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.

Well my ‘whining’ drop was in regards to the OP and the overall sentiment of cry of nerfing new books past the outright broken things routine we always go through.

If I’m not mistaken, the Iron Hands fixes were enough to lessen the abuse, while still giving honest IH fans a book to use competitively. For every one of those fixes though, there’s seemingly more “let’s nerf all commissars ever and let’s never sell a castellan again.” That’s the worry from people getting defensive when people aim targeters at a new book.

Also I fudged up my quote up there between Slipspace and Harlokin lol. My apologies

 addnid wrote:


You can't tailor against DT liquiefiers, and anyway you can't tailor against 10% of the meta, when all the players who only have power armour armies are going to be 50% at the very least of the playerbase attending the tournament.

Yes, you can. Spam cheap bodies and/or T8 models. Spam weapons that are good against those targets. Kill wracks also isn't that hard. I typically expect to lose 30-45 boyz per turn assuming they have 5++ under the KFF so it shouldn't be hard to remove at least 15-20 wracks per turn. Pure DT lists have lots of potential but not much staying power, they're very glass cannon armies.

Tournaments always work with the rock/paper/scissor attitude in mind. Refusing to adapt in order to counter that 10% is a choice. Tournaments are also a tiny fraction of the total games count, most of us just do pick up games or pre-arranged ones.

 addnid wrote:

Many good players I know have lost even when tailoring against them. But hey, try playing against a good druka player (you play orks that I know, perhaps you also play other armies, try the one you think is best), and see for yourself
I am pretty certain you will, at least slightly, change your mind.

I've played drukhari for years, just sold the army one year ago but I'm still watching batreps from the best youtuber players (Skared, Lawrence Baker...).

The codex is definitely good but I don't really see anything OP in there, aside a few smaller combos. Nothing that really breaks the meta anyway. Deathguard for example looks really nasty to play against. Of course if people refuse to adapt they can't protest then.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.

1) Drukhari
2) Admech
3) Harlequins
4) Chaos Soup (technically majority Thousand Sons)
5) Aeldari (mostly Harlequins)
6) Deathwatch
7) Space Wolves
8) Chaos Soup
9) Drukhari
10) Adepta Sororitas

Yeah, seriously, what a nightmare meta. It was vastly more healthy and fair back when we had to break up the top placings by listing them as "iron hands, salamanders, iron hands, imperial fists, harlequins, white scars, raven guard, iron hands"

How many Drukhari players were in the event and how big was the event? What do you think the meta is going to look like 6 months from now if nothing changes on the rules front?

Oh yes. The old “GW can’t design rules well” debate/discussion has shown up in full force to derail yet another thread. My count is at 10 for how many times this has happened, but I didn’t start counting until 8th Ed and I don’t look at every thread so I’m sure the number of times this topic has been talked to death is mich much higher.

Yes ego and corporate interests do play in part in making the rules less balanced, but the reality is 40k’s main problem with balance comes from its rules complexity. 40k bar none is the most rules-wise complex game I’ve ever played, and my 2 other favorite games are chess and MTG (granted chess doesn’t have a very complex rulesset). That said I’ve played all the big tabletop games at some point. From x-wing, to warmahordes, to twilight imperium, I’ve done many a gamee. All are less complex to 40k. Maybe original warhammer fantasy beats 40k in complexity, but that’s the only example I can think of right of the bat.

So why do a bring this all up? Because as game complexity increases, so does the chances to make balancing errors. As you increase the number variables, words, and rules a game has, you also increase the chances that some of these interact in ways you don’t expect. A seemly innocuous saving throw rules wording can suddenly grant a unit a 2++ with the help of another rule which gets them a +1 to their saving throw. Including a rule that stops a unit from taking weapon options can also stop it from getting more models in the unit due that also being listed under options. Etc Etc.

This drukhari codex to me is the perfect example of this. GW wanted this army to have lots of confusing, complex, bizzare rules to help match the fluff of the army, but in doing so they opened up too many ways for the rules to interact in ways they didn’t intend. You could argue that some of this should have caught ahead of time (and in fact, some of it really should) but hindsight is 20/20 especially when other people do a lot of legwork of finding broken interactions. To me, GWs Main mistake was they decided this army should have as many options as it does.

