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.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Even if DE was a 50% winrate players are still going to be mad b.c they have to expect DE and that takes away from their stupid list tailoring. The problem is people don't even want DE to be meta viable.

If you lose to DG b.c you changed 2 units out of your list for DE and able to beat DE, well maybe DG is the problem? If everyone has to tailor their lists for DG why is that DE's problem?

IH didn't counter Castellans they DOMINATED the meta. DE is not dominating anywhere near the same levels at all, you can see in those events that many DE players are going 3-2 in in a meta against many different armies against normal meta lists. So clearly you can shift to beat them and still stay strong against DG.

You should be happy with nerfs if you don't mind a 50% win rate for Drukhari, your claim that people don't want Drukhari to be viable is gak since they were viable before they got their codex and who was complaining about Drukhari? You are ignoring the facts.

I did not say IH countered Castellans, IH countered IH. That is what creates a negative feedback loop that leads to everyone eventually playing the same army, the same thing will happen with Drukhari if they stay at 70% win rate and Drukhari remain the best Drukhari counter. Bringing a couple of autocannons does not help because in many cases the multimeltas that everyone is screaming are anti-Marine are actually also the most points efficient anti-Drukhari weapon, so autocannons would be worse against Drukhari, not better. Two MM Attack Bikes do 6,5 damage to a Raider for 110 points. A Suppressor Squad does 5,3 for 100, 5,83 points adjusted for the difference in points between the two units.

Tell me, what are these two magic units that will change a 30% win rate for Necrons to a 60% win rate?

Seabass wrote:


That is one of the shittiest comments I've seen on here. BA can win games. DE can lose them. but I won't go to insult your friends to make that point.

I'm also thinking 18 accelerator shots from BS3 kills a raider in a turn. havent fully mathed it, and it might not. feels like it would be fine though. We'll see.

No. Just no. He is not 'insulting your friends'. One of the 'shittiest comments I've read on here'?.. Come on, that's a tremendously ungenerous reading of what's being said.

He's stating that BA have an incredibly tough matchup vs DE - and he's right.

An elite Melee army, with fair dependence on characters is as near as possible to being a Drukhari players favourite food right now:

- They are as good as you in the melee, but trade better, and will usually have more bodies on the table.
- They have multiple ways to trivially delete troublesome characters.
- They have multiple ways to make you fight last, and are more mobile, so will almost always be in a position to dictate the charge.

And so on.

The above is a digression to prove the point, but it's clear to me no offense was intended at all.

 vict0988 wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Even if DE was a 50% winrate players are still going to be mad b.c they have to expect DE and that takes away from their stupid list tailoring. The problem is people don't even want DE to be meta viable.

If you lose to DG b.c you changed 2 units out of your list for DE and able to beat DE, well maybe DG is the problem? If everyone has to tailor their lists for DG why is that DE's problem?

IH didn't counter Castellans they DOMINATED the meta. DE is not dominating anywhere near the same levels at all, you can see in those events that many DE players are going 3-2 in in a meta against many different armies against normal meta lists. So clearly you can shift to beat them and still stay strong against DG.

You should be happy with nerfs if you don't mind a 50% win rate for Drukhari, your claim that people don't want Drukhari to be viable is gak since they were viable before they got their codex and who was complaining about Drukhari? You are ignoring the facts.

I did not say IH countered Castellans, IH countered IH. That is what creates a negative feedback loop that leads to everyone eventually playing the same army, the same thing will happen with Drukhari if they stay at 70% win rate and Drukhari remain the best Drukhari counter. Bringing a couple of autocannons does not help because in many cases the multimeltas that everyone is screaming are anti-Marine are actually also the most points efficient anti-Drukhari weapon, so autocannons would be worse against Drukhari, not better. Two MM Attack Bikes do 6,5 damage to a Raider for 110 points. A Suppressor Squad does 5,3 for 100, 5,83 points adjusted for the difference in points between the two units.

Tell me, what are these two magic units that will change a 30% win rate for Necrons to a 60% win rate?

Yes a 50% should be the ideal for all armies, It is clear DT is a problem and will be nerf, but it is also clear people didn't even try to change to counter DE at all. The big Major where the DE player took first, 3 of the lists he went against was hyper elite low model count with limit amount of shooting, OFC he is going to win matches like that. If you actually look at ALL the DE players its clear they are not a 70% win rate, that same event Eric took 102nd place and lost 4 games, Nate took 40th with 2 lost games, Corey took 27th with 2 lost games, Scott lots 1, and first place Brad 5-0. There was 1 more player at 116th but he dropped out first game (so i wont count him). Out of 25 DE games at that event 9 lost and 16 won. Thats a 64% winrate is it high? yes, but as soon as DT is nerf (everyone knows it will) and the meta learns to handle them, DE will be moer like a 55% win rate, a tiny bit above but more in line for sure. Also DE has already lost to marines, custodes, DG and some others, if you actually look at all the placings and pairings it is clear you can beat DE, IH was different, more than 1/2 the armies literally couldn't win any games against IH.

