Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Got some people bitching about our rules but actually they simply don’t like 9th Ed.

Got some people saying they can’t take Raiders because their OCD means they can’t bear the empty spaces on the Raider if they only take 5 troops with a HQ!

Legitimate ways of taking 9 Wyches with a Succubus being ignored.

I've never seen anyone say that they can not stand 4 empty spots. Also no one wants 9 wyches b.c 10 gets you 2 more weapons lol.

I hate that we can not have a way to speed up our HQ's other than transports and if you take a Venom well they are alone, if you take a raider, well then no 10 mans, so you are forced to waste space if you don't want more than 5 mans, which I don't want b.c of Coherency rules in 9th are stupid (it should have been for 11+ needs to be within 2 of 2) and b.c they die all the same for Kabals, or for Incubi well they would just be over kill for a unit of 9, Only Wyches and Wracks really want to be 10 mans (wracks might change).

So its not really "filling empty space" as much as our situation just sucks for it. If we had Archon on Bike, Succubus on Skyboard and any of the 3 able to get Wings then no one would complain about 5 and 10 man transports.

They way our subfacions are intended to be played is Coven as the tough units, objective holders, Kabal as the ranged units, and Cults as fast attack. However, for me this means that my cult is usually just Reavers and depending on the edition maybe some Hellions. Not Wyches, because they offer me nothing that another unit doesn't do better. However, by now I haven't touched my entire cult units in ages, because I have no way to properly use them. Either my Succubus is footslogging behind the ridiculous movement of our Reavers, which is just pathetic, or my Succubus needs her own transport and becomes too expensive to actually field. Instead, I now use Harlequins next to my Coven, because they have the same function as Cults, except they do it better.
I have a whole bunch of Cult units, nicely painted and all, sitting in a foam tray, never seeing daylight because I simply don't know how to field them. How is this not a design flaw?

That’s true, troupes are better than our wyches at doing what they do. All of the other cult units have a role though, except maybe hellions, which I’ve never found a good use for in any edition!

Fair enough, I only used Hellions to add variation, not because they are better than Reavers.

I think the Succubus and Lelith are also probably the characters most badly affected by this issue. An Archon can ride in a Venom with a Court, Haemonculi are fine on foot, but the Wych HQs are either forced to slog up the board outside a vehicle, be in a Venom by themselves, or cause a Wych unit to lose out on two special weapons in a Raider. Even more awkward when you realise that most of the units they can buff are travelling at vehicle speed anyways.

This is not end of the world stuff but I'm surprised to see people here defending it, as I thought it was virtually unanimous HQs and related transport issues were a problem point in the 8th Codex.

Maybe that tactical rock under Lelith gives her + 6" movement and Fly.

amishprn86 wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Got some people bitching about our rules but actually they simply don’t like 9th Ed.

Got some people saying they can’t take Raiders because their OCD means they can’t bear the empty spaces on the Raider if they only take 5 troops with a HQ!

Legitimate ways of taking 9 Wyches with a Succubus being ignored.

I've never seen anyone say that they can not stand 4 empty spots. Also no one wants 9 wyches b.c 10 gets you 2 more weapons lol.

I hate that we can not have a way to speed up our HQ's other than transports and if you take a Venom well they are alone, if you take a raider, well then no 10 mans, so you are forced to waste space if you don't want more than 5 mans, which I don't want b.c of Coherency rules in 9th are stupid (it should have been for 11+ needs to be within 2 of 2) and b.c they die all the same for Kabals, or for Incubi well they would just be over kill for a unit of 9, Only Wyches and Wracks really want to be 10 mans (wracks might change).

So its not really "filling empty space" as much as our situation just sucks for it. If we had Archon on Bike, Succubus on Skyboard and any of the 3 able to get Wings then no one would complain about 5 and 10 man transports.

I refer you to a post on page 22 at 23:52

I’m not making this crap up. Far too much salt in here from people that are just not able to get past this smallest of issues. These issues don’t lose you games. If you’re that bothered about fluff, go play some RPG.

Also seriously about Wyches? If you want the spec weapons take them! You can! If you think you’d be better off supported by a succubus then awesome you can. But this is yet again a cake and eat t scenario. You want it all. With -1ap the Wyches don’t need the spec weapons like they used to.

