Codex Drukhari Review Part 1: Army Special Rules

Hey everyone, Reecius here with the first part of our Codex: Drukhari review! Be sure to check the Tactics Corner for more great reviews and articles.

The Drukhari (aka: Dark Eldar) are a cruel, violent race of pirates, raiders and sadists that plague the other species of the galaxy with their endless attacks. Let’s check out their dex and see what they have to offer.

Rating System

I rarely ever see units as “broken” or “garbage” which is the typical binary judgement in internet hyperbole. Even the worst unit can win you the game if it is in the right place at the right time. Units are all simply more or less efficient based on the current situation of any given game. So with that in mind, here is the shiny new rating system:

  • Competitive: This is a codex entry (unit, stratagem, item, etc.) that has a place in essentially any competitive list built with this faction regardless of unit choices or is the source of a significant force multiplication effect for other units.
  • Efficient: This is a codex entry that can stand on its own merit in a matched play list but works best when combo’d up with other units or in specific situations to become very powerful but may not always be seen.
  • Situational: This is a codex entry that may not pass as competitive on its own merits but can be made effective in a creative list, as a meta-buster, or in a specific combo or scenario where it ratchets up in power to potentially very high strength but otherwise will not be seen very often.

Special Rules

The Drukhari were gifted with some very flavorful and effective special rules.

  • Poison Weapons: Weapons with this rule always wound on a 4+ unless targeting a Vehicle, in which case they wound on a 6+.
    • If you find yourself facing loads of high toughness, non vehicle units in your meta then this is great. if not? Then you’d rather just have strength 4. On it’s own it is cool but not amazing but thanks to the plethora of buffs readily available to the Drukhari player, it gets quite good if you want it to be. Efficient.
  • Power from Pain: Units with this ability gain a cumulative bonus every turn.
    1. Inured to Suffering: 6+ save vs. wounds suffered.
    2. Eager to Flay: re-rolls to advances and charges.
    3. Flensing Fury: +1 to hit in the fight phase.
    4. Emboldened by Bloodshed: Automatically pass morale tests.
    5. Mantle of Agony: Subtract 1 from the leadership of enemy units within 6″ of any units with this bonus.
      • All of these are awesome and only benefit your units. Increases in durability, speed, damage, morale and enemy debuffs. What’s not to love? Great ability. Competitive.
  • Combat Drugs: Units with this special rule can either roll a random Combat Drug for the game, or pick one. If you pick though, you cannot pick the same one again until you’ve chosen all of them at least once.
    1. Adrenalight: +1 attack.
    2. Grave Lotus: +1 strength.
    3. Hypex: +2″ movement.
    4. Painbringer: +1 toughness.
    5. Serpentin: +1 weapon skill.
    6. Splintermind: +2 leadership.
      1. Again, all awesome! These are fantastic bonuses and we’ve enjoyed using them a great deal. With all of the various other buffs available to you via Obsessions, Stratagems, Warlord Traits, etc. you can get a lot of power out of your realtively fragile Drukhari units. Competitive.
  • Vanguard of the Dark City: Your standard “Objective Secured” rule for troops in Drukhari detachments so long as your army is Battle-forged.
    • ObSec is awesome, and requires no explanation at this point beyond the obvious: if you can take an objective away from your opponent, you tend to win the game. Competitive.
  • Court of the Archon and Drukhari Beasts: in Matched Play games, these rules kick in and limit the number of Court of the Archon models you may take to 4 per Detachment with an Archon, and Drukhari Beast units to detachments with one or more Beastmasters, and no more then 3 units of them.

