Fandex: Dark Eldar (5E)

[Krovin-Rezh]

I have created a fan-made codex for us Dark Kin! Community project!

Here's the link to my post on the Rules Dev board:
http://www.librarium-online.com/forums/rules-development/176356-fandex-dark-eldar-5e-new-post.html

[Darthvegeta800]

Looks quite interesting. Any chance you can upload it on rapidshare?

[Ooglatjama]

Why did you nerf the crucible? The only good part was its ability to instant kill pesky farseers.

Also 32 is an awkward number for a points cost, it should be 30 or 35.


Good job other than that. I love the soul points.

[Krovin-Rezh]

Looks quite interesting. Any chance you can upload it on rapidshare?
You got it, Darth.
RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting (http://rapidshare.com/files/269907313/Fandex_Dark_Eldar.pdf.html)


Why did you nerf the crucible? The only good part was its ability to instant kill pesky farseers.
Yeah. Looks like that one needs some more work. I actually want to make it better overall somehow, so it can be worth the points.

[Darthvegeta800]

Thanks! I'll download it and keep an eye on this thread for updated versions.
By Christmas i plan to FINALLY buy a battlegroup so... this will be interesting.
I'm planning to go bike and raider heavy. A real mobile horde Mad Max style lol with an Archon on a bike!

[Gardeth]

Nightfighting the for the first 4 turns!!! That kills some of my best strategies playing as dark eldar and would be completely broken against certain armies.

Maybe first turn only...but even then...

Congrats on making hellions viable, but I think scourges are still to expensive...maybe with blasters...but 20+ points for a T3 5+ save is still rough

[Krovin-Rezh]

Nightfighting the for the first 4 turns!!! That kills some of my best strategies playing as dark eldar and would be completely broken against certain armies.

Maybe first turn only...but even then...
If it kills your strategy, you can choose not to use it. The idea is that DE strike when they want because they can show up anywhere unannounced. 4 turns may be a bit much, I don't know for sure, but there are equal pros and cons for both sides in theory. I think it will take some playtesting to see if it breaks the game.

Congrats on making hellions viable, but I think scourges are still to expensive...maybe with blasters...but 20+ points for a T3 5+ save is still rough
Thanks. The Scourges are a hard nut to crack. They do have some good uses though. 6 Blasters or SCs is a high concentration of firepower, even though it is costly. This allows them to hit exceptionally tough targets with enough punch to get the job done. They are also the only unit that can Deep Strike to drop a Webway Portal (actually, the Screaming Jets allows it, but I meant to disallow disembarking with them). Alternatively, you could spend the points on the Sybarite's offense and just run with a pistols+blades. Their wings + fleet basically makes them a Warrior squad that doesn't need a Raider.

Oh, almost forgot about the seeker ammo. Deep Strike the Scourges with SSA weapons and you can hide them behind terrain while still firing!
.

[Templarius]

I read it through, there are a few things that I agree with, some that I dont... like Hellion assault 3!...

I think there is a lot of potential here! as for the night fight thing. Maybe make it one turn more than the mission usually allows... so 1 regularly and then 2 in Dow!

[Krovin-Rezh]

Hellglaives are now powerful weapons. The full squad averages 10 unsaved wounds against Guardsmen and 2 against Marines at 170 pts. The closest example is the DA bladestorm, which averages 13 unsaved wounds against Guardsmen and 3 against Marines at 135 pts. The consistent shooting of the Hellions explains most of the points difference, since their skyboards are largely equaled in value by the better armor saves of the Avengers. Is it too powerful? Probably not when you consider the entire opposing army rather than the one squad being targeted. Everything can seem overpowering when pointed at Guardsmen. It is a borderline case though, that I'll make a judgement on after some playtesting.

[Darthvegeta800]

It might be worthwhile to add onto the 'slaves'.
Perhaps an instant effect when one obtains one or more. Morale-wise?
Or perhaps an instant sacrifice effect to regain a wound?

[Seeker84]

I've been reading through some of the codex, I like most of what I've read, great work.

The only question I have so far is why make it so we are paying more to add models into units?
I guess it's a question on what was the design idea behind limiting the number of models in a squad. I kinda liked the idea that we can have 6 haems on the field and it's only 2 hq slots, as an example.

[Krovin-Rezh]

Thanks Seeker.

