TDC's letter to GW - How did we do?

You may recall that following the release of 8e, there was a fairly lengthy discussion about sending some suggestions to GW for our codex. You can see the discussion thread here.

The Splintermind guys confirmed that GW did definitely see the letter, although much of the work on the codex had apparently already been done, so I'm not sure how much credit we can take for any changes.

Out of curiosity, I recently went over the letter that was sent and made some comments on what changes were actually made compared to what we suggested. Please note, my comments refer only to the suggestions in the letter itself and hence there is little mention of other changes that GW made that were not in the letter, such as the various obsessions.

Starting off with...

The Arsenal of Commorragh
Heatlances
The Dark City suggested:
More Range (allowing more synergy with Scourges)
More Strength (or a reroll to wound against vehicles)
And/or a big price cut.

GW did:
Reduce price from 25 points to 12

Verdict
Still underwhelming against vehicles due to low S but with their cheaper price they can at least have a niche use on Taloi with the Dark Creed sniper stratagem or on Reavers, again as character assassins.

Haywire Blasters
The Dark City suggested:
Some of us think it should simply deal more mortal wounds.
Another popular opinion is that it could go back to the role that it held in 5th edition in which the Haywire Blaster becomes a, “you're not shooting next turn“ weapon which deals little damage but messes with the electronics of its targets, dealing temporary penalties (to hit and move as an example).

GW did:
Reduce price from 12 to 8 and give it D3 shots

Verdict
Not perfect but far more useable and a viable option

Shredders
The Dark City suggested:
Make it a flamer allowing it to auto-hit.
Allow it to deal D6 shots instead of D3.

GW did:
Allow it to deal D6 shots instead of D3 and give it AP-1

Verdict
Job done! Would prefer the auto-hits option but it is at last a decent AI weapon that can be taken in numbers by either (Index) Trueborn, Scourges or Kabalites

Splinter Cannons
The Dark City suggested:
Reducing its points cost.
Allow it to fire more shots.
Increasing the Rapid Fire value.

GW did:
Reduce price from 15 to 10

Verdict
Whilst the reduced price is a good thing, when combined with the reduced costs of Kabalite Warriors and the fact that Splinter Racks inexplicably don’t work on Cannon, I’m of the opinion that we’re probably better off taking more Kabalites. For Scourges, the Cannon is twice the firepower of their Shardcarbines at <18” but at +40 points on a 5-man unit, I’m still not convinced you wouldn’t be better off taking more Scourges or getting in close and using Shredders instead. Not done the mathhammer on that yet though so I stand to be corrected.

Splinter Weaponry
The Dark City suggested:
S3 for the rifles and S4 for the cannons, with both of these weapons rerolling to wound against infantry and monsters.

GW did:
Nowt 

Verdict
No changes to splinter weapons themselves but reduced costs on a lot of units helps us be more of a horde-style army and, as the saying goes, quantity is a quality all its own.

Splinter Racks/Vehicle Upgrades
The Dark City suggested:
The return of our beloved Splinter Racks in some form, as well as some other new or classic customisations for our vehicles.

GW did:
Brought back Splinter Racks, Grisly Trophies and Chain Snares.

Verdict
I would prefer the twin-linking that Splinter Racks used to give, which in 8e equates to double shots and I really don’t understand why they don’t work on Cannon but the exploding 6’s mechanic is okay I guess and it’s nice to have some options.

HQ Units
The Dark City suggested:
Inclusion of smaller HQ choices for Drukhari (a Haemonculus assistant, a Kabalite Dracon) or shift some of our elite choices to the HQ department (like Beastmasters or Court of the Archon units)

GW did:
Very little. They did make most HQ choices cheaper though.

Verdict
Cheaper HQ units is good but when our army is fractured and we’re encouraged to take multiple detachments each with multiple HQs the cost soon adds up. The proposed change to adopt the Rule of Three also hits us hard and forces us to bring named special characters in certain cases, which in turn ties us into certain obsessions and reduces our options.

