Codex Drukhari is offical for the start of 2021

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Koldan wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Why are our characters climbing back up in points?

They are actually cheaper, except for the Archon. Their equipment is free. The biggest difference should be a Haemonculus with an ichor injector, scissor hand and liquifier gun. Before he was 100 points now 80 points.

Oh okay.

Though I'm still not seeing what the Archon does that warrants a price hike.

Actually, let me guess - all the winning DE lists that included Kabal have included at least one Archon.

Beacuse Archon w/Djinn+Hatred Eternal is just insane at 65 point. And still be at 70

By what possible measure?[/quote]

Come back later

TBF, the Archon needs to spend a Warlord Trait and a Relic to be "Good" (I think "Insane" is a little strong for a T3 unit).

This will take some time to digest. Kinda cool that Wracks now have some of the most options in the codex. Glad I am building a bunch right now, but will need to leave a few without arms for weapons later (once we FINALY get our codex)

The Reavers has to be an error. 36 of those things swarming objectives for only 360pts is absolute madness. A 24W, possibly T5 unit that has fly, moves 26" and can then charge for only 120pts....

Not happy about draz though. I know he's strong but I hopefully he'll get a fun ability or 2 to compensate.

The hellion change confuses me, I assume their pts might have been swapped with Reavers.

fisheyes wrote:

TBF, the Archon needs to spend a Warlord Trait and a Relic to be "Good" (I think "Insane" is a little strong for a T3 unit).

Of course "insane" is meant to.be "for what he is". It's pretty difficult to pick up a 65ish model.able to shoot a blaster, combat with 7 attacks S5 ap-3 D3 rerolling both hit and wound rolls both shooting and melee. And you still have that flickering 2+ which is always win win because the Archon IS expendable. So when you fail it, it's ok, you don't. But if you not, that thing can be a game changer.
And spending the warlord trait definitely is not a tax, because of Alliance of Agony. If you play an Archon, it's your warlord, always.

We can argue about the flavour of this. Which yes, it sucks, it should be more politician, more buffs and less fight. But right now, being something "mandatory" it is a little monster.

It's 70 points right now. I mean if he kill 4 Intercessors he just payback himself. Because you play one of them, and because if you do it you're making him your warlord, all in all there's no taxes, he is just a beast.
He goes from 65 to 70, it's ok. It was even too cheap before.
Oh he shines as an Ynnari too.

It sucks because it's like a berserker right now..but from a game perspective, it is great for his cost AND his "mandatoryness". I's a good beatstick.

End OT, we can come back to our lovely points <3

- Blasters on Archons are legends, so not legal to run in (many?) competitive games
- Djin Blade Archons are hitting at S4, not S5
- They're good by the standards of our Codex (it's probably only, what, Draz who's a better beatstick?) but they're absolutely nothing special in the context of the game as a whole. A Bloody Rose Canoness with a Blessed Blade and Righteous Rage or Blazing Ire will beat the hell out of him and she's a few points cheaper.

I like your view on it, Cerve!
But I think Burnage is correct.

I would be happy to see archons become really dangerous in close combat again. They used to be really powerful, compared to other armies, back in the day. Hoping for a return to that in the new codex!

ursvamp wrote:

I like your view on it, Cerve!
But I think Burnage is correct.

I would be happy to see archons become really dangerous in close combat again. They used to be really powerful, compared to other armies, back in the day. Hoping for a return to that in the new codex!

Yeah, I'd like Archons to actually be threatening relative to other armies, not just relative to our own book.

Otherwise, we're just going back to the days of all glass, no cannon.

I think a key aspect is going to be moving away from rules that have become badly outdated. For example, Agonisers and (I think) Venom Blades have basically remained unchanged since 3rd. But the game has moved on around them. Compare our weapons to some of the poisoned weapons GSCs get. The Sanctus Bio Dagger, for example, is like someone combined the Haemonculus' entire melee arsenal into a single weapon (S- AP-2 D2, Poison 2+, user gets an extra attack). Or compare the Huskblade with the SoB Blessed Blade.

All that said, I'd be a lot less objectionable to the Archon being mediocre in combat if he actually fulfilled another role. For example, if he was able to take proper ranged weapons again. Of if he got a better buff/debuff ability, so that he can function as a support character beyond sitting uselessly on the backfield, reading Vect's poetry to 3 Ravagers.

Given that we've only got 3 generic HQs to begin with, it's rather depressing that they're basically just Melee HQ #1, Melee HQ #2, and (just to mix things up) Melee HQ #3.