The haemonculus unit entry still functions the same as our old codex. You start with 1, but you can add up to 2 more for the same choice. They all count as ICs, which allows them to function on their own. Doing that seems to be even easier no that each one can take 3 Grotesques and still join other squads on Raiders. I haven't tested a list maximizing this strategy, so I don't know if it turns out to be too good, but grotesques are much easier to use now.

Also, you'll notice I made the Haemies a bit tougher with 4+ saves. This makes them especially nice on jetbikes! It's also the reason for the extra bump in points.

[Seeker84]

So I finished reading the fandex. WOW, again. I think you've done some great stuff with the dex, and the improvements I saw not only were needed, but within the flavor of the army.

Some things I have to comment on.
-Wyches have Independent Character? I think this was a copy paste error.
-I love that you let the soul seeker ammo to not just the characters.
-The new weapons are sounding really cool.
-Combat drugs, if the succibus in a wyche squad takes them, what happens?
-I'm surprised with all the improvements you still decided to make Cannons on scourges expensive, I would have had them cost the same amount as it would for a warrior.
-You cleared up using webway on a transport, very cool.
-I Love the seeker jetbikes
-YAY we can have jetbikes as troops

[Kantoken]

So I finished reading the fandex. WOW, again. I think you've done some great stuff with the dex, and the improvements I saw not only were needed, but within the flavor of the army.

Some things I have to comment on.
-Wyches have Independent Character? I think this was a copy paste error.
-I love that you let the soul seeker ammo to not just the characters.
-The new weapons are sounding really cool.
-Combat drugs, if the succibus in a wyche squad takes them, what happens?
-I'm surprised with all the improvements you still decided to make Cannons on scourges expensive, I would have had them cost the same amount as it would for a warrior.
-You cleared up using webway on a transport, very cool.
-I Love the seeker jetbikes
-YAY we can have jetbikes as troops

I totally agree with Seeker84. You did an amazing job giving the Dark Eldar the right feeling for a stealthy and fast army. I can only wonder what GW is going to do with them...

[Krovin-Rezh]

So I finished reading the fandex. WOW, again. I think you've done some great stuff with the dex, and the improvements I saw not only were needed, but within the flavor of the army.

Some things I have to comment on.
-Wyches have Independent Character? I think this was a copy paste error.Yep. Fixed that for version 3.
-I love that you let the soul seeker ammo to not just the characters. :)
-The new weapons are sounding really cool. :)
-Combat drugs, if the succibus in a wyche squad takes them, what happens? It should act the same as the codex (replacement). I'll make that clear in v3.
-I'm surprised with all the improvements you still decided to make Cannons on scourges expensive, I would have had them cost the same amount as it would for a warrior.
That's an excellent point. I was including extra points for the extra range due to movement, but that cost is already reflected in their profiles. Since they are just as easily killed as a Warrior, their weaponry should cost the same as a Warrior. This will be changed in v3.
-You cleared up using webway on a transport, very cool. More ways to play = good for everyone. :)
-I Love the seeker jetbikes :)
-YAY we can have jetbikes as troops :) Reavers will be too with a Reaver Wych Queen special character.

Thanks for the support guys. I hope more people can get involved so that these rules can become more widespread while we wait for the new codex in 2010 (or whenever GW get off their butts). If enough people start using it, we can keep our armies from collecting dust on a shelf.

[Wicky]

Hi mate,
Have you ever considered making Grotesques ‘wargear’ for Haemonculi – much like an Ork Ammo Runt?

Each Grot could be purely decorative and simply provide an extra wound for the Haemy.

Each Grot killed places a wound onto the Haemy but you would have to impose a smaller squad size to make all of this work properly in the game.

So if each Haemy can take up to 5 Grots, that unit now has 7 wounds, kill a Grot it now has 6 wounds, remove a Grot and so on.

Obviously doing this preludes the use of other wargear to stop overpowering the model.

What do you think about this variation?

[Krovin-Rezh]

That's really cool idea Wicky. I'm worried about how it interacts with Instant Death though. There would need to be a clause about how Grotesque wounds (and only theirs) would not be affected by ID. Could end up a little confusing.

Have you tried out the small Grotesque retinues? I've had a game or two with them so far, and they are really fun. It makes Haemons really helpful to any squad. You can even do something like this:

5 Warriors w/ Raider + Haemonculus w/ 4 Grotesques

That's two *joined* units and their transport, giving your little Raider squad some much needed protection and extra abilities for +92 points. Pretty awesome!

