7th Changes for Dark Eldar - a review

Just sat reading the book in a popular coffee chain and blind does appear to be the same.

annoyingly the independent character and infiltrate wording is still slightly amiguous allowing people to argue the toss either way with karandras shenanigans etc

I'm also sad assault doesn't seem to have been drastically altered or boosted.

very pretty books though!

Doesn't it seem that Mandrakes became a bit more viable with the ruleset change? Being able to assault through cover at initiative, and pinned units unable to fire overwatch... seems like they might have a bit more use now, as those were the things that really hurt them the most. Not saying they're amazing now... but they seem much more useful.

@Devilogical wrote:

But someone here says that glancing hits do not remove HP anymore.

Then glancing hits do nothing and have no purpose. Someone with the rulebook can confirm but I'm 100% sure nothing has changed there.

Glancing hits still remove a hull point so with penetrating hits resulting in explosions less likely haywire is better I think

Difficult terrain for charging is now a bit different. You subtract 2 instead of rolling three dice. Any mathhammerers there, is this a good change or a bad change for us?

EDIT:
I also like the new jink rule at least a bit. Now they can jink even if they haven't moved yet (good when going second)

@n-diver wrote:

Doesn't it seem that Mandrakes became a bit more viable with the ruleset change? Being able to assault through cover at initiative, and pinned units unable to fire overwatch... seems like they might have a bit more use now, as those were the things that really hurt them the most. Not saying they're amazing now... but they seem much more useful.

I am missing where they strike at initiative....
They still do not have grenades. They have move through cover which lets them ignore the -2" penalty for charging through terrain, but they strike at in. 1

Area terrain being removed makes a lot of sense. Everyone having their Wraithknight stood in a small copse of trees and claiming a cover save deserved to lose that one, I don't care what anyone says or how much it hurts us overall! Night Fighting changing is going to really hurt, but it didn't make sense to have it the way it was - every race would realistically have some kind of range finding gear, surely? A flat 6+ for everybody is fine by me, it still benefits us and nobody who plays against us. Battle brothers having a ride in our transports makes me seriously consider banshees now. Farseers riding in my Raiders is going to be a blast, and should have been in there all along. Template weapons affecting passengers in open topped vehicles is fair enough in terms of realism, and let's not forget that should people be dropping next to us to try and get one glancing hit on a vehicle and kill some of the passengers inside, they haven't actually stopped the (now scoring) vehicle. It's not as bleak as it seems. It hurts, but it's a lot of effort to go to for toasting a few S&M space elves  

May be it's just me, but i haven't found the rule forbidding assault from reserves.

almost all changes negatively effect us, and we have one of, if not the, worst book anyway.


AND they broke the release cycle, asking us to may for rules more frequently.

frak you GW, frak you right in the face.

@Hijallo wrote:

May be it's just me, but i haven't found the rule forbidding assault from reserves.

It's on page 136 - " A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from reserve."

So there's still not much point to webway portals.

@Mngwa wrote:

EDIT:
I also like the new jink rule at least a bit. Now they can jink even if they haven't moved yet (good when going second)

Speaking personally, all of my raiders usually have cover saves on the first turn anyway - either because they're hiding behind cover, or because I've stuck a venom in the way.

I guess it could be nice against drop-pod melta squads, though I'd be more confident if we actually had some TL stuff on our vehicles.

@The Shredder wrote:

@Mngwa wrote:

EDIT:
I also like the new jink rule at least a bit. Now they can jink even if they haven't moved yet (good when going second)

Speaking personally, all of my raiders usually have cover saves on the first turn anyway - either because they're hiding behind cover, or because I've stuck a venom in the way.

I guess it could be nice against drop-pod melta squads, though I'd be more confident if we actually had some TL stuff on our vehicles.

True, but that +4 cover is still better than what there usually is. And now they don't have to be placed like so.

i've already tried out a game and our vehicles feel a lot more durable, i played vs Mech Guard and lost maybe 2 vehicles total in three turns of russ/hydra shooting.

The tactical objective missions favor the mobile, a lot of the cards are "hold objective x at the end of your turn" so we can easily take the objective for the turn, jink on it when shot at, then just leave the next turn.

