PDA

View Full Version : Dark Eldar Codex hints at 6th?



Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 13:10
A thought has occurred to me recently: I think the Dark Eldar Codex is the first one written with 6th edition 40k in mind.

First its got a few flyers in it, with various very generic sounding rules for them. "Supersonic" and "Aerial Assault". They dont sound like rules for any specific army as they dont have Dark in front of them. In the same way that every special Blood Angel Rule has Blood Or Angel in its name, or every Dark Eldar rule sounds Eldar-y but with Dark put in front of it. These bad boys sound like Universal Special Rules, that can be applied to any and all 40k armies.

Secondly I noticed that with the Dark Eldar being master poisoners they have a lot of Poison weapons. However even though this is the latest Codex, that was written and printed way way after several FAQs came out updating other older codex's, it still uses the Weapon Strength "X" for Poison weapons. I dont think that they could be that silly to have to issue a codex-wide change to the weapons considering how important poisoning is to Dark Eldar.

What do you guys think?

Godzooky
27-01-2011, 13:16
Interesting, although I'm sure they also recognised that fans of the DE would probably prefer a more mature and sophisticated nomenclature than the target audience of some other factions.

theherooftimesl
27-01-2011, 13:16
no no no...too early for 6th

the reason they are strengh X poison is to assure they dont get re-roll wounds on anything ...and also probably to ensure they have to take specialist weapons to deal with tanks/vehicles i.e. an eldar shuriken cannon at S6 can down a landspeeder with ease but the dark eldar equivalent the splinter cannon cant touch it.

It ensures they have a different maybe even more niche and specialist army than even craftworld eldar.

Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 13:24
no no no...too early for 6th

the reason they are strengh X poison is to assure they dont get re-roll wounds on anything ...and also probably to ensure they have to take specialist weapons to deal with tanks/vehicles i.e. an eldar shuriken cannon at S6 can down a landspeeder with ease but the dark eldar equivalent the splinter cannon cant touch it.

It ensures they have a different maybe even more niche and specialist army than even craftworld eldar.

I see your point but I ask the question why immediately FAQ it like they did in all the other codecies.

To me they either wanted a system change of how Poison works (which then had to be FAQ'd into every Codex) or the designers dont talk to each otehr / dont understand teh rules themselves! ;)

aka_mythos
27-01-2011, 13:27
A thought has occurred to me recently: I think the Dark Eldar Codex is the first one written with 6th edition 40k in mind.

First its got a few flyers in it, with various very generic sounding rules for them. "Supersonic" and "Aerial Assault". They dont sound like rules for any specific army as they dont have Dark in front of them. In the same way that every special Blood Angel Rule has Blood Or Angel in its name, or every Dark Eldar rule sounds Eldar-y but with Dark put in front of it. These bad boys sound like Universal Special Rules, that can be applied to any and all 40k armies.

Secondly I noticed that with the Dark Eldar being master poisoners they have a lot of Poison weapons. However even though this is the latest Codex, that was written and printed way way after several FAQs came out updating other older codex's, it still uses the Weapon Strength "X" for Poison weapons. I dont think that they could be that silly to have to issue a codex-wide change to the weapons considering how important poisoning is to Dark Eldar.

What do you guys think? I think you're right that they're hinting at something... but it isn't 6th... these are probably all direct refrences to the Aerial Assualt expansion rules due out this summer.

Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 14:49
I think you're right that they're hinting at something... but it isn't 6th... these are probably all direct refrences to the Aerial Assualt expansion rules due out this summer.

Fair point. I saw Stickmonkeys post in Rumors on a similar thing. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Still confused by the poison thing though.

Lord Damocles
27-01-2011, 15:22
How many Dark Eldar special rules have 'dark' in the name? I can't think of any...


Also, as I understood it, Hellfire Rounds were made S1 in the Marine FAQ because people were trying to claim that their S4 Bolter with Hellfire Rounds would wound T4 enemies on 2+ with a re-roll.

Gingerwerewolf
27-01-2011, 15:53
How many Dark Eldar special rules have 'dark' in the name? I can't think of any...


Also, as I understood it, Hellfire Rounds were made S1 in the Marine FAQ because people were trying to claim that their S4 Bolter with Hellfire Rounds would wound T4 enemies on 2+ with a re-roll.

Dark Lance? ;)

I jest

To be fair I was using the "Blood" and "Dark" bits to point out how innocuous the wording for "Supersonic" and "Aerial Assault" were. Wasnt being specific really.

My point is, If the Rules designers knew of a problem with Poison Based Weapons back before they wrote the Dark Eldar Codex, why didnt they give Dark Eldar poison weapons a Strength value in the Codex. Why write it as X, when they had already FAQ'd out all the X's from all the other Codecies because of the problem you are mentioning above?

aka_mythos
27-01-2011, 16:41
Gingerwerewolf was just trying to show that nomenclature used was so distinctly generic as to stick out in a book otherwise filled with Dark Eldar themed names.

