Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I like the idea of having two full Kab squads in Raiders. That means I can take a Dark Lance in each squad and it spreads out the danger weapons across more targets. If you lose a Ravager you lose 3 of your danger weapons...if I lose a Raider I lose only one. It’s also gives me more options for board control.

I used to use 2 5-man squads in a Raider for similar reasons.

I preferred the flexibility of doing it this way, though given that only Dark Lances were buffed I might swap to your system.


Either way, I agree with your overall philosophy.

albions-angel wrote:

Having taken a rather negative tone for the last few pages, I am going to buck the trend.

I am finally glad that the dark city is going to be back on WarCom. Hopefully this will mark the start of a steady trickle leading up to our release. I have been going crazy refreshing here and WarCom. Honestly, I think it would have been better for me if they HADNT told us Drukhari would have the first Xenos codex. Because they did, I assumed, as I think many did initially, that that would mean "Early in the new year". It made a sort of sense. Drop Necrons and Primaris, a couple more Imperium, then, ASAP, in quick succession, a Chaos and a Xenos. After all, 9th, while an incremental change to the rules rather than a reset (like 8th) has changed the rules enough to change the state of play for all the armies.

But I think I assumed several incorrect things.

1. I think I assumed the codex was done. In fact, I think we were told the codex was done. As in, back before December. I no longer believe this was the case. I think it was close, but not done. Maybe playtest was done and they were back using the info to tweak some stuff.

2. I think I assumed that because we had no (or very limited) models riding on the codex release, that we would be less affected by the pandemic. I think a part of me even hoped that when setbacks were announced for several other factions, we might even be parachuted in to fill the hole. That was... naïve. I think the release order is probably tied to some lore beats. We may not feature in those, but they may required Necrons/Primaris, then some more SM, then DG, then the kill team, and maybe then the campaign book, before any other releases, and we may have been put where it was easiest. A delay to any of those pushes us out further.

3. I assumed that, even though they were careful to say 40k releases, the 1 per month rule would only apply to codexes. That was hubris on my part. I failed to see the campaigns and kill team as 40k. To me, because I dont play them, they are just as removed from the main line (AoS and 40k) as Necromunda and Blood Bowl. Clearly, this is not the case. Its actually fairly obvious this is not the case.

A drip feed of information is what I was hoping for. I was lacking that, and became overly hungry. So as I said, while I am certainly the one at fault, I perhaps would have benefited if they hadnt given an indefinite roadmap that was so long. If they had said "july" I could have tempered my expectations. If they hadnt said anything, I wouldnt have known when to start hoping. But I should have seen how I was becoming with the refreshing and taken a step back. This announcement has been like balm, and now, not only can I hopefully scratch that itch, but also take a step back.

Returning for a moment to the topics before:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m not saying units must be supported by the fluff...all I’m really saying is that demanding a winged archon because you want one isn’t necessarily a sign of GW not showing you some love.

For me personally it would make far more sense for an archon to be in a transport. I wonder if a points upgrade for a Raider to make it a command Raider that allows auras from its passengers would be a good idea.

Much like the way you can increase the points of space marine characters and give them better/more special rules.

So you’d say have an option for one transport to be upgraded for 25 points to a command vehicle. That vehicle is recognised by the army as the command vehicle and so auras from passengers do work while onboard.

While we have butted heads over the last few pages, I wholeheartedly agree with you here. I would say that I dont see not giving us a winged archon as a lack of love from GW, and more that the call for a winged archon is one, fairly simple, example of increasing the mobility of our HQs, along with 6 man venoms, 11 man raiders, bikes and boards. But I see your point there.

I would, in a heartbeat, pay more points for a command raider/venom. The power to have it either extend auras, or better yet facilitate some of the ideas knocking around in the last few posts would be great.

And I wanted to touch briefly on the idea of putting HQs in raiders or venoms without troop units, or with reduced unit sizes.

For me, the reason I dont do it, is a mix of points cost and a sort of efficiency. I am not looking to win tournaments, and I am looking more for fun games. I do still want to stand a chance of beating my friends once in a while though. So I try to be efficient with my choices, while still including what I want to. Part of that is fielding the models I have and love.

So 20 warriors, 2 (one custom kitbash, one Raging Heroes) archons, 2 raiders, a razorwing, 2 venoms, 5 scourges, 10 wyches, 1 succi (also Raging Heroes), 12 reavers, a beastkeeper, 10 clawed fiends (kitbashed - in progress), 2 ravagers.

