Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

I think GEQ is still relevant to some extent, but mathhammer is definitely needing to become more fine grained - even considering just Marines, the distinction between MEQ and TEQ is no longer sufficient with the introduction of Gravis. Although at least base Primaris and old Marines have the same defensive profile now...

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Splinter Rifle...how do you want poison to work for that?

I don't think a MW on 6s to wound would be totally busted. Some kind of additional damage after you've been shot fits with how a poison weapon might work in the lore.

Even something more unique like 1s the enemy roll when saving give a MW in addition??

That or some kind of debuff, but I doubt they'll do that to avoid housekeeping.

GreyArea wrote:

I don't think a MW on 6s to wound would be totally busted. Some kind of additional damage after you've been shot fits with how a poison weapon might work in the lore.

I would really love that, actually. Doesn’t become too overpowered, but gives that old feeling of Drukhari/splinter weapons being effective no matter who they’re shooting at.

Ok, finally on the City at my main pc (been checking it on my phone and laptop regularly) and therefore in front of my comfy keyboard. Wanted to wade in a little to some of the conversations.

I like the new cannon, but there is that huge thing of "its technically not as effective vs squads of chaff". Weaker and stronger are loaded terms, but I think its fairly undeniable that it only pumping out half the shots at half range than it used to, while compensating with extra damage and a -1AP is technically worse vs blobs of infantry with only 1 wound. But then I hardly ever took the cannon anyway. It is now better at dealing with new marines at range though. A shift in priorities. With marines making up 50% of all 40k ranges (give or take) and CSM likely to get the same upgrades across the board, having an "anti-marine" weapon in an army isnt some niche thing any more.

I hope the -1AP is an indication of the rest of our splinter weaponry. Auto wounding on 4s was nice, but the lack of AP as saves rose over the editions was always a bummer. But we cannot know that until we see the stat line.

The extra save on Kabalites is really, really good. Sure, they wont be going toe to toe vs anything, but they will stick around just a little longer, and in 9th, thats important (for reasons I personally disagree with, but thats another topic). Unfortunately we cannot speculate on what happens to the other sub-faction saves yet.

Ok, so things got pretty heated over the +1A. And I can see the tensions still bubbling under the surface. I wanted to throw in my take. From what I am reading, no one is complaining (and please correct me if I am wrong on this) about the addition of an extra melee attack on Kabalites IN ISOLATION. Free stuff is free stuff. What some people are upset-through-confused-through-angry about (and I fall into the confused category here) is that it seems markedly out of place for what Kabalites are supposed to be (the shooty guys with fairly weak melee given that they dont have CC weapons). Its a nice sidegrade that will see use, in current play, a very small amount of the time. And yet its being touted as this big upgrade. At best, it feels like a smoke screen for "Well, we upped their save, but thats kinda it" (and they didnt even mention the save increase in the article), and at worst, its being used as a justification for not doing something else (though I struggle to see what else they could have done to the stat line - we should not have 2W, taking us from BS3 to BS2 would be broken as all hell, and you cant take us from Sv5+ to Sv3+, thats bonkers for a glass cannon faction). As many have said, if kabalites are in combat, something is going wrong. That said, I think "things going very wrong" is how 9th will play out. Objectives are so important, we need to hold them, our kabalites will see a lot of melee late game. We dont know if they will get a CC weapon. I hope they do. It would make sense. It does not need to be as good as wyches, but -1 ap and poison would be appropriate.

All this makes me wonder if GW regrets splitting our force. Its clear the intention was to have every Drukhari player take 3 patrols, one of each subfaction, and then have a kabal buzzing around in gunships, a coven acting as an anvil and a bog, and a cult swooping in to deal the big damage where it is needed. The problem is, that is extremely hard to balance. Kabalite gunboats are (or were, in early 8th for example) extremely effective, and ravagers are solid choices. In order to stick in CC, they gave Coven a decent melee stat line. But Wyches suffered. They need something to hide behind or they get shot to pieces. And they need something to soak damage, even when they get into combat. If you HAD to take them, they would have been great hammers. But you didnt have to take them. So people either threw in more guns or more fleshcraft as they wanted. Wyches were good, but just not as versatile as anything else. If we could have mixed sub-factions easily, people would have had 1 or 2 squads of wyches and some jetbikes. But forcing people to have to take a full patrol if they wanted ANY wyches was the death knell (and I say that as someone who refuses to run coven because I dont like the models, and thus always has some cult in there somewhere).

