Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I don’t know how you can actually make a comment like that. Unless you are the person writing the codex then you simply can’t make a statement like that.

I was referring to the playtesters, who are prominent tournament players and tend to focus on winning tournaments.

harlokin wrote:

Deep down, I don't doubt that the new codex will offer some strong options, and I am reassured that TT were involved in the playtesting (why no Skari?).

That said, I am a bit worried that GW won't be able to make a 'glass canon space pirate' playstyle work, and that we will be still just be relying on resilient Coven stuff (which GW can write rules for in their sleep), and some Elites.

It's kinda difficult to make a 'fast, difficult to hit' army when to hit mods are locked at +1/-1. I think that is a major design flaw of 9th ed. Maxing it at +2/-2 would have made a lot more sense.

Granted, they might try to get around this with abilities that affect BS/WS scores - but I think that's just higher mods with extra steps and added complexity. But I suspect that is what they might do - I wouldn't be surprised if the new equivalent of lightning fast reactions applies a modifier to WS or BS when targeting the affected unit.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I don’t know how you can actually make a comment like that. Unless you are the person writing the codex then you simply can’t make a statement like that.

I was referring to the playtesters, who are prominent tournament players and tend to focus on winning tournaments.

Well, I'm pretty certain the the Splintermind guys were playtesters for the upcoming codex, and, as far as I've seen, they don't seem too concerned about winning tournaments at all. Granted, I wouldn't think that they were the *only* playtesters.

The trouble with that is that we’re playing 40k which is a war game. It’s not a space pirate game. They have to have DE fit the theme of the game mechanics and not the have the game mechanics be fit for space pirates.

I don’t expect DE to go to their 1 but let’s look at what we know...

Incubi rock
Dhrazhar rocks
Dark Lance rocks
Wyches have a ton of attacks and -1ap
Kabs have a 4+ save
Overwatch costs CP which is a big deal for an army like ours

What could be cool...

Assault vehicles are now a thing! Will we have a strat to charge after disembarking meaning we can deliver Wyches and Incubi into combat
There is now more potential to add morale phase de buffs that could actually play a part in a game. Add 1 to attrition rolls for example

Barking Agatha wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I don’t know how you can actually make a comment like that. Unless you are the person writing the codex then you simply can’t make a statement like that.

I was referring to the playtesters, who are prominent tournament players and tend to focus on winning tournaments.

Watching bat reps etc is t for everyone but I highly suggest you watch some of the DE ones on the tabletop tactics site. They care about fluff, they care about competing and they also care about broken rules. They tend to see it from all angles. I highly recommend it mate. You learn some great gaming tips as well.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

The trouble with that is that we’re playing 40k which is a war game. It’s not a space pirate game. They have to have DE fit the theme of the game mechanics and not the have the game mechanics be fit for space pirates.

Yeah, of course, so obvious....it's not as if previous editions could accomodate playstyles other than sit on objectives and outlast your opponent?

'Glass cannon space pirates' has been the dominant theme of the Dark Eldar since at least 5th edition, and all of those games were also war games, it would be unfortunate from my perspective if 'bargain basement Death Guard' is the only viable theme we are left with.

krayd wrote:

Well, I'm pretty certain the the Splintermind guys were playtesters for the upcoming codex, and, as far as I've seen, they don't seem too concerned about winning tournaments at all. Granted, I wouldn't think that they were the *only* playtesters.

They are definitely in the bin of aeldari players in general rather than dark eldar players. Tbh they seem pretty clueless since Thor left them. They have been on several rants where they strawman any concerns from players on this forum as mindless moaning. I don't think they're involvement should give anyone much comfort.

The spider on the other hand is an excellent player and true drukhari lover. His involvement is a huge plus. I'd also love to see Skari included.

I think when someone said Drukhari players weren't involved they ment on the rule writing team rather than playtesters. Clearly there is at least one drukhari playtester but the writing team I have no idea.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Barking Agatha wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I don’t know how you can actually make a comment like that. Unless you are the person writing the codex then you simply can’t make a statement like that.

I was referring to the playtesters, who are prominent tournament players and tend to focus on winning tournaments.

Watching bat reps etc is t for everyone but I highly suggest you watch some of the DE ones on the tabletop tactics site. They care about fluff, they care about competing and they also care about broken rules. They tend to see it from all angles. I highly recommend it mate. You learn some great gaming tips as well.

