Drukhari are OP, what next?

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**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Got -1 toughness, got -1 save, -1 wound, lost the assault vehicle rule...

Sure. But trades most people take any day. assault vehicle is nice, but forcing the opponent to crack the shell before getting to the squishy insides is better. The extra wound only means you bleed more secondaries (Giving Raiders 11 wounds would actually be quite a good way to make them pay a little more in secondaries for spamming them) and the save means nothing for the majority of weapons that people use to crack transports / medium vehicles..

Either way. Removing fly alone made the difference between people running 4-6 Impulsors to running basically none. Even without open topped, without a dark lance and at a solid 33% higher point cost, showing how extremely undercosted that keyword alone still is for almost anything (but especially non-infantry) GW puts out (and Drukhari benefit from it immensely).

Yeah, honestly, I would probably bump the raider body up 5, the dark lance up 5, and drop the dissie down to 0. I don't think raiders are necessarily OP, theyre just one of only a tiny handful of transport vehicles in the game atm that actually do what a transport vehicle is supposed to do - protect the unit inside from the weapons that would generally try to kill them, not cost an order of magnitude more than the unit it's protecting, and actually allow them to get to the fight faster than if they were simply on foot.

Nearly every other transport in the game fails at one of those fronts - Chimeras, GSC trucks, Valkyries, Repulsors, land raiders, ork Trukks and Tau Devilfish are all WAYYYYYYYYYYYYY too expensive compared to what you've actually got in it (imagine protecting a 55pt guard squad with a fething 70pt tank LOL) Rhinos and Wave Serpents all make the units inside them slower, and as an added problem, the same exact weapons you take to kill marines you also can use to kill rhinos just as efficiently if not more.What should I shoot my plasma gun at, the marines are in a rhino? Well, the rhino i guess, I'll get nearly as good a points return lol.

I would much prefer focusing nerfs toward the actual problematic units in the codex before the tool that nearly every unit OP or no tends to use. 100% concede that you could probably levy a nerf at the dark lance version of the raider in particular, but I do not think the dissie raider or the venom is actually a balance problem so much as they are an actually functional transport that basically every other transport in the game should be buffed to be as usable as.

There are basically 4 usable transports in 40k right now: Battlewagons with a specific upgrade, Raiders, Venoms, and Starweavers. Every other one is kind of garbage.

**Not Online!!!**

I mean if the chimera would be better i'd not mind having a 55 or 70 pts squad in there to just have a chimera.
I mean they once were a gold standard, nothing speaks against them achieving the same again for mechanised guard

**Karol**

Wouldn't the chimera be a good or okeyish as an open topped assault vehicle for IG players, because of the melee ogryns?

**Not Online!!!**

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't the chimera be a good or okeyish as an open topped assault vehicle for IG players, because of the melee ogryns?

Open topped or assault would immediately increase it's value massively.

**the_scotsman**

Karol wrote:
Wouldn't the chimera be a good or okeyish as an open topped assault vehicle for IG players, because of the melee ogryns?

the current assault vehicle rule is useless for actual assault troops. it should really be called like "melta attack vehicle" or whatever.

it would be weird for a chimera to be open topped because...it...isn't. it's a tank. If it were an assault vehicle it would definitely be much better as you could hop out melta squads or plasma gun squads and shoot with them. The main thing that caused the chimera to no longer be useful is you used to be able to fire out of the hatch in 7th and earlier with your special and heavy weapon, and then you got 6 lasguns so it was *almost* open topped for shooty squads.

Currently you can move a valkyrie forward, drop a squad of bullgryns, and attempt to charge with them. that's already a capability on a guard transport vehicle, it's just not used because bullgryns arent very good (basically bladeguard with no invulns no chapter tactics and AP-1 swords) and the 9" charge isn't reliable, but its still better than the 0% chance to be able to charge that Assault Vehicle would give you.

**Tyel**

I tend to think those vehicles should be buffed rather than the raider unduly nerfed - as it is somewhat integral to the faction.

**Karol**

hmm maybe w40k should get something I noticed AoS has, which is some units having longer reach. The movment would stay the same, but something like an ogryn or a warlock with a spear poker would be able to engage opponents from further away, and this would also mean they could be outside of range to be hit back sometimes.