  • Raiding Force: If you have 3 Drukhari Patrol detachments you gain +4 Command Points, if you have 6 you gain +8 Command Points.
    • This rule caused quite the hubbub on the internet. It’s not possible to take 6 detachments in a standard 2,000pt game but that is not the point with this rule, it’s a flavorful, cool thing to used in a themed army. Just take Battalions if you want lots of CP. Drukhari units are cheap and it is quite easy to grab 2+ Battalions and still have 3 detachments, 1 of each flavor of Drukhari. That aside, this is a fun if not amazing rule and will be great for narrative play or larger games. Situational.
  • Drukhari Obsessions: In a Drukhari detachment wherein all units are the same Kabal, Wych Cult or Haemonculous Coven, they gain an Obsession.
    • This is a fairly significant departure from the normal pattern established in other Codexes. Basically, Drukhari are 3 different sub-factions under the Drukhari umbrella. Some units can have more than one of these sub faction keywords such as the Razorwing Jetfighter which is both Kabal and Wych Cult, or the Raider which is all three, so you have a fair bit of flexibility but, less than most other factions. It is done for thematic purposes and allows the Drukhari player to access a LOT more potential special rules, but on less units per detachment. A bit of a mixed blessing and how each player reacts to it will come down to preference. Personally, I like sticking to theme so a Drukhari army with 3 detachments, 1 of each flavor really speaks to me, but may not to other players. What do you think? On their own, the bonuses are very strong, but dicing up the army’s access to them up is not.
  • Blades for Hire: Drukhari Beasts, Incubi, Mandrakes and Scourges can be taken in any Drukhari detachment without causing them to lose their Obsession, but also do not benefit from said Obsessions.
    • Again, a mixed blessing. Not getting some of the very awesome Obsession bonuses is annoying but being able to take them in any sub-faction is also awesome. This one will also rate based on individual preference. 

That’s it for today but we will be back tomorrow with more Drukhari coverage! What are you liking most about this new Codex? What are you not liking?

Read Part 2 of this article, here.


And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!



About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

55 Responses to “Codex Drukhari Review Part 1: Army Special Rules”

  1. Aris González (Byor) April 2, 2018 11:23 pm #

    Great, this reviews are back! Really helpful for people who is preparing a podcast for this Saturday and are going to have the book this same Saturday. Thanks Reecius, you are great!

    I just wanted to add something. The detachments limits from the rulebook is a suggestion, not a rule, so Drukhari should not have problems if they want to spam patrols at any point limit.

    • Reecius April 3, 2018 7:08 am #

      Good to be back =)

      And the patrol thing is so blown out of proportion, lol. It’s just a cool extra rule they got, nothing more.

      I mean, if you want to run more than 3 detachments at an event, go for it and have fun! But be aware that you will get some CRAZY armies using 6 detachments from other factions, especially Imperium and Chaos.

      If you make an exception for Drukhari, then everyone else will start wanting exceptions, too.

      • GreenInk April 3, 2018 8:33 am #

        You have to forgive Drukhari players, Reece. They’ve been complaining about the faction for so long that GW had to give them something to complain about 😉 If GW hadn’t written the Raiding Force rule, then they’d have nothing to complain about!

        • Reecius April 3, 2018 8:52 am #

          Lol, fair enough =P

          I think it was just confusing the way it was presented to the community. If GW would have said: for open play or narrative games or larger games, you can use even more Patrol detachments….etc.

          But, hey, is what it is. I think once Drukhari players start actually playing with the dex they will ditch the Patrol detachments and use the other detachments. We never use patrol detachments when we play, lol, so the rule simple doesn’t come up. Battalions are straight better.

      • Anggul April 4, 2018 3:20 am #

        I think it’s reasonable to make an exception when it’s a specific rule for their army.

        Like you say though, not a big deal anyway.

        • Reecius April 4, 2018 8:48 am #

          Everyone will want an exception though and again, trus tme, lol, Drukhari players in matched play aren’t even going to be using the patrol detachments. This entire argument is fairly pointless which will become evident soon.

          • Ujayim April 4, 2018 11:27 am

            Careful, Reece. Peoples opinions aren’t pointless. Discounting them like that is, absolutely, your right to do so, but with your voice you may not want to actively shun members of your community, even if they are being squeaky wheels.

