Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

AzraeI wrote:

Necrons had 27 strats in 8th, 40 in 9th
Marines had 34 strats in 8th 2ed,  34 9th + ~17 in supplements

maybe well get 20 Cult of strife exclusice strats

Yeey, more strats for the units that are in a box because I replaced them with Harlequins!!

Well now I'm slightly more curious about the reveals this week, as they said "army wide rules" as opposed to "separate faction" rules like they did for 8th ... so maybe they undid that change

Archon_91 wrote:

Well now I'm slightly more curious about the reveals this week, as they said "army wide rules" as opposed to "separate faction" rules like they did for 8th ... so maybe they undid that change

Can only fething hope.

However, given that 'ground-up rework' has so far translated into "Look, your transports have +1A now!", I'm highly doubtful that GW would have been willing to put that level of effort in.


Going by what I've seen so far, I'd be surprised if this codex was even half-arsed. Thus far, it's looking quarter-arsed at best.

Archon_91 wrote:

Well now I'm slightly more curious about the reveals this week, as they said "army wide rules" as opposed to "separate faction" rules like they did for 8th ... so maybe they undid that change

Technically, Power From Pain and the Realspace Raiders rules are already army-wide. As long as we get distinct obsessions for each subfactions, I'm relatively happy.

harlokin wrote:

I'm gonna be a bit nitpicky about the dice, but it's annoying that GW have switched the DE faction symbol to that of The Kabal of the Black Heart.

I’m not sure if you mean this as an old gripe, or if you just now noticed a change that was made 7 years ago... ^^’

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Can only fething hope.

However, given that 'ground-up rework' has so far translated into "Look, your transports have +1A now!", I'm highly doubtful

Come on. That’s just a dishonest read of what we know so far. Infantry that has always been 5+save becoming to 4+, splinter cannons becoming heavy bolters? Incubis gettin ws2+ and D2, all wyches getting ap-1.
Not all these changes may be good, or to everyones tastes, but it pretty clearly shows they haven’t been afraid to change stuff up (unlike the ”translate the previous book to the new edition”-philosphy that governed the 7ed codex and 8ed index (and, by extension, codex)).
Talking about the +1A on vehicles as the tone-setter for the changes we’ve seen so far is simply reductive.

Archon_91 wrote:

Well now I'm slightly more curious about the reveals this week, as they said "army wide rules" as opposed to "separate faction" rules like they did for 8th ... so maybe they undid that change

Oooo! Nice catch! That does sound very interesting! ^^!

Anyway, I just realyzed that, after the spoilers from boxes and GW, IF the PfP will just an ap -1 to our melee weapons (in any way, like turn 2/3 for example) then we will be already broken.
Immagine Wyches at AP-2, Kabalites at AP-1, everything else at AP-2 at minimum..that's it. If we'll actually penetrate SM armours, it's done.


We really just need it. That, and some secondaries, and we will kick ass.

ursvamp wrote:

Soulless Samurai wrote:

Can only fething hope.

However, given that 'ground-up rework' has so far translated into "Look, your transports have +1A now!", I'm highly doubtful

Come on. That’s just a dishonest read of what we know so far. Infantry that has always been 5+save becoming to 4+, splinter cannons becoming heavy bolters? Incubis gettin ws2+ and D2, all wyches getting ap-1.

If I'd said that there had been no improvements, you'd be correct. But that wasn't the claim I made.

None of what you're describing (or indeed, anything we've seen thus far) is a "ground-up rework". It amounts to nothing more than fine-tuning at best.

The closest would be the change to the Splinter Cannon, though even that seems unlikely to make any meaningful difference to the way the weapon functions or even to the units that are liable to take it. It was already basically typecast as only ever seeing play on Venoms, do you really think making it Heavy will improve matters on that front?

ursvamp wrote:

Not all these changes may be good, or to everyones tastes, but it pretty clearly shows they haven’t been afraid to change stuff up (unlike the ”translate the previous book to the new edition”-philosphy that governed the 7ed codex and 8ed index (and, by extension, codex)).
Talking about the +1A on vehicles as the tone-setter for the changes we’ve seen so far is simply reductive.

Again, though, even if I include those changes as well, this doesn't amount to a ground-up rework. If anything, what we've seen so far is evidence of them playing it safe and not making any substantial changes beyond the most basic tweaks to unit/weapon stats.

Yes, Incubi getting D2 weapons is an improvement. But what it most certainly isn't is a rework (let alone a "ground-up rework"). Their role within the army isn't changing one iota from this, bar maybe whether or not its worth including them in the first place. Likewise, the way in which they play and function on the battlefield remains entirely unchanged.

