Drukhari 8th Codex Tactics - see 9th for new tactics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Rafss**

Hi, are you using Mandrakes? Rather, in competitive matches or in friendly matches. What is the purpose of Mandrakes in your games?

**harlokin**

I don't play competitively, but I really like using Mandrakes to attack/tag backline units, clear buildings, grab objectives, and target poorly positioned characters.

They aren't exceptional at any one thing, but are really decent, and bring a lot of versatility to a TAC list.

They could really do with new models though

**Amishprn86**

Rafss wrote:
Hi, are you using Mandrakes? Rather, in competitive matches or in friendly matches. What is the purpose of Mandrakes in your games?

They are able competitive, not S tier but a solid B+, play to their strengths, a DSing harassment unit.

**vipoid**

Rafss wrote:
Hi, are you using Mandrakes? Rather, in competitive matches or in friendly matches. What is the purpose of Mandrakes in your games?

I'll usually include a unit or two for flavour reasons.

As to their purpose... they don't really have one. They're probably the closest thing in the DE book to a 'jack of all trades' unit. Hence, I don't have a specific role for them when I'm building a list. Instead, I'll always put them into reserves and will simply look at the situation on turn 2-3. Maybe there's an infantry unit I want help killing, maybe there's a unit out of LoS of most of the rest of my army that I want dead, maybe there's an objective I want to get some models on.

I will say that I tend to lean much more towards using them for shooting and holding objectives than for melee combat (especially in the turn that they actually arrive). Indeed, their 'guns' actually have a pretty decent range, so I might well deep strike them in range of a few targets and just see which one I need help killing.

harlokin wrote:
They could really do with new models though

I don't disagree, though I will say that - in spite of their age - the current Mandrake models are still some of my favourites in the DE range. Their lower bodies are a bit blocky but from the torso up I think their sculpts still hold up exceptionally well. Still, they could really do with more poses, not to mention a sturdier material.

Also, I know I've said this a million times but I'd really like them to get an actual HQ model.

I really like their lore but it frustrates me that it's basically impossible to build around them because they're currently just a single unit with no HQs and zero support from the rest of the army.

**harlokin**

I'm curious at people's experience and opinion of Scourges?

I love the look of the models, but on paper they seem very one-shot to me. I know that as a Drukhari player I shouldn't be too concerned about disposable units, but they seem super fragile, even by our standards.

How do they compare to Mandrakes as a harassment unit?

**VladimirHerzog**

harlokin wrote:
I'm curious at people's experience and opinion of Scourges?

I love the look of the models, but on paper they seem very one-shot to me. I know that as a Drukhari player I shouldn't be too concerned about disposable units, but they seem super fragile, even by our standards.

How do they compare to Mandrakes as a harassment unit?

scourge are very much a one shot unit and not that great at it either. Mandrakes are much better at harassing and holding objectives because of their -1 to hit.

Scourge benefitting from cover is cute and helps their durability, but even then its still a 3+ save on 1 wounds, T3 models.

If you want to run them, MSU with a specialized role (haywire for big vehicles with invulns, shredder for screens, blaster for light vehicles) is the best way to run them

**wuestenfux**

If you want to run them, MSU with a specialized role (haywire for big vehicles with invulns, shredder for screens, blaster for light vehicles) is the best way to run them

Pretty much this.
Three units of 5 each of which with 4 special weapons of the same type appearing in round 2 could shift the tide in your direction.

**flamingkillamajig**

harlokin wrote:
I'm curious at people's experience and opinion of Scourges?

I love the look of the models, but on paper they seem very one-shot to me. I know that as a Drukhari player I shouldn't be too concerned about disposable units, but they seem super fragile, even by our standards.

How do they compare to Mandrakes as a harassment unit?

The issue with scourge is they're a suicide unit meant for anti-tank and 8th ed 40k has fairly durable vehicles. Point for point they're not gonna eliminate vehicles effectively. If you want to do that you have to put anti-tank in vehicles of your own. That said scourge still have anti-infantry options like shardcarbines and shredders. Shardcarbines have more range and a lot of shots but no ap making them terrible against MEQ units in cover or custodes (they're cheap and you take them in units of 10). Shredders are fun in numbers but the low model count means they'll die fast. At least they don't take up much room and can DS into small areas in units of 5 even with bigger base size due to recent base size increase.

