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.

Karol wrote:

ccs 797783 11117745 wrote:

I can assure you all that when I get around to building my own DE force there will be zero raiders & zero wracks in it.
A razor sucubus.... Sure, maybe. (I do need 1 model to be the leader afterall) But honestly I'll likely go with a Homunculus for theme.
.

And I played a termintor army in 9th for GK. Doesn't mean that anyone around the world playing the few GK players, would have expected to see any termintors till the PA book came out.

People are going to run wrecks, raiders etc. I don't think it is fair to base an argument about a books imbalance, with the counter argument of "but, I don't use it" .

Oh I'm 100% sure plenty of people, likely the vast majority, will run Raiders, Wracks, Witches, etc. Majority =/= everyone

On balance.... You've misunderstood. I've made no argument about balance based on what I'll (eventually) run.
Balance is rarely ever a concern to me when I plan out a force. I look at the pages, make a list of all the models I like (then their rules) and ask "Can I build a {Drukari} force MY WAY, by the rules?" In this case, yes, yes I can. I can make a Drukari list with only 1 actual elf in it. And, since I can just pay another CP & put that elf in strategic reserve, I could likely get away with never owning the model. I will own 1 elf though as it's possible some mission rule will block using strat reserves & I'd be stuck having brought an illegal list....
Will this list work well? Will it be trash? Something in-between? I guess we'll find out in around 8 months (I'm only building 2 talos/cronos per month) based on the state of the rules at that time.

Oh I'm 100% sure plenty of people, likely the vast majority, will run Raiders, Wracks, Witches, etc. Majority =/= everyone

We have a term for something like this, we call it hair spliting. A few years ago a baby fell off a balcony here from 7th floor. Survived with minory injuries. But that does not change the fact that falling of the 7th floor is and should be considered deadly.

It is a question of probability, the chance that someone is going to face on a regular basis multiple DE armies with 9 talos in it, no raiders etc is low enough to be considered all.

Will this list work well? Will it be trash? Something in-between? I guess we'll find out in around 8 months (I'm only building 2 talos/cronos per month) based on the state of the rules at that time.

This goes beyond my level of understanding, so it is hard for me to comment. All I know is that within todays core terrain rules, a DE army has no bad sides or bad match ups, as the goons showed that no army has a 50%+ win rate vs DE.

Being super efficient, broken etc can happen and GW generaly does fix it. But the problem of flying skimmers and LoS terrain already existed with harlequins. And GW did nothing to fix it, because to fix it they would either have to re write the terrain rules and give something to armies like DE or Harlis to keep them still working, or leave them to be bad.
A points hike, unless it makes DE unplayable, will not fix anything. People will just cut a court but the core of the lists will stay the same. The other way GW could fix it is for them to force people to play on pre build tables with specific numbers of LoS terrain. If a DE player can no longer hide his entire army turn 1, to blow up and lock their opponents on turn 2 in practicaly every game, it could help. The problem with a such a fix is that there is zero practical way to enforce or implement it. GW could do it, but then they would have to have a book for it. Which means, that with how fast" GW reacts to core rules problems , we would see it maybe autum 2022.


My dudes were not that good in 9th, although way better then they were in 8th, but I liked how balanced the meta was. A ton of armies around 50% win rate, only harlequins being the broken faction, but multiple different factions being in the 55%+ tier. The game didn't need something like the DE right now. Worse thing this may generate resentment in the future.

An article discussed about how to reasonably nerf DE back into a "very strong but not utterly broken" status. It may be worth a look here:

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-editorial-what-gw-should-do-about-drukhari/

Generally speaking, what they proposed includes:
1. Points increase for Raider

2. Points increase for Master Archon and Master Succubus and Drazhar

3. Dark Technomancer model take mortal wound for firing auto hit weapons.

4. Triple Patrol give no additional CP. Keep a 3 Patrol DE army at 12 starting CPs.

I think these are all reasonable, what do you guys think?

I think it was already shared and discussed to death on the previous pages.