**Gadzilla666**

the_scotsman wrote:
An army with a gigantic play percentage as big as marines (rarely under 1 in 3 players) is obviously going to have a difficult time getting over a 50% winrate unless the balance of the game is an absolute joke. It's pretty clear that the marine lists focusing on mobility and durability seem to be doing alright dealing with the splash of the - again, seriously broken pre-FAQ version of - the drukhari list, while the marine chapters like Salamanders and Space wolves that generally rely on overwhelming damage are not doing so hot.

I'm sorry, looking at lists with stuff like 9 MM attack bikes or 3 squads of eradicators I just don't think people aren't tailoring NOW. They're just tailoring their lists to the exact opposite thing that DE and Harlequins are, and obviously that's one-sided as feth.

Yeah, the points efficiency of melta falls off a cliff against an army like Dark Eldar. Hopefully if they become more prevalent that means we'll see less melta spam and more vehicles will become field able. That would be nice.

More variety in defensive profiles = less weapon spam. Go TAC or go home.

**Karol**

Melta spam stopped being a thing more then 5 months ago. All armies run melta anti tank, but I don't think many armies right now run with 9 attack bikes and 9 eradictors at the same time. Those melta heavy armies were already losing against other top armies, before DE got their new book.

**Marin**

Sunny Side Up wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:

Got -1 toughness, got -1 save, -1 wound, lost the assault vehicle rule...

Sure. But trades most people take any day. assault vehicle is nice, but forcing the opponent to crack the shell before getting to the squishy insides is better. The extra wound only means you bleed more secondaries (Giving Raiders 11 wounds would actually be quite a good way to make them pay a little more in secondaries for spamming them) and the save means nothing for the majority of weapons that people use to crack transports / medium vehicles..

Either way. Removing fly alone made the difference between people running 4-6 Impulsors to running basically none. Even without open topped, without a dark lance and at a solid 33% higher point cost, showing how extremely undercosted that keyword alone still is for almost anything (but especially non-infantry) GW puts out (and Drukhari benefit from it immensely).

Because Impulsors were cheap as chips and did a lot more, they were 50pts cheaper wave serpent.
In the start of the edition GW overhyped transports and most of them got the short stick. I still remember Reece from Frontline explaining that 145 pts wave serpent spam is the most broken thing in 9th edition. Impulsor could really use point drops like most of the other transports.
Second SM will not pay points for transport when for the some points they can get squad of T4 W2 models that can just chill and hold objective or invest more to increase their elites.
Drukhari are changing that, you need cheap stuff to trade since bladeguard cant just chill in the middle of the table.

**Red Corsair**

Salt donkey wrote:
Red Corsair wrote:
Looking at those results I really am not seeing anything that dubious lol.

Especially considering the silly razor flail interaction and 10 point reavers are still being used apparently.

The 10 pt reavers is equal parts the fault of the inept TO's and the players disingenuous enough to take advantage of the situation.

DE are on a tear right now because they are a hard counter to the meta. The meta was small super elite multi wound units with multi damage weaponry.

DE units are small and hit just as hard but they aren't durable so they are getting twice the numbers. It's classic MSU, nothing new to the game but it's definitely a shift in the meta for 9th.

As soon as admech, sisters or other xenos show up and are also a glass hammer but conduct their work in the shooting phase then DE will be reigned in hard.

DE hate killing units like skitarii for example. They essentially charge in a more expensive unit to trade and lose out on the exchange. Marines are getting dunked on hard because they pay for 2 wounds and power armor which is meaningless to DE ATM.

It's this odd decision they made in 9th, "hey lets fix marines durability issue" only to reverse it via the ever escalating damage lol. At this point marines would have been better off being 1 wound and 30% cheaper.

The game is going to suffer from this issue forever lol. Anyone remember when we all tolerated the breakneck pace of 8th's codex cycle because we were promised the idea that once everyone had their book the game would all meld together? Yeah only for supplements and then 9th edition codex cycle to literally keep that mark on the horizon.

