Codex Drukhari Preview: The Kabals

The article mentioned it's "under 20 pts" so it's definetly not going up to 20. I could see it going up to maybe 17, but I suspect it will stay at the reasonable 15 it is now. Melta guns tend to be 15pts for the armies that have them and if you compare that to the blaster, 15pts for gaining 6" range but losing the half range roll 2d6 for wounds thing seems fair to me.

Good thing I had just placed an order of 5 venom's and 2 raiders 2 weeks ago

I couldn't help but grin while reading the article. I'm sure the min-maxers will find the best kabal of the 4, but upon first glance they all look useful and fluffy. Also, the d6 for the blaster is awesome, and while the splinter rack doesn't seem as powerful as last edition, it is still better than what I expected (being a stratagem). Can't wait for all the other stuff.

Yeah I was very happy the splinter racks didn't just get rolled into being a stratagem, nice to see that we maybe be getting at least some vehicle upgrades back.

The return of Aether sails would be dope.

Quote :

The return of Aether sails would be dope.

If they do, I hope they go the Tantalus route of doubling movement when advancing.

Flayed Skull Raider would have a movement of 34 inches. Yes please.

Edit: Also, 500th post! Let's hope my promotion to Wych comes with a stat boost to them

Is this editions Splinter Racks really worse than before? Someone did the math and it seems we end up with just slightly less hits than before. But in this edition we have access to re-roll 1's which I think is quite an important point to make.

These are free upgrades being faction traits. I think it would be fair to make a comparison of 7th vs. all the possibilities in 8th.

What is the math hammer on this editions Splinter Racks with re-rolling 1's to hit? What would it be with re-rolling 1's to wound?

I'm very excited about what came out today; however, it is only a piece of the whole. In order to be a comprehensive army, we really need a CC component we rely on. I'm truly hoping that in the next couple of days GW can make me a believer that our melee woes are going to be short-lived.

If ever an army had the lore to back having a suitable melee screen, our Cults/Coven should be pretty high up there.

Without any bonus, Splinter racks is worse than before.

When facing malus, it's A LOT worse.

But if you can stack some hit bonuses, then it can potentially become a power-horse. The whole spirit of the "Tesla-like" weaponry is to encite you to stack bonuses.


So it's a "play big, or go home" rule.

Seems like a lot of people are thinking about putting Obsidian Rose or Poison Tongue Kabalites inside Flayed Skull raiders to reap the benefits of the Flayed Skull Obsession but I'm pretty sure rules as written mean the units shooting from the fly transport must also have the Flayed Skull Obsession.

I can live with that. It will depend on the points cost for Racks. I don't believe auto picks are good for the game, I prefer the idea of having to consider carefully what will most help "your" army list and tactics. If Racks helps then take them, if they don't help much then leave them at home.

FrankyMcShanky wrote:

Seems like a lot of people are thinking about putting Obsidian Rose or Poison Tongue Kabalites inside Flayed Skull raiders to reap the benefits of the Flayed Skull Obsession but I'm pretty sure rules as written mean the units shooting from the fly transport must also have the Flayed Skull Obsession.

It says "In addition, enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by this model [the model with fly], or that are embarked on a transport that can fly. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 for such models when attacking with Rapid Fire weapons"

The only criteria that the models embarked on the transport must meet is that they are embarked on Flayed Skull vehicle. The last sentence is phrased as "such models" so that it includes both the flying vehicles (which are specified to have to be Flayed Skull by necessity), and their embarkees (who do not).

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

What is the math hammer on this editions Splinter Racks with re-rolling 1's to hit? What would it be with re-rolling 1's to wound?

Do we actually have a 'reroll 1s to hit' ability?

If embarked in a Flayed Skull transport and with Rapid Fire weapons, yes Shredder

PartZebra wrote:

FrankyMcShanky wrote:

Seems like a lot of people are thinking about putting Obsidian Rose or Poison Tongue Kabalites inside Flayed Skull raiders to reap the benefits of the Flayed Skull Obsession but I'm pretty sure rules as written mean the units shooting from the fly transport must also have the Flayed Skull Obsession.

It says "In addition, enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by this model [the model with fly], or that are embarked on a transport that can fly. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 for such models when attacking with Rapid Fire weapons"

The only criteria that the embarked models embarked on the transport must meet is that they are embarked on Flayed Skull vehicle. The last sentence is phrased as "such models" so that it includes both the flying vehicles (which are specified to have to be Flayed Skull by necessity), and their embarkees (who do not).

This was my initial interpretation as well, but upon closer inspection I think it's incorrect.  It may require a FAQ.


Also, your quote isn't 100% correct.