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a transport capacity of 6 and 12 for our transports! It doesn’t stop us from winning games though, with 5 and 10 as it is now. And there’s a genuine chance that we get our wish with the new codex. It doesn’t require a new model or anything, just a number on a data sheet. I’m not expecting it, but there is a chance...

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, I’d love a transport capacity of 6 and 12 for our transports! It doesn’t stop us from winning games though

Some people want to have fun, rather than merely winning.

If anything, this is the entire problem with the 8th edition DE codex. It's design philosophy seems to be 'efficient but bland', which is the opposite of what I want from Dark Eldar.

I think this is what is creating a lot of divisions, too. If all you care about is winning, the codex probably looks great. Maybe even the best we've had since 5th. Indeed, I can well understand a tournament player wondering what everyone else is complaining about.

But if you're more interested in fun builds, tooled-out characters and wacky armies, you'll likely have been left severely disappointed.

For example:

Archons are great... provided the only thing you ever want to use them for is sitting at the back of the board, babysitting 3 Ravagers.

Transport capacities are a non-issue... provided you never want to put any HQ other than an Archon in a transport with a unit, and then only the unit is his Court.

It doesn't matter that the Succubus can't beat anything stronger than a Company Commander... provided you were only using her as a cheap slot-filler anyway.

It doesn't matter if many of our units are terrible... so long as you only take the good ones.

It doesn't matter that many of our Kabals, Covens and Cults are bad... so long as you only ever want to play the good ones and ignore the rest.

It doesn't matter that our HQs have no mobility and pitiful wargear... so long as you're only taking them as artefact-caddies and slot-fillers and don't want them to actually treat them as characters.


Do you get what I mean?

It's the same as when a terrible army is considered perfectly fine because it has a single "good" build. If you play competitively, it doesn't matter that everything else is bland/useless - because that one good build is all that matters. But for anyone with an interest in other builds, not only are you stuck in an un-fun situation, you're also stuck with fellow players who don't recognise that anything is wrong and are instead baffled that you don't just use your army's one good build.

Want to take a force of horribly mutated monsters that can take and give a punch? Take grots and talos in a pure coven list.

Or do you want powerful close range shooting with high mobility. Again, look no further than dark techno coven venoms. Hell, scourges and Kabalites do the job too.

What about rapidly deployed long range firepower? Poisoned Tongue ravagers will ruin any marine’s day, and can be redeployed with PT’s stratagem for maximum thematic deception.

Or would you rather close the gap and get up in you enemy’s face? Raiders full of wyches and succubi supported by reavers and Incubi led by the legendary drazhar let you do that.

You can win with any of these builds, and I’ve covered most of the units in our roster?

You get what I mean?

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Want to take a force of horribly mutated monsters that can take and give a punch? Take grots and talos in a pure coven list.

Or do you want powerful close range shooting with high mobility. Again, look no further than dark techno coven venoms. Hell, scourges and Kabalites do the job too.

What about rapidly deployed long range firepower? Poisoned Tongue ravagers will ruin any marine’s day, and can be redeployed with PT’s stratagem for maximum thematic deception.

Or would you rather close the gap and get up in you enemy’s face? Raiders full of wyches and succubi supported by reavers and Incubi led by the legendary drazhar let you do that.

You can win with any of these builds, and I’ve covered most of the units in our roster?

You get what I mean?

Actually, no, I dont get what you mean. Samurai talked about weird and wacky builds. Changing things up. Remaining "competitive" with non-meta builds.

You listed the 2 8th ed meta builds (initially full or mostly Kabal, later mostly Coven) and a token Cult build that... no one ever takes because its simply not able to do anything.

In fact you tried to list coven for 2 of the options.

Coven is not Drukhari. Coven is less than 1/3rd of Drukhari. Historically, Coven isnt even that.

And this is the problem. Even in causal play, you NEED Coven. Which as someone that prefers the looks and intended playstyles of the other 2 subfactions, is kinda annoying.

What do I want? Well, honestly, get rid of the stupid 3 subfaction rule. But thats not going to happen, so instead, I want to be able to take a raiding force (3 patrols) in any combination I want and not be hamstrung. I want beasts in my cults. I want hellions to be good for chasing down stragglers and to have obsec. I want Archons NEAR their kabals. I want razorwings overhead and venoms delivering wychs and a succi to a contested point, or to an enemy HQ, and I want darklight and poison and the screams of enemies as I get them up close, and then get their friends as they run.