@Mngwa wrote:

True, but that +4 cover is still better than what there usually is. And now they don't have to be placed like so.

Well, if you're happy for your Ravager to be snap-shotting on its next turn, then yeah you can put it out in the open and enjoy 4+ jink.

Seeing as TDC hasn't had a dysjunction on the scale of when 6th came out I'm guessing that the new edition's not too bad.

@Cavash wrote:

Seeing as TDC hasn't had a dysjunction on the scale of when 6th came out I'm guessing that the new edition's not too bad.

MM dunno. I think there's a lot of stuff that's double edged, "oo look, vehicles got harder to kill! my raiders might survive!"

yes, but so did everyone elses. You also need to kill all dedicared transports now, and will be putting out less AT fire if you are forced to jink.

and of course a lot of stuff which is a flat out nerf to us.

and not that much which looks positive.

@Cavash wrote:

Seeing as TDC hasn't had a dysjunction on the scale of when 6th came out I'm guessing that the new edition's not too bad.

Well, perhaps that's because 7th edition is more like a glorified errata than a new edition.

With so few changes, there's only so much you can comment on.

Well, unless you fancy listing the 'missed opportunities'...   

@The Shredder wrote:

@Cavash wrote:

Seeing as TDC hasn't had a dysjunction on the scale of when 6th came out I'm guessing that the new edition's not too bad.

Well, perhaps that's because 7th edition is more like a glorified errata than a new edition.

With so few changes, there's only so much you can comment on.

Well, unless you fancy listing the 'missed opportunities'...   

both of these are the main reasons I am a bit annoyed.

limited changes make this look more like a GW cash grab.

"missed opportunities", with rumours to changing snapshot, and potential assault, might have helped us quite a bit. instead.... no.

Just to let you all know, I have not even touched the rulebook and haven't read any of the rules. I was just stating that I'm pleased that there doesn't seem to be a lot of negativity.

So, seventh sounds a bit more like 6.2 with a bunch of new psychic stuff thrown in?

@Cavash wrote:

Just to let you all know, I have not even touched the rulebook and haven't read any of the rules. I was just stating that I'm pleased that there doesn't seem to be a lot of negativity.

Well, I've done my best.   

@Cavash wrote:

So, seventh sounds a bit more like 6.2 with a bunch of new psychic stuff thrown in?

Pretty much, yeah.

There are also some new mission card thingies - but they could just have easily been sold on their own as an expansion to 6th.

@Cavash wrote:

So, seventh sounds a bit more like 6.2 with a bunch of new psychic stuff thrown in?

Essentially, yes. They've fixed a lot of stuff that wasn't broken, buffed some stuff that was OP and nerfed some stuff that was crap. And added a new deck of cards and a selling daemons psychic phase.

I don't think I'll bother buying the new rules and will wait for a mini rulebook off ebay.

@Count Adhemar wrote:

and a selling daemons psychic phase.

I admit that I think this is quite gimmicky and don't like it fluffwise, but it's certianly made me want to play a silly list full of Farseers summoning Bloodletters and turning each other into Greater Daemons.

I'm going to wait for the mini-book too. Might get the boxset. Not sure yet.

The background book is very nice, the miniature showcase is pretty but poor and has actual adverts in it for other GW products that look like a printed out webpage advert.

I genuinely like the psychic phase. Oh btw in the DE fluff section it makes a string point that DE eschew all forms of psychic powers so hopefully no bomb in the new dex.

Interestingly I cannot find aegis defence rules or any fortification rules in my copy of the rules. It simply refers you to stronghold assault and "other" datasheets.


Trying to suck more money from book purchases for fotification rules...

I just figured we can now have multiple allies, right?

I could go for my dream of catachan mercenaries while still have some rangers and now maybe even an autarch   

Maybe... maybe even some kroot for fun!


Also, another thing I realized that we can all ally with nids now too. The new rule is that it is the same as desperate allies, but when deploying, you must keep all that have the "come the apocalypse"-relation within 12" of each other.

@Dragontree wrote:

Oh btw in the DE fluff section it makes a string point that DE eschew all forms of psychic powers so hopefully no bomb in the new dex.

Yes! I'm so happy about this.