I don’t think changing statlines that have been the same for 22 years counts as “the most basic tweaks”. To me, that signals that they have actually gone through with a fine toothed comb. Guess we’ll see.

ursvamp wrote:

[ splinter cannons becoming heavy bolters?

The heavy bolter is superior to the splinter cannon in almost every way.

It is only when you are facing non vehicle, non titanic units with a toughness of 6 or more is the splinter cannon better, and in all cases, the cannon is worse against any vehicle no matter the toughness.

When you play this game, how many models like that are there compared to how many toughness 4 foot sloggers do you face?

You should not compare a decent weapon, like the heavy bolter, with a steaming pile of trash like the new splinter cannon.

They took what was good about it, and instead of enhancing it, they tried to make it a cookie-cutter marine weapon, and in doing so, not only made it less effective, they made it less thematic.

But all that does not matter at this point.
Here is to me saying "I was wrong!" over the next five or so days as the sneak peaks come in.
If I have to say "I told you so" no one will be more depressed than me, that I can promise you.

Archon_91 wrote:

Well now I'm slightly more curious about the reveals this week, as they said "army wide rules" as opposed to "separate faction" rules like they did for 8th ... so maybe they undid that change

I would like to see this managed by allowing you to take pseudo detachments within one of our detachments. This would allow you to take Kabal, Cult and Coven all in one detachment. The battle ready detachment requirements like 1 HQ, 1 Troop for a patrol wouldn't apply to a pseudo detachment but will to the over all battle ready detachment, there could even be thematic fun effects for doing this.

How about if you take a Kabal + Coven then your poison is better. Coven and a wych cult? Now you get even crazier beasts to take. Kabal and a wych cult...now raiders and venoms move faster.

The effects could be unique to what combinations of covens, kabals and cults you take. If you choose Black heart, PoF and Cult of Stife you get vect's Chosen ability for extra CPs maybe...plus obsessions too

Maybe that's too much and too complex.

I hope it's not just you pick three watered down obsessions, one for each sub-faction, and that's it. It would be disappointing if everything got weaker just to have the freedom of building an army like every other faction.

On the splinter cannon thing, I actually think it should be a heavy weapon.

I remember in 5th and 6th edition it was a 4/6 Salvo weapon. It meant that if you moved you could only move half your range. You could still fire it, but only at half the weapons range and with less (4) shots.
Just look at the model and the way kabalites carry it, it's clearly more heavy than a splinter rifle or shredder.
Now salvo doesn't exist anymore, so they made it heavy. Makes more sense to me really.

However, if you're going to make it heavy, it also needs a heavy statline. Because I do agree this profile compared to the way it looks, is just really underwhelming...

Dunno why all this hate for new Splinter Cannons. I prefer them more than a HB. HB is a good anti-infantry weapon, but it sucks agains big guys, monsters, any T6 or more. Which is where the SC will shine.
Figuring out a lot of buffs on melee, I guess that we already have A LOT of anti-infantry. I don't really wanna MORE of them.
Now try to figure out the scene: you field a lot of Venoms which will carry a lot of melee threats. Those melee threats will shred every infantry of the game (between Wyches and Incubi, and who knows what else we will get). Isn't it nice being capable to kill any monster (coff coff Daemons coff, top army) without Dark Tecnomancers? Just straight foward, with no bonus/obsessions/nothing, SC spam will be a nightmare for those guys.
It's ok to me. In fact, I love it. Dark Lances for tanks, heavy poison for big guys, melee capacity for everything else. Fly, run and assalt, just like we should work.

I would be pretty upset with just a Str 5 on SC. That would be a pretty low sight on the entire codex design, and an huge boring redundancy of the same gun multiplied X times.

I’m not sure why some are calling for a complete re work of DE. Why is that even an expectation?

If you want a complete re work then perhaps you are simply bored of DE or the game in general but that’s an unrealistic expectation for GW to re work an army because of a few people being bored. People will have built armies around the 8th Ed rules and codex...now is not the time for a massive overhaul of DE. Now is the time for some tweaks...tweaks that will quite possibly be enough for the masses.

Cerve wrote:

Dunno why all this hate for new Splinter Cannons. I prefer them more than a HB. HB is a good anti-infantry weapon, but it sucks agains big guys, monsters, any T6 or more.

And how many of those are there?

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m not sure why some are calling for a complete re work of DE. Why is that even an expectation?