Instead, I HAVE to spend another few hundred to get at least a patrol of Coven, because I dont have any, despite having enough other stuff for 2 full armies by literally any other race's definition.

albions-angel wrote:

Coven is not Drukhari. Coven is less than 1/3rd of Drukhari. Historically, Coven isnt even that.

And this is the problem. Even in causal play, you NEED Coven. Which as someone that prefers the looks and intended playstyles of the other 2 subfactions, is kinda annoying.

Exactly THIS.

My fear is that GW will continue to push Coven for no other reason than it is easy to make rules for, and there may be nobody there with a passion for our faction pushing for some effort and imagination beyond that.

If you don’t care about winning, take a whacky build then?
You’re not going to be competitive with wacky builds. Is that what you want? A codex so powerful that you can take whatever you want and compete?

Lol.

Clearly you didn't get what I was driving at because you're literally proving the exact point I was making.

"We have a single build that works, so everything is fine!"

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Want to take a force of horribly mutated monsters that can take and give a punch? Take grots and talos in a pure coven list.

What if I don't want a pure Coven list?

What if I want some Grots led by an Archon?

This used to be a great combination - the Archon would shore-up the Grot's terrible leadership (which was a severe weakness in past editions), whilst also providing some high-initiative attacks to try and take out a dangerous character or such before they got to swing.

Now, you *can* take an Archon with Grotesques, but it requires an entirely separate detachment
and he now provides bugger-all to the unit. His aura doesn't work on them, they don't benefit from his leadership, and having him fight actually makes the Grots fight more slowly.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Or do you want powerful close range shooting with high mobility. Again, look no further than dark techno coven venoms. Hell, scourges and Kabalites do the job too.

You seem strangely untroubled by the fact that you needed to name a specific sub-subfaction just to get Venoms to perform their basic role.

Shame Trueborn no longer exist, because it's apparently fine for 1 IG kit to be 12 different units but not for 1 DE kit to be 2.

But sure, I accept your premise that (with the right builds) Scourges and Kabalites can perform decent close-range shooting with good mobility.

Now if only the the design of the Archon (and of our transports) didn't leave him completely at odds with that role.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Or would you rather close the gap and get up in you enemy’s face? Raiders full of wyches and succubi supported by reavers and Incubi led by the legendary drazhar let you do that.

What about Venoms full of Succubi and Wyches? or Venoms full of Incubi and Drazhar? Or Raiders full of Succubi and Wyches, without the latter having to give up 2/3 of their special weapons?

Nah mate I get. Games Workshop has had the audacity to build a game that doesn’t cater to Soulless Sam’s every whimsical idea in a way that will flawlessly work on the table. Stop holding up the 3e codex as this beacon of creative perfection. Kabs couldn’t take blasters in 3e. Imagine the uproar now if our fast mobile piratical raiders had to stand around with heavy dark lances as their only special weapons. Our blasters were carried by wyches, which would be a choice that would be lambasted now as a pointless hybrid of shooting and melee roles. Scourges used to have only two special weapons.

We don’t have only one build lol what are you on about.

Granted you can’t put Incubi in a venom with Drazhar. Now if only there was another transport that could do that job.

But oh my gosh yes please give us trueborn back! This is a genuine gripe that I 100% agree with you about! And drugs for archons.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Got some people bitching about our rules but actually they simply don’t like 9th Ed.

Got some people saying they can’t take Raiders because their OCD means they can’t bear the empty spaces on the Raider if they only take 5 troops with a HQ!

Legitimate ways of taking 9 Wyches with a Succubus being ignored.

I've never seen anyone say that they can not stand 4 empty spots. Also no one wants 9 wyches b.c 10 gets you 2 more weapons lol.

I hate that we can not have a way to speed up our HQ's other than transports and if you take a Venom well they are alone, if you take a raider, well then no 10 mans, so you are forced to waste space if you don't want more than 5 mans, which I don't want b.c of Coherency rules in 9th are stupid (it should have been for 11+ needs to be within 2 of 2) and b.c they die all the same for Kabals, or for Incubi well they would just be over kill for a unit of 9, Only Wyches and Wracks really want to be 10 mans (wracks might change).

So its not really "filling empty space" as much as our situation just sucks for it. If we had Archon on Bike, Succubus on Skyboard and any of the 3 able to get Wings then no one would complain about 5 and 10 man transports.

