Goonhammer article - Are Drukhari Too Good?

But why does that matter? The Haemonculus doesn't get the option of Ele whip.

amishprn86 wrote:

But why does that matter? The Haemonculus doesn't get the option of Ele whip.

I was just elaborating on the fact that the scissorhand does technically benefit from a +1 to wound at least in certain situations, other than for wounding vehicles. I mentioned the acothyst because the designers of the codex apparently saw fit to ramp up the cost of the scissorhand apparently for this reason.

There are differences!
Scissorhand: S3 AP-2 D1 +2A
Electro... Whip: S2 AP-2 D1 +3A
Both are Poison4+

krayd wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

But why does that matter? The Haemonculus doesn't get the option of Ele whip.

I was just elaborating on the fact that the scissorhand does technically benefit from a +1 to wound at least in certain situations, other than for wounding vehicles. I mentioned the acothyst because the designers of the codex apparently saw fit to ramp up the cost of the scissorhand apparently for this reason.

But it doesn't b.c its poison lol.

Hmm I guess if you wanted to melee a vehicle it would have worked, but a Str 2 and str 3 means nothing when they both wound 99% of all tanks on a 6+ hahaha

amishprn86 wrote:

krayd wrote:

amishprn86 wrote:

But why does that matter? The Haemonculus doesn't get the option of Ele whip.

I was just elaborating on the fact that the scissorhand does technically benefit from a +1 to wound at least in certain situations, other than for wounding vehicles. I mentioned the acothyst because the designers of the codex apparently saw fit to ramp up the cost of the scissorhand apparently for this reason.

But it doesn't b.c its poison lol.

Hmm I guess if you wanted to melee a vehicle it would have worked, but a Str 2 and str 3 means nothing when they both wound 99% of all tanks on a 6+ hahaha

It does matter. If his strength is 3 and gets +1 to wound, he doesn't have to use the poison effect against toughness 3 models. He would wound them on 3s. Poison just guarantees any unmodified 4+ will cause a wound if the roll would otherwise be worse.

So they changed Master Nemesine from "extremely niche" (wounding T3 on 3s with the scissorhand and vehicles/titanic on 5s) to "always useful, just not very powerful"

Zenotaph wrote:

There are differences!
Scissorhand: S3 AP-2 D1 +2A
Electro... Whip: S2 AP-2 D1 +3A
Both are Poison4+

But the weird part is the fact that the scissorhand costs twice as much as the whip.. apparently due to the S difference, as the whip is the same or better in other respects.

krayd wrote:

Zenotaph wrote:

There are differences!
Scissorhand: S3 AP-2 D1 +2A
Electro... Whip: S2 AP-2 D1 +3A
Both are Poison4+

But the weird part is the fact that the scissorhand costs twice as much as the whip.. apparently due to the S difference, as the whip is the same or better in other respects.

Don't think about all those little, uneven, happy little accidents in the codex

Blast your opponents fun away with darklight and dark technomancers

The fact that this thread is within a few topics of the several-pages-long Splintermind criticisms is enjoyably ironic. But nevertheless, I say let the tourney circuit cry! It's not that I necessarily look down my nose at them, but in the decade+ I've read through tourney results, there's never not been a codex that has spent its time in the sun trouncing every other faction. Bitching about overpowered codexes in the tournament scene seems just as competitive as the game itself. Despite GWs dressing it up to look like it, 40K just isn't balanced well enough for tournament play. But I totally understand the pursuit of bucking that thinking and giving it the ol' college try anyway. I mean crap, Harlequins do well and that codex has what, 8 actual profiles in it?

Back in 8th edition I remember reading through GT results and seeing "Drukhari" in a top 5 placing thinking "why that's swell!" only to click the list and see it was a naked archon and 5 warriors in a patrol just to take Black Heart and the rest of the list was Eldar.

This is a codex that has been underperforming and been mostly FINECAST for most of its life. To put my business tinfoil hat on for a second, GW had to do something with this codex or else it was doomed to the shelf for another edition cycle. I've still got a few boxes of finecast wracks, incubi AND Drazhar (probably bc he was 230 points!) still sealed with plastic for crying out loud. At least now they can drum up enthusiasm, get people to buy models and paint and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, they'll put out a damn Vect model by next edition.

Sure GW has been updating editions and codexes more frequently but this is it folks. This codex is going to have to last us for another 2-3 years while the rest of the range gets updated so I would hope it comes out of the warpgate swinging. If we're still ruling GTs by the next edition maybe I'll publicly jab myself with as many loose shock prow bits in my bits bin as I can find.

