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.

 the_scotsman wrote:

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.

Plus it is something like doing research on avarge size of a country in europe, and not counting places like luxemburg/vattican and freaking Russian for the avarge.

Cut the really bad guy and cut the really good guy, and both extrems are removed, this way we are left with something more close to the real avarge player. There would be source for worry if DE came out and had 10 players and 6-7, in the top or bottom eight. Any army that has such results is in some kind of a trouble.

Dark Eldar are only OP because they're nothing like marines.

A majority of the meta, for quite awhile, has been various flavors of marine. That being good toughness high save models with decent wound counts and relatively small numbers. This encourages lots of high-strength high-AP weapons to reliably wound them and slice through their armor, but discourages weight-of-fire solutions due to various inbuilt defenses which these armies have (Reanimation Protocals / various strats / ect).

D. Eldar are the polar opposite. They're an army made of glass-strong infantry riding around in gun-boats made of paper who survive through a mix of redundant squad choices and slipperiness.

They're not threatened by melta, lascannons, and plasma. Low shot high killiness weapons will always yield results, but they have sufficient numbers for it to not matter. They're threatened by high volumes of middling shooting (heavy bolters, auto cannons, ect) and weight-of-numbers average shooting (bolters, bolt rifles, ect).

Current Dark Eldar are surprisingly similar to Orks except they can actually kill you back. Current Orks are a half-way decent competitive pick because the entire meta revolves around fighting and beating MEQ. So they load up the board with t4 +6 bodies, slap a weak invul + FNP on them, and just sit on objectives in the middle of the board. They're not very dangerous, but they operate as a skew list which armies built to take on the majority of factions struggle to clear out adequately.

Current Dark Eldar are basically that, but exchanging some horde potential for mobility and a slathering of ultra-dangerous weapons ontop.

 addnid wrote:

 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...

6pts for a T3 6++ wound? Seems generally in line with like, guardsmen, gants, whatever. Generally GW seems to be starting to finally apply a bit of a discount to multiwound models due to their vulnerability to multidamage weapons.

the court's pretty decent, and I've thought about playing around with them as I own a few funky converted minis that work best as Court members, it's just when you compare them to the crazy damage that Incubi can put out I think most people are gonna go with the Incubi. The best court mini has like 3 poison 4+ shots at 18" and 3 S5 AP-1 D1 melee attacks I believe. not terrible by any stretch of the imagination, but nothing that any particular target is going to be shaking in its boots over.

They dont approach Death Rider, Scarab or (old) Robot Doggos for PPW efficiency (which are the benchmark units I look at for these sorts of things), nor do they come with any of the mobility, defensive or offensive shenanigans one worries about in a problematic unit.

 Daedalus81 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.

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.

Your quite right that one tournament isn’t enough to call an army OP, so let’s look at others to get more statistical evidence. In the addition to this tournament, and the 3 others I mentioned from the previous weekend, drukhari also won the war for the wooden spoon, a 36 man GT with 2 drukhari players. The non winning drukari player went 3-2 putting them at a 8-2 record for the tournament or 80% win rate.

How about a smaller tournament? Peculiar games spring RTT had 2 drukhari players out of 14. They had a combined record of 5-1 with one man winning the tournament in the other in the top 3.

The lord Mortis invitational featured Sean Nayden winning it all, and while I can’t see his list, it is labeled eldar and I found it extremely unlikely he wasn’t at least running some drukhari in there. Even if there isn’t there was another 3-0 drukhari player and 2 2-1 players. However I must admit there was also the second losing record drukhari player from this weekend at 1-2

The last tournament I can sorta of give you is the Barnyard brawl. Where 1 drukhari player went 3-2. That’s probably the best case you have for calling the army not OP. 1 tournament that drukhari entered and didn’t win.

So why do I bring all this up? Because stats start becoming more and more reliable as you get more and more data. If drukhari show up in a tournament, there’s a near certain chance their win rates will be between 60-80%. That in of itself is what is making me near certain this army is OP. For as many times people called other 9th Ed codex’s OP, none have come even close to this statistical success. I’ll take raw stats over any easily manipulated, “personal” evidence any day of the week.