---------

On a separate note: my friend had trouble understanding the rules for the crushing claws on the Talos. It's my interpretation of the wonky Talos Claws rules in our codex. Is anyone else having trouble with it? I want to make the rules for Talos vs. vehicles as understandable as possible.

[Wicky]

That's really cool idea Wicky. I'm worried about how it interacts with Instant Death though.


Instant Death is played as usual since the Grots are purely decorative.

[Krovin-Rezh]

So one S8 shot kills the Haemonculus AND all of his Grotesques? Can't say I like that outcome.

[Dims]

Wow, this fan dex is great! I'm going to run it through with my local gaming club to see if I can use these updated rules instead of the old dex. Great job Krovin, rep for you. Not only that, my next slave raid will be dedicated to you, and the slaves I bring back to the Dark City will be tribute to you.

[Krovin-Rezh]

Thanks Dims. Keep on the lookout for version 3. It will have a good number of fixes, and should be popping up soon on the other thread.

[Darthvegeta800]

Odd suggestion but perhaps you could add in some Apocalypse/Planetstrike stuff? DE content is lacking all over the board.

Oh and perhaps it might be possible to have basic cheap Haemonculi and a 'Master' Haemonculus?

[Krovin-Rezh]

NOTICE: Version 3 has been released. Use the link in my original post to find it.

Both great ideas Darth. DE could use some additional formations in Apocalypse. I've not had much experience with Planetstrike yet, although I've analyzed the ruleset. I'll add that on to my checklist right after the additional special characters. Please feel free to submit any Apoc/PS ideas you want added.

I like the added character of having multiple tiers for Haemonculi. I haven't yet wrapped my brain around how they should differ yet. Would a single-wound Haemy be worth the points. What kind of added abilities or gear should a Greater Haemonculus have over a Lesser one? I think I'll save the Master title for Urien when I get around to adding him in.

[Darthvegeta800]

Corrected my previous post, i actually meant a basic Haem AND (not 'or') a Master Haem. Basically the basic is the old one, the Master is a new version. Ideal for those going for a Haemonculus/Grotesque list. Like you have a Wych Lord, this is a kind of 'lord' who also modifies the organisation chart.

[Wicky]

[B]NOTICE: Version 3 has been released. Use the link in my original post to find it.



You are up to version 3 in a matter of what, months?

And GW has only 2 over a period of 11 years - now what does that tell you?

[Krovin-Rezh]

Corrected my previous post, i actually meant a basic Haem AND (not 'or') a Master Haem. Basically the basic is the old one, the Master is a new version. Ideal for those going for a Haemonculus/Grotesque list. Like you have a Wych Lord, this is a kind of 'lord' who also modifies the organisation chart.
Okay, I'm getting closer to understanding you here. A special character is probably the best way to modify the FOC for coven units. I'm concerned for how this is going to be of any use to anyone though. Do we really want to take more than 3 choices of Grotesques or more than 3 Talos? Maybe a better direction might be to make the Master Haemonculus give special boosts to Grotesques and Talos near him.


You are up to version 3 in a matter of what, months?

And GW has only 2 over a period of 11 years - now what does that tell you?
I'm going to be very diplomatic in my response here. :)

GW could already have a similarly finished army list written out, but to release something like this as a consumer product requires more testing than I can do on my own. I've also had the help of everyone on these forums who has the same passion for DE, and GW cannot hope to test their rules more than the community can.

However, a point I would like to make if GW were ever to notice this project is that players would jump at the chance to be "beta testers" so-to-speak, because they just want to be able to enjoy their game and can then be a direct part of making it better.

[Darthvegeta800]

Perhaps. I suppose this Haem would be slightly stronger and perhaps create those 'uber' Grotesques from the old codex. And make Grotesques Troop Changes if fielded.
Taloi and Mandrakes may be affected by it too in some way. (though not sure in what way)

[Seeker84]

You are up to version 3 in a matter of what, months?

And GW has only 2 over a period of 11 years - now what does that tell you?

To be fair, I think GW has a lot of work they need to do, not just with our codex, but other army's, other systems. If you have one guy to write the codex and playtest it, then GW would have more employees then they currently do. Plus they may have to have guys that strictly do scuplting, Which cuts the amount of guys to work on codex projects even smaller.

[Darthvegeta800]

You are up to version 3 in a matter of what, months?

And GW has only 2 over a period of 11 years - now what does that tell you?