I want the kabalites in gunboats, and I kinda want the wyches in venoms. I cant afford (points wise) in 2000pt to cram in 2 more venoms (one for archon 2, one for the succi). And I am currently going Flayed Skull for, among other things, the screaming jets deepstrike. Which is incompatable with webway.

If webway becomes an artefact, or flayed skull changes, or I can convert a raider to a command barge, then I would be far more comfortable putting wyches in the web, and starting with all my kabal on the board. Especially if wyches can charge out of a webway or otherwise do better at not being stuck in the open.

A couple things, this is not about being negative more just being real. I love DE and i truly think 9th will be a better book than 8th.

We are not saying "GW must give us a wing Archon to be far" we are asking for more options to not foot slug. We are also asking for new units as we have not had a new unit in 11 years and 5 months. Having more HQ's (the part we are limited on and what was removed the most) would add value to our army that is why is ask for that more so than 6/11 slot transports. FFS sisters are getting a Lieutenant when they don't need one at all, why can't we get a HQ?

You NEED trash in a transport with high costly units b.c if you roll a 1 with a solo HQ that HQ is removed from the game. The transport wreck rules are not good IMO, it forces you to take cheap units with costly units. If this was not a thing then it wouldn't be as bad as a problem as well. Max size units for gear means no extra slots in transports which means we not are even more lacking in space, options, or needs to take another transport, etc..

So, is anyone else curious on whether the Raider is going to keep its 14" movement? It's one of those minor things about DE Design that has always both irked me more than it should, and provided a window on how little much of the design team understands the faction.

Like, the Dark Eldar, considered unreasonably fast even by their prudish kin, have their iconic source of speed....noticeably slower than any other Eldar skimmer and 2" faster than the metal box straight out of 1917.

It's something so minor i feel pedantic for even mentioning it, but if the Raider doesn't go up to 16", I think I'll lose my already fairly tempered optimism for the codex.

I'm doubtful after seeing the Venom's datasheet.

TheBaconPope wrote:

So, is anyone else curious on whether the Raider is going to keep its 14" movement? It's one of those minor things about DE Design that has always both irked me more than it should, and provided a window on how little much of the design team understands the faction.

Like, the Dark Eldar, considered unreasonably fast even by their prudish kin, have their iconic source of speed....noticeably slower than any other Eldar skimmer and 2" faster than the metal box straight out of 1917.

It's something so minor i feel pedantic for even mentioning it, but if the Raider doesn't go up to 16", I think I'll lose my already fairly tempered optimism for the codex.

I'm doubtful after seeing the Venom's datasheet.

What I think matters the most is to disembark after moving (or charging out of the transport). It would be much more significant than +2" and make Wyches seriously more viable. It would up our mobility game in general and allows for some fearful strikes with Incubi and Grotesques.

I really hope the Raider gets something new because for the most part the Venom is the much more versatile choice.

Actual rules question, can you, currently, disembark from a transport engaged in melee? Charging out of a transport, or disembark after moving would be an amazing rule, but I think I would be happy with a rule saying we can vault over the side and straight into engagement if our transport is already engaged. Because, you know, that makes sense (you could argue that to move any distance, raiders and venoms have to be high up, but to hit in melee, they must be feet from the ground, if not inches...).

But I dont even know if we can disembark at all if a transport is in combat.

albions-angel wrote:

Actual rules question, can you, currently, disembark from a transport engaged in melee? Charging out of a transport, or disembark after moving would be an amazing rule, but I think I would be happy with a rule saying we can vault over the side and straight into engagement if our transport is already engaged. Because, you know, that makes sense (you could argue that to move any distance, raiders and venoms have to be high up, but to hit in melee, they must be feet from the ground, if not inches...).

But I dont even know if we can disembark at all if a transport is in combat.

Yes I believe you can disembark from a transport that is engaged in combat. You do of course have to fit within 3” as per the normal rules so on occasions this might not be possible if the vehicle has been surrounded.

But yeah you can disembark and then the vehicle would be free to move after that. Models that disembark are free to move shoot and charge as per normal. So you can already leave your transport and charge the unit that has engaged your transport.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

albions-angel wrote:

Actual rules question, can you, currently, disembark from a transport engaged in melee? Charging out of a transport, or disembark after moving would be an amazing rule, but I think I would be happy with a rule saying we can vault over the side and straight into engagement if our transport is already engaged. Because, you know, that makes sense (you could argue that to move any distance, raiders and venoms have to be high up, but to hit in melee, they must be feet from the ground, if not inches...).

