Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

I’m loving hearing how people are experiencing 9th by the way. I always find these snippets really insightful.

For me personally I much prefer the new system and it also brings a feel of realism to the game...for me at least.

Where as you may well ask why do I want to stop my troops here to win the game in 9th where as in 8th I’d be rushing into their lines hoping for a decent outcome. I prefer to see it a different way. Wars and battles fought between opponents of equal measure are normally decided by tactical decisions. An important town, a key bridge, a supply line, a defendable position etc etc you get where I’m going. So I see the objectives as a representation of a general having to fight a battle, while making key tactical decisions along the way that eventually helps towards winning a war. It’s certainly not easy to give a visual representation of that in all the games but I can use my imagination enough to buy into why I’m heading this way rather than shooting that way.

The other thing about previous editions is that often, some lists simply beat other lists 99/100 times and in a dice game that is a real problem. If you come up against an army that’s a good counter to you then you can focus on the missions and scrape a win and that in itself would be kind of rewarding in an “against the odds” sort of way.

Who kills the most often just doesn’t work when one player gets to go before the other. It’s flawed from the get go...but that’s just my opinion on the matter.

Do you want to win a game just because the dice were lucky?
Do you want to win a game just because your army choice is stronger?
Do you want to win a game because you made the best decisions during the game?

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Yeah that's an interesting point Albion. My opponents rarely take bring it down against me, but I regularly have 2 or more monsters and 5 or more vehicles, which would be 14+ points (plus 1 more point for each time I take a raider over a venom). I guess it's just that EoaF and DS are scored entirely within your own turn and can't be interfered with very easily, so they're very consistent.

I think there is a misunderstanding, venoms and raiders bring the same points (1 in grand tournament, 2 in the rule book) The limit is ten or less, not less than 10, so in total, you will be more likely at 7. Not relevant for the discussion, but I thought I would point it out so that your opponents do not get too much victory points.

Oh wow I seriously miscalculated then! Is it 1vp for 10 or fewer, and 2 vp for 11 or more wounds? That would certainly explain it, I don’t reliably give up 10+ for BiD.

i agree with Dark Elf Dave, the way i visualize an objective is just the fronts of a war.
I Don't see an objective as an item or something like that, but more, like Dark elf Dave mentioned, some key areas required to win the battle.
Also i agree that in this way, they increase the strategic side of the game rather than simply bring the biggest firepower to the party.

The primary objectives are excellent IMO, it's the secondary objectives that i find break the game on one side or the other. Some are insanely good, others will never see the light of a game at all and some just break the game plan of the opponent before the game already started: bring them down, engage on all front etc...
But that's just my opinion as a green player.

albions-angel wrote:

WrackYourBrains wrote:

Hanga, I totally agree!

I think Amish was saying that there aren’t any secondaries that reward the killing of heavy infantry, while simultaneously those units are good at holding points. Vehicles and monsters give up Bring it Down, psykers give up Abhor the Witch, and hordes give up Thin their Ranks (?).

Yeah, thin the ranks and attrition are good vs weak hoard armies, bring it down are good vs vehicle heavy armies, and abhor the witch is good vs psyker armies, but there is nothing for low model count armies.

But in addition to that, the points values for each of those secondaries is WAY below the points available for Deploy Scramblers and Engage on All Fronts in most games.

Which Marines and most Elite armies can also do very easily. Marines gives up no secondaries were almost every other army basically does. You can make lists that don't but then you are fighting Marines better secondaries vs your crappy ones and you have to take Engage, Scramblers, etc.. where marines don't and are more likely to get full 45pts where you will get 35 max or more likely 32.

Its funny b.c (I know I pointed it before) but Scouts in Speeds are same costed a Kabals in Venoms, are faster, and just as deadly, but in some ways better (no invuls but the Scouts are better than Kabals and the Speed is higher Toughness and more wounds) But also the unit can get out of the transport after it moves, 1 Speeder with Scouts can get 2 corner for Engage where a Venom with Kabals can not.

The realism take is actually one I had to step away from this edition, precisely for the reasons you listed. You are right, the primary objectives, and the flavour of the placement/action secondaries, is a much better standin for the ebb and flow of real skirmishes of, probably the second world war.

The issue for me is in connecting that to DE. Literally (and I mean literally) by definition, we dont do that. Ever. The Imperial Guard vs Necrons, sure. IG are trying to hold supply lines, safe LZs, etc. The Necrons want to take those points too, simply to cause the IG to falter.

But we dont. Even in the same scenario, we dont care about the long term picture here. We are not after the main army. Or the city its protecting. Or the civilians. We will take them if we can, but we would much rather take the IG troops in front of us.

What do we care if they hold their LZ or not? Worst case scenario, we warp out with fewer prisoners. Best case, they are bringing slaves right to us!

Which is a fundamental problem for us in every edition. Same for Tyranids and Orks actually. They dont care about those points either. They are gunna overwhelm them anyway. Especially Nids. Whether the Eldar hold their warpgates long enough to evacuate or not doesnt bother the hivemind. They dont want the Eldar anyway. They are after the PLANET.