          • Reecius April 4, 2018 11:37 am

            I reserve the right to express frustration =)

            And I say it is pointless not because the opinion is pointless but that the argument is. The rule is for fluff purposes, in game you will not see it in matched play as it isn’t that great, honestly. It’s not bad it just isn’t that great when compared to other options and after a few weeks that will become apparent, and it will largely go away on its own.

          • Ujayim April 4, 2018 11:41 am

            I don’t disagree with you. I’m fine with the limit. I’m just letting you know the optics of the response, that’s all.

            You’re allowed to be frustrated without a doubt. You have a position of influence, is all I’m saying. I’m letting you know how the response is perceived. Totally do whatever you want within your information.

            I’m not judging you.

          • Reecius April 4, 2018 12:21 pm

            But that is the thing, lol, I am not influencing ANYTHING in this case, haha. We’re just playing the game they way we’ve been playing it the entire edition. That’s all. This rule does not say: include 6 detachments in matched play games at any points limit! It simply gives you a cool extra rule that will apply in certain circumstances such as open play, narrative play, matched play games where both players want to ignore the detachment limit suggestion, etc. It is not necessarily aimed at 2k, matched play games.

          • Ujayim April 4, 2018 12:31 pm

            I know we’ve segmented this into different areas, and you said you’re done with the argument, that’s totally fine.

            To again clarify: I’m not arguing with you. I’m doing my best to express an amount of support to you here.

            The UNFORTUNATE SCENARIO you are experiencing is people asking GW, openly on social media, etc, “Hey, tournaments say this isn’t allowed, what’s your opinion?” and they are almost verbatim responding “Talk to them lol”

            You’re getting people to come to you because of that. I’m sure it’s frustrating when people do. I’m saying you may not be handling that frustration well, and there appears to be a slight amount of salt or lashing out in the replies, and I’m just trying to point that out so you don’t have a “Heroic intervention VOD removal” experience again.


    • Ty April 3, 2018 12:00 pm #

      Technically speaking events can ignore whatever rules the want. :p

      I suspect most will stick to 3 detachments though.

      • Reecius April 3, 2018 12:46 pm #

        Yeah, totally true. Each organizer is free to do their own thing but as you noted, most folks go with the status quo.

  2. lessthanjeff April 3, 2018 2:38 am #

    I still don’t think the request of extra detachments is about wanting the command points for patrols to most people. I’ve been building lists with battalions (as you suggest) and that doesn’t fix the issues coming up during listbuilding. For example, if I take a battalion to get kabalite warriors and then want to also bring an air wing, I’ve just shut out a third of my already small codex and cut off any access to allies.

    Most of these subfactions only have a single option for a slot, so to have choices for what units to bring within this one codex you’re eating up multiple detachments. I don’t think any faction would work very well if units within it had additional restrictions on what could or couldn’t be included in the same detachment and it’s a limitation you guys have implemented and not GW.

    3 detachments is fine for most armies because you can use everything in the book in any detachment, but if you start saying “well you don’t get chapter tactics because you have both scouts and hellblasters in the same detachment” I think you’d see the problem with having to use all your detachments just to access all the units in the book.

    • Reecius April 3, 2018 7:11 am #

      I totally get what you’re saying and it is a different way of doing things but you can get creative with it. Most flyers, for example, are Wych Cult and Kabal, so you can take a Battalion of each and spread the flyers around in them, etc. You just have to rethink list writing.

      I get that it can be annoying though, 100%, but in time players will adjust, IMO. It’s just new.

      • lessthanjeff April 3, 2018 7:34 am #

        Like you said, I definitely will adapt to it. To clarify too, I really love the book! I’ve been playing dark eldar since 3rd edition and I have to say that this is my favorite codex of all the ones they’ve ever had. I really love what GW did with the army and I’m very optimistic about how it will perform going forward.

        I’m sad that I don’t think they designed the army with detachment restrictions in place, but it is what it is and we’ll survive if ITC doesn’t adjust anything for their playstyle.