It is too damn soon for points changes.

While I expect the FAQ to address DT and 10ppm Reavers, I don't expect other units to have their point values revised.

Salt donkey wrote:

Your quite right that one tournament isn’t enough to call an army OP, so let’s look at others to get more statistical evidence. In the addition to this tournament, and the 3 others I mentioned from the previous weekend, drukhari also won the war for the wooden spoon, a 36 man GT with 2 drukhari players. The non winning drukari player went 3-2 putting them at a 8-2 record for the tournament or 80% win rate.

How about a smaller tournament? Peculiar games spring RTT had 2 drukhari players out of 14. They had a combined record of 5-1 with one man winning the tournament in the other in the top 3.

The lord Mortis invitational featured Sean Nayden winning it all, and while I can’t see his list, it is labeled eldar and I found it extremely unlikely he wasn’t at least running some drukhari in there. Even if there isn’t there was another 3-0 drukhari player and 2 2-1 players. However I must admit there was also the second losing record drukhari player from this weekend at 1-2

The last tournament I can sorta of give you is the Barnyard brawl. Where 1 drukhari player went 3-2. That’s probably the best case you have for calling the army not OP. 1 tournament that drukhari entered and didn’t win.

So why do I bring all this up? Because stats start becoming more and more reliable as you get more and more data. If drukhari show up in a tournament, there’s a near certain chance their win rates will be between 60-80%. That in of itself is what is making me near certain this army is OP. For as many times people called other 9th Ed codex’s OP, none have come even close to this statistical success. I’ll take raw stats over any easily manipulated, “personal” evidence any day of the week.

I posted Nayden's list a page or two back. His DE portion was DT with Drazhar, Succubus, 3x5 Wracks, 3 Grots, and 3 raiders. Ynnari was also DE - Visarch, Wyches, Brides, and Incubi.

Otherwise, I agree with your points, but there may also be a lag period. Also, where is the damn FAQ?!

That said the order of wins and losses matter ( as does the point differential ). LLWWW is a different skill level than something like WWLWL, which is why you'll see most posting those. An early loss or two will get you matched to more mid-range players and lists making a recovery into 3-2 easier for a stronger army. That Barnyard DE lost to GK, beat someone who took a Hammerfall Bunker, lost to DG ( a common occurrence ), beat Silver Tide 56 to 43, and then beat straight CW with no Wraithseers.

I'm not disparaging players or lists, but some of these wins are going to come a lot more easily than others.

So i'm curious, what happens if the dakka hivemind declares the new Drukhari codex OP, in your eyes?

Would people start discussing what specific elements might be in need of adjustment, and what those adjusments could be? Say, like ways they could retool the Dark Technomancers trait, ways they could remove the interactions between razorflails and competitive edge and see where that puts Compedge in relation to other warlord trait/relic combos that exist in the codex, and also compare the Succubus to other 60-80pt combat oriented HQs to see where she falls and if she needs a point bump, talk about particular units and weapons that might need an adjustment upwards if, after the obvious stuff is 2-week FAQ'ed out, above-average performance continues?

No. First you need to Wait And See (TM), then you need to Stop Moaning (TM), and then, all of a sudden, one day they are The Worst Thing Ever (TM) and GW Must Do Something Drastic (TM).

 the_scotsman wrote:
So i'm curious, what happens if the dakka hivemind declares the new Drukhari codex OP, in your eyes?

Would people start discussing what specific elements might be in need of adjustment, and what those adjusments could be? Say, like ways they could retool the Dark Technomancers trait, ways they could remove the interactions between razorflails and competitive edge and see where that puts Compedge in relation to other warlord trait/relic combos that exist in the codex, and also compare the Succubus to other 60-80pt combat oriented HQs to see where she falls and if she needs a point bump, talk about particular units and weapons that might need an adjustment upwards if, after the obvious stuff is 2-week FAQ'ed out, above-average performance continues?

You know, these all sound like pretty reasonable suggestions.

I think that a lot of folks arguing against the OP Drukhari are making valid points, so I'm not 100% convinced there's a problem.