The issue is, you cant translate that into the tabletop. The tabletop game NEEDS to start with 2 similarly powered armies facing off against each other, and then needs a reason for the 2 to engage in fights.

Without objectives, the two armies smash together, and the tankier one wins every time. Or the faster one flees until the timer runs out. With 9ths heavy objective focus, you force everyone into a particular playstyle, which then runs counter to some of the armies lore and old playstyles.

I think 9th has its VPs a tad wrong, and that scoring is at the wrong end of the turn order, but honestly, I like the idea... for Eldar, IG, SM, other Imp, Necrons, all Chaos, maybe, maybe Orks. But Nids, Orks, DE have no desire for map control, for strategic placements, for holding ground. Nids just take it, Orks dont care if they lose it, and DE wont be around long enough to make use of it.

Then there are Quins, and honestly I have no idea why they even bother fighting. They have no homeworld to protect. They do have a foe, but its not like that foe has a home planet to invade, and Quins dont have the numbers anyway. So I am left wondering what Quins get out of a 9th ed style system at all.

No, going down the realism, or verisimilitude if people prefer, actually turns me away from 9th more.

But I can see your points, and totally understand why they turn you guys towards the system. Different wants and all that.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2021/03/10/introducing-the-next-wave-of-warhammer-animations/

iron warriors vs drukhari animation incoming ^_^

albions-angel, i think what you are writing reflect perfectly what (don't remember the name) wrote about people having different views and expectations from GW.

Some wants to play a game.....a balanced and fun game if possible

Some wants to ''live an immersive experience'' where everything gotta be grounded with realism or have a reason why, a lore, a fluff or something like that.

Some don't even care about the game at all and just want to have fun building and painting models

and on and on....

And all of them are right, it's just really hard (impossible?) to combine all of them together on the same table.

Maybe you need to expand your imagination! What if we want that bit of ground because it’s the exit point for all the civilians? What if it’s an entry point to an underground shelter full of potential slaves?

Orks and Tyranids...good examples but I wouldn’t bet against players of those armies being able to provide good reasons or imaginative stories for playing the game in 9th Ed style. I play Crimson Fists and I’m fully aware of the lore from Rynns World. Once orks are beat, they go off and hide and then establish themselves on a planet until their numbers grow again...they don’t just run at you until either one of you is dead.

Also...never let the lore hinder your imagination. Let’s be perfectly honest, the lore and the game have always been a million miles apart in every single edition.

I don’t know, Albion. Dark Eldar have objectives other than just taking slaves. Or even sub-objectives to aid in the taking of slaves. Deploy Scramblers is actually very thematic. Points on the ground could be webway gates, or terminals for shields or weapons that would deter a larger raiding force, or routes into Aeldrinach, or entrances to ancient sites that hold precious artefacts (or people!). Killing vehicles can be interpreted as crippling mobility, or opening up transports to feast on the sweet sweet souls inside. We want to stifle psychic activity in our vicinity for obvious Slaanesh-shaped reasons. Also bear in mind that some webway gates don’t directly from The Dark City to the final desired destination point B, you sometimes have to hop out onto a planet to enter a new gate at point C, so securing that transition site is indeed valuable. A bit like changing train stations to pick up a new line.

There’s plenty of examples in the lore of Dark Eldar running operations that aren’t just the raids themselves.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Maybe you need to expand your imagination! What if we want that bit of ground because it’s the exit point for all the civilians? What if it’s an entry point to an underground shelter full of potential slaves?

Orks and Tyranids...good examples but I wouldn’t bet against players of those armies being able to provide good reasons or imaginative stories for playing the game in 9th Ed style. I play Crimson Fists and I’m fully aware of the lore from Rynns World. Once orks are beat, they go off and hide and then establish themselves on a planet until their numbers grow again...they don’t just run at you until either one of you is dead.

Also...never let the lore hinder your imagination. Let’s be perfectly honest, the lore and the game have always been a million miles apart in every single edition.

I get what you are saying, and yeah, I thought of extraction points too. And about crippling the army so you can take the entire city. I, personally (and it is a personal thing), just dont find that satisfying enough to assuage my perception of the lore.

I am happy to ignore it. Thats what I am saying. My issues with 9th exist on their own. And where I go looking for answers in the lore, I never find a satisfying justification for myself. So without that buffer for my mind, I have to rely on how fun the game itself is, and I dont find it fun, for the reasons I have listed elsewhere.

Its a me issue, and yet I see others with the same feelings. 9th has certainly got us all talking!

Have you read the Path of the Dark Eldar series? Lots of inspiration in there!

I get there is inspiration out there, but it still feels like I would be saying

"well, games kinda jank, and there is no obvious reason for my army to do this, so I need to scour all the lore, ignore the bits that say they wouldnt do this, select only the bits that allow me to invent reasons why they would, and then use that to... make the bits I dont like more enjoyable."

Like, I can say "they are securing staging points", but if these raids are so meticulously planned, why are they fighting over a staging ground with an entire AdMech battalion? Why not wait until they have passed, or chose a different staging ground? Why that one? And if it needs to be that one, why not send a tiny stealth force, or the entire fleet? Why just a raiding party?