        • Reecius April 3, 2018 8:31 am #

          You have to remember, Codexes are not written only for matched play games. They’re written for matched play, open play and narrative play games. Taking 6 detachments in a 2k game was probably never the intent with this rule. It was most likely written with very large games, narrative games, etc. in mind.

          And again, lol, it’s not even that good! haha, it is just thematic. Just take Battalions, they work better any way.

          And yeah, the ITC isn’t in the business of changing rules all over the place anymore as we work directly with GW and stick to the book almost 100%. All we change now is the missions and the way ruins work for LoS purposes.

          • Spera April 3, 2018 8:53 am

            The only thing gw had to do, was to add unique for them detachment – raiding party, which you complete by making three patrols instead of units requirement.

            Oh well, maybe next chapter approved.
            Anyway, codex is sweet. So much options, and all are good. Its first codex for me when answer to question what to take wasn’t obvious.

          • Reecius April 3, 2018 9:03 am

            Yeah, for sure. It is more of a thematic element. But as you noted, the army is quite cool and very good, too, IMO.

          • lessthanjeff April 3, 2018 9:05 am

            Well I am taking battalions though. That’s why I was saying that the issue isn’t about getting command points for having multiple patrols, it’s that all 3 detachments (whatever they are) are used just to take units from all 3 subfactions. That means unlike other codexes you get no allies at all just for accessing everything in the drukhari codex and some detachments like an air wing are out of the question if you don’t want to mess with the same units on the table having different rules from each other.

            I’m not asking for 6 detachments. I’d just like even a 4th detachment for the flexibility other armies have to be able to use all the units in their own codex and bring in some allies or to bring a second detachment of kabals (without losing something else) for warlord traits/relics/strats the same way other armies can bring 2 detachments of space marines to unlock more chapter rules. I agree that the command points potentially gained from patrols are not anything to lose sleep over.

          • Reecius April 3, 2018 9:11 am

            I totally get it, truly.

            But, GW did this for thematic reasons and you get a lot more special rules than other books do but at the price of a sub-divided codex. It is what it is. If enough Drukhari players express that they prefer a unified army with less stuff I am sure they will take note but it isn’t that big of a deal in our experience. If you play all Drukhari, it is no big deal at all. If you want to take a bunch of other Eldar stuff then sure, but really, were you going to take Wyches, Haemonculi, Kabals AND Harlies (or whatever?). Probably not, honestly. But, losing the ability to do so can be annoying.

            And the air wing thing is lost on me a bit, you can just take fliers in other detachments.

            Anyway, I fully understand restrictions can be frustrating at first but bear in mind that you gain something in exchange: a LOT more special rules.

            To each their own though, but yeah, Drukhair function very differently than other armies. Some folks will dig it, some won’t, but regardless, this is what we got =)

          • Dr Zaius April 3, 2018 1:13 pm

            The problem with battalions is drukhari hq are not great, not in the index at least, and you have less variety than custodes

          • Reecius April 3, 2018 1:24 pm

            They’re fantastic in the Codex. You have so much more you can do with them now, particularly the Archon, and they’re cheap, too (which is part of what makes them so good!).

          • lessthanjeff April 4, 2018 2:44 am

            For the air wing part, I was referring to not wanting to keep track of different rules on different jets and ending up with ones that don’t have the rules you want if they come from different detachments. Jet that ignores cover? Great! Jet that rerolls charges? Pass. Plus, I just think it gets confusing for bother players when you have lots of the same unit but they have different rules from each other. I’d definitely prefer just taking a single air wing so they all do the same thing, but not at the cost of losing access to a third of the codex.

            For wanting more than 3 detachments, it’s not that uncommon since they even mentioned how great a list is combining multiple detachments on the warhammer community page. Hemlocks are mentioned as great allies for attacking enemy leadership, which also wants covens for their leadership debuffs, and phantasm grenade launchers which can’t be obtained in covens, so now you have to choose kabal or wych and can’t use everything in your codex. The strat to get 3 warlords is another really cool concept and one I’d love to use, but again that means no allies and no flexibility on wanting 2 kabal or cult detachments.