But some people still ran just Kabal too. And just Kabal cannot fight. Oh sure, they can win games. They can delete any armies too. But they cant FIGHT. So GW is looking at 1/3rd of an army hardly anyone picks up, ever, and another 1/3rd (Coven) that sees the table top, but usually as an ancillary detachment to a much larger force of the final 1/3rd. But 9th is not an opportunity to rip up the rules entirely. So they probably feel they cant just get rid of the 3 sub-faction thing. What to do instead? Well, from the look of the kabalites, they seem to be more... fighty? Just? A little bit? Is this a sign of things to come? Will Coven get more... normal? Will Cult get more shooty? Are they trying to make sure all 3 factions can, if not perform WELL, then at least PERFORM AT ALL in any role?

Personally, if I was to look at how to do the 3 subfaction thing, I would allow people to take anything in any detachments, and even allow mixed obsessions, but the obsessions can only be taken if there is the relevant HQ in the detachments (so a Bat with an Archon AND a Succi could have Kabal units with Kabal obsessions, and Cult units with Cult obsessions). Or maybe even just let them have independent obsessions regardless of HQ choices, and troops count as elite without a matching HQ. And maybe have an extra trait on each obsession if there IS an HQ, as an incentive.

That would move us back towards the old playstyle of "Mostly Kabal, with a tagteam of wyches and a unit of taloi" (disclaimer - other army comps available) which is not only a nice, well rounded force, but fits the whole lore - where its usually Archons going out to raid, with their own Kabals, taking a few Wych/Mandrake/Scourge/Incubi mercs, and whatever their friendly neighbourhood Haemi can throw together... literally. Or a Haemi testing his latest creations, but needing the webway tech the Archons control, and a Wych guard because, pain or no pain, he cant take notes if he dies temporarily.

But I have this worrying feeling that GW thinks its in too deep with the 3 subfactions and that they cant unpick it until the next big redo. That or they are planning on dissolving Drukhari, and making each sub-faction initially like Quins and Corsairs, and then finally rolling them all BACK into Eldar for some big story point. I really hope I am wrong about that last point.

I think poison would work well on S3 splinter rifles if it was +1 to wound non vehicles. That way you’re wounding T2 on 2’s, T3 on 3’s and T4/5 on 4’s but T6+ on 5’s. So there is some gain vs weaker targets but a slight nerf vs the very tough targets. I think that actually makes more sense to me.

MW on 6+ is too much.

Burnage wrote:

I think GEQ is still relevant to some extent, but mathhammer is definitely needing to become more fine grained - even considering just Marines, the distinction between MEQ and TEQ is no longer sufficient with the introduction of Gravis. Although at least base Primaris and old Marines have the same defensive profile now...

Yes fine grained would be the solution to all, but always calculating the damage for all units would be a little excessive. If you want to know if you can take out enemy obSec, knowing how reliable you can kill MEQ, toughness 3 1 wound 4+ save units and nurglings, should keep you on the save side for a long time in 9th edition. Once the craftworld codex is released there are only 2 factions that can theoretically deploy a GEQ, for comparison at least 5 factions have a cultist equivalent, even though it is more likely for Guards and Genestealer Cults to bring their GEQ.
I personally think GEQ are not really that relevant anymore when you analyze how good a weapon is, you will likely see far more Skitarii Equivalents then GEQ at a tournament.

And that is something we should take into account, when we stop wishlisting about poison changes and look at future reveals of our weapons, that will eventually come.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I think poison would work well on S3 splinter rifles if it was +1 to wound non vehicles. That way you’re wounding T2 on 2’s,  T3 on 3’s and T4/5 on 4’s but T6+ on 5’s. So there is some gain vs weaker targets but a slight nerf vs the very tough targets. I think that actually makes more sense to me.

MW on 6+ is too much.

I do like this +1 to wound non-vehicles idea. It would also make the Tyranid match up not feel so bad for them.

You may well be right about the 6s if we have the same volume of fire as 8th but with half the shots from the cannons on venoms and who knows what for rifles it might work. If rifles were to become assault 1 it might not be unreasonable.

However I strongly suspect all they've done is slap -1Ap on poison as a whole and called it a day. Still better than before but nothing very imaginative.

I'm highly doubtful that all our poison will get AP-1. I suspect it will be confined to special weapons at most.

So...will we get something tomorrow?

Cerve wrote:

So...will we get something tomorrow?

Probably not. I think the most likely timeline now is preorder on the 27th of Feb for full release on the 6th of March, which means we'll see our rules preview week starting next Sunday.

Burnage wrote:

Cerve wrote:

So...will we get something tomorrow?

Probably not. I think the most likely timeline now is preorder on the 27th of Feb for full release on the 6th of March, which means we'll see our rules preview week starting next Sunday.

I personally am not sure anymore our codex will be the next 40k release. Look at AoS and the dark elve faction Daughters of Khaine, they got new rules in a campaign book, a new miniature in a two player box and a month or two later their new army book, which actually invalidated the rules in the campaign book.
All the three components are also announced for Drukhari, so I think it could be possible we get the same treatment.