Souleater
27-01-2011, 16:58
I think it hints that Necron will ignore Poison Weapons. :shifty:

Xandros
27-01-2011, 20:53
They'll have to make a distinction between poison weapons with a strength and poison weapons without. It's not certain that such any change is forthcoming though, it may be just a matter of unifying convention and nomenclature that may or may not be utilitary. I'm not really seeiing the difference between S1 and SX unless some sort of rule will be attached to strength X weapons.

Gingerwerewolf
28-01-2011, 10:50
Gingerwerewolf was just trying to show that nomenclature used was so distinctly generic as to stick out in a book otherwise filled with Dark Eldar themed names.

Yep, what he said :D


They'll have to make a distinction between poison weapons with a strength and poison weapons without. It's not certain that such any change is forthcoming though, it may be just a matter of unifying convention and nomenclature that may or may not be utilitary. I'm not really seeiing the difference between S1 and SX unless some sort of rule will be attached to strength X weapons.

If as you say thats what they are doing you'd think that there would be some sort of discussions between the Rules Designers and the Codex Designers.

I personally cant believe that they wouldnt talk to each other though which is why I ask...

Hellebore
28-01-2011, 13:35
They'll have to make a distinction between poison weapons with a strength and poison weapons without. It's not certain that such any change is forthcoming though, it may be just a matter of unifying convention and nomenclature that may or may not be utilitary. I'm not really seeiing the difference between S1 and SX unless some sort of rule will be attached to strength X weapons.

Well if something was immune to poison it would make the gun completely useless.

Giving it S1 would have made no difference except to rule consistency and logic - the gun has AP5 so it can ignore ballistic armour but when it does it can never hurt what's underneath unless they're squishy and can be poisoned?

With an armour penetration like that it needs some mass and a mass fired that quickly will have a lot of force, enough to kill something even if it can't be poisoned.

Hell making it S2 would have allowed them to re-roll to wound rolls against what? one unit in the entire game - Gretchin.

Hellebore

Perfect Organism
28-01-2011, 15:26
I don't have the DE book myself, but wasn't there some rule in there which let you roll three dice and choose the highest for running?

If I was writing a rule which made units run slightly faster, my first choice would probably be to roll two dice and choose the highest. Unless I thought that in the next edition, some units (say, those with Fleet) would be able to do that anyway.

Gingerwerewolf
28-01-2011, 15:32
I don't have the DE book myself, but wasn't there some rule in there which let you roll three dice and choose the highest for running?

If I was writing a rule which made units run slightly faster, my first choice would probably be to roll two dice and choose the highest. Unless I thought that in the next edition, some units (say, those with Fleet) would be able to do that anyway.

Are you are talking about the Hypex rule from Combat Drugs?

If so it is indeed 3, so well spotted. Yep that exactly the sort of thing that Im talking about!

The games afoot!

shadow hunter
28-01-2011, 16:01
Dont Hormagaunts already have that anyway?

jt.glass
28-01-2011, 16:11
Dont Hormagaunts already have that anyway?Dunno, but Guardsmen do... :D


jt.

Bigbot
28-01-2011, 17:16
We don't get 6th Until Chaos Marines get there codex anyway. They're like the Wood Elves of 40k

Hokiecow
28-01-2011, 17:26
I think the only hint we have to expect from 6th ed is there will be more emphases on planes (Arial units, not skimmer). I would imagine they would draw more of a distinction between planes and skimmers in 6th (similar to Apocalypse).

Souleater
28-01-2011, 17:31
Well if something was immune to poison it would make the gun completely useless.

I was referring to the Tomb Stalker's Construct rule in my original comment. It doesn't make it immune to poison but means that any poison weapon (with a STR value or not) can only wound it on a 6.

It could just be a whacky FW rule, a hint of what GW is planning or something that GW may decide that necron or more likely another loyalist SM chapter needs. At last, some good news for all you Black Templars players.

I know, I know, sarcasm and bitterness tarnishes only my own soul.:cries:

-Loki-
28-01-2011, 23:39
Are you are talking about the Hypex rule from Combat Drugs?

If so it is indeed 3, so well spotted. Yep that exactly the sort of thing that Im talking about!

The games afoot!

As said, Hormagaunts already have that rule. Sort of a consolation prize for losing the Beast unit type. It's hardly a clue to a 6th edition incoming.

Hokiecow
29-01-2011, 12:33
I don't have the DE book myself, but wasn't there some rule in there which let you roll three dice and choose the highest for running?

If I was writing a rule which made units run slightly faster, my first choice would probably be to roll two dice and choose the highest. Unless I thought that in the next edition, some units (say, those with Fleet) would be able to do that anyway.

Fleet units definitely need to become fast. Now that pretty much everything can run, the only time a fleet unit is fast is when your assaulting... So a fleet unit may save a turn to get into an assault vs a not fleet unit.

Xandros
29-01-2011, 15:05
It's has definitely become a conventional rule, so it'll likely enter 6th edition as well.