            It seems from the replies though that you feel the detachment restriction is what GW has set and not what you guys have set since you’re saying you guys have only changed the rules on missions and ruins. I don’t think that’s how most people have interpreted the issue though since it’s the line “Per the matched play rules, armies must be battle-forged and you cannot create an army list containing more than a total of three of the detachments” in your tournament format rules that most people are replying to. I agree that 3 detachments is a good restriction for most armies as I’ve never had problems building within that limit for my other armies, but I don’t think it works as well for this army.

            Players will survive either way though and I think everyone is enjoying the codex. It’s a great problem to have wanting to use all the fun toys in the new codex. I still love all the work you guys do and appreciate everything you’ve done for the game. I’ve just been trying to explain how the limitation restricts this army more than others.

          • Reecius April 4, 2018 8:55 am

            As you noted, it’s cool that you want to use lots of your stuff. However, Drukhari players have some restrictions in place others do not. But, they also get more bonuses. Pros and cons.

            And yeah, the ITC army construction format is straight out of the book. So saying we are limiting it is true to a point but not by design, we are just following GW’s lead.

            Again, trust me, lol, once you play the army you will not be taking lots of patrol detachments. Just wait and see. The army is great, that is the point to focus on as you noted.

  3. Peter Campion April 3, 2018 3:29 am #

    I thought the no.of detachments was a recommendation rather than a rule.

    Dark eldar look very interesting. I’ve got a stack of Tyranids to paint and now some new Necrons to sort. I can see my next amy fix coming in the form of Dark Eldar or Harlequins however.

    P.s. where is the proper Necron codex review

    • Reecius April 3, 2018 7:10 am #

      It is a suggestion in the BRB yeah, but one that everyone follows, lol. Just like a lot of Beta rules are suggestions but we all use them.

      That said, if anyone wants to play with more than 3 detachments go for it but as stated above, be prepared for what follows as there will be a lot of unintended consequences to that choice.

      ANd yeah, I am WAY behind on reviews as we’ve been gone and had the LVO. I will steadily get caught up, though.

  4. Cavalier April 3, 2018 7:47 am #

    Great article as always Reece. Always look forward to your analysis. I agree with your assessment too. Power From Pain and Combat Drugs are great…. getting to choose your Combat Drugs (to an extent) and the cool overlap with the Stratagems is awesome. The only thing I’d add to your analysis is that if you are a dedicated Eldar player… having 24″ range on your main gun is a nice departure from the 12″-18″ of their Craftworld kin. Putting your fragile CW troops right in the wheel house of most armies is a challenge (and a flaw in game design IMO). I feel like the 24″ range (more if you are Obsidian Rose) is perfect for an Eldar army… even if you are wounding T4 units on a 4+

    My favorite thing so far has to go be the interaction between obsessions and stratagems. They overlap in really interesting ways. There are a ton of combos and the way they play out is different for each sub-faction. This gives the army a TON of replay value and incentivizes trying out some new units.

    I also love how unique the obsessions are… in contrast the Craftworld ones with the exception of Alaitoc and Saim-Hann feel a lot less inspired. These ones really strike a chord with the background and create really different playstyles between factions.

    • Reecius April 3, 2018 8:32 am #

      Yeah, agreed. They did an excellent job of getting the feel or Drkhari accurate on this go around, IMO.

    • WestRider April 3, 2018 1:24 pm #

      I’ve been saying since 3rd Ed was released that bringing Shuricats down to 12″ range was a mistake. Heck, if any Aeldar Faction should have short-ranged Assault weapons as a basic option, it should be the Drukhari, not the Craftworlds.

      • Cavalier April 4, 2018 2:43 am #

        Totally with you WestRider. I thought 8th edition was the perfect time to ditch those old “legacy” rules and change that around. I’d have given Guardians 18″ range and Avengers 24″. Or hell, drop Guardians BS back to 4+ and give them all 24″.