But whether there is or not, these suggestions seem reasonable enough that they don't put me on the defensive to the point where I want to argue. I'd try this, and I don't think I'd enjoy playing the army any less.

 the_scotsman wrote:
So i'm curious, what happens if the dakka hivemind declares the new Drukhari codex OP, in your eyes?

Would people start discussing what specific elements might be in need of adjustment, and what those adjusments could be? Say, like ways they could retool the Dark Technomancers trait, ways they could remove the interactions between razorflails and competitive edge and see where that puts Compedge in relation to other warlord trait/relic combos that exist in the codex, and also compare the Succubus to other 60-80pt combat oriented HQs to see where she falls and if she needs a point bump, talk about particular units and weapons that might need an adjustment upwards if, after the obvious stuff is 2-week FAQ'ed out, above-average performance continues?

You'd hope so. I think as we've seen, there's reasonable discussions to be had around this, and people who are willing to be reasonable while having them. I think broadly, most of us are in some level of agreement as to what the issues probably are (your list pretty much covers them, arguably there are a few others which are a little more fringe issues).

It depends on how threads evolve and devolve, which is so often the case of who's commenting on the day. There are those who argue constructively, and use data to form a position, and there are those who seem to take an extreme position regardless of evidence, or who just appear to argue along bizarre faction-based 'tribal' lines in a hobby where we're all part of the same community.

Nurture the former and tune out the latter wherever people can I guess. This can all be constructive if we want it to be.

That two week FAQ might be needing a new moniker soon though

 the_scotsman wrote:
So i'm curious, what happens if the dakka hivemind declares the new Drukhari codex OP, in your eyes?

Would people start discussing what specific elements might be in need of adjustment, and what those adjusments could be? Say, like ways they could retool the Dark Technomancers trait, ways they could remove the interactions between razorflails and competitive edge and see where that puts Compedge in relation to other warlord trait/relic combos that exist in the codex, and also compare the Succubus to other 60-80pt combat oriented HQs to see where she falls and if she needs a point bump, talk about particular units and weapons that might need an adjustment upwards if, after the obvious stuff is 2-week FAQ'ed out, above-average performance continues?

I think the overall problem is really difficult, because just about the whole book rises to the top. Would killing Razorflail and Reavers "fix" the problem? I don't know. DT seems to be under-utilized given its meme-ability, but it is still a problem worth addressing. Those are probably the only things I could realistically see in the FAQ and we likely won't see anything for DT. If FAQs really only deal with mid-published points then the Succubus will stay as is.

How much of the problem is people relying on big weapons and melee to solve problems and bringing nothing in the blast or anti-horde realm? Would the top 10 become mostly DE if people played them like marines? I guess we're going to find out exactly how much people switch armies if DE is the new army to be.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
No. First you need to Wait And See (TM), then you need to Stop Moaning (TM), and then, all of a sudden, one day they are The Worst Thing Ever (TM) and GW Must Do Something Drastic (TM).

Oh come on now.

 the_scotsman wrote:
So i'm curious, what happens if the dakka hivemind declares the new Drukhari codex OP, in your eyes?

Nothing? Dakka has no power and most Dakkanauts don't do anything other than ask questions, lurk, talk trash, brag or whine.

Would people start discussing what specific elements might be in need of adjustment, and what those adjusments could be? Say, like ways they could retool the Dark Technomancers trait

Remove Blade Artists from the whole faction.

Add 1 to hit instead of add 1 to damage for Dark Technomancers. The weapons that don't get hit by the negative aspect miss out on half of the positive aspect.

ways they could remove the interactions between razorflails and competitive edge

Get the bonus attacks upon killing models irrespective of whether attacks are split, these attacks cannot generate further attacks.

see where that puts Compedge in relation to other warlord trait/relic combos that exist in the codex

Make Executioner work against non-VEHICLE units. Buff The Phial Bouquet to choose instead of randomly determined. Buff Treacherous Deceiver to stack with the obsession. Buff Traitor's Embrace to be 2d6-2 mortal wounds instead of D3+3 on 2+. Buff Hyperswift Reflexes to block re-rolls on hit rolls made against the WL. Remove the bonus attacks from Triptych Whip.

