Sneak Peek at New Drukhari Codex

sekac wrote:

Koldan wrote:

Weakling Kin implies changes to Ynnari. It basically allows you to put other Aeldari units in a detachment with Drukhari as long as all units in the detachment have the Ynnari keyword.  There is no limitation to the named Ynnari characters, just the keywords Aeldari and Ynnari.

Yeah, we know that Ynnari will be changing, we just have no idea what they will turn into. It looks like souping will be their M.O., but what will be the benefit?

The soup is also a benefit and my post was to point out it gets easier for them. I personally even think with the Weakling Kin rule Ynnari can already mix all Aeldari in one detachment. The Ynnari codex never directly forbid putting Asuryani and Drukhari in the same detachment, it pointed at the other 3 codices. If you fulfill the other conditions for Ynnari, one of the named characters and no coven units or other forbidden units you just need a legal Asuryani, Harlequin or Drukhari Detachment. And Weakling Kin is an ability of Drukhari Detachments.

What are the rules for the PGL now? Is it still an assault weapon? I've heard people say it does mortal wounds too without the old strat?

GreyArea wrote:

What are the rules for the PGL now? Is it still an assault weapon? I've heard people say it does mortal wounds too without the old strat?

Assault D3, each time you hit, you roll 2D6, if it beats the target's LD, it takes a mortal wound

GreyArea wrote:

What are the rules for the PGL now? Is it still an assault weapon? I've heard people say it does mortal wounds too without the old strat?

Still Assault d3. For every hit, roll 2d6. If you exceed the target's Ld they take 1 Mortal Wound.

Also, they're Blast weapons now.

They seem pretty good if your army includes a few ways to lower enemy Ld (like Grisly Trophies). Only thing is that resolving them seems really time-consuming.


EDIT: Dammit, why is everyone a ninja?

Man, I really wish they made the custom faction traits Drukhari specific instead of Kabal/Cult/Coven. Or even a hybrid, like 6-9 traits Drukhari and 3 each for the subfactions.

Would've been a nice compromise i think, allowing custom fluff for more esoteric armies (like Soulless's much lauded Mandrake Kabal), while letting established sub-factions keep more to their fluff.

They removed the option to take a Liquifier on a Haemonculus, didn't they?
I still have the older Haemonculus model that came with a liquifier. Will that go to Legends then? :S

Gelmir wrote:

They removed the option to take a Liquifier on a Haemonculus, didn't they?
I still have the older Haemonculus model that came with a liquifier. Will that go to Legends then? :S

Either that, or might have to throw him in with the elite wrack unit... maybe as a liquifier-armed unit leader.

Can anyone tell me whether or not there are any command phase abilities in the codex, aside from Lelith's? I don't think I've seen any in the leaks. I'm wondering if they gave Lelith a command phase ability and just forgot about the rest of the codex.

krayd wrote:

Can anyone tell me whether or not there are any command phase abilities in the codex, aside from Lelith's? I don't think I've seen any in the leaks. I'm wondering if they gave Lelith a command phase ability and just forgot about the rest of the codex.

Haemonculi can heal a unit at the end of the movement phase.

They also have a Warlord Trait and an 1/game Artefact that work at the end of the movement phase.

Those are the closest I can find.


Sadly, Lelith does indeed have our only actual Command Phase ability.

Seems a bit of a shame, really.

Quote :

Seems a bit of a shame, really.

Its not. For the army that is reliant on transports, having Command Phase abilities is bad, because they dont work inside, other then on model itself.

I stand by it
The command phase is the worst phase of (for) the game

Lelith got a token ability so GW can say "look how awesome the NEW command phase is"

The fewer rules in the C-Phase, the better

Azdrubael wrote:

Quote :

Seems a bit of a shame, really.

Its not. For the army that is reliant on transports, having Command Phase abilities is bad, because they dont work inside, other then on model itself.

I mean, nor do auras but the Archon's still stuck with one.

One of the Haemonculus heals is command phase (the Wrack one), the other heal (the Grot/Monster one) is end of movement. So I guess the command phase one is harder to use since you don't get a move/advance to get to the unit you want healed.