The Dark City Suggested:
Making Venoms go up to 6 slots, and Raiders to 12

GW did:
A big, fat nothing!

Verdict
It's still impossible to put an Archon with Trueborn or Incubi in a Venom.
If you want to put your Succubus in a Raider with Wyches, those Wyches have to go down to 9 and lose 2 special weapons. Same goes for Kabalites that are unable to take a heavy weapon or second special weapon if the Archon will be joining them. I guess GW didn’t feel it was ‘realistic’ to have 6 slender elves in a Venom (but it’s okay to get 10, 8’ tall, bulky, power-armoured Marines in a Rhino).

The Dark City Suggested:
We would like our HQs to be able to move on their own. We want our HQs to have access to Scourge’s wings, Reaver jetbikes, Hellion skyboards, anti-grav Coven thrones, and of course, Webway Portals. Maybe even the possibility to transform an Archon into a Mandrake and make him lurk into the realm of Aelindrach.

GW did:
Nothing!

Verdict:
Disappointing but hardly surprising, given the ‘no model, no unit’ doctrine that GW has taken with every army (except Space Marines)

The Dark City Suggested:
Apart from the Haemonculus with his Aura and the Electro-corrosive whip, our HQs don't really bring much to the table. The utility auras of both Succubus and Archon are too weak and they don't feel like the amazing fighters they should be. The Succubus in particular is shockingly our worst HQ in melee and she is clearly not the amazing killer her lore suggests.

GW did:
Archon: +1S on the Huskblade and a re-roll 1’s to hit aura in place of the useless Ld aura
Succubus: a big point reduction (-22)
Haemonculus is largely unchanged

Verdict:
Changes to the Archon makes him useful and even deadly with the right relic, warlord trait and obsession. Even with an increased point cost, the Archon is much improved.
Whilst it’s annoying that the Succubus glaive still inexplicably has a -1 to hit penalty, again with the right options she can be a decent combatant for her points cost.
Haemonculus was already pretty decent.

Auras
The Dark City Suggested:
Auras are a problematic aspect of our army since we are an army often entirely transported in vehicles, which means auras don't even work for us to begin with.
Archons’ would benefit immensely from getting back his ‘Purge Coterie’ capacity to target an enemy unit and give a reroll to allies attacking it.
The Archon is a master tactician and could cancel enemy Stratagems that affect nearby units on a roll of 4+.
The Haemonculus could apply his T+1 to every infantry unit in the army, and that he could give a little extra buff (a bonus to ‘Inured to Pain’, for instance) to Coven units.
The Succubus could make every unit nearby reroll 1's to hit in CC, and make Cult units also reroll 1's to wound.

GW did:
Nothing to allow auras to work from transports so we’re still forced to go on foot in a highly mobile and largely mechanised army 
Archon aura was changed from Ld to re-roll 1’s to hit
No changes to Haem or Succubus aura

Verdict:
Would have been nice to have abilities that offer synergy with our army and compliments the intended playstyle.

Special Characters
The Dark City Suggested:
The return of Baron Sathonyx, Vect, Sliscus, Kheradruakh and Malys

GW did:
Nothing

Verdict
We can only hope that we’ll see some new models in the future.

Units
Reavers
The Dark City suggested:
We all think they should significantly drop in price.
Gain an invulnerable save or “Hard to hit” to replace the old jink save.
Granting access to an array of special weapons or shard carbines.
Giving them back the old ‘Cluster Caltrops’ that damaged the units they flew over.

GW did:
Massive (-11) points drop, faster movement, improved special weapons and Eviscerating Flyby stratagem

Verdict
Job done!

Hellions
The Dark City suggested:
17 points for a 1 W, T3, 5+ save model (which is the defensive statline of a 3 point conscript) is too much of a risk.
A drop in price and/or a little bonus save against shooting attacks to represent the fact that they are acrobats capable of dodging incoming fire (alternatively become Hard to Hit).
Give the Stunclaw a special ability that would allow you to move and drag special characters that Hellions flew over on a dice roll. Considering we are an army that has almost no sniper, this would help us a bit dealing with hidden HQs.