A year from now marine players will be complaining once again that they are so terrible and they will get their second 9th codex thus breaking the meta wide open again and the cycle will repeat when 10th launches lol.

While I do agree that 10 point revears and broken succubus is not making the situation better, in what world is a 69% win rate not dubious? Again that’s what Ynnari had at their peak with any amount of play. Do you think that army was fair? Outside of ironhands at their peak, this is also what some of the worst IF, IH, and salamander lists where getting as well. Are those armies fair? And while 27 lists doesn’t give enough data to draw any full conclusion from, it’s at least enough to show a real trend.

Everything else you bring up is just theory on what you think will happen, which sorry, doesn’t mean much in comparison to facts.

Because the results your using are analytically dubious. It's inconsistent sample sizes that are tiny and over a short period when vast numbers of the player base are not even playing. Your "facts" are statistics pulled from garbage samples, it's even worse when your scraping the barrel to find results to cry over.

I mean your using RTT's with a dozen or so players as some of the examples. I can tell you from experience that's awful.

Just for the sake of argument, if 1 player shows up to a 20 person RTT and places in the top 3 and wins 4 out of 5 games playing GSC then suddenly thats a result displaying GSC with an 80% win rate. Must be broken right? But we both would know that those results are probably (likely) not repeatable over a meaningful sample size.

And before someone tries to claim I am suggesting DE are as bad off as GSC, no, just no. I am using it as an example because it's obvious GSC are somewhere at the bottom of the meta battling for last place.

This is not really uncommon, you have a faction that was already strong in 9th, known for being piloted by extremely good players because of the higher skill ceiling to pilot them suddenly getting a boost in the arm they have needed for arguably a decade so they are catching people off guard. It's because most opponents are not familiar with the army. Not really a surprise when the meta has been marines for 2 years. I mean how many opponents do you think have actually played against liquifiers or hellions for example? I have played the army for more then 2 decades and I have had folks confused that wracks could even field guns besides the hex rifle on the sargent.

**Daedalus81**

Tyel wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
I think that's why GW get so blindsided by some of the overpowered stuff. They seem to work on the assumption that people build fluffy thematic TAC lists like they do. Dark Technomancers is probably not that bad if it's only applying to a single unit of Wracks and a Talos within a Patrol or Raiding Party detachment. I honestly think it never crossed their minds that people would build entire 2000 point armies of DT Covens, spamming Liquifiers on everything.

The thing is while there's a lot of contempt thrown - it may not have been picked up by the playtesters. I mean we've seen some of the best players in the game running or including DE and they aren't running 30 liquifiers (or really Grots/Talos/Cronos in general). They are tending to run loads of small units. So there may be a view at the highest level of play that it doesn't work.

Exactly why isn't as clear - but it may be that if you go second, this "charge forward, ignore the objectives, just table the opponent and get all the points in turn 4 and 5" doesn't work. Its too risky to have raiders blown up on the starting line or something.

TTS is also interesting - because in theory if something is overpowered, you'd expect it to become wall to wall.

As an edit - I guess you could say 8th edition WHFB started the shift to competitive lists (not convinced, so many people had all cav armies because cav was busted and had a meltdown when 8th came out) - but that's the middle of 5th in 40k terms. Over 10 years ago now.

This highlights pretty well the difficulty with playtesting. They may have tested DT and found that it wasn't highly competetive - and it isn't. It is still a problem overall, but it got hidden by other issues.

**Red Corsair**

Not Online!!! wrote:
Karol wrote:
Wouldn't the chimera be a good or okeyish as an open topped assault vehicle for IG players, because of the melee ogryns?

Open topped or assault would immediately increase it's value massively.

Karol wrote:Wouldn't the chimera be a good or okeyish as an open topped assault vehicle for IG players, because of the melee ogryns?

OK now you both just outed yourselves because the assault vehicle rules are both useless and more importantly not on raiders.

I feel like this is much less about being constructive and more about senseless complaining.

Even the majority of DE players are in agreement that Reavers, Razorflail succubus and DT trait all need a FAQ.