Crix wrote:
Well my ‘whining’ drop was in regards to the OP and the overall sentiment of cry of nerfing new books past the outright broken things routine we always go through.

If I’m not mistaken, the Iron Hands fixes were enough to lessen the abuse, while still giving honest IH fans a book to use competitively. For every one of those fixes though, there’s seemingly more “let’s nerf all commissars ever and let’s never sell a castellan again.” That’s the worry from people getting defensive when people aim targeters at a new book.

Also I fudged up my quote up there between Slipspace and Harlokin lol. My apologies

No problem

The IH nerfs were pretty decent, IIRC. They were pretty harsh but got the job done but it's a little worrying they only happened because of how extremely oppressive the IH were. I think I'd prefer to see a more incremental approach from GW to points changes. Let the players know and make a small change with the caveat you're still keeping a unit under review so you can expect more changes in the near future. I'm not expecting changes every week but at least something a bit more responsive than they are now to stop this boom or bust problem they've had in the past.

They have the option of simply declaring that Charandon is for "narrative" play and "not intended for competitive events." If they don't they might find that Tournament Organizers/circuits do that for them. They could be a little more targeted and simply remove the Drukhari section for a detailed rework followed up by a White Dwarf.

They could then do much more surgical work on the Codex: some points increases for Raiders, cap Eviscerating Flyby etc.

 vict0988 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.

1) Drukhari
2) Admech
3) Harlequins
4) Chaos Soup (technically majority Thousand Sons)
5) Aeldari (mostly Harlequins)
6) Deathwatch
7) Space Wolves
8) Chaos Soup
9) Drukhari
10) Adepta Sororitas

Yeah, seriously, what a nightmare meta. It was vastly more healthy and fair back when we had to break up the top placings by listing them as "iron hands, salamanders, iron hands, imperial fists, harlequins, white scars, raven guard, iron hands"

How many Drukhari players were in the event and how big was the event? What do you think the meta is going to look like 6 months from now if nothing changes on the rules front?

Don't know, I don't use the app people generally seem to use for the super-detailed data on the event.

I figure if no rules for drukhari are changed in 6th months, they might reach the insane heady heights of 5-7% play rate and their main competition will probably be the currently strong factions plus whatever factions in the next 6 codexes are particularly powerful.

I hear there's a codex coming out pretty soon that has access to an absolute gak-ton of S6-S7 mid-AP multidamage firepower backed up by glass cannon melee that seems to be a fairly solid counter to drukhari already given the second-place finish here, which faced and beat at least one drukhari army during the tournament.

Is this where the goalposts are at now? A top 10 finish with 8 different codexes represented and people are going to woogle their hands and go 'doooom and gloooooooooom are a 'comin....'

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
They have the option of simply declaring that Charandon is for "narrative" play and "not intended for competitive events." If they don't they might find that Tournament Organizers/circuits do that for them. They could be a little more targeted and simply remove the Drukhari section for a detailed rework followed up by a White Dwarf.

They could then do much more surgical work on the Codex: some points increases for Raiders, cap Eviscerating Flyby etc.

The last chapter approved removed Vigilus, so there are precedents to stuff like that.

By the way, GW is quite tame with nerfs recently. When was the last time they went really heavy on a nerf? Probably not in 9th.

Salt donkey wrote:
To me, GWs Main mistake was they decided this army should have as many options as it does.

*side-eyes space marine weapon list that has as many options for different kinds of Bolt weapon as the Tau codex has different kinds of ranged weapon, where each subfaction has access to its own 6 relics, warlord traits, psychic powers and 12 stratagems, who can take custom chapter traits and still retain all core chapter bonuses*

Yeah? the options present in the DRUKHARI codex are excessive?

 vict0988 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.

1) Drukhari
2) Admech
3) Harlequins
4) Chaos Soup (technically majority Thousand Sons)
5) Aeldari (mostly Harlequins)
6) Deathwatch
7) Space Wolves
8) Chaos Soup
9) Drukhari
10) Adepta Sororitas

Yeah, seriously, what a nightmare meta. It was vastly more healthy and fair back when we had to break up the top placings by listing them as "iron hands, salamanders, iron hands, imperial fists, harlequins, white scars, raven guard, iron hands"

How many Drukhari players were in the event and how big was the event? What do you think the meta is going to look like 6 months from now if nothing changes on the rules front?