GW did:
Reduce the points (-3)

Verdict
14 points is a slight improvement but I’m still not sure they offer enough bang for their buck especially when Reavers are so much faster and tougher with a similar damage output for only +5 points

Wyches
The Dark City suggested:
Make the ‘No Retreat’ rule more reliable. We think Shardnets could give Wyches a +1 to the roll-off.
+1A on all Wyches, Bloodbrides, Hekatrix and Syrens.
AP-1 on Hekatarii Blades (or gaining AP-3 on every 6 to wound) would make them an interesting alternative to Kabalite Warriors.
Wych weapons (where the Hydra Gauntlet is a superior choice to all other options) need to be balanced. The Razorflail could add +1d3 attacks and the Impaler could be AP-2, D2. Some even suggest that they gain some equivalent to the ‘Death to the False Emperor’ rule, gaining additional attacks as they roll 6's to hit.
Bloodbrides should be to Wyches what Trueborn are to Kabalites: elite warriors with a broader access to special wargear. It would feel great to field units of 5 Bloodbrides with 4 Hydra Gauntlets.

GW did:
A lot! Although we lost Bloodbrides (other than via the index which is a bit pointless), Wyches got a point cheaper and gained the extra attack we asked for.
Razorflails got +D3A instead of +1
Shardnet makes your opponent roll D3 instead of D6 when using the No Escape rule.

Verdict
Vast improvement and whilst I would have personally preferred a slightly higher point cost and a -1AP on the blades, Wyches are now a decent choice.

Grotesques
The Dark City suggested:
Adding a single extra wound.
Adding a few more attacks
A new, unique weapon option only accessible to them.

GW did:
Made them cheaper (-5 when taking standard wargear)
Add a Wound
AP-2 on cleavers, mortal wounds on 6+ for Flesh Gauntlet which also now uses S rather than poison (usually better due to native S5)

Verdict
Grots are back baby!

Talos
The Dark City suggested:
Macro-scalpels could rise to D3 (like Carnifexes weapons) and have improved AP.
The Ichor Injector could wound on a 2+.
The Liquifier gun could see a price reduction, or a strength increase.

GW did:
Reduce points (-23 on standard loadout)
+1A
Macro-scalpels lost an attack but gained +1S and 1 point of AP
Ichor Injector gained 1 point of AP
Liquifier guns got slightly cheaper (-4 for twin)
Gain a power fist-style weapon option
Chainflails now double attacks as well as re-roll wounds
Gain FLY keyword (FAQ)

Verdict
Especially with the FAQ addition of the FLY keyword I think Talos are now in a pretty decent place in terms of cost and effectiveness. Would have been nice for the Talos Gauntlet to be x2S rather than +2 but I guess we can’t have everything!

Count Adhemar wrote:

GW did:
Brought back Splinter Racks, Grisly Trophies and Chain Snares.

Verdict
I would prefer the twin-linking that Splinter Racks used to give, which in 8e equates to double shots and I really don’t understand why they don’t work on Cannon but the exploding 6’s mechanic is okay I guess and it’s nice to have some options.

Well, to be fair, 5th edition splinter racks only worked on pistols and rifles. I'm guessing that they reviewed the 5th edition codex design or somesuch. Or they just looked at the model options for splinter racks, which only include spare rifles and pistols, and ran with that.

Btw, this happened before I joined, so I just want to say I applaud all the effort you spent writing that letter to GW.

Count Adhemar wrote:

The Splintermind guys confirmed that GW did definitely see the letter, although much of the work on the codex had apparently already been done, so I'm not sure how much credit we can take for any changes.

Do you think there's any possibility that more of the changes TDC suggested will make it into a future DE codex?

Count Adhemar wrote:

The Dark City Suggested:
We would like our HQs to be able to move on their own. We want our HQs to have access to Scourge’s wings, Reaver jetbikes, Hellion skyboards, anti-grav Coven thrones, and of course, Webway Portals. Maybe even the possibility to transform an Archon into a Mandrake and make him lurk into the realm of Aelindrach.