KiriONE wrote:

The fact that this thread is within a few topics of the several-pages-long Splintermind criticisms is enjoyably ironic. But nevertheless, I say let the tourney circuit cry! It's not that I necessarily look down my nose at them, but in the decade+ I've read through tourney results, there's never not been a codex that has spent its time in the sun trouncing every other faction. Bitching about overpowered codexes in the tournament scene seems just as competitive as the game itself. Despite GWs dressing it up to look like it, 40K just isn't balanced well enough for tournament play. But I totally understand the pursuit of bucking that thinking and giving it the ol' college try anyway. I mean crap, Harlequins do well and that codex has what, 8 actual profiles in it?

Back in 8th edition I remember reading through GT results and seeing "Drukhari" in a top 5 placing thinking "why that's swell!" only to click the list and see it was a naked archon and 5 warriors in a patrol just to take Black Heart and the rest of the list was Eldar.

This is a codex that has been underperforming and been mostly FINECAST for most of its life. To put my business tinfoil hat on for a second, GW had to do something with this codex or else it was doomed to the shelf for another edition cycle. I've still got a few boxes of finecast wracks, incubi AND Drazhar (probably bc he was 230 points!) still sealed with plastic for crying out loud. At least now they can drum up enthusiasm, get people to buy models and paint and MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, they'll put out a damn Vect model by next edition.

Sure GW has been updating editions and codexes more frequently but this is it folks. This codex is going to have to last us for another 2-3 years while the rest of the range gets updated so I would hope it comes out of the warpgate swinging. If we're still ruling GTs by the next edition maybe I'll publicly jab myself with as many loose shock prow bits in my bits bin as I can find.

You say you don't "necessarily" look down your nose at the tournament crowd, but given the rest of the post, especially your use of "cry" and "bitch" it's quite clear that you do. Which is fine, just be honest about it.

Given that you don't feel like this game is balanced well enough for tournament play, I find it odd that you've been following tournament results for a decade. What value is there for you to track results for a style of play you have no stake in?

I do think the game is balanced well enough for tournament play, and would point to at least 2 decades worth of a tournament scene (or more, but I've been playing for 20 years) as the evidence that I'm not alone. I'm not a hard-core tournament player, just sticking to local things and practice games to be the whetstone for the more competitive players to test their lists against.

Moreover, the issue to me isn't balance with tournaments. You're perfectly correct that there is nearly always some army that's dominating, that's just the nature of power creep and edition changes. The issue is when building lists for "casual" games, you end up curb stomping your friends with a powerful list. There are very few bad choices in list building, so a lot of it comes down to intentionally making stupid choices in game. That's an issue when you're playing against someone who knows you're a better player than you're pretending to be. It comes across as patronizing.

Competitive Innovations Editorial: What GW Should do About Drukhari
https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-editorial-what-gw-should-do-about-drukhari/

C+V:
What Will This Add Up To?
The combined set of changes again:

+10pts per Raider
+10pts for Drazhar
+5pts each for Master Succubi/Archons
12CP for triple patrols instead of 14CP
Technomancers automatically hurts if you automatically hit.
No more mixing and matching outside of Realspace Raids.
The resulting meaningful impact on stock competitive Drukhari lists would be:

About 70-80pts of price increases if they choose to make no unit changes, with an option to mitigate this by dropping vehicle upgrades or switching Raiders to Venoms.
Accumulating attrition on Wrack units with Liquifiers if they fire continuously.
Two fewer CP
No ability to bypass keyword limitations when filling out HQs for Covens detachments.

HERO wrote:

Competitive Innovations Editorial: What GW Should do About Drukhari
https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-editorial-what-gw-should-do-about-drukhari/

C+V:
What Will This Add Up To?
The combined set of changes again:

+10pts per Raider
+10pts for Drazhar
+5pts each for Master Succubi/Archons
12CP for triple patrols instead of 14CP
Technomancers automatically hurts if you automatically hit.
No more mixing and matching outside of Realspace Raids.
The resulting meaningful impact on stock competitive Drukhari lists would be:

About 70-80pts of price increases if they choose to make no unit changes, with an option to mitigate this by dropping vehicle upgrades or switching Raiders to Venoms.
Accumulating attrition on Wrack units with Liquifiers if they fire continuously.
Two fewer CP
No ability to bypass keyword limitations when filling out HQs for Covens detachments.

Some of it just sounds like pure envy that doesn't even address any core problems. Particularly the "mixing and matching outside Realspace Raids" was a deliberate design goal that was communicated to us by GW repeatedly. Having +2 CP isn't a dealbreaker either, that's asymmetric gameplay for you.