Neophyte2012 wrote:
An article discussed about how to reasonably nerf DE back into a "very strong but not utterly broken" status. It may be worth a look here:

https://www.goonhammer.com/competitive-innovations-editorial-what-gw-should-do-about-drukhari/

Generally speaking, what they proposed includes:
1. Points increase for Raider

2. Points increase for Master Archon and Master Succubus and Drazhar

3. Dark Technomancer model take mortal wound for firing auto hit weapons.

4. Triple Patrol give no additional CP. Keep a 3 Patrol DE army at 12 starting CPs.

I think these are all reasonable, what do you guys think?

I'm a little perplexed at why the master archon keeps coming up as needing a points increase. From the discussions I've seen and had, most people consider it a form of tax and if they could take something cheaper or more interesting, they would. The standard upgrades are for if you're going to take him as a tax, you might as well make him decent at something, so eternal hatred djinn blade it is.

Altima wrote:


I'm a little perplexed at why the master archon keeps coming up as needing a points increase. From the discussions I've seen and had, most people consider it a form of tax and if they could take something cheaper or more interesting, they would. The standard upgrades are for if you're going to take him as a tax, you might as well make him decent at something, so eternal hatred djinn blade it is.

The argument in the article isn't that he's problematic, more that the Master Archon upgrade is required if you intend to take Trueborn - who are very good and have been present in most competitive lists. They felt it's easier to put the tax on him, than on the Trueborn themselves. There's probably an argument to be made there.

I'm not sure personally Trueborn are a huge issue given that they're as self limiting as they are, but I suppose you could say as you will in all likelihood be taking them, that that extra tax paid to on the Archon, has a secondary impact on the rest of the list. I suspect that's Goonhammer's logic here.

Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.

It is easier to do that for GW, then split the trueborn and warriors in to two separate unit options. And saying one doesn't take a master archon is like saying DA don't take a master apothecary on a bike. Maybe someone doesn't, but it doesn't happen often.

Still point changes can achive two things. Either they will have zero impact and DE players will just drop a court or something inconsequential from their lists. Or the army suddenly can fit 4 or less raiders in to a normal size army, and stops working.

Karol wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.

It is easier to do that for GW, then split the trueborn and warriors in to two separate unit options. And saying one doesn't take a master archon is like saying DA don't take a master apothecary on a bike. Maybe someone doesn't, but it doesn't happen often.

Still point changes can achive two things. Either they will have zero impact and DE players will just drop a court or something inconsequential from their lists. Or the army suddenly can fit 4 or less raiders in to a normal size army, and stops working.

Karol, trueborn were a separate unit entry once upon a time.
There's nothing stopping GW from actually bothering and reimplementing options.

I think 20 points to have a 2 blasters and a dark lance hit on 2s rather than 3s is about right. Unclear its meaningfully overpowered. (I guess yes, your splinter rifles also hit on 2s, but... who cares?)

If anything the rule is bad because you either go with this loadout or you don't bother with Trueborn at all.

Tyel wrote:
I think 20 points to have a 2 blasters and a dark lance hit on 2s rather than 3s is about right. Unclear its meaningfully overpowered. (I guess yes, your splinter rifles also hit on 2s, but... who cares?)

If anything the rule is bad because you either go with this loadout or you don't bother with Trueborn at all.

It is 235pts to take 10 models in a raider for 4 shots. If you are taking more Kabals anyways in Black heart, take away the Trueborn buff to spend those points on other blasters you actually gain more hits (20pts gets you 2 more blasters), so really you are putting more eggs in one basket (which has pros and cons) but its not more "hits" from dark weapons than just taking even 1 more gun at with all kabals at 3+ BS.

Edit: spelling.

Trueborn cost points for the upgrade though? So if they are too good then just increase their cost rather than the master archon taken as a tax to get them.

A 1ppm increase for trueborn upgrade cost is the same overall increase as a 10pts increase to the master archon upgrade. Scales better too (e.g. if you had 5 in a venom you’d pay half as much but get less benefit as you have 1 blaster rather than 2 and a DL).