GW did:
Nothing!

Verdict:
Disappointing but hardly surprising, given the ‘no model, no unit’ doctrine that GW has taken with every army (except Space Marines)

I think they could easily have done a workaround if they'd wanted to, though. A relic that granted flight and extra movement, a warlord trait that increases speed (neither of which would have to be represented on the model).

Count Adhemar wrote:

GW did:
Archon: +2A, +1S on the Huskblade and a re-roll 1’s to hit aura in place of the useless Ld aura

You're comparing the Codex to the Index, right? In which case I don't understand where the +2A on the Archon is coming from. He had 5 attacks in the Index and he continues to have 5 in the codex. Is there something I'm missing?

Regarding his new aura, colour me unimpressed. Yes, rerolling 1s is better than it was, but it's still not very good. Especially given that he's our only Kabal HQ, we'll usually have to take multiples of him, and he's supposed to be the leader of our raiding force.

Including himself, he can buff a grand total of 8 units. And this is of course assuming that he's not in a transport (in which case he can't even buff himself). Of those units, 4 of them already get rerolls for being near to him. So the grand architect of our raid demonstrates his unparalleled tactics by buffing all of 4 units. And one of those is himself.

'Archon's aura not quite as crap now' isn't selling it for me, I'm afraid.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

GW did:
Archon: +2A, +1S on the Huskblade and a re-roll 1’s to hit aura in place of the useless Ld aura

You're comparing the Codex to the Index, right? In which case I don't understand where the +2A on the Archon is coming from. He had 5 attacks in the Index and he continues to have 5 in the codex. Is there something I'm missing?

My bad. I was going off some rather blurred images as my index is at home. The 5 looked like a 3! I'll edit that bit.

When the codex went out, I reviewed some of the brainstorming thread we got on the forum. Especially the brainstorming stratagems thread. I find it pleasant to see several suggestions actually got in the codex. I won't make an exhaustive list of the suggestion we made, but here is a few. Let's see if it ring the bell of someone:

- "A planned execution" (3cp) : friendly target unit can fire at characters for this turn even if they are not the closest enemy unit.

-2CP Schemes within Schemes: use after deployment but before the first turn, any time a Command point is used (by you or an opponent, including before the game starts) roll a D6, on a 5+ immediately generate a CP (this may increase beyond your starting CP value)

-3CP Drug addicts: units with <combat drugs> special rule may chose a second combat drug from the chart (units may not duplicate their current drug, for example a succubus with the hypex drug may not choose it again).

-1CP Feel the pain - Select a drukari unit that have the PfP rules. Until the next turn, give it the next bonus on the PfP chart.

-CP+1 Not So Fast, Kaiba! - When your opponent use a stratagem, you can cancel it by paying his CP cost +1

-FlyBy (1CP): A unit of Reavers or Hellions may make a single attack with a close combat weapon over an enemy unit they fly over. That unit may not strike back, and do not count as being locked in Close Combat. The Unit of Reavers or Hellions must end their move more than 1" away from any enemy models. May not be Combined with Snatch and Grab

-Sorry, buddy! (1CP) Select a friendly unit. That unit can shoot at an ennemy unit even if locked in CC. If you do, half the shots are allocated to the ennemy, half to your CC unit.


Some are only remotely close of the actual rules from the codex, while other are almost copy/paste. It seem some designer are on this forum.

Considering how the letter got bashed for "not asking enough", i'm very glad to see this thread come up

I dunno if it actually changed anything, but letting our voice be heard cannot be a bad thing, and all of the units/weapons we depicted as unusable got buffed.

They might have skipped the "HQ" section, though XD

Thanks for putting this together!

Really like the Codex, thanks Games Workshop and thanks The Dark City!

It certainly feels as though they read our letter and used the info. The strategems are nearly exactly the same as our suggestions...which is just so cool to think that I am now really keen on taking Reavers based on a strategem that this community suggested!