At the very least, the bonkers Succubus and DT Liquifiers should go. It puts a bad light on our army and skews the perception of our overall good book. They trade way too well for their points and without those interactions, I'm sure we'd see a lot less hate.

Goonhammer wrote:

All five of the Drukhari lists in the Dallas top 10 use both of these upgrades, and that strongly suggests they’re a bit over-pushed.

Seriously? Its used by everyone, so it must be overpowered? Excessive drinking and writing articles really dont mix...

How about for DT, just drop the +1 to wound. Keep the +1DMG. Drop the 1d3 MW on vehicles/monsters, because it wasn't really an issue to begin with. Done. It's still a decent buff. Still an all consuming obsession. However, liquifiers making use of it wouldn't be quite as universally threatening as they are currently.

sekac wrote:

You say you don't "necessarily" look down your nose at the tournament crowd, but given the rest of the post, especially your use of "cry" and "bitch" it's quite clear that you do. Which is fine, just be honest about it.

I think tournaments at your local shop with your friendly group is an awesome experience, provided you have a group of gamers who have a shared understanding that winning isn't everything. I've seen more creative list building at local events than I've ever seen reviewing GT lists. And, what was it last month that we had a story in the 40K community about a prominent tourney personality being caught cheating? He's probably not the only one, just one who got caught, I think competitive tournament scenes attract people like that. You've probably played against them and they are unfun to play against which I think runs counter to the spirit of tournament play of a hobby.

Citing there have been tournaments for the last 20 years doesn't really move the needle for me. I see that as a passionate community creating a tournament scene because they want it, not because GW is necessarily writing rules with tournaments in mind. For all those years you mention, TOs have been adapting extra rules beyond the core set in an effort to counter overly strong lists because they know GW isn't going to faq them with any sense of urgency. Yes this has been changing since the last edition as GW is wading into the tournament scene, but that to me doesn't mean that this game is exactly meant for tournament play.

Nevertheless, 40K is a community that by all accounts moves very slowly. So websites and blogs and forums fill the void by focusing on the topic du jour in between releases. I'm happy for all these DE players who are winning with this faction. I think this book represents some of the best rules writing GW has done and I hope to see them apply lessons they learned by this to other releases to create the kind of flexibility we see in this book.

HERO wrote:

Competitive Innovations Editorial: What GW Should do About Drukhari
https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-editorial-what-gw-should-do-about-drukhari/

C+V:
What Will This Add Up To?
The combined set of changes again:

+10pts per Raider
+10pts for Drazhar
+5pts each for Master Succubi/Archons
12CP for triple patrols instead of 14CP
Technomancers automatically hurts if you automatically hit.
No more mixing and matching outside of Realspace Raids.
The resulting meaningful impact on stock competitive Drukhari lists would be:

About 70-80pts of price increases if they choose to make no unit changes, with an option to mitigate this by dropping vehicle upgrades or switching Raiders to Venoms.
Accumulating attrition on Wrack units with Liquifiers if they fire continuously.
Two fewer CP
No ability to bypass keyword limitations when filling out HQs for Covens detachments.

I could live with a 10 point bump for Raiders and Drazhar. I don't think the Master Archon needs a bump but all Succubi could probably do with going up 10-15 points anyway, Master or not. By the same token however, the Haem could stand to lose a few points.

Losing the 2CP bonus for patrols would not be a gamebreaker IMO, and might encourage use of the Realspace Raid.

Mixing units within detachments is absolutely fine and clearly a deliberate decision by GW. I'm constantly having to remind people that the limitation of not mixing units is something that appeared only in the 8e codex and was almost universally despised due to the already small number of units in our codex being arbitrarily split down into even smaller pools from which to make our detachments. It's all very well saying that other armies lose their benefits if they take other units in a detachment but I'm fairly sure that those other armies also have a vastly larger selection of units they can take without having to go outside their sub-faction. I'd like to see a SM player choose an army where he has just 1 generic HQ option, 1 troop option and no heavy support at all unless he picks other units from outside his chapter!

Lastly the DT 'solution' is hugely harsh. Automatic mortal wound every time you fire is something even GW would say "Hang on a minute, that's a bit extreme!" and they're not known for subtle fixes! A better solution IMO is to simply do what they've done with pretty much every other unit in our codex and limit the unit to what the model kit comes with, which in this case means 1 liquifier per 5 models including the Acothyst. The liquifier on Grots might also need either a limit per unit or a points bump to stop them becoming the new hotness.

I think the above plus maybe switching the DL and DC points cost and dropping SC to 5 points would make a sufficient dent in our power without nerfing us into the ground and may also bring Venoms back into the army rather than all Raiders, all the time.