Not Online!!! 797783 11120282 wrote:

Karol, trueborn were a separate unit entry once upon a time.
There's nothing stopping GW from actually bothering and reimplementing options.

I have a pdf of a GK codex where they could take stormshields and thunderhammers on their termintors, and so what you think GW is going to bring those back?
They are an upgrade now. GW is not going to reimplement them as a separate option unless they make a separate box for them. Which can of course be as little as an extra pricy warrior box with a trueborn sprue thrown in. But till that happens, we have what we have.

 StrayIight wrote:

Altima wrote:


I'm a little perplexed at why the master archon keeps coming up as needing a points increase. From the discussions I've seen and had, most people consider it a form of tax and if they could take something cheaper or more interesting, they would. The standard upgrades are for if you're going to take him as a tax, you might as well make him decent at something, so eternal hatred djinn blade it is.

The argument in the article isn't that he's problematic, more that the Master Archon upgrade is required if you intend to take Trueborn - who are very good and have been present in most competitive lists. They felt it's easier to put the tax on him, than on the Trueborn themselves. There's probably an argument to be made there.

I'm not sure personally Trueborn are a huge issue given that they're as self limiting as they are, but I suppose you could say as you will in all likelihood be taking them, that that extra tax paid to on the Archon, has a secondary impact on the rest of the list. I suspect that's Goonhammer's logic here.

So why make the master archon cost 10pts more and not make the trueborn upgrade +3pts instead of +2pts...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karol wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nerfing the Master Archon because Trueborn are too good makes absolutely zero sense because the Archon himself isn't really good, and you aren't obligated to take him. However if you have one, there's ZERO reason not to take Trueborn.

It is easier to do that for GW, then split the trueborn and warriors in to two separate unit options. And saying one doesn't take a master archon is like saying DA don't take a master apothecary on a bike. Maybe someone doesn't, but it doesn't happen often.

Still point changes can achive two things. Either they will have zero impact and DE players will just drop a court or something inconsequential from their lists. Or the army suddenly can fit 4 or less raiders in to a normal size army, and stops working.

A court is not 'something inconsequential' from competitive drukhari player's lists. It's like a 140pt unit that's central to one of the secondaries a lot of these competitive lists take...

I agree that the Raider is undercosted.

That said, isn't the most effective Imperial weapon against it the autocannon? A squad of Suppressors puts almost 6 wounds on one.

A squad of suppressors costs how much? And honestly, when was the last time anyone used them? They have exactly one purpose, and do it badly. If I recall the costs, a squad of suppressors is almost twice the cost of the current Raider?

+15 points is not "almost twice the cost".

I know that Raiders are undercosted, but if you refuse to adapt to them, they should kick your ass. That's not a balance problem.

3 Suppressors are 100 points.

They are probably too fragile though. Not sure why they don't have the T5 and 3 wounds of Inceptors.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
A squad of suppressors costs how much? And honestly, when was the last time anyone used them? They have exactly one purpose, and do it badly. If I recall the costs, a squad of suppressors is almost twice the cost of the current Raider?

100 points.

A volley of shooting should bring a raider down 50%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An autocannon support turret is 90 points and has about the same damage output.

Tyel wrote:
3 Suppressors are 100 points.

They are probably too fragile though. Not sure why they don't have the T5 and 3 wounds of Inceptors.

Inceptors are wearing Gravis armor, Suppressors are wearing Tacticus armor.

Getting a conscript screen should also help, bubble-warp is the best counter against fast charges after all.

And yes, I'm aware that would mean giving up doctrines, but I don't think doctrines help that much against DE.

Alcibiades 797783 11120476 wrote:

An autocannon support turret is 90 points and has about the same damage output.

And non of the speed or the ability to shot through terrain, mean the only way a DE player is going to let someone shot their raiders with a turret is if it doesn't impact the game.