I refer you to a post on page 22 at 23:52

I’m not making this crap up. Far too much salt in here from people that are just not able to get past this smallest of issues. These issues don’t lose you games. If you’re that bothered about fluff, go play some RPG.

Also seriously about Wyches? If you want the spec weapons take them! You can! If you think you’d be better off supported by a succubus then awesome you can. But this is yet again a cake and eat t scenario. You want it all. With -1ap the Wyches don’t need the spec weapons like they used to.

Well I will read that, but you also missed my point, and you don't need a succubus actually, hitting on 2+ is good enough, ok you can re-roll maybe 4 hits at the cost of a baby sitting. The point is you are limiting yourself in some way or another to get what we should already have the ability to do.

Why the "fast" army is not the fast army? why do we have to foot slug? why is it that our units are almost as fast outside of the vehicles? why is it marines has literally faster units than ours?

I bring it up b.c I do care, if I didn't care i would play Corsairs house rules in HH (7th books tweaked with +points is the normal house rule for non HH 7th books).

To me you are the one that seems to not care about us getting equal treatment "it is the way it is" so compliant in being treat like trash.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Is that what you want? A codex so powerful that you can take whatever you want and compete?

Lol.

Why not? Everyone else gets one.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

If you’re that bothered about fluff, go play some RPG.

That's what I've been doing, and if the new codex doesn't make us as fearsome and deadly as I want us to be, then that's what I'll do.

But there's no need to be condescending about it.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

You can win with any of these builds, and I’ve covered most of the units in our roster

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

How many squads do you need to have re-roll 1’s for before you can win a game?

It seems like we are talking about different things, and I think that is why this has, unfortunately, turned into an argument.
I (and I think most of us) are talking about this as a weird design flaw, that is anti-synergistic with how our army composition and datasheets, and seems to be a bug, rather than a feature. We are talking about it from a design perspective, not a competetive perspective. Trying to identify where it fails and what could be done to remedy those failures.

Both of you are answering from a competetive perspective. And your answers are, therefore, about how to win, and gain a competetive advantage, with what we have. Which is a fine way to add nuance to the discussion, and the points both of you bring up are really good, in regards to winning!

However, the main discussion isn’t about making our army more competitive, or how to win games with drukhari in general; but how our transports/HQ could be changed in order to make the design of the army feel more coherent (and/or well thought out).

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Got some people saying they can’t take Raiders because their OCD means they can’t bear the empty spaces on the Raider if they only take 5 troops with a HQ!

Haha! Well, I don’t have OCD.
I get that that is a jokey way for you to refer to what I said, but if someone was actually suffering from such a disorder (or something similiar) then claiming that their disorder acting up is not a good reason for them to -want something to change- is very unkind.

I would be happy if we got courts for Covens and Cults. Then, venoms could be for characters and their courts, and raiders could be for larger squads. If there is just an easy way to mix the three factions and some of the unit choices are better so we actually have a lot of choices, I’ll be happy.
But I also want winged wracks, beaching kabalites with shields and cutlasses, kabalite jetbikes that are crew of two and basically vypers, crew of two jetbikes that are basically like starweavers and/or the old old option that vypers used to have that gave it a fighting platform for characters, hellions with wych weapons, wyches with hellglaives, incubi with different weapons, warrior squads with as many rifle options as intercessors, snake bodied grotesques, psyker hunters, scout models that represent the warriors who gather intelligence on a planet before launching raids with as many options as phobos armored marines since the meticulously planned raid is a huge part of how Drukhari society functions and they need to coordinate the simultaneous abduction of sometimes billions of slaves so there would be a whole sector of specialists dedicated to it and and and and...

I expect we will get truborn and blood brides back with probably the same weapon options as the normal kits, like veteran intercessors, and that’s it for new stuff. Other than that it’ll be rule tweaks, and I am not holding my breath for transport capacity.

amishprn86 wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Got some people bitching about our rules but actually they simply don’t like 9th Ed.

Got some people saying they can’t take Raiders because their OCD means they can’t bear the empty spaces on the Raider if they only take 5 troops with a HQ!

Legitimate ways of taking 9 Wyches with a Succubus being ignored.

I've never seen anyone say that they can not stand 4 empty spots. Also no one wants 9 wyches b.c 10 gets you 2 more weapons lol.