KiriONE wrote:

You've probably played against them and they are unfun to play against which I think runs counter to the spirit of tournament play of a hobby.

Actually, no. I've only had a handful of unpleasant experiences in 40k and none have them have come during real tournaments. In my experience, everyone is more or less on the same page at a tournament, everyone has a competitive mindset. Some are perhaps more lenient than others, but I don't have any issue with someone not being forgiving at a tournament. They're under no obligation to give me a free pass because I made a mistake.

On the other hand, I've had some bad experiences in local leagues or events billed as "friendly". Because that means a lot of different things depending on who you are. I've played a few people that, frankly, don't have the social grace to handle stressful situations and so they'd never last in a tournament setting. Instead, they end up at other events and have a different experience than what they were expecting, and can't handle it. I've seen a guy throw the old metal Ghazkull and the only reason it didn't smash a window is because it hit a full-size cardboard space marine cutout first (and put a hole in it). I had to take a former U.S. marine a decade older than me and at least twice my size aside and tell him if he puts his hands on anyone at my league again, he's not welcome back. And I've caught people cheating loads of times.

The difference is the dude cheating/throwing a fit at game night isn't a story that sweeps the internet community, whereas cheating at a tournament is. And that's because the competitive community takes it seriously. Because it's a smaller community than people think, because reputations matter, and because actual consequences can be enforced. And when games are streamed, there is evidence of it.

In short: in my 20 years of gaming, and 10ish of playing in tournaments, I've been told many times by non-competitive players how bad competitive players can be, but that has never matched my experience.

Ya I think I am done reading goonhammer. Just going to play the game as written and hope GW releases some codices quickly to stave off the meta junkie click bait overreactions.

Here is Nick and John taking a much more reasonable approach to drukhari.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQOaIhs16MM&ab_channel=ArtofWar40k

The raider thing is tricky. The context of that suggested point increase I'm guessing is rooted in the fact that Black Heart is just so good, but by increasing the points I think you sort of discourage Poisoned Tongue and to a lesser extent the Obsidian Rose leading to even more homogenized lists of Black Heart than there already are or will be.

Edit: Also with raiders, effective heavy/dark lance platforms seem kind of limited. I think because objective capping is still so much more important vs outright killing, the debate over a raider vs ravager for dark lance seems kind of like the raider will win out every time. So seeing a bunch of raiders in a list isn't really spamming/exploiting an overpowered unit so much as it is activating the utility of a unit because of the core ruleset. I think we're really seeing the impact of that smaller board coming to fruition vs other factions who just don't move as fast (or fly when doing so).

Also the latest article that states "at least 1 incubi" as a common theme, seems like a "water is wet" type of comment to me. We historically don't exactly have the deepest of Elite entries and with Mandrakes and Grots still being finecast and the fact of Incubi have always been good; combined with the low likelihood of people even owning Mandrakes or Grots at all I think is more of an explanation as to why you see them in lists vs any overpowered rules writing.

HERO wrote:

Competitive Innovations Editorial: What GW Should do About Drukhari
https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-editorial-what-gw-should-do-about-drukhari/

C+V:
What Will This Add Up To?
The combined set of changes again:

+10pts per Raider
+10pts for Drazhar
+5pts each for Master Succubi/Archons
12CP for triple patrols instead of 14CP
Technomancers automatically hurts if you automatically hit.
No more mixing and matching outside of Realspace Raids.
The resulting meaningful impact on stock competitive Drukhari lists would be:

About 70-80pts of price increases if they choose to make no unit changes, with an option to mitigate this by dropping vehicle upgrades or switching Raiders to Venoms.
Accumulating attrition on Wrack units with Liquifiers if they fire continuously.
Two fewer CP
No ability to bypass keyword limitations when filling out HQs for Covens detachments.

Pretty good changes overall, the only thing I disagree with a bit is how they suggest changing dark technomancers, just not sure if I like changing it in that way specifically. Dark technomancers does clearly need a nerf though.


Also to reply to the topic overall, I think we are broken and at the level iron hands were in 8th so we are definitely due for some nerfs. If they go with the above suggestions from goonhammer, I think we would still be the best army in the game though maybe just not as utterly dominant.

My thoughts from the above article:
> 10 points on Raiders, fine, but I'd rather Dissies and Lances switched because of the effectiveness of the weapon
> Drazhar up by 10 - I would take him even if he was 155 because he's that good.
> +5 for Master Succy/Archon, stupid, why bother with the Archon? If the Succubus was 80 base, I would still take her.
> DT + Liquids, if DT only affected things that actually roll to hit and not liquids, I'd be OK with it.
> Trip Patrols giving 14 CP -> 12, sure. Don't care either.