The one anti-tank upgrade that may be effective for scourge is dark lances due to the long range keeping them away from the enemy and that is a huge maybe. If they have to move their shooting weapons are -1 to hit but you can even start them on the board turn 1. The unfortunate thing is whatever can hit them at that long range effectively enough will kill them so you may have to hide them if it's unlikely you'll get first turn which means you'll be at -1 to hit.

**harlokin**

Thanks for your insights, appreciated.

**vipoid**

harlokin wrote:
I'm curious at people's experience and opinion of Scourges?

I love the look of the models, but on paper they seem very one-shot to me. I know that as a Drukhari player I shouldn't be too concerned about disposable units, but they seem super fragile, even by our standards.

I used to use them a lot but they've gradually disappeared from my lists. I think part of it has to do with their weapon options.

I don't like Poisoned Weapons at the best of times, so the last thing I want is Shardcarbines or Splinter Cannons. I know some people like them with Shredders, but my lists rarely need any extra anti-infantry, and the few times I've actually tried them they've just been dismal.

That leaves Dark Lances, Blasters or Haywire. Dark Lances seem like a waste because they can't take advantage of their mobility with them. Blasters are waaaay too expensive for a unit that's already unlikely to live more than 1 turn. That leaves only Haywire.

Indeed, when I used to use them it was always with 4x Haywire. This was at least one of the cheaper ways to run them.

The issue is that, even taking into account their cost, I just don't think they do nearly enough damage for such a fragile unit. Haywire can be good but it's really unreliable as you've got random shots on each weapon and then after that you're basically just fishing for 6s. What's more, I'm not even getting good use of their 14" move. Usually I'll just deep strike them, and then they won't even be around to move next turn.

It's a shame as I adore the Scourge models.

harlokin wrote:
How do they compare to Mandrakes as a harassment unit?

I'd definitely pick Mandrakes over Scourges for harassment. They're good all-rounders and I prefer their 5++/6+++ with -1 to hit to the Scourges' 4+/6++/6+++. Plus the Mandrakes can actually do work in melee.

**flamingkillamajig**

In some ways mandrakes are good but you all have to keep in mind some very important things about our anti-infantry firepower. It's anywhere from 12" to 18" range excepting splinter cannons which are 36" but that's ineffective range because it's rapid fire 3. That only leaves disintegrator cannons as our 36" range anti infantry weapon and it can only be taken on ravagers, raiders and razorwing jets.

I'm not saying mandrakes are bad. They actually sound good all things considered except movement speed and against a custodes army they'd fall over like it's no big deal. Against tau and guard it could be good. The exception is that new farsight enclave crisis suit burst cannon spam but it's dumb and could even kill a unit of 10 grotesques fully boosted. Seriously as far as I heard it's dumb. They supposedly hit on 2+ due to instant markerlights and the fact they're 3+ to hit base. Let's be real here. Tau has never been an easy match-up for dark eldar. Just when I make an army that can maybe handle some riptides or even 3 riptides I have to deal with farsight crisis suit spam DS bs.

**wuestenfux**

Well, instead of Scourges I'd think about a detachment with Harlies:
shadowseer, 3 squads of skyweavers with haywire cannons.

**flamingkillamajig**

wuestenfux wrote:
Well, instead of Scourges I'd think about a detachment with Harlies:
shadowseer, 3 squads of skyweavers with haywire cannons.

Well it depends if you do a pure dark eldar force or not.

**wuestenfux**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Well, instead of Scourges I'd think about a detachment with Harlies:
shadowseer, 3 squads of skyweavers with haywire cannons.

Well it depends if you do a pure dark eldar force or not.

Well, some SM chapters have benefits from running a pure army.
But this is certainly not true for Aeldari kin.

**Amishprn86**

wuestenfux wrote:
flamingkillamajig wrote:
wuestenfux wrote:
Well, instead of Scourges I'd think about a detachment with Harlies:
shadowseer, 3 squads of skyweavers with haywire cannons.

