Jump to content

Welcome to The Bolter and Chainsword
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Drukhari FAQ


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1
G8Keeper

G8Keeper

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,297 posts
  • Location:Birmingham, UK
  • Faction: Angels Repentant

According to the latest Forgeworld email we're meant to have a FAQ live on the 40k app.  As far as I can tell it's still the same, the Agents of Vect ones still reference the old rule for example.  Anyone found anything different?

 

med_gallery_3547_14064_8711.jpg

 

The errata for the latest Drukhari codex has been updated in Warhammer 40,000: The App. Still don't have it installed on your phone? Download the app to unlock digital codexes, use Battle Forge to build your armies, and loads more.  


gallery_3547_15792_6078.pnggallery_3547_15435_7258.pnggallery_3547_15792_4794.png

 


#2
TrawlingCleaner

TrawlingCleaner

    ++ CLOACARIUS RETICULUM ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 1,225 posts
  • Location:UK

It's just gone live now on the FAQs page here: https://www.warhamme...warhammer-40000

I Imagine it'll go live on the app in a short period of time.

 

FAQ content wise, the main big one for me is that Dark Technomancers hasn't been changed at all which is a real shame, it's just clarifications on stuff we already knew.


  • N1SB likes this

#3
Halandaar

Halandaar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,354 posts
  • Location:Cambridge, UK
  • Faction: Pretty much all of them!

And confirms the points for Reavers at 20ppm as we all expected to be the case.


gallery_84244_11417_1545.gifgallery_84244_11417_3775.gifgallery_84244_11417_2850.gifgallery_84244_11417_880.gifgallery_84244_11417_1641.gifgallery_84244_11417_2552.gifgallery_84244_11417_215.png gallery_84244_11417_13317.jpg gallery_84244_11417_22884.png gallery_84244_16660_5008.jpg gallery_84244_11417_13552.pnggallery_84244_11417_4840.png


#4
Halandaar

Halandaar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,354 posts
  • Location:Cambridge, UK
  • Faction: Pretty much all of them!

 

No surprises about the points on the Reavers, I think we all knew that was wrong in the book.


gallery_84244_11417_1545.gifgallery_84244_11417_3775.gifgallery_84244_11417_2850.gifgallery_84244_11417_880.gifgallery_84244_11417_1641.gifgallery_84244_11417_2552.gifgallery_84244_11417_215.png gallery_84244_11417_13317.jpg gallery_84244_11417_22884.png gallery_84244_16660_5008.jpg gallery_84244_11417_13552.pnggallery_84244_11417_4840.png


#5
quasistellar

quasistellar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 430 posts

Aaaaaaand aside from the actual obvious copy-paste error, nothing was addressed.  I'm all for letting the meta shake out just a bit, but the razorflails and the extra 2 CP should have been addressed in this, at least.


  • Hellex_The_Thanatar likes this

#6
Marshal Loss

Marshal Loss

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,391 posts
  • Location:New York
  • Faction: Emperor's Children

Wasn't expecting nerfs in the first FAQ - they'll come later.


bRxSYDV.png


#7
Dark Shepherd

Dark Shepherd

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,377 posts
The broken razorflail combo/thing is in Charadon so it needs the FAQ from that?
Just seeing so much on warcom posts from people wanting it to be fixed.
TBF I saw the Auspex Tactics vid on it and looks broken beyond belief
  • quasistellar likes this

#8
quasistellar

quasistellar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 430 posts

The broken razorflail combo/thing is in Charadon so it needs the FAQ from that?
Just seeing so much on warcom posts from people wanting it to be fixed.
TBF I saw the Auspex Tactics vid on it and looks broken beyond belief

 

That's true and I keep forgetting that -- Book of Rust came out so soon after Drukhari codex that it runs together.



#9
Dark Shepherd

Dark Shepherd

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,377 posts


The broken razorflail combo/thing is in Charadon so it needs the FAQ from that?
Just seeing so much on warcom posts from people wanting it to be fixed.
TBF I saw the Auspex Tactics vid on it and looks broken beyond belief


That's true and I keep forgetting that -- Book of Rust came out so soon after Drukhari codex that it runs together.

Did they come out the same weekend or just very close to each other?