Koldan wrote:

All the three components are also announced for Drukhari, so I think it could be possible we get the same treatment.

Sounds plausible!
Would be sad if true, though. I’m hoping we’ll get a bit more of a release than that.
I haven’t followed AoS very closely. But from what I’ve seen the release-philosophies for it and 40k seem to be quite different beasts. (At least that’s the superficial impression that I’ve gotten)
Welll! Can always hope for some Endless Spells, at least

New online-preview coming this saturday; ”lords of the mortal realms”
So probably focus on AoS. Showing the last Lumineth elves, and probably a first true reveal of some Soulblight Gravelords models. But no word on what to expect yet.
More info on it is going to come up tomorrow, so then we’ll probably know if there will be anything for 40k at all.

ursvamp wrote:

Koldan wrote:

All the three components are also announced for Drukhari, so I think it could be possible we get the same treatment.

Sounds plausible!
Would be sad if true, though. I’m hoping we’ll get a bit more of a release than that.
I haven’t followed AoS very closely. But from what I’ve seen the release-philosophies for it and 40k seem to be quite different beasts. (At least that’s the superficial impression that I’ve gotten)
Welll! Can always hope for some Endless Spells, at least

The joke about endless spells aside I am not too sure the release-philosophies are that different. It is just as if AoS is always a step ahead. Their first edition two-player was Sigmarines vs Nurgle, later 40k 8th edition followed with Marines vs Deathguard, their second edition started again with Stormcasts vs Undead, we got later Marines vs Necrons. The first edition army book for Daughters of Khaine was also shortly before ours, now this also repeats. They got in the first edition a two-player box Khorne Daemons vs Slaanesh Daemons, we got later Blood of The Phoenix, they got a new two-player box Daughters of Khaine vs Slaanesh Mortals, we get a two-player box Drukhari vs Sisters announced. Don't know why Drukhari are the repeating part in 40k while Slaanesh is in fantasy.
I am not that knowledgable about AoS, but for me at first glance, it seems like 40k could just repeat the pattern of AoS with adaptions. For AoS they are not spamming Stormcasts as much as Marines and other factions actually also get more releases and things like that, but I think the basic release cycle may be quite similar.

I hadn’t noticed how the starting-sets mirrored each other like that! Very cool observation!

I’ll confess I was mostly thinking of how AoS has a history of releasing battle tomes without accompanying models (in between the ones that do). Which hasn’t really been a 40k-thing (with the notable exception of the first 9months of 8ed, but that was under special circumstances, and the odd occurrance of the grey knights ’dex in 2014, that got nothing, and the necron ’dex in 2015, that only got 1 model.) But they did do it again with the Deathguard just recently. So I guess the question is if that is a sign of something or just another odd release. (It could be, as you say, 40k starting to adopt the AoS way of doing things!)

(I wouldn’t read too much into the similarites between non-starter-set battle-boxes between AoS and 40k, though. If anything Daughters’ vs slaanesh worshippers almost sounds like it should be a dark eldar v dark eldar box =) )

You really think the beginning of 8th edition was a special circumstance? Looked for me like a lightweight version of the start of AoS.
Indices were called Grand Order blah-blah book.
They also killed the old factions, so they had to also write new lore for the new army books and filling holes with new miniatures, instead of just reworking the army books of old, but it looked still quite similar to 8th edition.
Even the pattern free core rules, paid rulebook, yearly paid updates, the tree play styles (open, narrative, matched) are in AoS. They just did not repeat the big obvious mistakes in 40k. (Example: Players need to have matched play and points from the beginning, they are not happy if they get open play and for the rest, not even a date or a guarantee that it will come.)

Even some abilities seem to evolve by moving through the two games. Power from Pain evolved for AoS Daughters of Khaine to also work in shooting, moved then to Idoneth Deepkin and lost the effect stacking and now not every turn had a different effect. Later returned as Combat Doctrines with a more flexible progression back to 40k.

On that note, I think it's very likely that 8th edition was intended as a hard-reset along similar lines to Age of Sigmar.

Amongst other things, Primaris would have replaced Marines and the different Eldar factions (including ours) would have become a single Ynnari faction.

This explains why points are stuck in the back of the books (because they were a rushed addendum) and why, initially, Imperium, Chaos and Eldar could ally at will - because each of those were meant to be super-factions, in a similar style to Death, Order, Chaos and Destruction in AoS.

However, when the first edition of AoS proved to be a complete disaster, GW had to hurriedly change its plans for 40k. Suddenly a massive reset was looking like a decidedly poor idea, but they clearly had no alternative plans.

