Codex Drukhari Preview: The Kabals

It'll probably need an FAQ. Either way, Flayed Skull is right up my alley in terms of playstyle. Every game someone has to remind me that there are objectives to capture and hold in this game

Transports are probably going to only be able to carry <kabal> or whatever infantry, is my guess.

The unit needs to be Flayed Skull

Looks like I'm outnumbered!

No really, I think you guys are right. You've convinced me! Stop being right, I don't like it when other people are right

There maybe a page that explains how factions special rules interact with each other. For example like Kabals, Obsessions, and transports interact with each other. Also arguing the games intent is always based on ones point of view.

So if I want grotesques and reavers along side my warrior gunboats and ravagers I now need to take a set of wracks, wyches, haemonculus, and succubus?

Quote :

So if I want grotesques and reavers along side my warrior gunboats and ravagers I now need to take a set of wracks, wyches, haemonculus, and succubus?

If you want a faction bonus, sure.

Basically yes. But, patrols are cheap and we get command points for taking them. Also, each detachment can benefit from an obsession. Stuff looks really cool

Leninade wrote:

So if I want grotesques and reavers along side my warrior gunboats and ravagers I now need to take a set of wracks, wyches, haemonculus, and succubus?

Actually you don't have to take wyches or wracks because you could just take say a spearhead detachment of coven units or an outrider detachment of wych cults. The patrols raiding force system we got showed yesterday is just a way to mix and match our forces will giving us more cps, but it's not the only way to mix our forces while keeping our faction traits. No matter what detachment you choose though yes you will need a haemonculus/succubus to unlock the traits for cult/coven units, which doesn't seem like too big a cost to me.

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

Leninade wrote:

So if I want grotesques and reavers along side my warrior gunboats and ravagers I now need to take a set of wracks, wyches, haemonculus, and succubus?

Actually you don't have to take wyches or wracks because you could just take say a spearhead detachment of coven units or an outrider detachment of wych cults. The patrols raiding force system we got showed yesterday is just a way to mix and match our forces will giving us more cps, but it's not the only way to mix our forces while keeping our faction traits. No matter what detachment you choose though yes you will need a haemonculus/succubus to unlock the traits for cult/coven units, which doesn't seem like too big a cost to me.

Yet, Daemons asside (who have a far larger units selection than us and many people that seemingly would prefer to run mono god anyway), I cant think of another codex that penalises you for running mono faction and pairing up certain combinations of units.

We are penalyzed on playing mono-faction because of the number of choices in any faction (like 1/3 of the Drukhari models for each).

And that's why our faction rules are OVERPOWERED from themselves. That's balancing! (es. Tau has +3", we have +6"; IF and IW has no cover bonus, we have no cover+3" movement+reroll of 1 to hit, etc..).

The Strange Dark One wrote:

I really don't get it. What is the point of the Black Heart's obsession when neither Incubi nor Mandrakes benefit from it? Similarly, the Labyrinthine Cunning is really just a worse version of the Ultramarines Tactic that works on a 5+.

But those things left asides and some other minor things that bug me, I'm really thrilled. I don't care about the numbercrunching or specifics, but most of all these changes sound fun. Especially the extra movement and extra range sounds like it could allow for some weird and creative builds.

I'm eager to hear about the Warlord Traits and how they could be mixed and matched with several patrols. I'm more a Kabal/Coven guy, but all things considered making a Commorite triumvirate sounds extremely tempting.

Actually it's better in some cases. If my list has 6 CP's then regening on a 5+ will get me 2 back usually. If I get them back on a 6+, as well as opponents and my opponent also has 6 then I still get back 2 on average. However, if my opponent has 12CP's I get back 50% more CP's on average then if I got them back on a 5+ I don't think many people have actually run the math on that trait. 9 times out of 10 it is functionally identical to the ultramarine one. You only come out worse verse a list with very few CP's.

That trait allow you to reroll for any CP spent by a stratagem. If you (or you opponent) spend 3 CP for one Stratagem, you will roll three dice, not just one (as BA do, for example).

Imateria wrote:

Lord Asvaldir wrote:

Leninade wrote:

So if I want grotesques and reavers along side my warrior gunboats and ravagers I now need to take a set of wracks, wyches, haemonculus, and succubus?

Actually you don't have to take wyches or wracks because you could just take say a spearhead detachment of coven units or an outrider detachment of wych cults. The patrols raiding force system we got showed yesterday is just a way to mix and match our forces will giving us more cps, but it's not the only way to mix our forces while keeping our faction traits. No matter what detachment you choose though yes you will need a haemonculus/succubus to unlock the traits for cult/coven units, which doesn't seem like too big a cost to me.

Yet, Daemons asside (who have a far larger units selection than us and many people that seemingly would prefer to run mono god anyway), I cant think of another codex that penalises you for running mono faction and pairing up certain combinations of units.