"In addition, enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by models with this obsession that can fly], or that are embarked on a transport that can fly. Re-roll hit rolls of 1 for such models when attacking with Rapid Fire weapons"


EDIT: To clarify, there is not only one stipulation for the bonus.  There is two, that they have the obsession and are embarked on something with the fly keyword.

Huh I thought I copied it accurately! Oh well.

Why do you think your initial reading is incorrect? Where is your second-guessing coming from? Perhaps we can work to figure it out.

If kabalite warriors from non-flayed skull kabals can get the reroll 1s to hit while on flayed skull transports, I think that's a huge oversight and definetly not the intention of the rule. I get that from a maximizing list perspective it's best to have kabalites from one faction and transports from another, but personally I don't like that at all and I'll likely be sticking to using just one kabal per army list.

PartZebra wrote:

Huh I thought I copied it accurately! Oh well.

Why do you think your initial reading is incorrect? Where is your second-guessing coming from? Perhaps we can work to figure it out.

I added an edit to my previous post to try and be more clear.  I'm finding it difficult explaining grammar with grammer, if you know what I mean.

"against attacks made by models with this obsession that can fly, or that are embarked on a transport that can fly."

The bolded line is the qualifier that makes me think the embarked unit must also share the Obsession.

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

If kabalite warriors from non-flayed skull kabals can get the reroll 1s to hit while on flayed skull transports, I think that's a huge oversight and definetly not the intention of the rule. I get that from a maximizing list perspective it's best to have kabalites from one faction and transports from another, but personally I don't like that at all and I'll likely be sticking to using just one kabal per army list.

See, I see it as one Kabal hiring out their vehicles to another, thus a temporary alliance is formed.
Please don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to powergame this - I'm more than willing to be proven incorrect in my interpretation. I'd just like to see how others are reading it.

Yeah you can make the fluff justification for that, seems legit to me and to each their own, if you want to run lists mixing kabals go for it, but personally I want to run my army as one tactic and one united kabal.

PartZebra wrote:

Huh I thought I copied it accurately! Oh well.

Why do you think your initial reading is incorrect? Where is your second-guessing coming from? Perhaps we can work to figure it out.

It would be very unusual if the Kabal trait of the transport is conveyed to the unit inside. It looks like it's one of those rules that could have been more carefully written. It certianly seems completely against the intent of the games mechanics for a unit inside a transport to receive the benefits of two completely different traits when firing out of it.

To be clear, I am completely certain that if you want the re-roll 1's and ignores cover on the units inside a Flayed Skull transport, they'll need to be Flayed Skull as well.

I think you're right, it definetly seems like too big of a a rules loophole to get the benefits of flayed skull on non flayed skull models in flayed skull transports.

FrankyMcShanky wrote:

PartZebra wrote:

Huh I thought I copied it accurately! Oh well.

Why do you think your initial reading is incorrect? Where is your second-guessing coming from? Perhaps we can work to figure it out.

I added an edit to my previous post to try and be more clear.  I'm finding it difficult explaining grammar with grammer, if you know what I mean.

"against attacks made by models with this obsession than can fly, or that are embarked on a transport that can fly."

The bolded line is the qualifier that makes me think the embarked unit must also share the Obsession.

Ah I see, I see. Ok, lets go with your interpretation for a second, cos I may have noticed something.

If we assume the infantry require the FS Obsession to get anything from the benefits, it doesn't specify that FS Infantry are required to be on an FS transport for it - just that the transport flies. So its the same oddity, just in reverese. Right?

How fascinating. I think it can definitely be read in both ways, and I'd wager your way is probably the intended one honestly. Thanks for clarifying! Would be interesting to see how others weigh in.

PartZebra wrote:

Ah I see, I see. Ok, lets go with your interpretation for a second, cos I may have noticed something.

If we assume the infabtry require the FS Obsession to benefit from the benefits, it doesn't specify that FS Infantry are required to be on an FS transport for it - just that the transport flies. So its the same oddity, just in reverese. Right?

How fascinating. I think it can definitely be read in both ways, and I'd wager your way is probably the intended one honestly. Thanks for clarifying! Would be interesting to see how others weigh in.

Exactly.  I do think it can work the other way (assuming there isn't a stipulation forbidding it) and it opens up some possibilities that, while interesting, aren't as clearly nutso crazy powerful as Poison Tongue Kabalites benefiting from Flayed Skull bonuses.

For what it's worth, I also think the unit has to have the Flayed Skull obsession to benefit from it. Otherwise if it were the other way, while one could put a Poisoned Tongue kabalite squad in a Flayed Skull raider to combine the two, you could not put a Flayed Skull kabalite squad in say a Wych Cult or Haemonculus Coven raider in the event one of their traits ends up being worth more to you than the 3" of movement (something I am very curious to see...) and still gain the Flayed Skull benefits on the kabalite warriors.