Well it depends if you do a pure dark eldar force or not.

Well, some SM chapters have benefits from running a pure army.
But this is certainly not true for Aeldari kin.

Yeah but not everyone wants to use others, or are in a local that doesn't look down on that, etc..

**flamingkillamajig**

Wait seriously? I thought our phoenix rising supplement could only be taken as a pure force unless you do ynnari.

That said yeah skyweavers with haywire cannons over scourge with haywire every day all day.

**vipoid**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
That said yeah skyweavers with haywire cannons over scourge with haywire every day all day.

Yeah, it's kinda depressing just how much better Skyweavers are compared with Scourges.

2 Skyweavers with Glaives and Haywire Cannons is 92pts
5 Scourges with 4 Haywire Blasters is also 92pts.

The Skyweavers have 2d6 Haywire Shots whilst the Scourges have 4d3, so the latter are slightly more reliable. Unfortunately, that's really all the Scourges have going for them.

The Skyweavers are faster (+2" Movement, automatically move +6" when Advancing, and can Advance and still Charge).
The Skyweavers are more durable (6 wounds at T4, 4++ and enemies are at -1 to hit vs T3, 4+/6++/6+++)
The Skyweavers actually have decent melee (6 attacks at S4 AP-2 D2), whilst the Scourges have no melee to speak of.
Finally, the Skyweavers can have additional squad members who each bring the exact same tools to the table. So a squad of 4 would have 4d6 Haywire shots and 12 S4 AP-2 D2 melee attacks. Meanwhile, the Scourges can only ever have 4 special weapons. So even the minimum squad can't have the full 5 Haywire Blasters, and the only thing additional Scourges can hope to do is soak up wounds.

And this is before we even get to the fact that Scourges basically have 0 support from their own book.

**harlokin**

That is really depressing reading. I was looking at the lovely Scourge models and was hoping I could do something useful with them.

I don't dislike the clowns per se, but I'm really more about using what the Drukhari dex has to offer. That said, I don't mind the idea of using the Ynnari characters, Yvraine in particular seems a good HQ pick.

**Slayer-Fan123**

harlokin wrote:
That is really depressing reading. I was looking at the lovely Scourge models and was hoping I could do something useful with them.

I don't dislike the clowns per se, but I'm really more about using what the Drukhari dex has to offer. That said, I don't mind the idea of using the Ynnari characters, Yvraine in particular seems a good HQ pick.

Ynari don't really do anything of worth. If the Ynari characters functioned more like Inquisitors it'd be different.

**flamingkillamajig**

Yeah this is why you don't use scourge anymore (anti-infantry may be the exception). They haven't been good since the start of 8th and the codex we got didn't help them or any non-mercenary units. Meanwhile they kill off trueborn entirely as a unit because "reasons" and re-vamp the models to incubi which was a mostly perfectly fine model previously and they added no gear options to them and they still suck. Oh and they nerfed archons and ravagers and our jets for some reason. I mean archons are cheaper now but they don't do anything really besides cast a buff aura.

Phoenix rising does help us outside of kabal mostly but these days it just isn't enough compares to everybody else's psychic awakening stuff.

**vipoid**

harlokin wrote:
I don't dislike the clowns per se, but I'm really more about using what the Drukhari dex has to offer.

I'm the same.

The issue I'm finding, though, is that the Drukhari codex really doesn't seem to have many tricks up its sleeve.

It's split into 3 subfactions + mercenaries, which limits it massively because each subfaction has so few units. What's more, there's no synergy between subfactions, so I can't use an Archon to buff Grotesques or have a Haemonculus beef up Mandrakes. The HQs in general are almost universally awful in terms of what they actually bring to the table (and it's not like we have a large or diverse selection to pick from).

I don't know, it just seems like we're relying on a handful of efficient units to prop up an otherwise shoddy book.

harlokin wrote:
That said, I don't mind the idea of using the Ynnari characters, Yvraine in particular seems a good HQ pick.

