serpent shields, tyrant guard in plasma obliterators, dual shooting yanarri reapers, 30 man deepstriking bloodletter blobs that only need an 8 to charge on 3d6 the turn they drop in, and girlyman buffing every enemy on the table, our codex needs some serious help to be able to compete. I am not talking dropping point costs and tweaking rules, i am talking SERIOUS redesign.

I hope we get that. I won't bet the farm, but i have some hope.

Skulnbonz wrote:

I hope we get that.  I won't bet the farm, but i have some hope.

At the risk of moving this conversation toward the new Codex, I'm really not expecting that at all.

Based mostly off the changes from the Craftworlds Index to the Codex (I haven't gone through all the others), there were extremely few changes from the Index dataslates to the Codex dataslates.

What did change was:
1) Points changes - mostly heavy reductions, including of the units that were already good, compensated by increases on Forgeworld to some extent.
2) Warlord traits and relics
3) Psychic powers
4) Stratagems

I'm expecting something similar for Drukhari, which means no HQ mobility options (sorry Shredder!), largely worthless auras staying unchanged, and no psykers.

I'm really not expecting anything that would give us the uber damage options that say Reapers or Shining Spears or any of the big deep strike blobs allow.

I would be shocked if we had any kind of psyker support, so Doom from an allied Farseer is it, and I don't expect our weaksauce auras to be fixed up. That is a major weakness that could use a redesign compared to other armies at the moment.

Unless they reduce Kabalites to say 5 points per model(!) I suspect hordes will still be a problem.

On the positive side, I think we will have a lot of solid units and hopefully some good stratagems, that allow Drukhari to be a significant part of an Aeldari force and be competitive. I'm not expecting pure Drukhari to be a competitive list though.

Quote :

I'm expecting something similar for Drukhari, which means no HQ mobility options (sorry Shredder!), largely worthless auras staying unchanged, and no psykers.

I do agree with this sentiment, but GW has a level of community feedback from here that, as far as I can tell, hasn't been replicated by any other army. (I'm talking, of course, about our letter.)

Aside from that, most of the rumours I've been reading have said that Necrons are getting a major overhaul, I wouldn't be surprised if we got some major changes as well.

It's not going to be anything close to what we are hoping for, but I'm hesitantly confident we'll get a decent dex

That does sound the most reasonable expectation of the codex

Kantalla wrote:

I'm expecting something similar for Drukhari, which means no HQ mobility options (sorry Shredder!)

Don't worry - by this point my HQs are unrivalled in their ability to gather dust on a shelf.

Kantalla wrote:

I'm really not expecting anything that would give us the uber damage options that say Reapers or Shining Spears or any of the big deep strike blobs allow.

I would be shocked if we had any kind of psyker support, so Doom from an allied Farseer is it, and I don't expect our weaksauce auras to be fixed up. That is a major weakness that could use a redesign compared to other armies at the moment.

Unless they reduce Kabalites to say 5 points per model(!) I suspect hordes will still be a problem.

On the positive side, I think we will have a lot of solid units and hopefully some good stratagems, that allow Drukhari to be a significant part of an Aeldari force and be competitive. I'm not expecting pure Drukhari to be a competitive list though.

None of that would surprise me in the least.

That said, if all that does come to pass, I'd have to raise my eyebrows at ESE's positive comments about the codex.

ESE's comments to my knowledge were that it was a solid codex. Point decreases across the board along with one or two good warlord traits and stratagems would place it as solid in my mind

Mikoneo wrote:

ESE's comments to my knowledge were that it was a solid codex. Point decreases across the board along with one or two good warlord traits and stratagems would place it as solid in my mind

If the codex can't even stand on its own, I'm not sure you can really call it 'solid' with a straight face.


EDIT: in any case, he apparently went further than just calling it 'solid':

yellabelly wrote:

A summary of comments from ESE, afaik the only player on this forum to have seen the upcoming codex.


But if you've had lots of games with it, I take it like you liked it.
We indeed have. And yes, it is quite good

They did take our feedback seriously and incorporated many of our suggestions. It’s definitely worth getting excited about.

GW is listening to its player base and wants to make their armies play in a way to match their lore.

Can say that we've played it a lot, it is very solid.
[When pushed on how "solid"] It's "really solid."

my biggest desire is special rules that increase the flavor of the units. Will I camp happy?
Flavor and making sure that units/wargear better fit their background was one of our primary jobs. You will camp happy.

Not to keep teasing it, but the codex will very much be worth the wait.  


You can all draw your own conclusions from the above summary. Personally, I can't interpret those comments as anything other than positive towards the new book.

That does indeed sound better than I am expecting. I'm more than happy to be proved wrong.

It is possible the Codex is solid and the play style better matches the lore without being a likely fixture on top tournament tables though. In the current environment in 40k, it is quite reasonable to expect an Aeldari soup, whether Craftworlds, Ynnari or Harlequins, to be properly competitive. I think your complaint is a little strong in that sense.

The number of people who don't want this army to be tournament worthy is confusing. I want to be 7e Eldar levels of powerful.

TeenageAngst wrote:

The number of people who don't want this army to be tournament worthy is confusing. I want to be 7e Eldar levels of powerful.

So true. Internets gonna Internet and all. Seems like the pre-butthurt attitude of "it sucks until proven otherwise" atttitude is easier for making empty calorie posts since you're only rehashing the known (last edition was not good for us) rather than take the sensible approach of "not sure about the specifics until I see it,but other codexes released recently show that GW seems to be getting it right"

I win a motorcycle if this is immediately followed by a "Yeah? But ________ codex had subpar _________unit, therefore we're going to be terrible" post.

I would be ecstatic if we were next, but with the only one of the three Xenos codexes put out at LVO to have a new model presented being Necrons, it would not surprise me to see them first.

That being said, if I suddenly had to drop $80 or so to preorder a Vect model (which would be kitbashed to portray Teneshar) I would be more than willing to face the wrath of my Succubus.

Quote :

I would be ecstatic if we were next, but with the only one of the three Xenos codexes put out at LVO to have a new model presented being Necrons, it would not surprise me to see them first.

True, but during that same convention they announced a new knight, which isn't getting a codex for a while. I think it's fair to say that a model announcement doesn't make the codex schedule concrete

Certainly not, but it could provide a hint. My view on a pure knight codex is improved though, hard to justify a $40 codex based on a single model kit. I am really hoping we get something comparable power wise to a Wraithknight. I have no desire to mix Craftworld, Ynnari, or Harlequins with my Drukhari.

If the first book is announced for pre-order this Sunday, it fits a very neat release schedule. Given a Sunday announcement, Saturday pre-order and Saturday release, they can announce the next book the day after the release of the previous book and have all 3 out by the end of March.

It also fits very nicely in the orginal rumored schedule that necrons and tau would be in march and we would be in april...