Nerf Dark Lotus to +1 S -1 AP for razorflails instead of AP and Damage.

compare the Succubus to other 60-80pt combat oriented HQs to see where she falls and if she needs a point bump, talk about particular units and weapons that might need an adjustment upwards if, after the obvious stuff is 2-week FAQ'ed out, above-average performance continues?

I would need more time to think it over, but again Dakka won't make a difference, as has been discussed many of these things were probably brought up by playtesters.

Without Stratagems and Relics hydraflail Succubus is not that deadly even with another doubling of attacks by Competitive Edge, +1 Damage Relic and re-roll wounds Stratagem makes it too good against a lot of things it should not be good against. Murdering half a squad of Warriors is not the end of the world if that was the only thing she could do. Precision Blows is probably already really good combined with hydraflail and Dark Lotus Toxin, 4 mortal wounds is no joke, I'm sure that has already been brought up somewhere else.

 vict0988 wrote:

Remove Blade Artists from the whole faction.

I'm very curious as to your reasoning behind this (I don't know if there is any significance behind it being at the front of your list of changes also?) It's not an ability that I've seen called out by anyone as problematic, and confess I'm not seeing at all why you'd think it would be.

It'd be interesting to hear what your thoughts are here.

Other than that, you're quite right about the interactivity of Dark Lotus Toxin in the Succubus build we've all been discussing. Even if we accept the current implementation of Razor Flails and Comp Edge, she's only killing (if my quick bit of mathhammer is correct) about 3-4 MEQ's without it, compared to a full entire unit with it.

It's probably notable (or perhaps should be) that two of the biggest cautionary call-outs from the Codex involve an 'increased damage' trait or element.as a core part of what makes them work. (DT and Flails/Edge/DLT Succubus).

Is the Succubus really an issue? I mean, as I understand it, it requires the combination of stratagems, relic and trait. Undeniably powerful, but it doesn't really scales with the game.

 Tyran wrote:
Is the Succubus really an issue? I mean, as I understand it, it requires the combination of stratagems, relic and trait. Undeniably powerful, but it doesn't really scales with the game.

She's been an emotive issue certainly. What you have is (in large part to some poorly implemented rules right now) an HQ which, naked, is fine but not setting anyone's world on fire really.
When you add a trait and relic (which of course you're almost certainly going to), she's suddenly a 60 pt model that can delete 100's of points of opposing HQ's, elite units and the like, with little issue.

That she has serious potential on the table is beyond doubt.

What would be interesting would be to look through some streams of these winning DE lists at events, and see just how much work that unit is putting in. If she's sniped off the table first turn in every game, or otherwise 'contained', she looks a lot less of an issue in practice than if she's erasing a Magnus, Bobby-G or Mortarion type unit a turn.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I posted Nayden's list a page or two back. His DE portion was DT with Drazhar, Succubus, 3x5 Wracks, 3 Grots, and 3 raiders. Ynnari was also DE - Visarch, Wyches, Brides, and Incubi.

Can you elaborate on this a little bit? I see this DE portion and think it isn't eligible for the DT Coven Obsession due to the Succubus.

 alextroy wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I posted Nayden's list a page or two back. His DE portion was DT with Drazhar, Succubus, 3x5 Wracks, 3 Grots, and 3 raiders. Ynnari was also DE - Visarch, Wyches, Brides, and Incubi.

Can you elaborate on this a little bit? I see this DE portion and think it isn't eligible for the DT Coven Obsession due to the Succubus.

It used to be that way and has caused a bit of confusion as things have changed. You can mix units within a detachment now without losing obsessions. But the non coven, kabal, or cult units in that detachment, don't get an obsession. So you can take say a Chronos in your Cult detachments, all your cult units work as normal, but the Chronos gets no obsession at all.

Sean himself was kind enough to discuss some of this with us in the DE tactics thread if you're interested.

 alextroy wrote:
Can you elaborate on this a little bit? I see this DE portion and think it isn't eligible for the DT Coven Obsession due to the Succubus.