So glad you asked Vict! By my count (and anyone can correct me if I’m wrong) there where 7 drukhari our 108 players in this event. Of those 7 the winner went 5-0, 2 went 4-1, 3 went 3-2 and 1 went 1-3 drop (his list spammed talos, which from what I’ve seen are one of the worst units in the new book).

So yeah clear nothing to worry about as that combined winrate is only 23/11 (or a 67.6% winrate) much less than the 70% + we where talking about earlier. Just ignore the fact that dropping the 1 bad list gets us to a 73.33% win rate. I’m sure no one will start playing this army now that it is winning around the same as Ynnari in their prime.

Spoletta wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
They have the option of simply declaring that Charandon is for "narrative" play and "not intended for competitive events." If they don't they might find that Tournament Organizers/circuits do that for them. They could be a little more targeted and simply remove the Drukhari section for a detailed rework followed up by a White Dwarf.

They could then do much more surgical work on the Codex: some points increases for Raiders, cap Eviscerating Flyby etc.

The last chapter approved removed Vigilus, so there are precedents to stuff like that.

By the way, GW is quite tame with nerfs recently. When was the last time they went really heavy on a nerf? Probably not in 9th.

Ah, someone who doesn't play Genestealer Cults I see!

Just because the nerfs didn't make any logical sense in 9th doesn't mean they weren't heavy-handed.

Salt donkey wrote:
Oh yes. The old “GW can’t design rules well” debate/discussion has shown up in full force to derail yet another thread. My count is at 10 for how many times this has happened, but I didn’t start counting until 8th Ed and I don’t look at every thread so I’m sure the number of times this topic has been talked to death is mich much higher.
- - - -
This drukhari codex to me is the perfect example of this. GW wanted this army to have lots of confusing, complex, bizzare rules to help match the fluff of the army, but in doing so they opened up too many ways for the rules to interact in ways they didn’t intend. You could argue that some of this should have caught ahead of time (and in fact, some of it really should) but hindsight is 20/20 especially when other people do a lot of legwork of finding broken interactions. To me, GWs Main mistake was they decided this army should have as many options as it does.

I totally agree with you that these druka issues come from "confusing, complex, bizzare rules to help match the fluff". I mean the intent is great, and I am very happy for druka players to have such a flavorfull codex, but such a huge heap of special rules requires a "day X FAQ" at the very least.
GW could have gone a safer way and just buff a few things here and there, especially since they don't care to put too much effort into doing a precise job about it. Their enthusiastic and naive approach to this release is really at the heart of all its issues.
Anyway IH was a nice fix and they can nicely fix this too if they want. But will they do it and when will they do it ?

I have a little team event on may 8th and I am lucky only one player of each team will be using getting power from all our pain (unlimited pain, unlimited power). We are all preparing rivers of salt for these players too: "But I have been playing them for 10 years !" -> "Yeah, keep talking and keep playing easy mode 40k, if that is what you like doing with your free time"
Hah hah might as well have a good time about it

Salt donkey wrote:
Oh yes. The old “GW can’t design rules well” debate/discussion has shown up in full force to derail yet another thread.

Spoiler:

My count is at 10 for how many times this has happened, but I didn’t start counting until 8th Ed and I don’t look at every thread so I’m sure the number of times this topic has been talked to death is mich much higher.

Yes ego and corporate interests do play in part in making the rules less balanced, but the reality is 40k’s main problem with balance comes from its rules complexity. 40k bar none is the most rules-wise complex game I’ve ever played, and my 2 other favorite games are chess and MTG (granted chess doesn’t have a very complex rulesset). That said I’ve played all the big tabletop games at some point. From x-wing, to warmahordes, to twilight imperium, I’ve done many a gamee. All are less complex to 40k. Maybe original warhammer fantasy beats 40k in complexity, but that’s the only example I can think of right of the bat.

So why do a bring this all up? Because as game complexity increases, so does the chances to make balancing errors. As you increase the number variables, words, and rules a game has, you also increase the chances that some of these interact in ways you don’t expect. A seemly innocuous saving throw rules wording can suddenly grant a unit a 2++ with the help of another rule which gets them a +1 to their saving throw. Including a rule that stops a unit from taking weapon options can also stop it from getting more models in the unit due that also being listed under options. Etc Etc.