Hence, rather than replacing Marines, Primaris turned the already excessive Marine book into a preposterously bloated tome. Meanwhile, either GW scrapped their Ynnari plans entirely or they had no plans at all beyond the three Ynnari characters they'd made in 7th. Hence, all three of the Eldar factions have been left wallowing in the swamp of neglect as everyone who liked non-Marine factions has long since moved over to work on AoS 2.0.

Ynnari should be dropped completely and never be spoken of again. They should join the squats.

Koldan wrote:

You really think the beginning of 8th edition was a special circumstance?

Yes.

Koldan wrote:

Looked for me like a lightweight version of the start of AoS.

Well, I was talking about ”in the history of 40k” specifically.
But my point was that in AoS it has always bern a pretty normal occurance to release battletomes without new models to go with it, while in 40k that hasn’t been the case, yet.
Of course that might change in the future. And our upcoming codex, along with deathguard, might be the beginning of that new standard.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Ynnari should be dropped completely and never be spoken of again. They should join the squats.

Preach it.

The miniatures are pretty cool though....rebox Yvraine as Lady Malys.

I'm still pro-Ynnari but the whole concept does need to be burned to the ground and restarted at this point. Kind of curious to see how they get handled in our book, both lore-wise and potentially rules-wise.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Ynnari should be dropped completely and never be spoken of again. They should join the squats.

Come one, man, Ynnari are a cool concept. They're space elves that are empowered by pain and death.

A completely original concept that definitely doesn't tread on the toes of any pre-existing races.

Na...Ynnari is basically something thought up by someone with no love for DE.

Eldar and Dark Eldar are not Yin and Yang. They are simply opposites end of. So this whole Ynnari BS doesn’t sit at all well with me.

...and now I have just noticed the winking smiley face lol my bad!

The Ynnari have been present in the lore long before they were intrudced as a faction. The Haemonculus supplement mentions the "Phoenex" explicitly. And from a narrative perspective it makes sense to have an active Eldar God which could be a double-edged sword (and move the narrative forward). Sure, it's nice to have a God of Death on your side that can kick some Chaos God ass, but then again... it's a God of death, how much can you really trust it?

The narrative of 40k works best when it has elements of tragedy and impending doom. In theory, the Ynnari would be a perfect fit. But it's evident that GW lost all motivation to do such things and opted to have a more "hero-hammer" narrative instead.

And let's not even start about the Ynnari from an in-game perspective... GW never knew what to do with them. The safest option was to treat it as a pile of toxic garbage and nerf them into meaninglessness.

In theory, the Ynnari offer a perfect way to completely mix and match the factions in a thematic way. Ynnari Haemonculi are explicitly mentioned in the lore and I would kill to have an undead Eldar army that consists of Pain Engines, Grotesques and Wrath Constructs.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

The Ynnari have been present in the lore long before they were intrudced as a faction. The Haemonculus supplement mentions the "Phoenex" explicitly. And from a narrative perspective it makes sense to have an active Eldar God which could be a double-edged sword (and move the narrative forward). Sure, it's nice to have a God of Death on your side that can kick some Chaos God ass, but then again... it's a God of death, how much can you really trust it?

The narrative of 40k works best when it has elements of tragedy and impending doom. In theory, the Ynnari would be a perfect fit. But it's evident that GW lost all motivation to do such things and opted to have a more "hero-hammer" narrative instead.

I for one love the idea of the Ynnari squatting my faction of choice.

How 'lucky' they were mentioned in the fluff produced by GW to justify their subsequent inclusion.

No, 40k works best when it is a setting, not an ongoing narrative.

harlokin wrote:

The Strange Dark One wrote:

The Ynnari have been present in the lore long before they were intrudced as a faction. The Haemonculus supplement mentions the "Phoenex" explicitly. And from a narrative perspective it makes sense to have an active Eldar God which could be a double-edged sword (and move the narrative forward). Sure, it's nice to have a God of Death on your side that can kick some Chaos God ass, but then again... it's a God of death, how much can you really trust it?

The narrative of 40k works best when it has elements of tragedy and impending doom. In theory, the Ynnari would be a perfect fit. But it's evident that GW lost all motivation to do such things and opted to have a more "hero-hammer" narrative instead.

I for one love the idea of the Ynnari squatting my faction of choice.

How 'lucky' they were mentioned in the fluff produced by GW to justify their subsequent inclusion.

No, 40k works best when it is a setting, not an ongoing narrative.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain that Ynnead has been a part of the Eldar mythology for a much longer time.

Setting, Narrative, whatever. Without tragedy and impending doom, 40k is hardly more than Sci-Fi with swords. But you can't beat a dead horse and dwell on the same tropes forever as it loses all meaning eventually.