Yvraine is okay. Obviously you miss out on her support spells if you're not playing Ynnari but she can still deny a power each turn, throw out some Mortal Wound spells and potentially heal herself if she gets injured. I think my biggest complaint is that if I was taking her in a Dark Eldar list, I'd want her as my Warlord . . . but her Warlord Trait is abysmal. Oh well, she's still not an awful choice.

**harlokin**

vipoid wrote:
Yvraine is okay. Obviously you miss out on her support spells if you're not playing Ynnari but she can still deny a power each turn, throw out some Mortal Wound spells and potentially heal herself if she gets injured. I think my biggest complaint is that if I was taking her in a Dark Eldar list, I'd want her as my Warlord . . . but her Warlord Trait is abysmal. Oh well, she's still not an awful choice.

Yeah, I agree. Thing is, I quite like the idea of taking Drazhar as my Warlord, as Hatred Eternal seems a decent buff for him. Means giving up Alliance of Agony though.

**vipoid**

harlokin wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Yvraine is okay. Obviously you miss out on her support spells if you're not playing Ynnari but she can still deny a power each turn, throw out some Mortal Wound spells and potentially heal herself if she gets injured. I think my biggest complaint is that if I was taking her in a Dark Eldar list, I'd want her as my Warlord . . . but her Warlord Trait is abysmal. Oh well, she's still not an awful choice.

Yeah, I agree. Thing is, I quite like the idea of taking Drazhar as my Warlord, as Hatred Eternal seems a decent buff for him. Means giving up Alliance of Agony though.

Personally, I'd hesitate to use Drazhar as my Warlord simply because I'd want to retain the option to send him on suicide-missions without giving my opponent a VP.

**Amishprn86**

vipoid wrote:
harlokin wrote:
vipoid wrote:
Yvraine is okay. Obviously you miss out on her support spells if you're not playing Ynnari but she can still deny a power each turn, throw out some Mortal Wound spells and potentially heal herself if she gets injured. I think my biggest complaint is that if I was taking her in a Dark Eldar list, I'd want her as my Warlord . . . but her Warlord Trait is abysmal. Oh well, she's still not an awful choice.

Yeah, I agree. Thing is, I quite like the idea of taking Drazhar as my Warlord, as Hatred Eternal seems a decent buff for him. Means giving up Alliance of Agony though.

Personally, I'd hesitate to use Drazhar as my Warlord simply because I'd want to retain the option to send him on suicide-missions without giving my opponent a VP.

Yep, same way i play him, suicide beatstick.

**-Guardsman-**

flamingkillamajig wrote:
I mean archons are cheaper now but they don't do anything really besides cast a buff aura.

vipoid wrote:
The HQs in general are almost universally awful in terms of what they actually bring to the table (and it's not like we have a large or diverse selection to pick from).

I find Archons pretty effective in close combat. A melee-oriented Archon can actually punch well above his weight in character-to-character combat as long as his shadowfield holds. "Oh, you got a thunder hammer? IDGAF."

But Succubi definitely need a weapon that deals more than 1 damage. I mean, come on, they're supposed to be gladiators. So why do they suck so much in duels?

.

**harlokin**

Yup, a Red Grief Succubus with a Blood Glaive is what all Succubi should be like.

It feels like we really need Artefacts to rescue our HQs from mediocrity.

**vipoid**

-Guardsman- wrote:

I find Archons pretty effective in close combat. A melee-oriented Archon can actually punch well above his weight in character-to-character combat as long as his shadowfield holds. "Oh, you got a thunder hammer? IDGAF."

All I'll say is that this has never been my experience. If anything, it seems like my Archons consistent punch below their weight (especially when you take into account the lack of support abilities). Even with relics, it seems like all I'm doing is bringing them into line with normal HQs, rather than making them exceptional in any way.

Though, I wouldn't mind their crap melee so much if they had some actual tricks or support abilities. Instead, they're about as generic as it gets.

And as far as the Shadowfield is concerned, it's only ever been a liability for me. "Oh, I failed my first save against your Thunderhammer. Now I've taken 3 wounds and I don't get a save against your remaining attacks. Boy, sure am glad we pay premium points for this defensive item. I'd hate for my HQ to be stuck with a useless 3++ Storm Shield that doesn't go away when you fail the save."