        Giving the citizens of your dying race uzi’s and telling them to go fight guys with M4’s is not the best idea! Lol

        • Xerxus April 4, 2018 3:37 am #

          20 guardians in deepstrike with psychic and stratagem buffs are absolutely insane. They will destroy just about anything when they appear, Whenever I have been on the receiving end of such a barrage I did not particularly like the outcome.

          It’s also quite fluffy imo, Eldar are not trying to win drawn out fights by taking potshots at 24″. They make pinpoint strikes at specific targets and then retreat. Drukhari weapon rules should also reflect this philosophy, it would be even more appropriate given that they are pirates getting up close and personal with their skiff transports.

  5. Kabalite1981 April 3, 2018 8:57 am #

    Having read the replies im sorry to tell you its Patrol Detachments – thats 1 hq and 1 troop. You can fit 3 characters and 3 troops – 1 from each faction for 405 points max. Battalions, air wings etc dont count to that ability as they add their own cp’s.

    • WychQueen April 4, 2018 6:38 am #

      This is what I assumed. Six patrol detachments are easy enough to fill under 1,000 points. That’s 11 command points from the start for a battle-forged army. If you want to take more specialized units you would probably only get the three detachments or play a larger points game.

  6. Dakkath April 4, 2018 5:27 am #

    The only thing I can say is bad about these is poison is now worse vs t3 targets and no benefit vs t4.

    • Reecius April 4, 2018 8:50 am #

      There’s tons of buffs for Poison weapons if you want them to be good.

      • Dakkath April 4, 2018 10:11 pm #

        Oh trust me, I’m not saying they’re bad. Just nitpicking a little ;p

        • Reecius April 5, 2018 10:06 am #

          Fair play, they’re not amazing weapons generally, I agree, but can be quite good now with all of the buffs.

  7. Dalamar April 4, 2018 6:21 am #

    This is an easy fix.

    If your force is entirely battle-forged Drukhari, then 3 patrols = 1 battalion & 6 Patrols = 1 brigade for the purposes of detachment limits.

    This lets Drukhari use all their rules and lets them build lists how they were designed. Now not having played them yet it might not be the best way to build them for a tournament, and you might be able to build better lists using battalions, etc. Then it doesn’t matter if its allowed because who cares.

    However, if it was just meant as a fluff narrative thing then they need to say so, because this is the first army rule that modifies how detachments work. If they don’t then It is an army rule and as such the army was designed to use said rule (If you want to).

    If the goal of tournaments are to make a balanced and competitive environment while trying to stay as close to core rules as possible. It is the onus of the tournament organizers to acknowledge “Raiding Force” as an army rule (unless GW says otherwise) and make accommodations for it. I think the above rule accomplishes that.

    Sorry for the long post.

    • Reecius April 4, 2018 8:51 am #

      Totally get where you are going but again, this entire discussion is moot, lol.

      Drukhari players will naturally gravitate to other detachments and lists because they are flat out better. The raiding force thing is flavorful.

      • Dalamar April 4, 2018 10:00 am #

        Great, then there should be no problem letting Single faction Drukhari have 6 Patrols if that is what they want to do in a tournament.

        • Kabalite1981 April 4, 2018 10:32 am #

          The difference for drukhari is if you combine wyches in a detachment with kabalites they loose their obsessions – no other army has that penalty hence my belief that it is there. And yes you can make it entirely fluffy by going – this archon from poisoned tongue begged this archon from the black heart to repay his debt (enabling you to take raiding forces from all kabals.)

        • Reecius April 4, 2018 11:15 am #

          Le sigh, ok, do whatever you want at your events, lol. We are going to continue to play by the rules unless GW says to do something differently.

          Just please remember, these Codexes are not only written for 2k matched play games, they’re written for ALL types of games: open play, narrative, apoc, matched play at all points levels, etc.