This is a silly comment.
This is a fandex. And he finetunes as he goes, based on player feedback.
Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. He doesn't need to deliver a single finetuned and finished project. He's relying on feedback, gameplay tests etc to get it balanced and right.

[Ooglatjama]

You are up to version 3 in a matter of what, months?

And GW has only 2 over a period of 11 years - now what does that tell you?


GW works on many projects at once, he is doing only his fandex and he isn't even in the playtest stage.

And the updates are major changes, they are typo fixes.

Common sense is useful huh?

[Krovin-Rezh]

I'm a few games into the playtest stage. However, my games haven't led to as many changes as reader reviews – probably because I'm enjoying the games so much. :)

The rules are there to be played, and more people that play them, the closer it will get to a finished product *hint hint*. ;)

[drunkspleen]

It's alot to take in in one reading so I decided to analyse it in stages, so here is my assessment of the RAW and what effects it could have as well as touching a bit on gameplay practicality.

SPECIAL RULES
As said before, 4 turns for Night hunters seems too long, but it is a cool idea. I think any more than 1 extra turn over a normal game will be unbalancing though.

The phrase "models without a WS cannot take slaves and cannot be taken as slaves" is somewhat confusing, it seems the intent is to prevent vehicles from taking slaves while allowing asdrubael vect to take them(note that he doesn't have the Slave Raiders special rule), but if there were a unit with WS0 it might cause confusion as to whether WS0 is a model "without a WS". It seems all this phrase really needs to say is "vehicles cannot be taken as slaves" because there are no models without WS in the DE dex that have this rule.

Other than that the rule is good at capturing the hit and run feeling of Dark Eldar, but is quite complex and would have a significant metagame implication because Dark Eldar are playing a very different mission to everyone else. It's hard for me to really judge the fairness of this without playtesting, but 20 wounds dealt in close combat for a free held objective seems a bit too easy. Having the models on the board with the unit seems impractical, I would suggest maybe not letting ICs have this rule because 1 person can't really carry around a bunch of slaves, that way you don't have to worry about what happens when units split up and you can simply note down how many slaves a squad has taken on a separate piece of paper (because it will never decrease unless the squad is wiped out).

Haemonculi
The stinger's phrase "If a model suffers a casualty to a stinger" should probably be "If a model is removed as a casualty of the stinger's shot" or something similar, to be clear the model has to die, not just be wounded, and because it's, I believe, better english.

The paralyzer seems a bit too complex, it's not particularly fun tracking all those little things and that's exactly what it serves to make you do. Maybe it would be better at a higher points cost and causing instant death due to the paralysis? Just a suggestion, I definitely don't like having to remember who is paralyzed for the purposes of charging in and taking slaves though.

The way the scissorhand is listed in your codex it would give a further +1 attack when used with the Paralyzer or Stinger. I'm not sure that this is the intended functionality since it is a change from the real codex.

Kabal Retinue
The Punisher is not 2 handed (could be used with a normal pistol for +1 attack) is this intended? It means that, for example, an Archon could swap his blade for a punisher with Tormentor Helm and get +1 attack for a punisher + pistol and a further +1 for the Tormentor Helm.

Grotesques
Mutilated should avoid saying they ignore hits and say they ignore wounds, that way you don't have the issue with the current codex where it can be claimed that a squad of grotesques with an IC in it can ignore the hits even though they could hurt the IC.

Mandrakes
Shadow-skinned could be clearer, consider the phrase ".... gives them a +2 to their cover saves, meaning that when in the open they will have a 5+ cover save." Makes it clearer that it's not a 3+ cover save in open terrain.

Dangerous Motives is very cool, but being able to go to ground in 5+ cover for a 2+ cover save and still assault people who come nearby seems a bit much, maybe they shouldn't be able to go to ground at all to represent that once they reveal themselves on the battlefield their need for gore is always driving them forward.

Wyches
I don't understand the point of the phrase in the Combat Drugs rules about a character which is "Part of (but not joined to) the wyches unit" do you mean upgrade characters such as the succubus and Wych Lords but only if it's the Wych Lord's retinue?

Seeker Jetbikes
Soul Seeker ammunition which makes it so the weapons do not need LOS does not mean they will ignore cover, even though they don't need LOS if something is on the other side of a wall and they can't draw legit LOS to it they will be able to shoot but the enemy will get their cover save. Not sure if this is intended given the old Soulseeker ammunition ignored cover and it seems to suit the unit better as a fast moving close range unit for clearing cover.