This drukhari codex to me is the perfect example of this. GW wanted this army to have lots of confusing, complex, bizzare rules to help match the fluff of the army, but in doing so they opened up too many ways for the rules to interact in ways they didn’t intend. You could argue that some of this should have caught ahead of time (and in fact, some of it really should) but hindsight is 20/20 especially when other people do a lot of legwork of finding broken interactions. To me, GWs Main mistake was they decided this army should have as many options as it does.

Do you know what studio you are Stanning? The "we hadn't considered using the two flamer stratagems together that we printed in the same book" studio. You know that right?

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 vict0988 wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.

1) Drukhari
2) Admech
3) Harlequins
4) Chaos Soup (technically majority Thousand Sons)
5) Aeldari (mostly Harlequins)
6) Deathwatch
7) Space Wolves
8) Chaos Soup
9) Drukhari
10) Adepta Sororitas

Yeah, seriously, what a nightmare meta. It was vastly more healthy and fair back when we had to break up the top placings by listing them as "iron hands, salamanders, iron hands, imperial fists, harlequins, white scars, raven guard, iron hands"

How many Drukhari players were in the event and how big was the event? What do you think the meta is going to look like 6 months from now if nothing changes on the rules front?

Don't know, I don't use the app people generally seem to use for the super-detailed data on the event.

I figure if no rules for drukhari are changed in 6th months, they might reach the insane heady heights of 5-7% play rate and their main competition will probably be the currently strong factions plus whatever factions in the next 6 codexes are particularly powerful.

I hear there's a codex coming out pretty soon that has access to an absolute gak-ton of S6-S7 mid-AP multidamage firepower backed up by glass cannon melee that seems to be a fairly solid counter to drukhari already given the second-place finish here, which faced and beat at least one drukhari army during the tournament.

Is this where the goalposts are at now? A top 10 finish with 8 different codexes represented and people are going to woogle their hands and go 'doooom and gloooooooooom are a 'comin....'

I don't know how strong Drukhari are. I'm just saying that if Drukhari are a free ride to winning games then they are going to get played more, just because Drukhari are not winning every tournament yet does not mean they won't once there is at least one DT liquifier spam player at every event or whatever Drukhari army happens to be best. The only time I have said Drukhari was op was in a strawman quote of some Drukhari poster after he strawmanned other people and to do my knife-ear skit.

I have also said that dark lances are undercosted, which they are compared to dissies. I think lots of people are going to be ripping apart their minis, real sad. I also said it looks like Drukhari are going to be OP, but it is not something I would put money on.

8 codexes in a top 10 is far above what you would expect in a perfectly balanced meta just like you wouldn't expect 6 dice to end up 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 every time you rolled them together. If we somehow start seeing that amount of top 10 diversity regularly I would be overjoyed.

@Salt donkey interesting thanks. I'm not too worried, I am terrible at 9th, I figure it'll be a month or two before I am ready to play competitively anyways, either Drukhari will have been nerfed or it will have turned out that it was just a lucky streak at the start of the life of the Codex or worst case scenario I can grumble and gloat that I sensed which way the wind was blowing.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
They have the option of simply declaring that Charandon is for "narrative" play and "not intended for competitive events." If they don't they might find that Tournament Organizers/circuits do that for them. They could be a little more targeted and simply remove the Drukhari section for a detailed rework followed up by a White Dwarf.

They could then do much more surgical work on the Codex: some points increases for Raiders, cap Eviscerating Flyby etc.

The last chapter approved removed Vigilus, so there are precedents to stuff like that.

By the way, GW is quite tame with nerfs recently. When was the last time they went really heavy on a nerf? Probably not in 9th.

Ah, someone who doesn't play Genestealer Cults I see!

Just because the nerfs didn't make any logical sense in 9th doesn't mean they weren't heavy-handed.

No, I don't follow GSC a lot. Which is strange since I mainly play Tyranids.
That said, what happened to GSC in 9th? Has anything changed for them (obviously except for the initial point document)?

Well at least it is good to be confused about rules that seem too good. That is way better then being in the same state about bad rules.

Good stuff stays fun to play for longer, and really good stuff can survive even nerfs. So all in all it is a good situation for people playing dark eldar.

Salt donkey wrote:
Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.