 Tyran wrote:
Getting a conscript screen should also help, bubble-warp is the best counter against fast charges after all.

And yes, I'm aware that would mean giving up doctrines, but I don't think doctrines help that much against DE.

That's some of the problem. Guardsmen (and I think also conscripts, though its been ages since I've seen those) cost 5.5ppm, and there's a whole lot of units that are perfectly capable of hitting the same level of points return as, to use an example, Suppressors vs Raiders just slamming into a GEQ screen unit and gobbling them up.

A 10-wych squad is only about 120pts usually. That eats a 55pt guardsman squad, that's the exact same points return as your suppressors vs Raider. Blend-O-Matic succubus is still only 60 points - if you 'block' her with a guardsman squad, ta-da, she made her points back!

 Tyran wrote:
+15 points is not "almost twice the cost".

I know that Raiders are undercosted, but if you refuse to adapt to them, they should kick your ass. That's not a balance problem.

Considering the slots one gives up and the fact that even 3 units of suppressors are not going to counter 6 raiders. This is not a question of adapting. All the best players in the US, knew what DE do, they tested it. And it seems like the conclusion was the options are to either lose vs DE, because there is no reliable way to counter them, and have a positive win rate vs other armies, or play DE. This is a dictionery definition of a balance problem. One army having an above 50% win rate vs all armies. All of them, not just marines.

Rihgu wrote:

Tyel wrote:
3 Suppressors are 100 points.

They are probably too fragile though. Not sure why they don't have the T5 and 3 wounds of Inceptors.

Inceptors are wearing Gravis armor, Suppressors are wearing Tacticus armor.

Suppressors are wearing a specialized armor called "Omnis". It's a blend of Gravis and Phobos.

Alcibiades wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
A squad of suppressors costs how much? And honestly, when was the last time anyone used them? They have exactly one purpose, and do it badly. If I recall the costs, a squad of suppressors is almost twice the cost of the current Raider?

100 points.

A volley of shooting should bring a raider down 50%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
An autocannon support turret is 90 points and has about the same damage output.

Sure without re-roll but with core rolls or its 7.25D also in some factions they can ignore the -1 to hit, they cot so much b.c they are 12" with fly. Meaning you can stay out of danger with them.

 the_scotsman wrote:


A court is not 'something inconsequential' from competitive drukhari player's lists. It's like a 140pt unit that's central to one of the secondaries a lot of these competitive lists take...

If the army still runs everything else and functions the same, it very much is unimportant. Same way it was not important when Ynnari went from legions of dark reapers to 1-3 units of dark reapers. A consequential change to an army is something like a cmd spam list, when GW decides cmds should be a 0-1 option. Or when GW decides they do not want to see salamander lists build out of aggresors. Those are consequential changed.

Even if the lack of court would drop DE by 10% in win rates, they would still be the top army win rate wise in the entire game. And I don't think the lack of courts, would impact the DE army that much.

FWIW, bias warning here, long time DE player.

I played a typical tournament DT list with liquifiers against a mono-DeathGuard list with Morty (a good tourny player) and barely lost the game on points. While the +1 dmg from DT's rule helped my rolls to wound on 4+, it's the -2AP on the liquifier that did the heavy lifting forcing DG units to take their invulnerable saves. Obviously the disgusting resilient neutered the dmg down to just a regular flamer.

The dice gods were interesting here in that each time I shot at a tough unit like blightlords or deathshrouds, it took 4 flamer to do an average of 5 wounds. One shooting round I was able to kill 3 of those models getting great rolls and my opponent's rolls failed him a bit, but most of the time it's just one base plus residual wounds to another base just from the liquifier shots.

Tried two units of 5man flamers against Morty. Don't do it. Dark Lance/Blasters all the way with splinter shots to chip at him (I still couldn't kill him as my list was geared towards spamming DT liquifiers, not enough dark light shots and splinter shots just generally tickles Morty).

Sidebar: I really need to pick better secondary in this game. I had assassinate/WWSWF/linebreaker. Assassinate was my weakest one as he only had 3 characters (including Morty). Mandrakes for teleport homer???? (if I can even FIND mandrakes!).