And yes, Ive been told many times already that if DE is in the meta that means its worst for the meta "If DE is in the meta then DG will be be unchecked b.c I have to worry about DE" and other lines like that, I might "assume" they don't want DE in the meta but with talks like that to me it is clear. Heck some have said that just in this thread.



Also you are looking at Suppressors without traits, core, or other rules. A SW or CF suppressor does 7.25D to a Raider without much help at all. Also IMO you should not be able to kill a equal 1 for 1 unit from shooting 100% the time, so 1 Suppressor unit doing 75% the work is pretty balance to me.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Yes a 50% should be the ideal for all armies, It is clear DT is a problem and will be nerf, but it is also clear people didn't even try to change to counter DE at all. .

What is there to adapt?

The far and away most dominent and successful armies of the past 6 months have been ...

(a) Harlequins (T3 fast obsec punchy-elves out of lots of flying boats, along with fusion-drive-by shootings and Skyweavers doing the Hellion/Reaver-thing (just worse), along with "Fangmaster Slash", the king of T3 characters punching way above their weight for almost a year now.

(b) Sisters (T3 fast punchy girls out of armoured boxes supported by plentyful Str. 8, high damage shots with 36" range and a beneficence canoness or so, the queen of T3 characters punching way above their weight for almost a year now.



When things like Iron Hands hit ... sure ... people weren't prepared and had lists written to deal with GSC-muscle beach, Tau and the Jim-Vesal special.

But that is not the case here. The Meta of the last 6 months has been evolving and fine-tuning to kill precisely and exactly the type of army Drukhari are bringing. And it didn't help. There's nothing to adapt.

Oh who cares if the Dark Eldar are OP right now. Power creep will smack them back down soon enough. Let the bdsm themed pointy ears have their weird fifteen minutes in the spot light. I am certain that some new HQ's would have been far more welcome than overpowered rules. Being overpowered is for 2-3 months, but a new HQ in a book with a barren HQ selection is forever (hopefully).

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:


Yes a 50% should be the ideal for all armies, It is clear DT is a problem and will be nerf, but it is also clear people didn't even try to change to counter DE at all. .

What is there to adapt?

The far and away most dominent and successful armies of the past 6 months have been ...

(a) Harlequins (T3 fast obsec punchy-elves out of lots of flying boats, along with fusion-drive-by shootings and Skyweavers doing the Hellion/Reaver-thing (just worse), along with "Fangmaster Slash", the king of T3 characters punching way above their weight for almost a year now.

(b) Sisters (T3 fast punchy girls out of armoured boxes supported by plentyful Str. 8, high damage shots with 36" range and a beneficence canoness or so, the queen of T3 characters punching way above their weight for almost a year now.



When things like Iron Hands hit ... sure ... people weren't prepared and had lists written to deal with GSC-muscle beach, Tau and the Jim-Vesal special.

But that is not the case here. The Meta of the last 6 months has been evolving and fine-tuning to kill precisely and exactly the type of army Drukhari are bringing. And it didn't help. There's nothing to adapt.

No it hasn't Custodes, Necrons, Admech, and DG has been there right with them as well as some marines.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 CEO Kasen wrote:
Well, yeah, DE don't have all top four at events, but there aren't a ton of Dark Eldar players right out of the gate. When Iron Hands dropped, lots of people had a Marine army they could claim was Iron Hands, instantly logjamming top 4's.

A better analyst than me (In this case Robert Jones from Goonhammer) suggests that left unchecked, they are concerned that people will adapt to the Drukhari meta by playing Drukhari.

"Oh no, not that! How terrible...." - says whomever you buy your models from.
Seriously, that's their worry? That gamers will build yet another army in the never ending arms race of 28/32mm dominance? LOL.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
But thats any A tier army left uncheck is for concern, can you imagine Sisters left uncheck? Or DG? I still think Sisters are stronger than DE (I have both armies) its just the meta learned out to deal with sisters b.c they had to. Now the community needs to learn to deal with DE.