Because it's what the Necrons got.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Dunno why all this hate for new Splinter Cannons. I prefer them more than a HB. HB is a good anti-infantry weapon, but it sucks agains big guys, monsters, any T6 or more.

And how many of those are there?

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m not sure why some are calling for a complete re work of DE. Why is that even an expectation?

Because it's what the Necrons got.

Necrons were in a much worse place than DE. At least that’s my personal opinion. So I’m sorry but I don’t think what one army gets necessarily sets a precedent for what every army will or should get. I think that’s very poor reasoning.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Dunno why all this hate for new Splinter Cannons. I prefer them more than a HB. HB is a good anti-infantry weapon, but it sucks agains big guys, monsters, any T6 or more.

And how many of those are there?

As I said, one of the....three, maybe (?) most competitive lists runs between 3 and 5 Monsters.

So..a lot. Basically one of the three big factions of this game just spam them.



Then, you will add other two thoughts on that:
1- Drukhari would means Taloi. If 6+ Taloi still a thing (or maybe T6 Grotesques?) here you go anothet "big guys list";
2- It's not that SC spams sucks against Marines. They're way more agile than usual HB-carriers, and we can deploy a lot of them. You will shred Monsters, but you kill enough Marines too. Expecially, you will basically wipe out every 5-size-men objective tokens squads. AND, because of faster Venoms, you will be able to fly in face of that T7 Master Chapter and kill him down.

Barking Agatha wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m not sure why some are calling for a complete re work of DE. Why is that even an expectation?

Because it's what the Necrons got.

No, I dont think thats right. Necrons DID get a total rework, but if they had said "DE should expect tweaks and changes made viewing the whole army to better fit it into 9th, but its more of an update than a remake", then we wouldnt be expecting a Necron-style rework.

Instead, they told us SPECIFICLLY that DE were getting a full overhaul. They TOLD us to expect a group up rework in one of their posts AGES ago. (Though I cant remember the exact wording or where it was). They had no need to tell us that.

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m not sure why some are calling for a complete re work of DE. Why is that even an expectation?

If you want a complete re work then perhaps you are simply bored of DE or the game in general but that’s an unrealistic expectation for GW to re work an army because of a few people being bored. People will have built armies around the 8th Ed rules and codex...now is not the time for a massive overhaul of DE. Now is the time for some tweaks...tweaks that will quite possibly be enough for the masses.

GEEDUBS themselves claimed we would be getting a "ground up rework"
We are looking at tweaks at best, sidegrades and bland rules at worst

Grimcrimm wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m not sure why some are calling for a complete re work of DE. Why is that even an expectation?

If you want a complete re work then perhaps you are simply bored of DE or the game in general but that’s an unrealistic expectation for GW to re work an army because of a few people being bored. People will have built armies around the 8th Ed rules and codex...now is not the time for a massive overhaul of DE. Now is the time for some tweaks...tweaks that will quite possibly be enough for the masses.

GEEDUBS themselves claimed we would be getting a "ground up rework"
We are looking at tweaks at best, sidegrades and bland rules at worst

Yeah well the problem with all that is that what they think is a ground up re work probably wouldn’t register with the glass half empty group.

If they changed some base line stats I’d call it a tweak.
If they changed some strats I’d call it a tweak.
If they changed how you build the army I’d call it a big tweak.
If they changed them all at the same time I can see GW thinking it was an overhaul...even if I’d disagree with that statement.

Cerve wrote:

Dunno why all this hate for new Splinter Cannons. I prefer them more than a HB. HB is a good anti-infantry weapon, but it sucks agains big guys, monsters, any T6 or more. Which is where the SC will shine.
Figuring out a lot of buffs on melee, I guess that we already have A LOT of anti-infantry. I don't really wanna MORE of them.
Now try to figure out the scene: you field a lot of Venoms which will carry a lot of melee threats. Those melee threats will shred every infantry of the game (between Wyches and Incubi, and who knows what else we will get). Isn't it nice being capable to kill any monster (coff coff Daemons coff, top army) without Dark Tecnomancers? Just straight foward, with no bonus/obsessions/nothing, SC spam will be a nightmare for those guys.
It's ok to me. In fact, I love it. Dark Lances for tanks, heavy poison for big guys, melee capacity for everything else. Fly, run and assalt, just like we should work.

I would be pretty upset with just a Str 5 on SC. That would be a pretty low sight on the entire codex design, and an huge boring redundancy of the same gun multiplied X times.