You mean that one of the best USA players, that is playtesterand have atlest 2-3 times the games than most of the playtester won the tournament playing good army is should never happen ?
There were like 7 DE players that is like 6% of all the players. I would not say DE are too strong, but at least get your facts correct.
Also Brad Chester sad he have huge advantage, because the list of that tournament are 2 weeks old and the opponents have not yet adjusted their lists.
Still the fist 15 are pretty diverse, having in mind what factions currently have codex.

Spoletta 797783 11108483 wrote:
No, I don't follow GSC a lot. Which is strange since I mainly play Tyranids.
That said, what happened to GSC in 9th? Has anything changed for them (obviously except for the initial point document)?

They are like imperial knights, and army with core mechanics writen around ideas that do not work or do not exist in 9th ed. Plus on top of everything souping up tyranids does not work as well for them as it does for other armies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marin 797783 11108494 wrote:
You mean that one of the best USA players, that is playtesterand have atlest 2-3 times the games than most of the playtester won the tournament playing good army is should never happen ?
There were like 7 DE players that is like 6% of all the players. I would not say DE are too strong, but at least get your facts correct.
Also Brad Chester sad he have huge advantage, because the list of that tournament are 2 weeks old and the opponents have not yet adjusted their lists.
Still the fist 15 are pretty diverse, having in mind what factions currently have codex.

Okey, so what is the DE win rate, if one cuts off the master playtester and the person that came with a random list, is it above 50% and if so by how much? Because the excuse that it is being played by good players, seems to be valid for some armies and for others it does not.

Karol wrote:

Spoletta 797783 11108483 wrote:
No, I don't follow GSC a lot. Which is strange since I mainly play Tyranids.
That said, what happened to GSC in 9th? Has anything changed for them (obviously except for the initial point document)?

They are like imperial knights, and army with core mechanics writen around ideas that do not work or do not exist in 9th ed. Plus on top of everything souping up tyranids does not work as well for them as it does for other armies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marin 797783 11108494 wrote:
You mean that one of the best USA players, that is playtesterand have atlest 2-3 times the games than most of the playtester won the tournament playing good army is should never happen ?
There were like 7 DE players that is like 6% of all the players. I would not say DE are too strong, but at least get your facts correct.
Also Brad Chester sad he have huge advantage, because the list of that tournament are 2 weeks old and the opponents have not yet adjusted their lists.
Still the fist 15 are pretty diverse, having in mind what factions currently have codex.

Okey, so what is the DE win rate, if one cuts off the master playtester and the person that came with a random list, is it above 50% and if so by how much? Because the excuse that it is being played by good players, seems to be valid for some armies and for others it does not.

I mean... I don't think spamming Talos is a "random list" it's a skew list it's just not one that worked.

If you cut out the dude that's an extremely well-known competitive player who got to playtest the list beforehand you get a 62% winrate, if you also for whatever reason also cut out the one dude that did badly because...I don't know, you're trying to construct a narrative? then they're at 68%.

...based on these 7 players. Using the version of the codex without the obvious busted gak FAQ'd out, one of which is a straight-up typo on a unit you can spam the absolute hell out of.

I don't even subscribe to any kind of 'the players are highly skilled' excuse at this point. This version of the codex is essentially like if the Sm codex came out and space marine bikers were accidentally 15 points per model, and people were like "OMG White Scar lists are DOMINATING!!! How could this be????"

A skew has to work to work. 7 flyers was a skew lists or pox walkers being spawned out of pink horrors. 30 dark reapers with raven flocks making them shot over and over again was skew. taking mass talos is like me playing a termintor army, it is not a skew if it does not work.

Also it is not just that one event. People around the world seem to be pointing out that DE are feeling really good.

Plus the thing about GW and typos or point costs. I would like to point out that there were multiple cases of people thinking, that something just has to be wrong points or a typo, but it was either never fixed or GW just let it work like that for years. And include myself in that group, specially in the first half of 8th ed.

I just hope that GW doesn't do their regular way of fixing stuff by making it so bad no one wants to use it, after people buy multiple boxs of it. Was never a big fan of that.

I mean look how they fixed the MM issues and marines. They killed aggresors, because of the salamanders interactions, they put in to the book. And then nerfed eradictors, somehow missing the fact that a points hike makes the already very good attack bikes just a more mobile version of them.