          The Raiding Party rule is meant to work in those various situations, so don’t think of it only as a matched play, 2k point game rule as if you do you are missing the forest for the trees.

      • Gungx April 4, 2018 10:34 am #

        I don’t play drukhari, but I feel it would be very sad to disallow them to use their army specific patrol detachement bonus and one of their stratagem.
        You argue that it’s not the best choice anyway, but I think that’s a weak argument. By that logic you could just exclude anything that is not the best option, because no one wants to play that anyway. Isn’t list diversity a good thing? And maybe.,just maybe someone finds a list and playstyle to make it work really well and has success with it.
        I truly think a special rule like Dalamar posted would be by far the best thing to do.

        • Reecius April 4, 2018 11:13 am #

          They can use it if they only take 3 patrols =)

          And again, lol, this is just playing out of the book by the rules. We aren’t doing anything, we’re just following the dang book, lol. By saying Drukhari can take 6 detachments in a 2k point game then we are changing the rules.

          • Ujayim April 4, 2018 11:39 am

            I know it’s a “moot point” because your decision is made, but you’re explicitly not following the rules; you’re dictating the rules to people, who are then playing by those.

            The Book states, plainly, it is a suggestion. The word suggestion is written in the book. It’s not a rule. There’s no discussion there.

            You are making a rule.

            That’s fine. You can make that call for your format. A spade is a spade, though. People are recognizing that, and thats why you’re getting feedback from people.

            I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, my dude, you guys are going to be forced to recognize the voice you have, and I know you don’t appear to like when people react to that voice, or that you don’t fully want to acknowledge the weight that it carries now that things are growing, but it’s only going to ramp up more and more every year. Either embrace it, and call it like it is, or dont.

          • Reecius April 4, 2018 12:19 pm

            Duuuuude, lol, give me a break. “I” have not decided anything, lol. We’re going off of the dang chart in the book, it suggests we use that chart, we did (just like every other major event) and that is what GW does at their own events for crying out loud, lol. It’s not an FLG thing, and ITC thing, a Reece thing, etc. To say that is absurd. It is just how we play the game, applied equally to everyone.

            That’s not making something up, it’s quite simply holding everyone to the same standard which is definitively fair. The Raiding Party rule is meant for open play, narrative play, alternative points limit or format matched play, etc. The Codexes are not written with 2k point matched play games in mind, they’re written for everyone that plays 40k, most of whom are not tournament players. You’re seeing this very myopically and then crafting a narrative to go with your perspective which is not accurate. I am telling you that what you think is intent, is not intent, lol.

            Anyway, I am done with this silly argument. Time will bear it out anyway.

          • Ujayim April 4, 2018 12:28 pm

            My point IS to give you a break, man lol

            I’m saying I don’t care what’s going on, I just disagree on the final note over who is laying the law.

            To be, a suggestion =/= a rule.

            It’s FINE if we disagree on that, I’m telling YOU I don’t care how it’s “ruled” on in the end. I’m not applying a nefarious intent. I’m indifferent.

            We just disagree on whether the “ruling” exists at all. It’s not a huge deal.

          • Reecius April 5, 2018 10:33 am

            Look, no hard feelings or anything, but I was getting frustrated because you were presenting the argument that WE, as in us at FLG, were somehow acting against Drukhari players by changing rules and then dictating them to the community which is utter baloney and a crappy thing to say, honestly.

            Whether you see the 3 detachment limit as a rule or not is neither here nor there. It is the standard we play at and there’s no need to change it. If we do that for one faction we have to consider doing it for everyone and there’s no need to.

            Again, just wait and see. The Raiding Party rule is thematic, neat but not intended for tournament play. I honestly wish it had had a little more qualifying verbiage to explain the intent of the rule. In matched play games you will see Drukhari players gravitating to Battalions and specialized detachments naturally and this entire debate will have been a waste of breath. People are advocating for something that isn’t good because of a rule that has been presented in a confusing way, without having played the dex yet. It’s silly.