B.c a pseudo HB is stupid for SC especially when we have the DC that is a better HB.

to all those saying: we've been told we would receive a complete overhaul.......will it be the first time in your life that you've been deceived by a seller or a commercial? When you listen to a tv publicity, do you expect everything to be as shown on tv? if yes......well.....don't know what to say.....except welcome to 2021, an age of capitalism where money talks louder than words and marketing is king.

that being said, we were not lied to, mind you: When a new car comes out and they say: the newly and redesigned X model.....even if there are more curves and a sleek design....it's still a car with 4 wheels and a steering wheel.

Kalmah wrote:

to all those saying: we've been told we would receive a complete overhaul.......will it be the first time in your life that you've been deceived by a seller or a commercial? When you listen to a tv publicity, do you expect everything to be as shown on tv? if yes......well.....don't know what to say.....except welcome to 2021, an age of capitalism where money talks louder than words and marketing is king.

that being said, we were not lied to, mind you: When a new car comes out and they say: the newly and redesigned X model.....even if there are more curves and a sleek design....it's still a car with 4 wheels and a steering wheel.

So I wasnt expecting a complete one, despite being told, but your example of being deceived by an advert is a poor one.

When adverts (at least in the UK, where, you know, GW is based) claim something that is directly false, they can be fined and the advert removed.

But thats not even whats going on here. Whats going on here is that they knew the community was asking "can we expect a big change or a small update" and few would have been unhappy with the "small update" answer. They chose to give the "big change" answer anyway. At the time, there were no preorders available. Sales stagnate just before a codex release, so it wasnt going to boost sales anyway. There was no call for them to tell us they were reworking the codex from the ground up if they were not, in fact, doing that.

This wasnt a deceptive advert. This was just a stupid PR mistake that should never have happened. At best, its made no difference, at worst, a bunch of people who WERE going to buy the codex, are now cross that its not as good as they thought they were promised and now wont.

The smart move would have been to SAY NOTHING. Then all the people here would have grumbled a little, and bought it anyway.

@albions-angel what you say is true, but the thing is they did not lie at all, they did indeed rework the codex, more than just a tweek there and there (and still we have seen what....10% of the codex?)....just maybe not to the level of expectations that i know THEY did create.
But regarding GW.....sorry albions-angel but ALL OF THEIR PUBLICITY AND PREVIEWS SHOULD BE REMOVED from what you say cause they are always hyping over the top EVERYTHING they announce.

also, you truly think people would have just ''grumbled'' if GW wrote: here's our next codex, inside you will find the exact same rules as in the previous codex but with some minor changes but with an astounding and mesmerizing lore never seen before and with the gorgeousest arts ever seen by human eyes.....let me doubt it (see? i can be pessimist too lol)

amishprn86 wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Dunno why all this hate for new Splinter Cannons. I prefer them more than a HB. HB is a good anti-infantry weapon, but it sucks agains big guys, monsters, any T6 or more. Which is where the SC will shine.
Figuring out a lot of buffs on melee, I guess that we already have A LOT of anti-infantry. I don't really wanna MORE of them.
Now try to figure out the scene: you field a lot of Venoms which will carry a lot of melee threats. Those melee threats will shred every infantry of the game (between Wyches and Incubi, and who knows what else we will get). Isn't it nice being capable to kill any monster (coff coff Daemons coff, top army) without Dark Tecnomancers? Just straight foward, with no bonus/obsessions/nothing, SC spam will be a nightmare for those guys.
It's ok to me. In fact, I love it. Dark Lances for tanks, heavy poison for big guys, melee capacity for everything else. Fly, run and assalt, just like we should work.

I would be pretty upset with just a Str 5 on SC. That would be a pretty low sight on the entire codex design, and an huge boring redundancy of the same gun multiplied X times.

B.c a pseudo HB is stupid for SC especially when we have the DC that is a better HB.

You confirm my point actually, because it's not a pseudo HB: its a poisoned gun, which is all the differences of the world.
Disintegrators are "pseudo-HB". Actually, way better.

Grimcrimm wrote:

Dark Elf Dave wrote:

I’m not sure why some are calling for a complete re work of DE. Why is that even an expectation?

If you want a complete re work then perhaps you are simply bored of DE or the game in general but that’s an unrealistic expectation for GW to re work an army because of a few people being bored. People will have built armies around the 8th Ed rules and codex...now is not the time for a massive overhaul of DE. Now is the time for some tweaks...tweaks that will quite possibly be enough for the masses.

GEEDUBS themselves claimed we would be getting a "ground up rework"
We are looking at tweaks at best, sidegrades and bland rules at worst

When was this claimed?