I don't think DE are too good. To be that GW would have to do something crazy, like give them a blanket +4inv on transports like harlis have. But they are very good. The question is, for people in the know and much smarter then me about DE, would nering the reavers, jetbikers and tech stuff kill DE playability.

I don't know, I hope it wouldn't.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Karol wrote:

Spoletta 797783 11108483 wrote:
No, I don't follow GSC a lot. Which is strange since I mainly play Tyranids.
That said, what happened to GSC in 9th? Has anything changed for them (obviously except for the initial point document)?

They are like imperial knights, and army with core mechanics writen around ideas that do not work or do not exist in 9th ed. Plus on top of everything souping up tyranids does not work as well for them as it does for other armies.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marin 797783 11108494 wrote:
You mean that one of the best USA players, that is playtesterand have atlest 2-3 times the games than most of the playtester won the tournament playing good army is should never happen ?
There were like 7 DE players that is like 6% of all the players. I would not say DE are too strong, but at least get your facts correct.
Also Brad Chester sad he have huge advantage, because the list of that tournament are 2 weeks old and the opponents have not yet adjusted their lists.
Still the fist 15 are pretty diverse, having in mind what factions currently have codex.

Okey, so what is the DE win rate, if one cuts off the master playtester and the person that came with a random list, is it above 50% and if so by how much? Because the excuse that it is being played by good players, seems to be valid for some armies and for others it does not.

I mean... I don't think spamming Talos is a "random list" it's a skew list it's just not one that worked.

If you cut out the dude that's an extremely well-known competitive player who got to playtest the list beforehand you get a 62% winrate, if you also for whatever reason also cut out the one dude that did badly because...I don't know, you're trying to construct a narrative? then they're at 68%.

...based on these 7 players. Using the version of the codex without the obvious busted gak FAQ'd out, one of which is a straight-up typo on a unit you can spam the absolute hell out of.

I don't even subscribe to any kind of 'the players are highly skilled' excuse at this point. This version of the codex is essentially like if the Sm codex came out and space marine bikers were accidentally 15 points per model, and people were like "OMG White Scar lists are DOMINATING!!! How could this be????"

How i sad before, to many players were not prepared to fight the new menace and we have to many armies without codex.
Even if win rate drops army with 60% WR is probably a problem, but i would not bother to panic and just swing the nerf bat.
Instead they should start fixing the unintended interactions, like 3 patrol giving 2 extra CP and the the multiple attack WT.
We are not in IH territory, IH were generally winning 9 from 10 events and have multiple top 3 finishes in the some tournament.

And ofcourse the quality of the player matters, there is statistical evidence that good players perform better on multiple accessions.

I'm feeling like this is a bit of an overreach, but maybe I'm wrong.

First thing to point out ( again ) is that none of these spammed DT, because it isn't a good list. It wins games, but doesn't win tournaments.

9th (LWWWW) lost to Morty DG and struggled a bit vs Necrons.

The next at 23rd (LLWWW) narrowly lost to Necrons and then solidly beaten by Necrons. He would go on to play a list with 15 Rubrics / Magnus / 2DPs / 15 Spawn and a DA list that was... dreadnoughts and intercessors.

27th (LWWWL) lost to DG and DE. He barely beat Orks by 1 point.

49th (WWLLW) won his first game 31 to 18 against the Talos DE. Lost to Custodes and narrowly to WS. His final opponent was Iron Hands with actual CSM, dreads, and terminators...

DE are strong. I don't think they're sweep the tournament strong as a near 70% WR would imply.

Karol wrote:
A skew has to work to work. 7 flyers was a skew lists or pox walkers being spawned out of pink horrors. 30 dark reapers with raven flocks making them shot over and over again was skew. taking mass talos is like me playing a termintor army, it is not a skew if it does not work.

Also it is not just that one event. People around the world seem to be pointing out that DE are feeling really good.

Plus the thing about GW and typos or point costs. I would like to point out that there were multiple cases of people thinking, that something just has to be wrong points or a typo, but it was either never fixed or GW just let it work like that for years. And include myself in that group, specially in the first half of 8th ed.

I just hope that GW doesn't do their regular way of fixing stuff by making it so bad no one wants to use it, after people buy multiple boxs of it. Was never a big fan of that.

I mean look how they fixed the MM issues and marines. They killed aggresors, because of the salamanders interactions, they put in to the book. And then nerfed eradictors, somehow missing the fact that a points hike makes the already very good attack bikes just a more mobile version of them.