Beyond that, even these debates on points are premature because Eradicators, blade guard and that D-head chief apothecary all remained as released (or close enough) and what would you know, nobody is looking their way at the moment.

I think those obvious 3 things need that FAQ, which admittedly is a coin flip that GW actually corrects it anyway, then more time is definitely required before they start fiddling with costs. It's been a couple weeks lol.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
I think that's why GW get so blindsided by some of the overpowered stuff. They seem to work on the assumption that people build fluffy thematic TAC lists like they do. Dark Technomancers is probably not that bad if it's only applying to a single unit of Wracks and a Talos within a Patrol or Raiding Party detachment. I honestly think it never crossed their minds that people would build entire 2000 point armies of DT Covens, spamming Liquifiers on everything.

The thing is while there's a lot of contempt thrown - it may not have been picked up by the playtesters. I mean we've seen some of the best players in the game running or including DE and they aren't running 30 liquifiers (or really Grots/Talos/Cronos in general). They are tending to run loads of small units. So there may be a view at the highest level of play that it doesn't work.

Exactly why isn't as clear - but it may be that if you go second, this "charge forward, ignore the objectives, just table the opponent and get all the points in turn 4 and 5" doesn't work. Its too risky to have raiders blown up on the starting line or something.

TTS is also interesting - because in theory if something is overpowered, you'd expect it to become wall to wall.

As an edit - I guess you could say 8th edition WHFB started the shift to competitive lists (not convinced, so many people had all cav armies because cav was busted and had a meltdown when 8th came out) - but that's the middle of 5th in 40k terms. Over 10 years ago now.

This highlights pretty well the difficulty with playtesting. They may have tested DT and found that it wasn't highly competetive - and it isn't. It is still a problem overall, but it got hidden by other issues.

DT is more a problem in casual games where it completely trolls non competitive gamers. Anyone that actually keeps up on the codex cycle understands and how winning a larger tourney understands that spamming DT is a gamblers choice, dependent almost solely on draw.

**harlokin**

Red Corsair wrote:

I feel like this is much less about being constructive and more about senseless complaining.

Even the majority of DE players are in agreement that Reavers, Razorflail succubus and DT trait all need a FAQ.

Beyond that, even these debates on points are premature because Eradicators, blade guard and that D-head chief apothecary all remained as released (or close enough) and what would you know, nobody is looking their way at the moment.

This. Very much so.

I would be happier with 'corrections' to the Drukhari codex if the basis for comparison were other 9th edition codices, rather than stuff that GW has left hanging in limbo with the new edition.

**Not Online!!!**

Red Corsair wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
Karol wrote:
Wouldn't the chimera be a good or okeyish as an open topped assault vehicle for IG players, because of the melee ogryns?

Open topped or assault would immediately increase it's value massively.

Karol wrote:Wouldn't the chimera be a good or okeyish as an open topped assault vehicle for IG players, because of the melee ogryns?

OK now you both just outed yourselves because the assault vehicle rules are both useless and more importantly not on raiders.

I feel like this is much less about being constructive and more about senseless complaining.

Even the majority of DE players are in agreement that Reavers, Razorflail succubus and DT trait all need a FAQ.

Beyond that, even these debates on points are premature because Eradicators, blade guard and that D-head chief apothecary all remained as released (or close enough) and what would you know, nobody is looking their way at the moment.

I think those obvious 3 things need that FAQ, which admittedly is a coin flip that GW actually corrects it anyway, then more time is definitely required before they start fiddling with costs. It's been a couple weeks lol.

Scuse me, i just stated that it would increase the value of a chimera, even the assault rule to disembark and shoot would improve the IG and might bring back some of the shootier elite slots in favour of ogryns potentially..
I also never stated anything about DE, i know right now to little and beyond the obvious typos and rule junk provided by GW through shoddy editing i as of now have no opinion on them.

**the_scotsman**

Tyel wrote:
I tend to think those vehicles should be buffed rather than the raider unduly nerfed - as it is somewhat integral to the faction.