Honestly, all the anti-De rhetoric is making me sick. I am going off all 40K media for the next week, hopefully things calm down by then.

All I keep seeing/hearing/reading is:

"I have built my marines to take out other marines. I dont want to run troops, take less than 10 Eliminators+10 Inceptors, or put bodies in cover. Therefore Dark Eldar should be eliminated from the game, then shot into the heart of the sun for good measure".

Marines/other 9th edition codicies 100% have the tools to deal with DE, they just dont want to use them. Even the most competitive DE list would not be able to take out 100 intercessors. But nobody wants to take that.

(TBF, most 8th edition codicies DO actually have a problem, but they have the same problem against all 9th edition codex armies)

Anyway, sorry for the rant. Ill let myself out now.

fisheyes wrote:

Honestly, all the anti-De rhetoric is making me sick. I am going off all 40K media for the next week, hopefully things calm down by then.

All I keep seeing/hearing/reading is:

"I have built my marines to take out other marines. I dont want to run troops, take less than 10 Eliminators+10 Inceptors, or put bodies in cover. Therefore Dark Eldar should be eliminated from the game, then shot into the heart of the sun for good measure".

Marines/other 9th edition codicies 100% have the tools to deal with DE, they just dont want to use them. Even the most competitive DE list would not be able to take out 100 intercessors. But nobody wants to take that.

(TBF, most 8th edition codicies DO actually have a problem, but they have the same problem against all 9th edition codex armies)

Anyway, sorry for the rant. Ill let myself out now.

"I can't take autocannons, they suck against anything else!111"
-my favourite quote of the past week

HERO wrote:

My thoughts from the above article:
> 10 points on Raiders, fine, but I'd rather Dissies and Lances switched because of the effectiveness of the weapon
> Drazhar up by 10 - I would take him even if he was 155 because he's that good.
> +5 for Master Succy/Archon, stupid, why bother with the Archon? If the Succubus was 80 base, I would still take her.
> DT + Liquids, if DT only affected things that actually roll to hit and not liquids, I'd be OK with it.
> Trip Patrols giving 14 CP -> 12, sure. Don't care either.

I think it says a lot about how much we have to work with that we could receive all of these nerfs and it'd probably barely scratch the fundamental strengths of the faction.

The hysteria around Drukhari in the broader 40k community feels like it's at a fever pitch (and I really don't remember the demands for any of the strong 8th edition lists to be nerfed being this loud, even when they were objectively doing better than us), but we absolutely do need to be reined in somewhat.

Burnage wrote:

HERO wrote:

My thoughts from the above article:
> 10 points on Raiders, fine, but I'd rather Dissies and Lances switched because of the effectiveness of the weapon
> Drazhar up by 10 - I would take him even if he was 155 because he's that good.
> +5 for Master Succy/Archon, stupid, why bother with the Archon? If the Succubus was 80 base, I would still take her.
> DT + Liquids, if DT only affected things that actually roll to hit and not liquids, I'd be OK with it.
> Trip Patrols giving 14 CP -> 12, sure. Don't care either.

I think it says a lot about how much we have to work with that we could receive all of these nerfs and it'd probably barely scratch the fundamental strengths of the faction.

The hysteria around Drukhari in the broader 40k community feels like it's at a fever pitch (and I really don't remember the demands for any of the strong 8th edition lists to be nerfed being this loud, even when they were objectively doing better than us), but we absolutely do need to be reined in somewhat.

Yup. Did you have a chance to check out the last podcast vid I did on Twitch?

Basically now, with DE on the top of the meta, I wonder how much people have adjusted their list to meet the new menace. They can't complain about not being able to reach the podium if they're not preparing whole-heartedly. What I mean by this is, is it 10% of their list changed? If they're getting their ass beat, I think its time to reach out to 25/50/75% and see what happens.

I don't think the latter extremes have been done yet. I would love to see what a 50% tailored vs. DE list look like competitively. I would love to play against it as well.

HERO wrote:

Basically now, with DE on the top of the meta, I wonder how much people have adjusted their list to meet the new menace. They can't complain about not being able to reach the podium if they're not preparing whole-heartedly. What I mean by this is, is it 10% of their list changed? If they're getting their ass beat, I think its time to reach out to 25/50/75% and see what happens.

I don't think the latter extremes have been done yet. I would love to see what a 50% tailored vs. DE list look like competitively. I would love to play against it as well.

You think, that'll happen? It looks to me, like its much easier to call for the Nerf-Hammer, than to adapt to a new Dex.
Especially when its the unloved stepson of a Codex.