I hate that we can not have a way to speed up our HQ's other than transports and if you take a Venom well they are alone, if you take a raider, well then no 10 mans, so you are forced to waste space if you don't want more than 5 mans, which I don't want b.c of Coherency rules in 9th are stupid (it should have been for 11+ needs to be within 2 of 2) and b.c they die all the same for Kabals, or for Incubi well they would just be over kill for a unit of 9, Only Wyches and Wracks really want to be 10 mans (wracks might change).

So its not really "filling empty space" as much as our situation just sucks for it. If we had Archon on Bike, Succubus on Skyboard and any of the 3 able to get Wings then no one would complain about 5 and 10 man transports.

I refer you to a post on page 22 at 23:52

I’m not making this crap up. Far too much salt in here from people that are just not able to get past this smallest of issues. These issues don’t lose you games. If you’re that bothered about fluff, go play some RPG.

Also seriously about Wyches? If you want the spec weapons take them! You can! If you think you’d be better off supported by a succubus then awesome you can. But this is yet again a cake and eat t scenario. You want it all. With -1ap the Wyches don’t need the spec weapons like they used to.

Well I will read that, but you also missed my point, and you don't need a succubus actually, hitting on 2+ is good enough, ok you can re-roll maybe 4 hits at the cost of a baby sitting. The point is you are limiting yourself in some way or another to get what we should already have the ability to do.

Why the "fast" army is not the fast army? why do we have to foot slug? why is it that our units are almost as fast outside of the vehicles? why is it marines has literally faster units than ours?

I bring it up b.c I do care, if I didn't care i would play Corsairs house rules in HH (7th books tweaked with +points is the normal house rule for non HH 7th books).

To me you are the one that seems to not care about us getting equal treatment "it is the way it is" so compliant in being treat like trash.

Truth is I expect a little better from you. There is always gonna be these salty individuals that we all expect in an environment like this...hell they have always existed. But you I used to expect some balanced opinion from.

The amount of times I’ve read crap like well in 5th, in 6th, in this, in that!!! Oh get lost pal you’re joking.

The top tier players don’t cry like you. So why the hell can’t u aspire to be better players in the current edition than the previous like them? They all continue to love dark Eldar at the same time as loving the game. While you moan about why you can’t do things that are tactically inept.

I have a balanced opinion, don't make our heroes run after vehicles to buff them.

Im also not crying just stating facts how badly we are treated, i've seen more unit, gear, options, rules, taken away from us than almost any other army. literally every army has gotten new units (we have none, literally we hav enot gotten a new unit sense 2010 and every other army has). Its about wanting equality.

Also top players do say what the problems are for armies, and thats why they play SOB, Quins, Custodes and not DE, b.c why play a low tier army like DE? Just go play SOB, so what they don't actively ask for DE updates they only hop tot he best armies anyways, many can care less (other than a few). I also have SoB, if i only cared about winning or having OP army i would play them, i actually stopped playing them b.c how strong they are (im not asking to be OP, just equal treatment).

PS, i still play my DE literally every week, i play against Quins, many marines (BA, DA, UM, IF), DG, Custodes, etc... I most likely have 10x more games in 9th than you if not more with my DE that i love. Its b.c I do love them that i want to be treated better.


PS: Let me make this clear, i love DE they are my favorite. I have played them for over a decade throughout many editions. I am allowed to not like certain aspects of an army and ask for changes. If you disagree with my opinion that is fine, but from how I am reading you are not disagreeing with a different opinion you are just not liking how I feel and saying I am wrong to be wrong.

Dark Elf Dave, I'm normally a lot quieter on these forums and tend to lurk but in this case I have to speak up.

I don't know if this translates well where you're from but I heard an expression here that say "Behind every pessimist is a disappointed optimist". That is to say that salty people aren't always that way just because they're salty. Many of them voice concerns over things that they had hoped would be better but in the end it turned out they weren't. They speak of their disappointment from a place of wishing it had been better, not just for the sake of complaining but in the hopes that next time it will be better.

Now don't get me wrong some posts on here have dripped with so much salt and sarcasm that even I cringe and feel it's a step too far. Some salt is fine but too much does tend to make you hit your total sodium intake for the day real fast. On the other hand some people have been so blindly optimistic that I've equally cringed, I enjoy some optimism and goodfeels as well but in some cases I feel it's been to freely given to a company that does indeed have a poor track record of treating our beloved army with the same care that we cherish it with. Both extremes could learn from each other and see things with a bit more optimism and pragmatism in equal measure. Most posters on here seem to be of that more grounded nature which is good to see.