That is kind of my point here, yeah. I also do not see raider-mounted wracks/grots outside of DT, kabalites, or Courts of the Archon as particularly an issue. Really, it's the single dark lance shot on the raider that causes issues (which can be independently nerfed specifically for the raider, which is nice) and the units that are punching above their point cost - Wyches, DT wracks, Succubus, Drazar and Incubi.

I do think we have a ways to go to see what point adjustments if any GW puts out to drukhari. Ideally, we get some odd rules interaction changes with the FAQ, and we give the meta some time to actually settle/develop, maybe get a couple more codex books out (remember, this is only the second ever 9th ed codex for a not-marine faction) and see where the game is at.

For all we know drukhari might be countered pretty well by a couple factions whose codexes are upcoming but are currently just totally non-functional. We've had definite previews for Admech that suggest some nasty anti-drukhari weapons (buffed arc weaponry with midstrength multidamage, buffed phosphor weaponry with the golden S6 Ap-2 D2, buffed cognis autocannon with 6 shots, buffed Icarus Array) previews for sisters who I heard enjoy autohitting midstrength weaponry quite a lot, and some previews that suggest Genestealer Cults may be coming up soon (there's a very clear GSC hand in one of the recent rumor engines).

**Sterling191**

Ad Mech (a faction which is already quite strong in the meta) is poised to be an absolute nightmare for Drukhari. I expect Tau will be somewhat similar if they get the level of glow up their codex needs.

With the unit expansion Sisters are slated to get I won't at all be surprised if there are things in their new book that lay the hurt on the pointy elves.

**bullyboy**

DT should just be changed so that the enhanced weapon gains +1 to W but only gets the additional +1D on an unmodified 6 to wound. Done deal.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Ordana wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
I think the problem is getting a grip on how DE are winning the game.

Because different things bother different people. I think the Razorflail Succubus is stupid - but by itself its not winning the game. I don't think 3 units of two liquifier DT wracks are breaking the game. Spammed 10 point reavers could break the game - but one unit of 6 probably isn't etc etc.

I think that's why GW get so blindsided by some of the overpowered stuff. They seem to work on the assumption that people build fluffy thematic TAC lists like they do. Dark Technomancers is probably not that bad if it's only applying to a single unit of Wracks and a Talos within a Patrol or Raiding Party detachment. I honestly think it never crossed their minds that people would build entire 2000 point armies of DT Covens, spamming Liquifiers on everything.
Thats what playtesters are supposed to be for.

And after the devs got stomped by spam lists when they played in a tournament in early in 8th edition, leading to the introduction of the rule of 3, you would expect them to know better.

Why would you expect them to know better AFTER introducing the Rule Of Three? That's was just blatantly admitting "we can't balance so you can only take up to three of those broken units". It was thr laziest thing I ever saw that was still praised here.

**Xenomancers**

Red Corsair wrote:
Looking at those results I really am not seeing anything that dubious lol.

Especially considering the silly razor flail interaction and 10 point reavers are still being used apparently.

The 10 pt reavers is equal parts the fault of the inept TO's and the players disingenuous enough to take advantage of the situation.

DE are on a tear right now because they are a hard counter to the meta. The meta was small super elite multi wound units with multi damage weaponry.

DE units are small and hit just as hard but they aren't durable so they are getting twice the numbers. It's classic MSU, nothing new to the game but it's definitely a shift in the meta for 9th.

As soon as admech, sisters or other xenos show up and are also a glass hammer but conduct their work in the shooting phase then DE will be reigned in hard.

DE hate killing units like skitarii for example. They essentially charge in a more expensive unit to trade and lose out on the exchange. Marines are getting dunked on hard because they pay for 2 wounds and power armor which is meaningless to DE ATM.

It's this odd decision they made in 9th, "hey lets fix marines durability issue" only to reverse it via the ever escalating damage lol. At this point marines would have been better off being 1 wound and 30% cheaper.

The game is going to suffer from this issue forever lol. Anyone remember when we all tolerated the breakneck pace of 8th's codex cycle because we were promised the idea that once everyone had their book the game would all meld together? Yeah only for supplements and then 9th edition codex cycle to literally keep that mark on the horizon.

A year from now marine players will be complaining once again that they are so terrible and they will get their second 9th codex thus breaking the meta wide open again and the cycle will repeat when 10th launches lol.