#10
Halandaar

Halandaar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 4,354 posts
  • Location:Cambridge, UK
  • Faction: Pretty much all of them!

Did they come out the same weekend or just very close to each other?

 

The same day. 

 

"Day 1 DLC!" *Flogs horse*


  • Black Blow Fly, quasistellar and Dark Shepherd like this

gallery_84244_11417_1545.gifgallery_84244_11417_3775.gifgallery_84244_11417_2850.gifgallery_84244_11417_880.gifgallery_84244_11417_1641.gifgallery_84244_11417_2552.gifgallery_84244_11417_215.png gallery_84244_11417_13317.jpg gallery_84244_11417_22884.png gallery_84244_16660_5008.jpg gallery_84244_11417_13552.pnggallery_84244_11417_4840.png


#11
ThePenitentOne

ThePenitentOne

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,144 posts
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Faction: Sisters of Battle

Yeah, that 2CP for three patrol thing is just nut bar. Poor, poor writing.

 

No command benefit should ever have been written as "+ x" they should have been written as "This detachment costs 0 if..."

 

Should have been written that way in every codex. The Drukhari dex is the only one so far where it would make a difference, but that's why the error occurs- they're trying to use the same wording from the base rule when the Drukhari dex makes that wording problematic. Bonkers that the internet complaints and tournament list exploits are EVERYWHERE and GW still can't see it.


  • Black Blow Fly likes this

#12
quasistellar

quasistellar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 430 posts

Yeah, that 2CP for three patrol thing is just nut bar. Poor, poor writing.

 

No command benefit should ever have been written as "+ x" they should have been written as "This detachment costs 0 if..."

 

Should have been written that way in every codex. The Drukhari dex is the only one so far where it would make a difference, but that's why the error occurs- they're trying to use the same wording from the base rule when the Drukhari dex makes that wording problematic. Bonkers that the internet complaints and tournament list exploits are EVERYWHERE and GW still can't see it.

 

That +2 cp thing feels like a weird 8th ed carryover where taking patrols didn't get you enough CP.  It's absolutely nonsensical to have both that and no CP cost to take multiple patrols in 9th.  Feels like they accidently forgot to remove that +2 cp bit when they decided to go the no CP cost route instead.



#13
smileyjim

smileyjim

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 215 posts
  • Location:Australia
  • Faction: Blood Angels
Shame there was no balancing done with the FAQ. Hope next one addresses how underwhelming they are as a faction.

#14
SkimaskMohawk

SkimaskMohawk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,228 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Faction: Raven Guard and VIII Legion

Shame there was no balancing done with the FAQ. Hope next one addresses how underwhelming they are as a faction.


They're...underwhelming?

Dark eldar are kind of the opposite of that; they're very capable and are far more fun to play again than venom spam ever was.
  • Black Blow Fly and Dark Shepherd like this

#15
Seahawk

Seahawk

    ++ OSSIFRAGUS PRAECURSORIS ++

  • ++ MODERATI ++
  • 9,420 posts
  • Faction: Ultramarines
Balancing never ever happens with the 2 week FAQ, it's just the typo corrector.

Also, underwhelming?? The faction currently toting 75% win rate is underwhelming? I guess it's not stronger than pre-nerf Iron Hands, but...
  • Black Blow Fly and 01RTB01 like this

Fluff: Naval Operations of Ultramar. Also includes all known named ships for all chapters, as well as ship sizes and assorted information.

Personal: The Renegade Hobbyist. This is where I do things! Also, follow me on Twitter at @Atomic_Hamsters.

Post link for all the instances in which Reanimation Protocols doesn't activate, but should. 


#16
Tokugawa

Tokugawa

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 671 posts
  • Location:Beijing,China
  • Faction: Black Templars
If a faction is tier0 with astonishing win rate, and start with 14cp. Then it would still be tier0 with 12cp. There are much more broken things in the codex, and need to be FAQed more urgently, than 14cp.
  • Black Blow Fly and tychobi like this

#17
A Melancholic Sanguinity

A Melancholic Sanguinity

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 727 posts

Underwhelming? Aren't the Drukhari currently curb-stomping the tournament scene in a fashion similar to pre-nerf Iron Hands at the end of 8th?