It is entirely legal. Drukhari detachments pick an Obsession, and then all matching units in that detachment gain that Obsession (IE: If you pick a DT Coven detachment, all Coven units will gain the DT Obsession). Unlike other armies however, you can include non-subfaction units in the detachment without breaking the Obsession, they simply won't gain one (so in this case the Succubus wouldn't gain the benefit of their chosen Cult's Obsession).

It's a small, but subtle thing that allows for list-building shenanigans like this.

Play a better game I guess or the old FGC favorite: Pick a top tier.

 StrayIight wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Remove Blade Artists from the whole faction.

I'm very curious as to your reasoning behind this (I don't know if there is any significance behind it being at the front of your list of changes also?) It's not an ability that I've seen called out by anyone as problematic, and confess I'm not seeing at all why you'd think it would be.

I don't think Drukhari being extra armour piercing is thematic, especially with Wych Cult weapons AP creep on top, I think separating 6s from other wounds is a waste of time for such a small benefit.

Why should blade artists be removed when marines have access to ap shenanigans in every facet all the time? See it’s things like this that put people on the defensive.

We know there are issues to be fixed. The problem is GW has proven to be inept at fixing things without breaking other things needlessly.

Edit: Just by looking at recent lists, we know DT, specific Succubus build, and liquifiers are being abused and will probably be toned down. Dark Lances will also probably go up in points at some point. Those are the common things in each list that just looks wrong. I’d also make the suggestion if I was able, maybe custom traits should just be disallowed from tournaments. They’re clearly not as vetted as named traits are and cause more trouble than may be worth. The fear though is GW just going “well, liquifiers are too good. Can’t have that. 25 points per model.” Etc etc

Sterling191 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Can you elaborate on this a little bit? I see this DE portion and think it isn't eligible for the DT Coven Obsession due to the Succubus.

It is entirely legal. Drukhari detachments pick an Obsession, and then all matching units in that detachment gain that Obsession (IE: If you pick a DT Coven detachment, all Coven units will gain the DT Obsession). Unlike other armies however, you can include non-subfaction units in the detachment without breaking the Obsession, they simply won't gain one (so in this case the Succubus wouldn't gain the benefit of their chosen Cult's Obsession).

It's a small, but subtle thing that allows for list-building shenanigans like this.

Ah, yes. I forgot that. So the Succubus was so good that he ran it without obsessions or COS detachment abilities.

 alextroy wrote:

Ah, yes. I forgot that. So the Succubus was so good that he ran it without obsessions or COS detachment abilities.

It's probably the better of the three basic HQ's usually.

Obsessions aren't generally what makes or breaks most Succubus builds. Even in a Coven detachment, the succubus additionally still gets a Cult keyword. If this player then has another detachment that was Cult of Strife, this Coven Detachment Succubus can access most of those bells and whistles also, still just at the expense of it's obsession.

It can be a decent option if you have no need of a Haemonucli.

Salt Donkey, from someone on your side of the discussion, and as the OP, how would you “fix” or address a perceived ‘broken’ Drukhari issue? I’m interested in seeing what page all of us are on.

Crix wrote:
Salt Donkey, from someone on your side of the discussion, and as the OP, how would you “fix” or address a perceived ‘broken’ Drukhari issue? I’m interested in seeing what page all of us are on.

There’s a lot things so I’m going to separate the nerfs I’d like to see based on style. That said I don’t feel all these nerfs would be needed to make the army fair, just a good chunk of them.

Army-wide.

Change points so that dissi’s can compete wit dark lances. Maybe a couple points nerf to darklances and a larger point cut for dissis.

Drazhar up to 165 points. Currently he is an auto-include in any list. 165 would at least give people pause before playing him.

Raiders up 10 points. They got a large T boost but paid basically no points for the privilege. This by itself would make the army a lot more fair.

All units in a non realspace raid detachment need to share a coven, Kabal, cult keyword in order to keep obsessions.

No extra 2 CP for running triple patrol.

Incubi up 2 points. A very undercosted unit atm.

Kabals

I don’t think this is the OP part of the book. Needs little to no nerfs. Maybe court of the archon needs some point increases.