I'm just not convinced Drukhari are OP. (exceptions to Succubus's Competitive Edge + Razorflail interaction... that's just plain dumb and its obvious that this is broken as all get out).

Hear me out please.

I certainly would agree that the current DT obsession + liquifier is super strong, but they're only super strong against things like multi-wound, power armored elite armies.

Against armies that can field a ton of 1 wound models, they don't care if the liquifier is 2D or 1D. It's just another flamer weapon.

My DG opponent also has a DeathSkull Ork army with massed smasha cannons. I can certainly see this army being a hard counter to bust open the Raiders. (smasha wounding on 6 on 2d6? < shudders > ). We're planning a Ork v. DE game soon, so I may update this post with the results.

The meta still need to work itself out too, and maybe shift away from the pre-Drukhari elite-space low model-count marine armies. I dunno...maybe not. Could a Deathwing inner-circle list be of a counter to DT Drukhari list? (I'm spitballing here, that's the one you can't even wound the model on 1, 2 or 3...right?).

Even if GW takes on the Goonhammer's recommendations, I'm not sure that's going to have much impact at the top tables in this current meta. These guys are good generals too.

From my perspective, Drukhari is ironically the first army in 9ed that has the potential to field a robust TAC list with a Triple Patrol or a RSR detachment (hell maybe even a RSR brigade!), as evidenced by the top table winners in recent tournaments.
-Two or three black heart Raiders with 2 units of warriors each with blaster. Each raider setup rerolling misses for 1 DL and 2 blasters. An almost ravager unit.
-Two DT Raiders with one wrack (2 liquifier) and one 3x Liquifier-Grots.
-decide going DT liquifier Taloi and/or Ravagers
-spice rest of army with wych cult units for close combat goodness.

EVEN with the desired changes this thread has asked for comes into fruition, where the DE generals may have to drop a unit or so... it's still going to look very much like the above.

Isn't that more of an indication that this current codex simply has effective tools against the current meta? Rather that the army is too powerful? I will concede though, if by the end of summer Drukhari is still curb stomping tournaments after seeing additional codex releases (next are Mechanicus, Orks and Thousand suns???), then yeah I'd be onboard with GW apply the nerf bats.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Sure without re-roll but with core rolls or its 7.25D also in some factions they can ignore the -1 to hit, they cot so much b.c they are 12" with fly. Meaning you can stay out of danger with them.

'You have to nail the DE down turn 1, because turn two they are in your face engaging your entire army with shoting and melee. And there is 6 raidders plus support stuff to take care of. how many units of suppressors , assuming one has access to them or something similar in their army, do you think people should take, and how efficient would they be vs stuff like DE soups, SoB, demons or marines etc?

 the_scotsman wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Getting a conscript screen should also help, bubble-warp is the best counter against fast charges after all.

And yes, I'm aware that would mean giving up doctrines, but I don't think doctrines help that much against DE.

That's some of the problem. Guardsmen (and I think also conscripts, though its been ages since I've seen those) cost 5.5ppm, and there's a whole lot of units that are perfectly capable of hitting the same level of points return as, to use an example, Suppressors vs Raiders just slamming into a GEQ screen unit and gobbling them up.

A 10-wych squad is only about 120pts usually. That eats a 55pt guardsman squad, that's the exact same points return as your suppressors vs Raider. Blend-O-Matic succubus is still only 60 points - if you 'block' her with a guardsman squad, ta-da, she made her points back!

Conscripts are 5ppm.

A conscript screen with a Company Commander with Pietrov's Mk. 45 would be a good way to go. Even if DE trade up against it, it's still going to absorb the charge for not much loss (60 points dead is not even half of one unit).

EDIT
Also, am unfamiliar with the defensive profile of wyches but the conscripts might actually hit pretty hard right back, given how many attacks you can do and access to Fight Twice. Big problem is hitting on a 5+.