  • Black Blow Fly and 01RTB01 like this

#18
01RTB01

01RTB01

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 3,306 posts

Shame there was no balancing done with the FAQ. Hope next one addresses how underwhelming they are as a faction.


You're either trolling or unaware of the definition of underwhelming. Did you mean broken and overwhelming?
  • Black Blow Fly and Dark Shepherd like this
Signature not compliant with forum rules.
Hidden Content

#19
Black Blow Fly

Black Blow Fly

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 15,621 posts
  • Location:Unto realms immortal...
  • Faction: TODESKOMPANIE

I always said the rule set for 9th edition is great. Geedub nuked all of the gamey things in 8th edition. The problem has always been power creep which is exacerbated this edition due to the slower release of the new codices. I have watched several new battle reports pitting DG with Mortard versus druchii and every time the later smoked him turn 1. To me this is just blatantly bad design.


  • PJ1933 and emperorpants like this
=][= fortis Fortuna adiuvat . =][=
my 40k FB Page:
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est
Terminus Est
Blood and Honor!

#20
Captain Coolpants

Captain Coolpants

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 2,250 posts
  • Location:Cardiff - UK
  • Faction: Grey Knights
I really wish they'd just release all new books and rules at once for all factions. And just release all new models with full CORRECT rules in the box. Although the new models are likely to get the power creep treatment, it means the majority of the codecies won't.
  • MegaVolt87 likes this

#21
Redcomet

Redcomet

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 589 posts

I always said the rule set for 9th edition is great. Geedub nuked all of the gamey things in 8th edition. The problem has always been power creep which is exacerbated this edition due to the slower release of the new codices. I have watched several new battle reports pitting DG with Mortard versus druchii and every time the later smoked him turn 1. To me this is just blatantly bad design.


I think has more to due with the basic rules than the army design. That it is too easy to kill the big things and that turn one is extremely important to get. Turn on alpha strikes is a real problem in my experience unless the table contains a lot of los blocking terrain.
  • Lexington likes this

#22
Black Blow Fly

Black Blow Fly

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 15,621 posts
  • Location:Unto realms immortal...
  • Faction: TODESKOMPANIE

Well the codices that are OP get to break all the most important rules.


  • PJ1933 and quasistellar like this
=][= fortis Fortuna adiuvat . =][=
my 40k FB Page:
https://m.facebook.com/Terminus6Est
Terminus Est
Blood and Honor!

#23
quasistellar

quasistellar

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 430 posts

Well the codices that are OP get to break all the most important rules.

wait are you telling me that advance and charge, fire and fade, redeploys, and extra cp for taking all the stuff you wanted anyway are good? Next you’ll tell me shooting out of flying transports with unvulns that cost less than 100 points is good.  tongue.png


Edited by quasistellar, 01 May 2021 - 04:32 PM.

  • MARK0SIAN likes this

#24
PJ1933

PJ1933

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 1,180 posts

 

I always said the rule set for 9th edition is great. Geedub nuked all of the gamey things in 8th edition. The problem has always been power creep which is exacerbated this edition due to the slower release of the new codices. I have watched several new battle reports pitting DG with Mortard versus druchii and every time the later smoked him turn 1. To me this is just blatantly bad design.


I think has more to due with the basic rules than the army design. That it is too easy to kill the big things and that turn one is extremely important to get. Turn on alpha strikes is a real problem in my experience unless the table contains a lot of los blocking terrain.

 

 

And there is the elephant in the room - lots of los blocking terrain

 

It won't stop Drukhari being king of the hill but lots of terrain is key in 9th with smaller boards and your point about going 1st is also a very valid point. There were some stats done early in 9th that showed going 1st had a noticable advantage something like a 14% edge which only got exaggerated when there was a player skill difference.

 

Drukhari are going to need some balancing but it's hard to judge because so few factions have an updated 9th codex, is it a codex creep issue or an effort move away from a marine based meta? Based on past experience it's codex creep but i will reserve judgement until we see a few more updated factions



#25
SkimaskMohawk

SkimaskMohawk

    +FRATER DOMUS+

  • + FRATER DOMUS +
  • 5,228 posts
  • Location:Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
  • Faction: Raven Guard and VIII Legion
Going first still has an advantage, even with wtc table layout. It's not as dramatic as before January's faq, but it's still a thing.
  • PJ1933 likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users