Given what's been done with other factions, like Pivotal Roles for Harlequins and Cryptek Arcana for Necrons, I really hope DE can finally get some decent customisation for their characters.

If they do, I promise to stop complaining.

If they do, I promise to stop complaining.  [/quote]


lol for how long? (just kidding anyway we always need someone to show us the other side of the medal, to show us another perspective that our pink glasses may have missed)

But seriously, i'd really love that our Haemonculus can now play a role of reanimator / healer in our army instead of a beater, after all, that's their major role in Commorragh no?

Cerve wrote:

Swordxart wrote:

BTW it says for Grots unit size 3-6 models?
well that sucks imo.

OH MY GOD WRACKS ARE 5-20!!!!!!!!!


I missed that! Yeah ok Grots sucks, but they still super good in 5 vs blast.
But OH MY GOD WRACKS ARE 5-20!!!!!!! BLACK CORNUCOPIAAAAAANS!

Just wanted to point out, that they also released a file with power levels and in there all the unit sizes are as they are in 8th edition codex. As power levels are also relevant for matched play, for example, the cp cost of strategic reserves depends on it, we have two conflicting documents with unit size. If you would play with the new unit size, you would also need for example a house rule about the power level of a unit of 20 or 15 wracks and in the introduction text of the points list, it sounds like their intention was to only update points with it. If you go to a tournament before GW clarifies it, be aware that the TO may rule that the old unit sizes are correct.

Same thing happens with Grotesques, max unit size in the Power Rating PDF is 10, not 6. We'll have to wait to GW to pronounce themselves.

Kalmah wrote:

anyway we always need someone to show us the other side of the medal, to show us another perspective that our pink glasses may have missed

Well since you mentioned it ^_^
as i said in another thread one thing that flew under the radar with everyone flipping out about reavers being 10 points (which is def a typo btw) is that they also changed the way dark technomancers work...

Now you get a mortal wound for EVERY unmodified 1, regardless of how many weapons are firing. You know what that means? That means that dark tech venoms will kill themselves FASTER than they kill an enemy so thats gone. Also Reapers are gonna have a tough time if you decide to use the secondary weapon profile and dont let me get started on the tantalus firing...

So there you have it a pessimistic view that your pink glasses missed

Also i havent forgotten about our little gentleman war of optimist vs pessimist and i have to be honest for a moment i was pleasantly surprised about the points till i saw the change to dark tech which is my main fighting style with venoms and went full pessimist mode again...
So lets see ^_^

I never liked the Dark Technomancer obsession, it doesn't feel Dark Eldar at all, and even less being in Covens, as they are not the shooty part of our army. I also think it was never intended to work that way (a bunch of Coven Venoms and Reapers overcharging it's weapons), but hey, it's probably going away with the Codex so I don't care much.

I think yesterday update was a huge improvement for our lists for this couple of months until the Codex drops.

talking of DT, with the release of our future codex, does the PA will still be valid?
I don't think so cause at the start of the book they clearly state that the PA works in pair with the 8th edition codex (they state the year, not the edition, but i don't remember the said year).
I just want to have the certainty of it

I'm almost certain new rules invalidate the older ones.

Agreed, the PA books will get superseded by the new codex.

As for DT, I actually kinda liked it from a thematic point of view. Going all out on attack and getting hurt for it totally feels like the True Kin! Just wish it was not stuck on Coven units.

Regarding Dark Technomancers, it always seemed like it should have been a Kabal trait rather than a Coven one. But maybe that's just me.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Regarding Dark Technomancers, it always seemed like it should have been a Kabal trait rather than a Coven one. But maybe that's just me.

No, that's not just you. That is every person with half a brain that put an ounce of thought into PA.

As an aside, would some of those Kabal traits been good for Wyches or what?
Deadly deceivers and Meticulous Flayers would be awesome for Wyches.

Hell, some of the Wych traits are good for coven. (Fugue, skill and precise killers I am looking at you). Maybe they just mixed up which went with which.

For some reason GW wants Coven to have shooting. Look at the 3 obsessions for them 2 of the 3 trait stratagems is for shooting, some of the custom traits are shooting and melee but another is only shooting, 1 of the relics is a pistol. Each unit can have guns, all grots can take flamers, etc...

Someone in the GW HQ probably thought it a good idea to give our shooty stuff melee """buffs""" to be lore accurateTM

I want to say it was for balance reasons, but I am pretty sure that all the PA books would have been written around the same time. So why there was such powercreep is beyond me.

Yeah, all the PA was written within the same time frame. I think the problem was they didn't take into account the upcoming point changes that effected a few armies like us and marines with their large updates that hit then too.