I don't think DE are too good. To be that GW would have to do something crazy, like give them a blanket +4inv on transports like harlis have. But they are very good. The question is, for people in the know and much smarter then me about DE, would nering the reavers, jetbikers and tech stuff kill DE playability.

I don't know, I hope it wouldn't.

In this situation, however, we know it is, in fact, a typo.

It first came out in the MFM 2021, they were 10pts per model. Then, they FAQ'ed the MFM, making them 20 points per model again.

The ONLY REASON that this is being played right now is because TECHNICALLY the new codex is a more recent source of rules than the FAQ'ed MFM, and the only change in points between the FAQ'ed MFM and the new codex is...you guessed it....20pt reavers going back down to 10pts.

If any competitive player were ever curious, like "hey, why does everyone outside of the tournament scene think we're human scum who'd steal a social security check from a granny to pay for warhammer models?" this is the exact kind of situation you want to look at for that.

To answer your question, no, I don't think nerfing Reavers (which are the jetbikers, the unit's full name is Reaver Jetbikes) or removing the crazy succubus combo would destroy DE competitively. It's a solid, deep codex with a ton of good options and builds. For example, Artists of the Flesh is another very nice Haemonculus Covens trait that DOESNT rely on transforming a flamer into a melta gun using busted subfaction traits and instead runs covens using the playstyle they're actually supposed to have - durability.

Reavers aren't even 10 points if you want to go pure RAW. They are undefined, so you should ask the TO on which point value to use (which will be 20).

That is because the ENG dex has it at 10, and the other ones have it at 20.

We usually assume that the ENG is the right one, but there is nothing RAW about that.
RAW, you have 2 publications with the same publishing date which give discordant info.

Spoletta wrote:
Reavers aren't even 10 points if you want to go pure RAW. They are undefined, so you should ask the TO on which point value to use (which will be 20).

Lots of TOs are permitting 10. Maybe no one bothered to ask? Or they didn't bother to rule upfront. Even this recent 100+ player one though the use is limited there. Otherwise a list with 10 or 20 of them has a 100 to 200 point handicap over the opponent.

I think most DE lists are successful despite Reavers. They just don't help the problem.

Not sure what 10 point reavers have to with the discussion on this last GT. Revers where 20 points here, so that’s a mute point.

As far as my main point on the tournament itself, why is it ok to remove the winner of the tournament from win-rate consideration simply because he is a good player? The 3rd place harli player has been using this army for a while and is a tourney vet, should we remove him from counting towards the clown’s rate? No because good players use good armies, and that helps boost win rates.

Btw I wasn’t advocating ignoring the bad drukhari list from counting towards win rates either. The point was that a 68% win rate is still horrible and for as many people are saying “let the meta adjust, then things will get better” there is also exist an element “let of Drukhari players adjust, then things will get worse,” element as well.

Sorry guys but the only keeping this army from being viewed as meta cancer is it’s low play rates, but there’s a zero percent chance these rates will stay very low with results like these. Then we stop seeing 2 drukhari lists in the top 10 of a major, and instead start seeing 4-6 (possible more).

Salt donkey wrote:
Not sure what 10 point reavers have to with the discussion on this last GT. Revers where 20 points here, so that’s a mute point.

As far as my main point on the tournament itself, why is it ok to remove the winner of the tournament from win-rate consideration simply because he is a good player? The 3rd place harli player has been using this army for a while and is a tourney vet, should we remove him from counting towards the clown’s rate? No because good players use good armies, and that helps boost win rates.

Btw I wasn’t advocating ignoring the bad drukhari list from counting towards win rates either. The point was that a 68% win rate is still horrible and for as many people are saying “let the meta adjust, then things will get better” there is also exist an element “let of Drukhari players adjust, then things will get worse,” element as well.

Sorry guys but the only keeping this army from being viewed as meta cancer is it’s low play rates, but there’s a zero percent chance these rates will stay very low with results like these. Then we stop seeing 2 drukhari lists in the top 10 of a major, and instead start seeing 4-6 (possible more).

It is wildly more complex than just a win rate.

At least 3 of those games were against lists from low tier armies / lists that don't understand their own army / people who took things they like. Don't get me wrong - I love spawn, but there is presently no way to properly support 15 of them. Several games were won by under 10 points.