But I dont even know if we can disembark at all if a transport is in combat.

Yes I believe you can disembark from a transport that is engaged in combat. You do of course have to fit within 3” as per the normal rules so on occasions this might not be possible if the vehicle has been surrounded.

But yeah you can disembark and then the vehicle would be free to move after that. Models that disembark are free to move shoot and charge as per normal. So you can already leave your transport and charge the unit that has engaged your transport.

Awesome. I guess what I was saying I would be happy with as a new rule, would be disembarking straight into engagement range. As you said, if the model is surrounded, there wont be space for your models to disembark, possibly because of actual models in the way, but also because, presumably, they have to disembark out of engagement range with the enemy. Hopping over the side right into combat would be awesome though. I think you would see a lot more incubi and wyches if that could happen.

Of course, you have to wait a turn, right? Because your transport probably moved to get into combat? So you would, for example, have to move the transport, shoot with the transport and any ranged units inside, charge with the transport, fight with the transport, end turn, survive enemy turn, disembark transport, potentially move transport, potentially move troops, shoot with transport, shoot with troops, charge with troops, fight with troops (and potentially transport).

That’s right. But I think we are all hoping that...

A. Our Transports are classed as assault vehicles meaning we can disembark after the vehicle has moved.
B. A special rule that allows us to then charge following disembarking from a moving vehicle.

Even if we just get the assault vehicle rule and then we have access to a strat for the charge then it opens up options.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

That’s right. But I think we are all hoping that...

A. Our Transports are classed as assault vehicles meaning we can disembark after the vehicle has moved.
B. A special rule that allows us to then charge following disembarking from a moving vehicle.

Even if we just get the assault vehicle rule and then we have access to a strat for the charge then it opens up options.

Just wanted to point out, that there is at least one vehicle in the game, that already allows disembarking after movement and charging. Bullgryns or Crusaders could jump out of a valkyrie after it moved and still charge or some deepstriking transporters, which can immediately deploy the units inside when they appear on the table. In difference to assault vehicles they just got the limitation of keeping 9" to the enemy and for the valkyrie the risk that some models may die, if the transporter moved more than 20".
Something like that would also be a step in that direction, even if we don't get assault vehicles.

Awesome! Expectations officially tempered! So is that tentative release date of the 27th?

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/03/01/there-are-a-million-ways-to-die-in-commorragh-here-are-our-favourites/

Burnage wrote:

Our pre-order's officially up on March 20th.

I was totally wrong! That’s Great!

Interesting.
Can`t way to see some more info about us.

Great news.

About damn time!

Now we can start arguing about some released units, instead of "what should/could" exist

Does this mean we will start having previews next week or the week after..?

DevilDoll wrote:

Does this mean we will start having previews next week or the week after..?

Think it means we get previews next week.

I'm very excited now. Scrabbling to get a few more models painted in time!

This has to be the most low key codex announcement in the history of 40k.

"Beginning on March 20th, you can pre-order the codex containing rules for these fast targets for your new Heavy Intercessors, which are available now in the Kill Team Pariah Nexus boxed set <LINK>"

Oaka wrote:

"Beginning on March 20th, you can pre-order the codex containing rules for these fast targets for your new Heavy Intercessors, which are available now in the Kill Team Pariah Nexus boxed set <LINK>"

I'm definitely being a pedantic frak here but I also thought the first lore article was the laziest, half-assed thing I've ever seen on WC XD

i gotta admit that the best (and only) part of the article was the preorder date....other than that....even the deaths described are unoriginal as hell....if those are their preferred at GW....
but hey, at least we have something to chew on!
Keep the faith fellow Archons, our Codex is shining on the horizon! just a few more weeks and we'll be there!!

"Fall to Your Death – 1/10
Simple, but effective. You could be plucked from the ground by a pack of roving Hellions and dropped from a terminal height while they laugh at your total lack of skyboard. Why? Because they can."

I'm hoping this hints towards new rules for the Hellions. In 5th edition they had a rule allowing you to snatch characters with the stunclaw. Maybe this is a hint towards more than just lore.

Gelmir wrote:

"Fall to Your Death – 1/10
Simple, but effective. You could be plucked from the ground by a pack of roving Hellions and dropped from a terminal height while they laugh at your total lack of skyboard. Why? Because they can."

I'm hoping this hints towards new rules for the Hellions. In 5th edition they had a rule allowing you to snatch characters with the stunclaw. Maybe this is a hint towards more than just lore.

indeed, if what you say happens to be true, then suddenly this article becomes FAR more interesting!!!