-Guardsman- wrote:

But Succubi definitely need a weapon that deals more than 1 damage. I mean, come on, they're supposed to be gladiators. So why do they suck so much in duels?

Agreed.

harlokin wrote:
It feels like we really need Artefacts to rescue our HQs from mediocrity.

This is very much how I feel as well.

I think part of the problem is that Dark Eldar generally rely on high-tech wargear for their tricks, but somewhere along the lines that got translated to "artefacts". So rather than being useful with basic wargear, our HQs need to purchase artefacts to unlock what should be basic weapons or abilities.

This would be like if Farseers needed to take a specific artefact in order to know and cast any psychic powers.

**Amishprn86**

-Guardsman- wrote:
flamingkillamajig wrote:
I mean archons are cheaper now but they don't do anything really besides cast a buff aura.

vipoid wrote:
The HQs in general are almost universally awful in terms of what they actually bring to the table (and it's not like we have a large or diverse selection to pick from).

I find Archons pretty effective in close combat. A melee-oriented Archon can actually punch well above his weight in character-to-character combat as long as his shadowfield holds. "Oh, you got a thunder hammer? IDGAF."

But Succubi definitely need a weapon that deals more than 1 damage. I mean, come on, they're supposed to be gladiators. So why do they suck so much in duels?

.

I don't, i find all our heroes terrible in melee. I have played (even in events) SOB and Quins they have either better or cheaper, heck SoB is both cheaper and better Heroes for aura/melee.

Canoness; 45pts base, with the same stats as an Archon, witha rr1's to all hits. A Blessed blade makes them 54pt (+2str, -3, D3), so fighting they are 5A, Str5, -4, D3 with Bloody rose with a 3+/4++. Also b.c how SoB works with Miracle dice, they will for sure make 1 save, or wound, or make the D3 into 3D.
Troupe master; 60pts base, 67 with a Caress, they are lack of rr hits aura, but rr all wounds melee aura, in combat they are pretty good b.c of the re-roll wounds, either go higher AP or lower Ap with D3, or higher str.

And thats not talking about relics, the SoB Blade is a GODLY melee relic, +3str, -3, 3D, then the WL trait to re-roll all charges, and wounds, Passion sacred rite for 6's to hit are +1 hits, she can have 6-7 hits, 5-6 wounds (or 4-5 on tough targets) with a total of -4ap and 3 damage, all for 54pts.

I just feel sad that other armies can have 50-60 odd point heroes be super beefy damage. The Canoness is cheaper and better, sure she doesn't have a 2++, but a 3+/4++ IMO is better when you can kill 90% of what you fight and you just need to live a couple hits combine with using miracle dice (auto past a save roll), once your 2++ is gone you have nothing.

Granted, i also have a problem with 8th in general as to what they did to the Archon, they took away A LOT of things he used to have that made him fun and good, then with just how 8th is in general. You can't really have a Archon sitting on the battle in combat anymore.

**Slayer-Fan123**

GW handled the codex really poorly in general.

**Amishprn86**

Yep, even tho in 5th-7th we were consider a bit weaker (lol in 6th there was no point to even playing) i still had more fun with them in 5th and 7th than i do in 8th. Just so much more flavor and things you could do.

I only wish for PA was to be able to mix and match, sense we didn't get that i now know GW has no intent on mixing us again and i need to find a way to live with that.

With that said. I don't want to be too negative and off topic. At least in 8th we are a good army, even if we are a messed up codex. We still have man lists that actually works, thats more than many other factions can even do. With Kabal heavy, to Coven heavy, and a mix of them from venom spam to Raider spam, we have some of the most viable units in the game right now.

Archon
Succubus
Heami
Urien
Drazhar
Wracks
Wyches
kabals
Grotesques
Venom
Raider
Ravager
Flyers both
Talos
Mandrakes
Reapers

All are 100% playable and doable even for events. Thats a lot of viable units and lists we could make, if they fixed up the points and rules of a few more units we would almost have a fully playable codex, some factions don't even have a playable book, or at least a list that is fun to play.