What kinda TO allows 10 point reavers? What kinda TO doesn't make a reasonable interp of the razorflail CE interaction? I would literally walk out of an event with 10 point reavers.

Honestly you couldn't have said anything more correct. LOL.

Mainly the balance in this game is always going to be horrendous with this release cycle.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
I think that's why GW get so blindsided by some of the overpowered stuff. They seem to work on the assumption that people build fluffy thematic TAC lists like they do. Dark Technomancers is probably not that bad if it's only applying to a single unit of Wracks and a Talos within a Patrol or Raiding Party detachment. I honestly think it never crossed their minds that people would build entire 2000 point armies of DT Covens, spamming Liquifiers on everything.

The thing is while there's a lot of contempt thrown - it may not have been picked up by the playtesters. I mean we've seen some of the best players in the game running or including DE and they aren't running 30 liquifiers (or really Grots/Talos/Cronos in general). They are tending to run loads of small units. So there may be a view at the highest level of play that it doesn't work.

Exactly why isn't as clear - but it may be that if you go second, this "charge forward, ignore the objectives, just table the opponent and get all the points in turn 4 and 5" doesn't work. Its too risky to have raiders blown up on the starting line or something.

TTS is also interesting - because in theory if something is overpowered, you'd expect it to become wall to wall.

As an edit - I guess you could say 8th edition WHFB started the shift to competitive lists (not convinced, so many people had all cav armies because cav was busted and had a meltdown when 8th came out) - but that's the middle of 5th in 40k terms. Over 10 years ago now.

This highlights pretty well the difficulty with playtesting. They may have tested DT and found that it wasn't highly competetive - and it isn't. It is still a problem overall, but it got hidden by other issues.

Play test is easy. Anyone can look through a book and find the broken combos in a 20 minute time frame if they are a veteran player. You don't even need to test is - things that generate additional attacks / deal mortal wounds/ and give +1 to wound/reroll wound modifiers should already be under specific additional attention. Then ofc....nothing should make it to print without being mathed out. The only answer is they don't actually test it. 1 or 2 people make the rules - do a quick review and send it to print - laugh about a few known troublesome interactions and say..."if it's too good we will errata it" in the meantime though - units are going to be flying off the shelves.

**Ordana**

Sterling191 wrote:
Ad Mech (a faction which is already quite strong in the meta) is poised to be an absolute nightmare for Drukhari. I expect Tau will be somewhat similar if they get the level of glow up their codex needs.

With the unit expansion Sisters are slated to get I won't at all be surprised if there are things in their new book that lay the hurt on the pointy elves.

Tau isn't going to be become dominant in 9th until their core issue of being unable to claim the midfield gets resolved.

Just shooting harder/better won't solve that issue.

**Daedalus81**

Karol wrote:
GW changes are always knee jerk reactions, and they don't really balance stuff, they just nerf stuff or have no impact.

How often do we see castellans being played after their fix or Inari? We don't because GWs killed them as a choice, and if someone wants to keep playing w40k, they can just go on and buy a different army.

How often does the community knee-jerk react? Castellans got nerfed into the right spot at the time. Just because people move on to the next thing they can find doesn't mean Castellans couldn't win games. You don't really see them now, because it can be hard for knights to deal with the current objectives. So, in that sense the Knights codex will be a watershed moment to see if GW can really make them work.

All that being said -- Ynnari is being used by the best elf player right now ( even before the DE book ). Castellans and other knights are winning games when people actually take armigers as well.

**VladimirHerzog**

Daedalus81 wrote:

All that being said -- Ynnari is being used by the best elf player right now ( even before the DE book ). Castellans and other knights are winning games when people actually take armigers as well.

im curious, were they being used AS ynnari or just Ynnari HQs added to non-ynnari armies?

**Sterling191**

VladimirHerzog wrote:

im curious, were they being used AS ynnari or just Ynnari HQs added to non-ynnari armies?

To access Ynnari HQs you MUST run the detachment as Ynnari per the 9th Drukhari codex. Most of them that I've seen are structured such that they dont really lose much (typically Blades for Hire heavy plus a compulsory Troops choice).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:
Castellans and other knights are winning games when people actually take armigers as well.