Hellions
The Net Slinger doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective to me. The Hellions go near a unit, use the net slinger on that unit to force them to gtg, and the unit misses the next turn, but the hellions then can't assault any unit other than the pinned one. It's good if you can find a lone enemy unit because if you don't take them out in the first turn of shooting you can hang around for the second, but at other times It seems an odd choice for them.

edit: On second thoughts it's not so bad, if the hellions are meant to be a unit that excels at singling out lone enemies to pick off (which makes sense), I also noticed your Skyboards give a 5+ inv save at all times, including in close combat, I'm not sure if this is intended and I personally feel that giving them this benefit encroaches on wych territory a bit too much for my liking.

In the Skyboard description the phrase "Hellions are able to fly in and out of combat and use the Hit & Run special rule." serves no real rule purpose. It should probably either refer to "Models on a skyboard" instead of hellions, meaning that Lords who buy a skyboard get Hit & Run, or just be left off because Hellions have Hit & Run listed as a special rule already.

Scourges
Haywire grenades could be better explained. They say only roll to attack once per model, then goes on to explain how to resolve hits without a conditional of "if they hit". As it is written now, it could be misconstrued to mean even if you miss you get to make the roll to try and penetrate.

Ravager
The Dark Veil is a neat idea but realistically I find it's not common for a ravager/raider to be able to claim a cover save from something other than moving fast. I don't know what should be done to make it better, but as it stands I'd rather it wasn't on the Ravager and the Ravager went back down by 10 points to it's old cost.

Talos
Hover only allows it to pass impassable terrain, it will still need to take difficult terrain tests, and won't be able to float over friendly/enemy units. Not sure if this is intended, may well be, neither is a huge issue, since they have Move through cover already as MCs and generally won't be in a position to fly over a close unit to assault a further away one given their speed.

Wargear
The Agonizer remains unclear as to whether or not it is a poisoned weapon, if it were classed as a poisoned weapon with additional rules it would mean high Str models using them would potentially get to re-roll to wound against weaker models. It could use clarification one way or the other.

The Shadowfield could use clarification behind when the save is lost regarding attacks that ignore invulnerable saves (such as a psycannon), basically, if a save is failed but it's not the shadow field itself is the shadowfield still lost?

Bravo with Webway portals, very clear and it clears up most of the issues with them, It could use a sentence dealing with what happens if you pass a reserves roll before the portal is set up though.

Corpse Adornments shouldn't refer to the "highest leadership" because it causes a few rules issues with a unit with the same leadership for all models(e.g. "there is no highest leadership so none of my models suffer the penalty" arguing against "all your models have the highest leadership so all models suffer the penalty").

Darkstar Engine's final sentence should be reworded to "If a Raider with this upgrade suffers a Destroyed-explodes! result..." to clarify that it happens regardless of how the Raider has chosen to move (It's minor, but I find the use of the term "if the raider suffers..." suggests it is referring to the raider that just moved an extra 6+d6", if that makes sense).

Horrorfex is still unclear regarding Main weapon or Defensive weapon etc. I would personally class it as defensive. Should be clarified exactly what it's use constitutes either way.

Your version of the Night Field accounts for Rapid Fire weapons but not for Melta weapons, which currently ARE effected by the Night Field. If this nerf was intended then there's obviously no issue, one of the things that didn't seem intended that I considered worth mentioning.

Screaming Jets remain not very good, for 10 points you can deep strike your raider but the passengers can't fire or disembark, Meaning if you use it all you get is a Dark Lance(Disintegrator Shot) and the chance to put your raider ahead of the rest of your army waiting to be shot. I don't know if it would be very balanced but I think make them a bit more costly and count as moving flat out instead of cruising speed because the 30+d6" Darkstar Engine move that grants a 3+ cover save is almost guaranteed to be a better option than the Screaming Jets, except maybe in big Apocalypse games.

Unfortunately I don't have time to go over all the points costs and tell you whether I consider them correct right now, but atleast I got to put my experience arguing with rules lawyers to good use and help try and make all the rules as clear as possible.

I would like to reinforce, this is mostly just me being critical of the RAW or some playability issues, there are tons of things that I really like in what you have done, and I will touch on them next time I post about it, but for now these are some problems I found.