Why fight a drawn out battle to turn off shield generators to gate in a larger force? That seems very SM and not very DE. Are we not about hitting hard and getting out BEFORE they know whats happened? Why is the Archon himself there and not with the main force?

I CAN come up with reasons to make the objectives make sense, but they seem to bring up more questions than answers for me, and at some point, I just draw the line, and go "eh, game doesnt make sense, lets just enjoy rolling the dice". Which works fine. Until I dont enjoy rolling the dice.

No issue with others having those reasons, they just dont float my raider.

Perhaps it’s just the wrong game for you. I’ve got to be straight with my opinion on this, but 40k has NEVER been true to the lore. EVER.

You can’t tell me that every faction in any of the editions could say they all felt simultaneously well represented in the game in comparison to the lore.

I also think there comes a point when you have to step away from the lore and be realistic about it. The lore is fantastical. It’s over hyped. To expect that in the game is IMO naive. If everything matched the lore then Space Marines would be beating everything all the time forever unless some sort of freak warp incident meant they lost but actually won because of a clever chap plotting everything from his golden potty.

It’s a dice game with small soldiers and you’re stopping to ask “what’s my motivation” lol

I mean. If you’re ignoring written lore to satisfy (or deliberately unsatisfy) your own head-cannon then I don’t know what else to suggest!

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

Perhaps it’s just the wrong game for you. I’ve got to be straight with my opinion on this, but 40k has NEVER been true to the lore. EVER.

You can’t tell me that every faction in any of the editions could say they all felt simultaneously well represented in the game in comparison to the lore.

I also think there comes a point when you have to step away from the lore and be realistic about it. The lore is fantastical. It’s over hyped. To expect that in the game is IMO naive. If everything matched the lore then Space Marines would be beating everything all the time forever unless some sort of freak warp incident meant they lost but actually won because of a clever chap plotting everything from his golden potty.

It’s a dice game with small soldiers and you’re stopping to ask “what’s my motivation” lol

Ok, I think we got a little lost in the weeds.

I was never looking for the lore to justify why I play. So long as I have fun with my little models, I am more than happy. If the lore also fits my playstyle, then perfect.

9th ed isnt quite so enjoyable. Its less 40k isnt for me, and more 9th ed isnt for me. It was suggested that the way 9th runs is closer to reality. I said thats a fair point in the main stream, but I never felt that matched our army. So to my mind, its not closer to reality, and thus thats not a justification that works for me. I have issues with the system. In this instance, while others might be able to, I cant use the lore to smooth over those issues. I liked the old playstyle which doesnt work as well now, and thats pretty much all there is to it. Honestly, even if I did find the new system fitting with the lore, I dont think that would help me here.

WrackYourBrains wrote:

I mean. If you’re ignoring written lore to satisfy (or deliberately unsatisfy) your own head-cannon then I don’t know what else to suggest!

As above, I am not actually looking for the lore to fix things in the first place. I was simply responding to a few people that said they felt 9th was more fitting with reality and therefore they like that.

But its also worth noting that I am not ignoring the written lore. The written lore is contradictory. It is for every army and it has to be. Every army needs to be written as the undefeatable protagonist and the antagonist to be overcome by another army. DE are no different. Even in the codexes, somehow Haemies are simultaneously engaging in their own raids to get test subjects, and also a secretive enclave that never leaves their dungeons. The kabals have the tech to rip planets out of orbit, yet embark on tiny raids at great risk. Mandrakes now have their own realm of living shadows and yet there are still people alive in the galaxy! A galaxy, I might add, which is simultaneously in a state of stalemate, and yet is also facing the thread of an alien race that devoured an entire other galaxy, crossed intergalactic space, and surprised a race of immortal space monks who used to fight side by side with actual gods against other gods, one of which the space monks created in the first place.

For every instance of the lore stating that DE care about ground taken and objectives held, there is another showing that they dont. And thats ok. I am still trying to figure out how we arrived at the idea that Archons are mob bosses, when the lore I read pits them more at the level or warlords in their gilded halls. Smart, yes, devious, yes, but not about to pass up the fastest horse in the coral for themselves.

What I am saying is:

• I dont enjoy some of the 9th mechanics
  
• I dont enjoy having to change a playstyle I previously liked, just to succeed at 9th
  
• I feel the old playstyle was more in fitting with the lore as I understood it, than 9th is
  
• lore alone is unlikely to change my view of 9th dramatically
  
• while lore exists which gives some credence to the new 9th play style, lore also exists to refute it and further support the old play style
  
• clearly different people imprint on different aspects of the lore, and thats fine
  
• clearly different people have different views on the mechanics, and thats fine
  
• given that I dont believe the lore to be a factor in my enjoyment of the tabletop part of the hobby, I am kinda stunned that I am now, what, 3, 4 posts in? Clearly I did a poor job of explaining myself
  
• bullet points are fun
  

-------

https://www.thedarkcity.net/viewtopic.php?t=19161