Not every pilot knows their own army or opponent armies well enough to get wins ( e.g. my beatdown by mortifiers ). That's why we need multiple tournaments to truly get a sense of the problem.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Motor city mayhem just happened, a nice 109 man GT with some great players. And would you look at that
Drukhari won it! Despite the fact that the army wasn’t that represented it also bagged another top placing as well. Oh and hey no DG here either, and the only real SM list was a space wolves army that has the best matchup against drukhari out of all marine chapters. It’s almost like this book is warping the meta.

1) Drukhari
2) Admech
3) Harlequins
4) Chaos Soup (technically majority Thousand Sons)
5) Aeldari (mostly Harlequins)
6) Deathwatch
7) Space Wolves
8) Chaos Soup
9) Drukhari
10) Adepta Sororitas

Yeah, seriously, what a nightmare meta. It was vastly more healthy and fair back when we had to break up the top placings by listing them as "iron hands, salamanders, iron hands, imperial fists, harlequins, white scars, raven guard, iron hands"

Right?
This look wonderful, and WTF...Deathwatch? That's awesome. Lots of xenos to kill

 StrayIight wrote:
If they do, they aren't great at investing in them and demonstrating that. We can see - with many, many examples - that things are getting released full of errors and issues. Basic proof-reading at times is an issue.

I guess WotC (D&D 5e and MtG) and Paizo (Pathfinder and Starfinder) are also bad because they occasionally ship products that have errors. They must be twice as bad though given that they're solely a rules-based business.

Salt donkey wrote:
Not sure what 10 point reavers have to with the discussion on this last GT. Revers where 20 points here, so that’s a mute point.

As far as my main point on the tournament itself, why is it ok to remove the winner of the tournament from win-rate consideration simply because he is a good player? The 3rd place harli player has been using this army for a while and is a tourney vet, should we remove him from counting towards the clown’s rate? No because good players use good armies, and that helps boost win rates.

Btw I wasn’t advocating ignoring the bad drukhari list from counting towards win rates either. The point was that a 68% win rate is still horrible and for as many people are saying “let the meta adjust, then things will get better” there is also exist an element “let of Drukhari players adjust, then things will get worse,” element as well.

Sorry guys but the only keeping this army from being viewed as meta cancer is it’s low play rates, but there’s a zero percent chance these rates will stay very low with results like these. Then we stop seeing 2 drukhari lists in the top 10 of a major, and instead start seeing 4-6 (possible more).

I would argue the only thing keeping this army being viewed as "meta cancer" would be the fact that it came out literally a couple weeks ago. At the tail end of a pandemic that's keeping most people from playing games.

People were talking about excluding the 5-0 guy from consideration as he was a playtester for the new book. He's actually had a chance to figure out how the army plays against multiple types of opponents, unlike, say, basically everybody there who played against drukhari probably.

 the_scotsman wrote:

Salt donkey wrote:
Not sure what 10 point reavers have to with the discussion on this last GT. Revers where 20 points here, so that’s a mute point.

I would argue the only thing keeping this army being viewed as "meta cancer" would be the fact that it came out literally a couple weeks ago. At the tail end of a pandemic that's keeping most people from playing games.
People were talking about excluding the 5-0 guy from consideration as he was a playtester for the new book. He's actually had a chance to figure out how the army plays against multiple types of opponents, unlike, say, basically everybody there who played against drukhari probably.

A druka player on my WTC team has had 4 games with them already, he doesn't seem to think there is much skill required in obliterating any poosing list. Two weeks ago he was on the "Let the meta adjust we don't know if they are OP yet", he is now on the "I feel like I am playing 2500 points instead of 2000" train. That is with 20 ppm reavers, not 10 ppm reavers, and only spamming DT liquefiers once in his 4 games (he reckons you don't even need to spam them, not with the other bonkers stuff the dark kin have).
Other WTC players in France have basically said the same thing, you don't need to be that good I think. Just a regular tourney player. That said I am happy most druka players here on dakka seem the share the point of view that GW needs to do multiple things here, and not just say "other players git gud adjust to the new meta its not our fault".
By the way no one mentioned the court 3 wound "cheap as f" models. Anyone see anything slightly wrong in their ppm ? I mean they are not busted or anything, just the wound count in relation to the ppm seems odd...