[Krovin-Rezh]

It's alot to take in in one reading so I decided to analyse it in stages, so here is my assessment of the RAW and what effects it could have as well as touching a bit on gameplay practicality.

SPECIAL RULES
As said before, 4 turns for Night hunters seems too long, but it is a cool idea. I think any more than 1 extra turn over a normal game will be unbalancing though.
Doesn't anyone remember the Night Fighting missions? There's always going to be certain builds that aren't good at certain missions. That doesn't make it unbalanced though. One turn isn't going to do much of anything. Just look at the Dawn of War deployment. People just end up waiting until the next turn to get to killing. If you can have night for the majority of the game, you'll have to make lists that work at night as well as day. Every army has ways of doing that, whether it be acute senses, searchlights, blacksun filters, markerlights, or a strategy for short range. Night also hinders DE as much as it helps, since they use ranged attacks just as much as other armies.

The phrase "models without a WS cannot take slaves and cannot be taken as slaves" is somewhat confusing, it seems the intent is to prevent vehicles from taking slaves while allowing asdrubael vect to take them(note that he doesn't have the Slave Raiders special rule), but if there were a unit with WS0 it might cause confusion as to whether WS0 is a model "without a WS". It seems all this phrase really needs to say is "vehicles cannot be taken as slaves" because there are no models without WS in the DE dex that have this rule.
Good call. Fixed for the next version.

Other than that the rule is good at capturing the hit and run feeling of Dark Eldar, but is quite complex and would have a significant metagame implication because Dark Eldar are playing a very different mission to everyone else. It's hard for me to really judge the fairness of this without playtesting, but 20 wounds dealt in close combat for a free held objective seems a bit too easy. Having the models on the board with the unit seems impractical, I would suggest maybe not letting ICs have this rule because 1 person can't really carry around a bunch of slaves, that way you don't have to worry about what happens when units split up and you can simply note down how many slaves a squad has taken on a separate piece of paper (because it will never decrease unless the squad is wiped out).
That method sounds like it could be a good improvement on mine. If I had a regular Ork, IG, or 'Nid opponent, I could test this out better. It was originally a statistical 30 wounds to get the objective/KP, but I found I wasn't taking slaves often enough at a 5+. Now that it's 4+ I should probably up that requirement to 150 soul points rather than 100, but I'll try to test this out before making the change.

Haemonculi
The stinger's phrase "If a model suffers a casualty to a stinger" should probably be "If a model is removed as a casualty of the stinger's shot" or something similar, to be clear the model has to die, not just be wounded, and because it's, I believe, better english.
Yep, I'll change the wording to "If a models becomes a casualty of a stinger." Keep in mind that I purposely omitted the "shot" part because the resulting blast can actually cause a chain reaction, albeit at a 6+ chance per model hit. The opponent still gets to choose which models are allocated wounds, which further reigns it in.

The paralyzer seems a bit too complex, it's not particularly fun tracking all those little things and that's exactly what it serves to make you do. Maybe it would be better at a higher points cost and causing instant death due to the paralysis? Just a suggestion, I definitely don't like having to remember who is paralyzed for the purposes of charging in and taking slaves though.
I worked on it a bit and came up with this: "If a model becomes a casualty to the Paralyzer, lay it on its side. If that model’s unit is charged in the following assault phase, it is captured as a slave by the unit that charged. If the unit is not charged in the following assault phase, remove the model at the end of the turn."

I bit long-winded, but you now have a clear-cut method that keeps play going. Otherwise, it seems like a fairly simple mechanic to me. Notice that the slave is captured right when the unit is charged, so the first unit that does so is always the one that takes the slave. Also, the model is already a casualty, so count it towards 25% morale checks rather than close combat results.

The way the scissorhand is listed in your codex it would give a further +1 attack when used with the Paralyzer or Stinger. I'm not sure that this is the intended functionality since it is a change from the real codex.
It was intended, since Haemys never get power weapons. Let me know if it becomes a problem.

Kabal Retinue
The Punisher is not 2 handed (could be used with a normal pistol for +1 attack) is this intended? It means that, for example, an Archon could swap his blade for a punisher with Tormentor Helm and get +1 attack for a punisher + pistol and a further +1 for the Tormentor Helm.
Good catch & fixed. It should remain as a two-handed weapon.

Grotesques
Mutilated should avoid saying they ignore hits and say they ignore wounds, that way you don't have the issue with the current codex where it can be claimed that a squad of grotesques with an IC in it can ignore the hits even though they could hurt the IC.
Thanks. This is another one fixed for v4.