Mate? Well okay, maybe I've got the wrong impression. I'll check them out.

GreyArea wrote:

They are definitely in the bin of aeldari players in general rather than dark eldar players. Tbh they seem pretty clueless since Thor left them.

Oh yeah, where did Thor go? I liked arguing with him.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Oh yeah, where did Thor go? I liked arguing with him.

No idea. They never mentioned him after he left and when I asked they just said he wouldn't be coming back. Perhaps some kind of disagreement happened, who knows really. Shame

I'll be honest, the presence of Dark Eldar playtesters - no matter how competent or how much they love/understand the faction - brings me no comfort at all.

I say this because the opinions of playtesters carries no weight. They're still not insiders in the company and so can't meaningfully argue for Dark Eldar to be given much-needed attention, nor that maybe SM subfaction #58306 shouldn't be able to Dark Eldar better than Dark Eldar.

Even in terms of rules, the best they can hope to achieve is turd-polishing. If the GW designer half-arsed the codex (because, you know, he doesn't play DE and doesn't give a damn about them), do you really think the playtesters will be allowed to rewrite the codex with better rules and more flavour? At best, they might be allowed to tweak the wording of an existing rule or faff around with some point costs. But if the codex was bland and soulless before playtesting, then it will still be bland and soulless afterwards.

Furthermore, the lack of interest in DE among the GW designers also means there is absolutely no one who will push for new DE models. Why would they? DE aren't Space Marines. And who even plays DE anyway? They can wait another few editions for new models.

The point I'm trying to make is that DE playtesters are absolutely not a substitute for having actual DE enthusiasts on the GW design team.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that DE playtesters are absolutely not a substitute for having actual DE enthusiasts on the GW design team.

I feel ya, I'd obviously love to have that. We don't actually know that there isn't though. It's too hard to judge based on our limited info. I also have so little idea of how much or the format of playtesters input that its hard to even judge what effect they have either.

I do think its important to not let perfectionism be the enemy of progress here. Could DE be getting a fairer share of love via new releases, yes, is it a huge step forward from previous years, I'd argue yes.
That doesn't mean we should shut up and take what we get without comment but, I think it's important to recognise and encourage progress when it happens.

I don’t think you understand the role and involvement of play testers my friend.

Let me put it like this...splinter cannons going to damage 2 is something I have a strong suspicion is directly influenced by playtesters as well as Dark Lances damage output being improved.

The way play testing works is not simply here is the codex let me know your thoughts. It’s here is a unit let me know your thoughts about how the unit works. Here is a a special rule let me know how it works. Each aspect is tested in a vacuum and then tested as a whole. It’s a thorough process these days.

I would suggest if your salty then wait and see and save your tears for a time when it’s proven the codex is awful. Until then be exited about it! A new codex is always a time for unbridled optimism followed shortly by melting your entire DE army in a fit of rage LOL

I agree that the degree of influence playtesters have probably varies considerably.

It's quite possible that, as one of the early codexes, GW might put in extra effort to enure positive feedback and momentum....maybe.

krayd wrote:

It's kinda difficult to make a 'fast, difficult to hit' army when to hit mods are locked at +1/-1. I think that is a major design flaw of 9th ed. Maxing it at +2/-2 would have made a lot more sense.

They could make it a flat requirement to hit like "Enemy units must subtract 1 from their hit rolls when targeting this unit. You can never hit this unit on anything better than a 4+/5+"

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I don’t think you understand the role and involvement of play testers my friend.

Let me put it like this...splinter cannons going to damage 2 is something I have a strong suspicion is directly influenced by playtesters as well as Dark Lances damage output being improved.

In which case my assessment was entirely accurate.


But tell me - which playtesters decided that the only thing Blood of the phoenix should include for DE was custom army traits?

Hell, which playtesters decided that the Kabal custom traits should be almost entirely melee focussed?

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I don’t think you understand the role and involvement of play testers my friend.

Let me put it like this...splinter cannons going to damage 2 is something I have a strong suspicion is directly influenced by playtesters as well as Dark Lances damage output being improved.

The way play testing works is not simply here is the codex let me know your thoughts. It’s here is a unit let me know your thoughts about how the unit works. Here is a a special rule let me know how it works. Each aspect is tested in a vacuum and then tested as a whole. It’s a thorough process these days.