I think that is quite a unique position to be in for this forum. All of those new DE players out there buying their models and getting into games and using rules that I am quite sure the letter had an influence on.

Also as a side note I do feel as though GW gave us a bit of love with this codex and it makes you wonder what kind of difference it makes to GW when they know there are some die hard DE lovers out there.

The fact that so much of the content of our letter plus the various stratagems that @dumpeal listed made it into the codex is certainly making me think that GW is paying attention to the community here and/or that they have someone on the design team that shares a lot of our thought processes and ideals on how this wonderful army of ours should function on the tabletop.

This forum has an unfortunate reputation for negativity, which is somewhat understandable given the rather blatant lack of effort that was made on our previous codex. I think we now owe it to ourselves to be more positive. We have a good codex now so let's make sure we let GW know they did a good job and also make sure that anyone visiting the forum is welcomed and encouraged.

Either that or rebrand as The Dark Salt Mine...

I'm fairly happy with Drukhari at the moment, much more so than any time since I returned to playing. Now just to find enough time to play enough to be as good as the army now seems to be...

Kantalla wrote:

I'm fairly happy with Drukhari at the moment, much more so than any time since I returned to playing. Now just to find enough time to play enough to be as good as the army now seems to be...

Very much this ^^

THANKS for doing this!

The HQ situation is still a problem and even more so now, especially at lower points. I really wish we got a generic HQ model that could have Wings at least (like an Autarch) with a gernal LD aura Buff of 12", 45pts for a 5W, 4A 4++ (Scourge HQ).

Im happy with everything else and feel good about the codex over all

There are a lot of things to be happy about, but the HQ section is still dire and really does need addressing.

I don't want to be too salty (as I don't want the designers to think that there's no pleasing DE players), but at the same time I really don't want to give the impression that everything is fine and no more work is needed.

amishprn86 wrote:

The HQ situation is still a problem and even more so now, especially at lower points. I really wish we got a generic HQ model that could have Wings at least (like an Autarch) with a gernal LD aura Buff of 12", 45pts for a 5W, 4A 4++ (Scourge HQ).

The Ld buff seems out of place, but otherwise I agree.

I think all 3 mercenary factions (Scourges, Incubi and Mandrakes) should really have their own demi-HQs. Even if they just buff their own specific unit.

It would mean that each subfaction would have 3 extra generic HQs to choose from.

Yeah i would love lots more HQ's like everyone else, at least if we get a Scourge HQ it is a mercenary and has Wings. LD is general for a general HQ, can be anything really.

maybe we get something in the new narrative campaign together with a vect model

one can dream

AzraeI wrote:

maybe we get something in the new narrative campaign together with a vect model

one can dream

heh... hehehe....... a new dark eldar model... you're a funny guy, you.

dumpeal wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

maybe we get something in the new narrative campaign together with a vect model

one can dream

heh... hehehe....... a new dark eldar model... you're a funny guy, you.

hey we got yvraine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

AzraeI wrote:

dumpeal wrote:

AzraeI wrote:

maybe we get something in the new narrative campaign together with a vect model

one can dream

heh... hehehe....... a new dark eldar model... you're a funny guy, you.

hey we got yvraine ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Oh cool I just realised I got promoted to a Wych...but I was a Sybarite before

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Oh cool I just realised I got promoted to a Wych...but I was a Sybarite before

For some reason the ranks consider Kabals to be inferior to Cults.

I'm rather impressed how well the Codex represented our wishes. Given the thermonuclear trainwrecks that were our last two installations, it's really nice to have a Codex that's just plain fun.

Outside of our Obsessions and Strategems though, I don't think the units themselves are as inspired as 5th, but honestly, it's nice to have a Codex where there's almost no bad way to build your army

TheBaconPope wrote:

...Given the thermonuclear trainwrecks that were our last two installations...

I thought Dark Eldar didnt have a 6th ed codex, and the 5th ed seemed pretty good