Mandrakes
Shadow-skinned could be clearer, consider the phrase ".... gives them a +2 to their cover saves, meaning that when in the open they will have a 5+ cover save." Makes it clearer that it's not a 3+ cover save in open terrain.
Okay, this rule is difficult to word so that it can't be misconstrued that way. I could be beardy and tell people to count open ground as 7+ cover, but I think I'll just add a clause that says not to modify the 5+ cover instead. ;)

Dangerous Motives is very cool, but being able to go to ground in 5+ cover for a 2+ cover save and still assault people who come nearby seems a bit much, maybe they shouldn't be able to go to ground at all to represent that once they reveal themselves on the battlefield their need for gore is always driving them forward.
Sounds fair. I've added that in.

Wyches
I don't understand the point of the phrase in the Combat Drugs rules about a character which is "Part of (but not joined to) the wyches unit" do you mean upgrade characters such as the succubus and Wych Lords but only if it's the Wych Lord's retinue?
Yes any part of the unit that is not joined as an IC is affected unless the drugs gear is taken. Since an upgrade character is never properly defined in 40K, I used wording based on how retinues function. I've tweaked the wording, switching out "character" for "model" so there's no question whether it affects Succubi or not. Here's the updated sentence:

"These drugs affect any model that is considered part of (but not joined to) the Wyches’ unit unless that model has its own combat drugs."

Seeker Jetbikes
Soul Seeker ammunition which makes it so the weapons do not need LOS does not mean they will ignore cover, even though they don't need LOS if something is on the other side of a wall and they can't draw legit LOS to it they will be able to shoot but the enemy will get their cover save. Not sure if this is intended given the old Soulseeker ammunition ignored cover and it seems to suit the unit better as a fast moving close range unit for clearing cover.
It is intended. It was a trade-off, since having both abilities ends up being a bit unfair to GEQ armies. I decided to keep the no-LOS version because it feels more useful and fun.

Hellions
The Net Slinger doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective to me. The Hellions go near a unit, use the net slinger on that unit to force them to gtg, and the unit misses the next turn, but the hellions then can't assault any unit other than the pinned one. It's good if you can find a lone enemy unit because if you don't take them out in the first turn of shooting you can hang around for the second, but at other times It seems an odd choice for them.
I see what you mean. The weapon needs to be changed to a piece of wargear that unlocks an ability. I will change the rules to this:

"When a Hellions unit with a net slinger uses the Deep Strike ability, you may place a single large blast marker centered on an enemy model anywhere within 12" of them. Scatter the marker D6". Any models hit by the Net Slinger must pass a Strength Test or their unit will be forced to go to ground. Note that this is not a Morale Check, and so Fearless units are also susceptible. Each Net Slinger may be used only once per battle."

This allows them to have a chance at pinning one unit, and then shooting at another when they DS, since they are not shooting the net slinger.

edit: On second thoughts it's not so bad, if the hellions are meant to be a unit that excels at singling out lone enemies to pick off (which makes sense), I also noticed your Skyboards give a 5+ inv save at all times, including in close combat, I'm not sure if this is intended and I personally feel that giving them this benefit encroaches on wych territory a bit too much for my liking.
Another intended change. It makes more sense to give them the same save in CC where they continue to use their skyboards to dodge. They are specially equipped Wyches, so it makes sense to me that they would have a similar ability.

In the Skyboard description the phrase "Hellions are able to fly in and out of combat and use the Hit & Run special rule." serves no real rule purpose. It should probably either refer to "Models on a skyboard" instead of hellions, meaning that Lords who buy a skyboard get Hit & Run, or just be left off because Hellions have Hit & Run listed as a special rule already.
Fixed for v4. ICs will gain H&R from their skyboards.

Scourges
Haywire grenades could be better explained. They say only roll to attack once per model, then goes on to explain how to resolve hits without a conditional of "if they hit". As it is written now, it could be misconstrued to mean even if you miss you get to make the roll to try and penetrate.
Fixed for v4. It now says: "If the roll to hit is successful, roll a D6..."

Ravager
The Dark Veil is a neat idea but realistically I find it's not common for a ravager/raider to be able to claim a cover save from something other than moving fast. I don't know what should be done to make it better, but as it stands I'd rather it wasn't on the Ravager and the Ravager went back down by 10 points to it's old cost.
It comes down to the type of terrain you use. I'll make it optional for players that don't use cover for their Ravs.