We don't have the full rules in hand yet, there may be some sort of bonus we get for sticking to one of the subfactions. Plus more importantly I don't really see it as that big of a handicap, taking the extra character won't be an issue as long as our characters are improved a tad.

The ability to use 3 warlord traits alone is going to elevate the characters quite a bit unless the warlord traits all suck, which is very unlikely.

Very true, another reason why it may not be such a hassle to be split into three subfactions.

I'm curious what folks thought about the article itself--the language, the author's voice, etc.

The reason I ask is I got kind of a vibe, just from the presentation of the material, the GW knows the DE community is analyzing each sentence with a microscope. I might be reading into this, but I got a reassuring impression from the subtext.

What do I mean by that? For example, take this casual little parenthetical:

Quote :

"(just make sure to include a couple of dark lances while you’re at it…)".

The author isn't saying anything about lances at all, not hinting at any changes--but, merely by mentioning lances, the author is acknowledging them--and, like every little aspect of the rules, is aware that there will be a lot of curious players out there who want to know more.

It's almost like reassuring the reader in a playful, teasing way. "Don't worry, we didn't forget about Dark Lances. I'm not going to even drop a hint about them, but I'm just acknowledging that they're a thing DE armies use."

Maybe I'm reading into it too much? It obviously is a bit teasing as well, since of course they want you to come back for tomorrow's update...

Curious what others think!

I think no news is good news in regard to dark lances.

zelatar wrote:

I'm curious what folks thought about the article itself--the language, the author's voice, etc.

The reason I ask is I got kind of a vibe, just from the presentation of the material, the GW knows the DE community is analyzing each sentence with a microscope.  I might be reading into this, but I got a reassuring impression from the subtext.

What do I mean by that? For example, take this casual little parenthetical:

Quote :

"(just make sure to include a couple of dark lances while you’re at it…)".

The author isn't saying anything about lances at all, not hinting at any changes--but, merely by mentioning lances, the author is acknowledging them--and, like every little aspect of the rules, is aware that there will be a lot of curious players out there who want to know more.

It's almost like reassuring the reader in a playful, teasing way. "Don't worry, we didn't forget about Dark Lances. I'm not going to even drop a hint about them, but I'm just acknowledging that they're a thing DE armies use."

Maybe I'm reading into it too much? It obviously is a bit teasing as well, since of course they want you to come back for tomorrow's update...

Curious what others think!

Honestly that makes a lot of sense to me. The very start of Sunday's article would have had me squealing outloud if I wasn't in public at the time I was reading it off my phone..."You think You're evil? Well let me tell you!" It is definitely being written not just to tell us what's coming, but to get us hyped. And as you said, if it sounds like the person writing the articles actually knows what they're talking about (something many people often wonder about GW and their own game...) then it sounds more appealing than if someone said the exact same things, but just...told us the stuff.

And then of course there is the whole feeling of "whelp, there ya go folks. A ton of new stuff...and we've only just started!" Heck, just with Splintermind alone I'd be very surprised if they aren't writing those articles to address the biggest gripes/concerns. I mean, again, look at yesterday's article...the flat out biggest question and concern just about everyone here had been asking is how are they going to handle out codexes 3 separate subfactions without crippling us into the ground. First article addresses that and even hints at more. "You guys want to field a bunch of little factions? Here ya go! Special rule just for you. What's that? All one faction? Well, I suppose we may have thought of that too..."

So yes, I like the tone being set. It makes it all sound fun. And that I think is the most important aspect of this game, even for the high level tournament goers.

I care about Dark Lances...I care a lot more about our melee units currently. Once I see what shape our CC troop units are in, I'll be able to focus on everything else.

Looking back at the Tau hints, they didnt give much. Hinted at cheap kroot, showed a cool commander, and said Riptides are no longer total garbage (true, they are middling now).

The boost to the Blaster has me excited about the Shredder. Hopefully we will finally get a reason to use the option over a blaster or the ol' splinter rifle.

Funny thought... What if ESE IS the one writing the preview articles???
*tinfoil hats engaged!*

Bibitybopitybacon wrote:

Funny thought... What if ESE IS the one writing the preview articles???  
*tinfoil hats engaged!*

You know? I'd almost be willing to bet money on that. They had the Frontline Gaming guys write most of the previews for 8e, and we've basically done nothing but rage at them since. So maybe they wanted to try again and have someone who knows the codex, knows the army, and knows us to speak to us?

This is all great but it's a painting / representation issue now lol
I have to re airbrush my army kabal wise to run clear factions
Right now I'm looking like poisioned tounge kabal
So need to figure out how to show different kabals while keeping a good look
Just about to put decals on
Glad I waited
How are you all going to represent your kabals etc
Banners? Decals ? Paint jobs?

Paint jobs. It's gonna look dope af having multiple kabals on the table.