One thing to remember is that "we don't know the whole story, the codex isn't out yet, wait for full reveal before we lay judgement on what we see" is touted a lot from some to quiet the voices of those who fear for our codexs future. The truth is though that this logic goes both ways, the same could be said to those very optimists that they need to calm down and temper their expectations because we could see our final codex and it may be filled with so many underpowered units and poorly written or executed rules as to be dead on arrival. Both opinions are equally possible at this stage and so neither party should attempt to shout the other down, both sides have validity at this stage.

All this leads me to this: You have been getting increasingly been becoming antagonistic to our fellow Archons and Succubi in this thread, especially this last post directed at Amishprn86. Everyone has a right to their opinions about what they want this codex to be and they are valid for every person. We have all invested hundreds if not thousands of dollars in to this army and countless hours of our lives to the hobby of gaming and painting, we are allowed to want to be treated fairly by a company that we have invested time, money and passion in to and in fact I'd say we do deserve better from GW. We deserve to be treated like a real army, just as important as orks, craftworlders, tau, and yes even space marines. We aren't a second class player base and we should have an army that feels like it is more than simply just an NPC bad guy. GW owes us this. Anybody wishing for updated rules that offer us more viable ways to play with our already minimal unit selection, rules that offer synergies that allow us to play the army as it is represented in the fluff, and rules that put us on the same competitive footing as all the other 9th edition codexes to date has a right to voice their opinion and hope.

They do NOT deserve to be told "oh get lost pal, you're joking".

I'm...more in the Dark Elf Dave, if I must admit it. In a fluff wise we lost the faster Archon in 5ed when the bg was silghtly reworked. For how we are now, an Archon will never ride a bike nor a skyboard just because his artistocracy. Bikes and Skyboard are trash toys for underground people, while an Archon is the creme-de-la-crem of the highest levels of Commorragh. It's like watching a politician going on skateboard, it simply doesn't work.
Succubus just don't ride them for the same reasons Wyches don't do that. Because it is not in their etiquette. They're just gladiators, nothing less nothing more.
Haemonculus.....really?
The only way to get a Reaver lord/Hellion lord should be in the way of new HQs choices which.....it is doable, but sounds kinda weird (in a bg perspection). It should be a special character, it works better (Sathonyx?).

So about the Transports capacity, it is true that Venoms should carry 6 guys, just because I remember they were an HQ's carry in their description (5 ed). But I would argue that Incubi should be 4-10 more than 5-10 for that role.
Anyway.....really, it is not something to complain so much about, IF you like our background. Because Kabals and Wyches are never meant to be the "bodyguards" of our lords. Succubus are independent, they don't really care about wyches, it's more like wyches admires (envy?) Succubus, but there's no description of any Succubus leading his army of wyches (nontheless Reavers or Hellions). In fact, imho his bubble area doesn't fit the bg at all...Succubus should have been more like little-Soilitaires-alike.
Archons are the rulers, full of pride and egoism. Kabals? No way. In books, in Codexes, their bodyguards are alwaya 1) Court, 2) Incubi, 3) sometimes Trueborns...but never Kabals, they're just militia.
So Trueborns are off, Courts already fit the role being 1x choice (in fact Court seems writed for filling empy seats on HQ's Transports) and Incubi, as I said, are the real """mistake here""" cause they should be 4-10 in my opinion just for this role.
But I can't really complain about "I can't pick 9 Wyches because I'm missing 2 weapons stuff", it's just out of background for me.

So this limit, in my opinion, it's not a mistake but more like a solid design choice. Which works a lot for me. What I REALLY would like to see it's some.kind of rule that extend the HQ's bubbles out from.their transports. Because in this way, YES, it would really fitting the Drukhari Theme of raiding force.
That, or some Catacomb-like datasheet that promote any Raider/Venom as the personal boat of the lord, denying him to disembark but actually buff the entire transport making it a new unit.