I would suggest if your salty then wait and see and save your tears for a time when it’s proven the codex is awful. Until then be exited about it! A new codex is always a time for unbridled optimism followed shortly by melting your entire DE army in a fit of rage LOL

I highly doubt it, many play testers already came forward saying they didn't really listen to them for many things.

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I don’t think you understand the role and involvement of play testers my friend.

Let me put it like this...splinter cannons going to damage 2 is something I have a strong suspicion is directly influenced by playtesters as well as Dark Lances damage output being improved.

In which case my assessment was entirely accurate.


But tell me - which playtesters decided that the only thing Blood of the phoenix should include for DE was custom army traits?

Hell, which playtesters decided that the Kabal custom traits should be almost entirely melee focussed?

No play tester, this was a fluffy idea from GW that failed b.c in the old days melee kabals were good so why not make them good again with terrible rules and no attacks.

amishprn86 wrote:

No play tester, this was a fluffy idea from GW that failed b.c in the old days melee kabals were good so why not make them good again with terrible rules and no attacks.

I did use melee in kabals a lot in 3rd edition (especially early 3rd edition) because every unit was basically an agonizer delivery system. Of course, back then, agonizers ignored all armor saves and most models only had one wound. That, and if you could put enough wounds on an enemy unit in the first round of combat, they'd break.

Unrelated, I assume there's still no sign of leaked datasheets for Wracks, Scourges or any such?

If Kabs went to 4+ save will Scourge go to 3+?

Also Kabs going to 4+ means Archons should at least go to 4+ shouldn’t they? It makes sense that an Archon would have armour at the very least as good as his most basic troops. I’d almost say at that stage the archon shadow field should simply be 3++ for the entire game. It’s not like we can spam that.

Also something else to think about. Drahzar is most likely still able to fight twice. At D3 and 10 attacks is he one of the most deadly HQ choices in a long while...albeit mainly on the charge. The reason I say he must surely still be allowed to fight twice is that he’s gone up in points. If they had let’s say removed that rule and just added the extra attack to his base stats he should have gone down.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

If Kabs went to 4+ save will Scourge go to 3+?

Do you think Ghostplate will still have a 6+ invulnerable or might it go to 5+?

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Also Kabs going to 4+ means Archons should at least go to 4+ shouldn’t they? It makes sense that an Archon would have armour at the very least as good as his most basic troops. I’d almost say at that stage the archon shadow field should simply be 3++ for the entire game. It’s not like we can spam that.

Whilst not the most interesting, a permanent 3++ would certainly be vastly preferable to the current Shadowfield rules.

As for the Archon's save, I think it might itself depend on the Shadowfield. If the Shadowfield is a 4++ or better (and doesn't fail anymore), then I'd think the Archon's armour save would be academic (you could perhaps think of it as him not really relying on his armour for protection - perhaps allowing lighter or showier armour).

However, if we're still lumbered with the current Shadowfield rules, it would certainly make sense for him to have the same save as Warriors. Hell, I think it would be reasonable for him to be sporting Ghostplate armour.

In my opinion, if they are giving kabalites an equivalent to Aspect Warrior armour, we can expect the Archon to get the same one at least, apart from his Shadowfield. A 3+ would mean a Heavy Armour, but Archons are not meant to carry heavy stuff. Unless they make the Ghostplate armour a very light but effective one at 3+.

The most reasonable buff seems to be better invul saves. 3+ on Scourges doesn't make sense, but 5++ seems like a logical choice. Continuing this line of thinking, I half expect a permanent 5++ on the Archon on top of the gimmicky 2++.

I can't imagine Archons getting a permanent 3++, but I think it's possible for the Obsidian Veil (current Flayed Skull relic for a 4++). For Archons I really just want an ability that serves as force multiplier and I'd rather have him come cheap than durable.

But who knows, maybe GW gave Scourges and Archons more attacks and called it a day.

So, what are you guys thinking of collaboration between GW and Wizards of the Coast?
WoC is planning on releasing commander decks for Magic the gathering based on Warhammer 40k charachters. Next year, i suppose.

Maybe then we will get Vect, as a commander
Anyone here plays MTG? What colour combination we should be? But honestly, i don`t think they will release DE as a part of this product. Maybe a few references, nothing more.

Dark eldar can't be anything else than black.

dumpeal wrote:

Dark eldar can't be anything else than black.

I don't know, I could see us being black/blue.

That's generally the colour combination associated with evil but also tricky/stealthy.

Though knowing GW, we'll end up being a colour combination that makes us really awkward to play.