Oaka wrote:

One of the Haemonculus heals is command phase (the Wrack one), the other heal (the Grot/Monster one) is end of movement.  So I guess the command phase one is harder to use since you don't get a move/advance to get to the unit you want healed.

Oh that's interesting. For some reason I thought that ability was something you could do instead of healing a monster or grotesque. Didn't realise it actually let you do both.

A couple of odd things I noticed when I was reading through the codex last night.

Beasts are Blades for Hire now. So, they can benefit from Writ of the Living Muse (in a realspace raid detachment).

The way detachments are worded is a little more vague than usual. RAW, you should be able to take units that aren't part of the detachment's assigned subfaction, with no penalty to the primary faction's obsession.

To explain:
1)The book says that a Drukhari detachment is a detachment with all units with the Drukhari keyword.
2) You assign each detachment (that isn't a realspace raid detach) a subfaction (cult, coven, kabal).
3) Each unit that has the assigned subfaction that is in the detachment gains their respective obsession.

However, there is no rule that says that the presence of non-subfaction drukhari *prevent* units from the assigned subfaction from getting their obsession. So, if you really wanted to, RAW, you could throw some wyches into a Kabal detachment and the Kabal detachment would get their obsession (the wyches, of course, would not get an obsession, though.).

I don't really think that this is intentional though, since the Cult of Strife supplement in Warzone: Charadon defines a Cult of Strife detachment as one with all Cult of Strife units. So it just may have been sloppy rule writing on the codex author's part.

Pretty sure this is intentional. After all, GW wanted to make mixing factions not that punishing.

I hope it is intentional, because I want to include beasts in a Coven detachment and the codex lets you do that now with only the Beastmaster losing an obsession as the penalty.

Ummm that is a big deal if that’s intentional!
For instance: a wych detachment could throw in a couple of un-obsessioned ravagers for some support, or kabal could just have a cronos floating around helping out. This is a thing I have wanted since the shift to the book being 3 separate armies.
I could still see it being intentional even considering the Strife supplement. The trade off for the extra supplement rules could be that it disallows that kind of adding.
Guess we’ see!

Is there not in Crusade rules an option to make Kabal units Blades for Hire? That would make not that much sense if they can already be put into other detachments without any disadvantage. So I personally think it is not intended.

There very well could be, I havent seen a breakdown of the Crusade rules: everyone just says they are awesome and it’s too much to go over. In which case, you are right, it would seen a strange addition if you could already just take stuff.

Koldan wrote:

Is there not in Crusade rules an option to make Kabal units Blades for Hire? That would make not that much sense if they can already be put into other detachments without any disadvantage. So I personally think it is not intended.

It's not an option. It's a battle scar. It affects one of the kabalite warrior units already in your army and they lose their kabal keyword, and get blades for hire instead. Basically, they lose their obsession. So, given that context, it doesn't help explain GW's intent with regard to the detachment rules.

A: That is awesome.
B: I want my boookkkkk!!!

The glossary in the back of the codex simplifies detachments, you can mix if you want. I think the Cult of Strife requirement is specific to that supplement and may be something we see with future supplements.

krayd wrote:

Koldan wrote:

Is there not in Crusade rules an option to make Kabal units Blades for Hire? That would make not that much sense if they can already be put into other detachments without any disadvantage. So I personally think it is not intended.

It's not an option. It's a battle scar. It affects one of the kabalite warrior units already in your army and they lose their kabal keyword, and get blades for hire instead. Basically, they lose their obsession. So, given that context, it doesn't help explain GW's intent with regard to the detachment rules.

Yes but it is a battle scar without reducing the crusade points, normally battle scars without a reduction also have some kind of benefit.

With the wording in two places, it seems like it is designed that way. I feel like this would have been an easy one to lead with in the Warhammer Community article. “And that’s not all! You can no add Coven or Cult units to your Kabal detachment(or any combination thereof) without losing your Kabal Obsession! The added units simply don’t get their obsession.”