I was perusing tournament results and there was a Knight army that took home a 40-ish player GT last week.

**VladimirHerzog**

Daedalus81 wrote:

All that being said -- Ynnari is being used by the best elf player right now ( even before the DE book ). Castellans and other knights are winning games when people actually take armigers as well.

Sterling191 wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:

im curious, were they being used AS ynnari or just Ynnari HQs added to non-ynnari armies?

To access Ynnari HQs you MUST run the detachment as Ynnari per the 9th Drukhari codex. Most of them that I've seen are structured such that they dont really lose much (typically Blades for Hire heavy plus a compulsory Troops choice).

bolded the relevant part

**Sterling191**

Ordana wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
Ad Mech (a faction which is already quite strong in the meta) is poised to be an absolute nightmare for Drukhari. I expect Tau will be somewhat similar if they get the level of glow up their codex needs.

With the unit expansion Sisters are slated to get I won't at all be surprised if there are things in their new book that lay the hurt on the pointy elves.
Tau isn't going to be become dominant in 9th until their core issue of being unable to claim the midfield gets resolved.

Just shooting harder/better won't solve that issue.

Please read what I wrote. I'm abundantly aware of the issues the Tau 8th edition codex faces in the 9th edition game reality (a topic I've written at length on in older threads).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

bolded the relevant part

I'm aware of the question being asked, which is largely irrelevant given that small Ynnari detachments are still showing up post-Codex release.

**Daedalus81**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:

All that being said -- Ynnari is being used by the best elf player right now ( even before the DE book ). Castellans and other knights are winning games when people actually take armigers as well.

Sterling191 wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:

im curious, were they being used AS ynnari or just Ynnari HQs added to non-ynnari armies?

To access Ynnari HQs you MUST run the detachment as Ynnari per the 9th Drukhari codex. Most of them that I've seen are structured such that they dont really lose much (typically Blades for Hire heavy plus a compulsory Troops choice).

bolded the relevant part

Full fledged Ynnari.

**TangoTwoBravo**

We should not ignore a situation where competitively Drukhari have 90 wins and 38 losses. You can twist and turn, ignore data you don't like etc but you are left with those numbers.

They should pull the Charandon supplement from competitive play and then see what happens (besides the obvious fix to Reaver points). Take some to time to rework that supplement.

**Karol**

Daedalus81 wrote:

How often does the community knee-jerk react? Castellans got nerfed into the right spot at the time. Just because people move on to the next thing they can find doesn't mean Castellans couldn't win games. You don't really see them now, because it can be hard for knights to deal with the current objectives. So, in that sense the Knights codex will be a watershed moment to see if GW can really make them work.

All that being said -- Ynnari is being used by the best elf player right now ( even before the DE book ). Castellans and other knights are winning games when people actually take armigers as well.

I was talking about 8th after the nerf. In 9th knights don't exist, same way GSC don't ,because they have a core rule set that doesn't work with the game core rule set inn 9th. And yes Inari and eldar are being used to win games, in soups with harlequin.

I don't think there were many, if any, main land europe mono Inari wins since the time WD fixed their rules. If they do good in in other countries that is great for those places. But is kind of a like telling the world that in 8th GK were fine, because they won two GT back to back in australia.

**Daedalus81**

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
We should not ignore a situation where competitively Drukhari have 90 wins and 38 losses. You can twist and turn, ignore data you don't like etc but you are left with those numbers.

They should pull the Charandon supplement from competitive play and then see what happens (besides the obvious fix to Reaver points). Take some to time to rework that supplement.

We're not ignoring it. We're getting to the root of the issue.

Look at Deathwatch. Panned as universally bad, but suddenly they're #2 ( at least for one week, anyway ). What happened? They had no changes. Some people must have learned how to use them.

People also need to learn how to face DE whether or not they're strong. And despite the DE wins lots of armies are still taking top spots. When Ynnari had that win rate it was Ynnari, Ynnari, Castellan, Ynnari, but it isn't that way with DE. Why?