Wyche cults

First clear up obvious oversights (infinite attack succubus, 10 point reveals for all those WAAC players trying to abuse this)

Nerf succubus somehow further (no tournament list should be spamming 3 and feeling good about it.)

Change book of rust cult of strife to require an army to not use mercy. Buff beastmasters/ beasts.

Coven

Dark techomancer needs drastic changes. It this point I’d be ok if it got nerfed to something like +2 S in range weapons that don’t auto-hit.

Buff Talos and chronos. They’re both quite bad.

That’s really all atm. That said it should be clear based on the length of the list why I consider this army OP.

For what it’s worth, I’ve been in a TTS tournament that’s been going for a little while now. 16 teams of 4, 7 drukhari lists. Current individual rankings are 3rd, 7th, 17th, 33rd, 42nd, 46th, and 59th.

Most of the lists have a succubus with competitive edge and razorflails, six of them are heavy on the dark technomancers, and five of them have at least 15 hellions. One or two have 40.

Salt donkey wrote:

Spoiler:

There’s a lot things so I’m going to separate the nerfs I’d like to see based on style. That said I don’t feel all these nerfs would be needed to make the army fair, just a good chunk of them.

Army-wide.

Change points so that dissi’s can compete wit dark lances. Maybe a couple points nerf to darklances and a larger point cut for dissis.

Drazhar up to 165 points. Currently he is an auto-include in any list. 165 would at least give people pause before playing him.

Raiders up 10 points. They got a large T boost but paid basically no points for the privilege. This by itself would make the army a lot more fair.

All units in a non realspace raid detachment need to share a coven, Kabal, cult keyword in order to keep obsessions.

No extra 2 CP for running triple patrol.

Incubi up 2 points. A very undercosted unit atm.

Kabals

I don’t think this is the OP part of the book. Needs little to no nerfs. Maybe court of the archon needs some point increases.

Wyche cults

First clear up obvious oversights (infinite attack succubus, 10 point reveals for all those WAAC players trying to abuse this)

Nerf succubus somehow further (no tournament list should be spamming 3 and feeling good about it.)

Change book of rust cult of strife to require an army to not use mercy. Buff beastmasters/ beasts.

Coven

Dark techomancer needs drastic changes. It this point I’d be ok if it got nerfed to something like +2 S in range weapons that don’t auto-hit.

Buff Talos and chronos. They’re both quite bad.

That’s really all atm. That said it should be clear based on the length of the list why I consider this army OP.

I've mulled over Raiders a few times also. We won't see it happen soon, but I do wonder if a points change upward to them might put the breaks on things a little bit.

Raiders are great, and we're seeing them taken heavily in essentially every list. You almost never see Ravagers on the other hand any more, because the efficiency from Raiders has (to my mind at least) largely made them obsolete. Dark Lances have been considerably improved, and with easy access to free rerolls via various obsessions, are very reliable. 9 times out of 10, you'll never opt for a Dissie over a Lance now.

There's an argument that they need to stay around the price of other factions transports, but (internal balance discussions aside) I'm not so sure they're just a simple transport now. They're more like highly mobile gunships that also carry large numbers of models and that can even provide other types of useful support for many of the armies tricks.

I wouldn't use the term 'overpowered', they clearly aren't. I think they probably are a bit too points efficient though, and they're such a core part of the army, a change there might help things along in terms of balance as a whole.

Crackedgear wrote:
and five of them have at least 15 hellions. One or two have 40.

I'm somewhat mystified how those stay on the board for long with morale. Are people somehow getting them into melee turn 1 or bringing them on later?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Crackedgear wrote:
and five of them have at least 15 hellions. One or two have 40.

I'm somewhat mystified how those stay on the board for long with morale. Are people somehow getting them into melee turn 1 or bringing them on later?

We looked at this in the other forum. They can be made quite a bit more resilient than they would appear. It's something of a trap to focus on them at times.

Additionally in a DE list, you can be somewhat drowned by threats. Are the Hellions the one you want to deal with, or is it those Incubi? What about the transport carrying Draz or that Blenderella Succubus?

Lots of reason why they stick around in practice.