            At any rate, like I said, no hard feelings but man, please rethink the way you present your arguments to not have such an accusatory tone.

          • Ty April 4, 2018 2:04 pm

            Let’s assume for a minute for don’t follow the “suggestion.”

            What do you do? Make the limit four? Does that do anything?

            Do you need for make it six? Does anything think that would be good for the game? I’m skeptical.

          • lessthanjeff April 5, 2018 2:22 am

            Ty, changing detachment limit to 4 would help, but what most drukhari players have been asking for is for 3 patrols to count as a single detachment. It’s similar to a battalion in requirements and command points and would allow a single detachment choice to take any unit from the codex.

            The problem right now is kabals, cults, and covens each only have 7ish units each so the detachments we take are very limited in options and you have to use all 3 detachments just to access all the units and strategems in a book that already has a low number of unit options. It ends up being an additional restriction on getting allies for the codex too because every ally you take removes a third of the codex from you.

          • Reecius April 5, 2018 10:38 am

            But then you have to consider giving EVERYONE 4 detachments which I can tell you is a net negative for the game in general terms IMO.

            If you make a special exception for Drukhari, then everyone will want a special exception. It gets very confusing.

            If GW makes a matched play change to accommodate this, then sure, but for now we treat everyone equally. Your dex is different, totally get it and get that that may be frustrating but I think what you will find in practice is that it is not as big of a deal as it may seem. In our practice games with Drukhari it’s not been too restrictive.

            It can be difficult being the unique snowflake with a Dex formatted in an alternative format but GW did it for thematic reasons and again, the upside is that you get a lot more special rules than other dexes. Whether that is a fair trade or not will come down to individual preference.

          • abusepuppy April 5, 2018 7:25 am

            I don’t really get what all the furor is about. Sure, you can’t take advantage of the Raiding Party rule in tournament play… but you can still just field two or three Battalions. DE troops and HQs are pretty cheap, it’s not that crippling of an investment and you get way, way more CP out of it.

            So what’s the need for a special exception to the rules for DE? If we were playing at, say, 1500 or 1000pts I might be able to see the argument, but 2000pts is more than enough to field three “real” detachments of units rather than just a couple baby ones. A battalion is only barely more of an investment than two patrols (you need one additional troop unit, i.e. 35-70pts) and gives you far, far more to work with.

            The “split” of the units in the codex heavily incentivizes you to take multiple detachments, sure… but so do other rules in other books, like the Tau limitation on Commanders. So if you wanna bring allies, you can’t bring a fully diversified DE army without giving up your subfaction bonuses- that doesn’t seem unfair at all to me. All armies have to make choices, and that doesn’t seem exceptionally burdensome on the DE player at all.

          • lessthanjeff April 6, 2018 2:48 am

            I understand your stance Reecius, I was just responding to Ty who asked what adding more detachments would do for the army and wanted to know what Drukhari players wanted. I understand the headache making an exception for one group can cause for others.

            Abusepuppy, if you read my posts I have been saying I’m taking battalions for my lists in the games I’ve played so far. Generally I take 2 of them and I think most people are as far as getting command points. Two battalions is great, but it still doesn’t let you take all the units from the book. Other armies do have restrictions and are incentivized to take multiple detachments sure, but none of the others are losing access to a significant portion of their book when they do so. For your example, taking that extra detachment to get a second commander doesn’t lock out all fire warrior and alien options for you, so it’s not really an equivalent situation.

            It’s not people saying the raiding party is really powerful and that’s why we want to use it. It’s that we want to be able to use all the units in our book and get to make choices like you are where you’re saying you’d like an extra commander either for different septs on it or just to increase the number you can take of them.

            If it comes off as furor, then I apologize. I’m not trying to be hostile or aggressive in any way with this.

          • Reecius April 6, 2018 9:37 am

            Fair reply, and sorry for losing my temper a bit. I just get sick to death of being accused of acting against the community when my professional life has been dedicated to building it, lol.

Leave a Reply to Gungx