Abou the salt, I agree with the last post, but I must admit that sometimes a lot of whine against our Codexes is just silly and it shows no care about our DESIGN. There's a lot of passive role playing in this forum, with a lot of full of pride discussions, egoism, incapacity of get the design behind choices, any bg rework ect.
We're all about egoism, pride and trash talking. Like Archons simply do :p

Cerve wrote:

I'm...more in the Dark Elf Dave, if I must admit it. In a fluff wise we lost the faster Archon in 5ed when the bg was silghtly reworked. For how we are now, an Archon will never ride a bike nor a skyboard just because his artistocracy. Bikes and Skyboard are trash toys for underground people, while an Archon is the creme-de-la-crem of the highest levels of Commorragh. It's like watching a politician going on skateboard, it simply doesn't work.
Succubus just don't ride them for the same reasons Wyches don't do that. Because it is not in their etiquette. They're just gladiators, nothing less nothing more.
Haemonculus.....really?
The only way to get a Reaver lord/Hellion lord should be in the way of new HQs choices which.....it is doable, but sounds kinda weird (in a bg perspection). It should be a special character, it works better (Sathonyx?).

So about the Transports capacity, it is true that Venoms should carry 6 guys, just because I remember they were an HQ's carry in their description (5 ed). But I would argue that Incubi should be 4-10 more than 5-10 for that role.
Anyway.....really, it is not something to complain so much about, IF you like our background. Because Kabals and Wyches are never meant to be the "bodyguards" of our lords. Succubus are independent, they don't really care about wyches, it's more like wyches admires (envy?) Succubus, but there's no description of any Succubus leading his army of wyches (nontheless Reavers or Hellions). In fact, imho his bubble area doesn't fit the bg at all...Succubus should have been more like little-Soilitaires-alike.
Archons are the rulers, full of pride and egoism. Kabals? No way. In books, in Codexes, their bodyguards are alwaya 1) Court, 2) Incubi, 3) sometimes Trueborns...but never Kabals, they're just militia.
So Trueborns are off, Courts already fit the role being 1x choice (in fact Court seems writed for filling empy seats on HQ's Transports) and Incubi, as I said, are the real """mistake here""" cause they should be 4-10 in my opinion just for this role.
But I can't really complain about "I can't pick 9 Wyches because I'm missing 2 weapons stuff", it's just out of background for me.

So this limit, in my opinion, it's not a mistake but more like a solid design choice. Which works a lot for me. What I REALLY would like to see it's some.kind of rule that extend the HQ's bubbles out from.their transports. Because in this way, YES, it would really fitting the Drukhari Theme of raiding force.
That, or some Catacomb-like datasheet that promote any Raider/Venom as the personal boat of the lord, denying him to disembark but actually buff the entire transport making it a new unit.



Abou the salt, I agree with the last post, but I must admit that sometimes a lot of whine against our Codexes is just silly and it shows no care about our DESIGN. There's a lot of passive role playing in this forum, with a lot of full of pride discussions, egoism, incapacity of get the design behind choices, any bg rework ect.
We're all about egoism, pride and trash talking. Like Archons simply do :p

Nonsense.

Vraesque Malidrach was previously a Reaver, and he still wears the helmet; how many politicians do you see going about in motorcyle helmets? Yes, your 'point' was ridiculous. Even if bikes and Skyboard were "trash toys" unworthy of an Archon, Venoms and Raiders are in the same category. They are cheap and disposable transports.

Wyches don't ride jetbikes? Reavers ARE Wyches.

We lost HQs on bikes because of "no models no rules", not because GW has some deep commitment to our fluff.

Listen I don’t hate on people, not in person and not in here. I’m simply finding the chat a little frustrating. There are IMO quite valid options for people to play the game and it’s the broken record attitude that’s getting me frustrated the most.

It’s always difficult in a chat room environment. Some make comments coming from an experienced player POV. Some make comments coming from a fluff POV. I always think mainly on playing a game first and foremost...but you can’t always tell where the other posters are basing their views on.

I do think that most of these issues people are concerned about will get ironed out with playing more games. I’d say keep an open mind and consider different lists that can still be very in keeping with the fluff and lore of the DE.

I’m not a GW ass kiss. I hate the new Drahzar, I hate the new Lelith and I won’t touch finecast so there have always been legit options I won’t use and that’s all GW’s fault. New units would always be exciting and for players with huge armies already, it’s often the only way to continue the hobby...it depends if we think there’s a gap to fill?

It sounds to me like if there’s a gap in the army it’s a 6 seater people carrier! Lol

But obviously I’d just say use a bloody raider. For every comment like “why does my archon have to footslog it” I just shake my head thinking well they don’t do they. They simply don’t have to.

Incubi min 4 = yes to this all day long.