Talos
Hover only allows it to pass impassable terrain, it will still need to take difficult terrain tests, and won't be able to float over friendly/enemy units. Not sure if this is intended, may well be, neither is a huge issue, since they have Move through cover already as MCs and generally won't be in a position to fly over a close unit to assault a further away one given their speed.
I lumped impassable terrain and other models together in my head. The Talos should be able to hover over other models. It does still take difficult tests as an MC though. It is much preferable to taking a dangerous test. I've fixed the wording so that it explains all of this much better.

Wargear
The Agonizer remains unclear as to whether or not it is a poisoned weapon, if it were classed as a poisoned weapon with additional rules it would mean high Str models using them would potentially get to re-roll to wound against weaker models. It could use clarification one way or the other.
It's not meant to be a poisoned weapon. The description shouldn't indicate poison.

The Shadowfield could use clarification behind when the save is lost regarding attacks that ignore invulnerable saves (such as a psycannon), basically, if a save is failed but it's not the shadow field itself is the shadowfield still lost?
I've added a "while using it" portion to clarify that it does not go away if you use cover or your armor instead.

Bravo with Webway portals, very clear and it clears up most of the issues with them, It could use a sentence dealing with what happens if you pass a reserves roll before the portal is set up though.
Okay. I've added this: "Any unit rolled in for reserves before a webway portal is opened will automatically arrive through the first opened portal, but must wait off the board until then."

I'm thinking of devoting a whole page to the Webway Portal just because it has so many rules. :)

Corpse Adornments shouldn't refer to the "highest leadership" because it causes a few rules issues with a unit with the same leadership for all models(e.g. "there is no highest leadership so none of my models suffer the penalty" arguing against "all your models have the highest leadership so all models suffer the penalty").
Changed it to simply lower the unit's leadership by 1.

Darkstar Engine's final sentence should be reworded to "If a Raider with this upgrade suffers a Destroyed-explodes! result..." to clarify that it happens regardless of how the Raider has chosen to move (It's minor, but I find the use of the term "if the raider suffers..." suggests it is referring to the raider that just moved an extra 6+d6", if that makes sense).
Fixed for v4.

Horrorfex is still unclear regarding Main weapon or Defensive weapon etc. I would personally class it as defensive. Should be clarified exactly what it's use constitutes either way.
Fixed for v4.

Your version of the Night Field accounts for Rapid Fire weapons but not for Melta weapons, which currently ARE effected by the Night Field. If this nerf was intended then there's obviously no issue, one of the things that didn't seem intended that I considered worth mentioning.
Fixed for v4. It now applies to Melta's half-range as well.

Screaming Jets remain not very good, for 10 points you can deep strike your raider but the passengers can't fire or disembark, Meaning if you use it all you get is a Dark Lance(Disintegrator Shot) and the chance to put your raider ahead of the rest of your army waiting to be shot. I don't know if it would be very balanced but I think make them a bit more costly and count as moving flat out instead of cruising speed because the 30+d6" Darkstar Engine move that grants a 3+ cover save is almost guaranteed to be a better option than the Screaming Jets, except maybe in big Apocalypse games.
Take them with Stabilizers. Then the passengers can shoot. You lose the main weapon's shot though.

Unfortunately I don't have time to go over all the points costs and tell you whether I consider them correct right now, but atleast I got to put my experience arguing with rules lawyers to good use and help try and make all the rules as clear as possible.

I would like to reinforce, this is mostly just me being critical of the RAW or some playability issues, there are tons of things that I really like in what you have done, and I will touch on them next time I post about it, but for now these are some problems I found.

Thank you very much for the help. I'm glad to hear you like this project, and I'm really glad you listed all these issues so I could fix them!
:beer::dance:

[Krovin-Rezh]

Version 4 is released. Use the link in the original post to find it.

All the changes mentioned so far, plus a few more and... 2 new special characters. Yay!

[Krovin-Rezh]

Version 5 is released, and marks a big shift in my approach. Warriors have gone from being very shooty (as we are playing now) to being a well-rounded shooting/assault unit. Webway portals and taking slaves are loads more interesting. Drazhar is added, as are Shadow Warriors. Check the link in post #1 for a detailed list of changes.

Here's the link to the document:
Fandex Dark Eldar v5 (http://tinyurl.com/ybrlols)