I know exactly how to deal with DE. Shoot them. ALOT.
Well, there's another step or two involved, & those steps might vary based on the army I'm hauling around atm, but that's basically what it boils down to.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
You know what makes me the most mad about this whole thing? DE is playing like DE has always been meant to play and had played for years, it was only a bit of 8th that DE went tanky, DE has never been like that they always been the Raiding force, Strike fast and Strike hard or die trying, they are playing the same play style for 20yrs and players are still crying they shouldn't be played like that and they shouldn't be allowed to have more than 3 Raiders, thats like me saying "Well marines should not be allowed to have more than 3 Power armor units". And marine every day I have marine players telling me they do not have the tools, yes you freaking do. Suppressors wreck DE, Scouts+LSS are better and faster Kabals in vehicles for same cost (literally im not hyperbole or joking), Hammerail/strike, HF Devs, etc... I can list 20 more but you get the idea.

Agree.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
DE are being played a lot now b.c many players has been sleeping on them for years b.c they really never worked in 8th like they should (No DE player wants to play walking Wracks horde and Talos spam) Wyches are finally playable, the thing that DE players has been waiting for for years.

Raises hand. I'd like to. I just haven't gotten around to building it....
I like the current model & I like playing dreadnought type things. I'll skip the Wracks though as no matter their rules the models don't do anything for me.
My ideal Drukari force? Contains as few evil space elves as possible*.
And here in 8th/9th I can finally make that force happen by burning some CP. Edit: and after adding it up, a $mall fortune.... :(

*Wich btw is 1 elf. 3x3 Talos, 3x3 Cronos, & either 1 stock archon or 1 Succubus in a Vanguard Detachment. Maybe, and more fittingly, 1 Haemonculus/Urien as the HQ - depending on not kitting something out with the most expensive options.
This might not be a great army....

 Amishprn86 wrote:


No it hasn't Custodes, Necrons, Admech, and DG has been there right with them as well as some marines.

In that they exist? Sure. They still do. There're still Custodes, Necrons, AdMech and DG players at those tournaments. You still need to make sure you can get rid of 20 Necron Warriors.

But none of those were ever more than gatekeeper armies over the winter (even if they win the odd tournament. Hell there were Tau in the Top 3 on the "Drukhari weekend just now).

Sisters and Harlequins have consistently been the top dog to beat. They are the armies any serious tournament army needed to kill to go even 3-2 on any given tournament.

Thanks for showing they are part of the top armies, being played, and that you can expect to see them as well as sisters or quins. Just b.c sisters and quins are a little higher doesn't mean all 5 of your games are them. You still will fight marines, custodes, DG, etc.. I mean look custodes its right under Sisters.

That chart is also not a popularity chart, there are way more custodes, marines and DG players than sisters. But a magnitude more actually, I think the number said only 3% of imperial is sister players for events.

Seabass wrote:

 addnid wrote:

Seabass wrote:
just give it a bit of time. there are builds that DE certainly don't want to see, and so far Mechanicus has been shooting them off the table and scoring out the win on turns 3+ in my area

the good thing is that it isn't like testing my idea isnt fun. i love to play. i love to win, and i love getting my ass kicked.

I don’t think you are facing very efficient drukhari builds/players if you are having success with BA against them. BA have absolutely nothing really useful to take them down. Double suppressors on average need more than one turn to down a raider for example. But if you are having fun against them more power to you

That is one of the shittiest comments I've seen on here. BA can win games. DE can lose them. but I won't go to insult your friends to make that point.

I'm also thinking 18 accelerator shots from BS3 kills a raider in a turn. havent fully mathed it, and it might not. feels like it would be fine though. We'll see.

No insult intended, like Straylight said BA have an incredibly tough matchup vs DE, so if you and your opponent are both aiming to bring optimized lists, and you have roughly the same "40k skill level", then you wouldn't be having success. At best you would be saying "Though it's tough, we do stand a chance as BA"... But of all sm variants, BA may actually be the worst against druka. No buff to shooting, not much buff to resilience... On the other hand BA are great for overkilling MSU and losing the trade thereafter, so the MU is simply perfect for Drukhari.

But feel free to disagree, and sorry if you took it as an insult to your friends' skill level, it really wasn't intended to be one.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Thanks for showing they are part of the top armies, being played, and that you can expect to see them as well as sisters or quins. Just b.c sisters and quins are a little higher doesn't mean all 5 of your games are them. You still will fight marines, custodes, DG, etc.. I mean look custodes its right under Sisters.

That chart is also not a popularity chart, there are way more custodes, marines and DG players than sisters. But a magnitude more actually, I think the number said only 3% of imperial is sister players for events.

You will not play 5 games of Drukhari either. Not sure how that's different?

And GTs as far back as September / October had as high as 20% Clown-participation rates. It's pretty impossible to not face either Sisters or Quins at least once in a GT (pre-Drukhari). And if your plan is to win at the top table (!), not having an army designed and proven to play well against lots of fast, punchy T3 elves / girls in fast boats with some insane little t3 characters doing the wildest tricks has not been an option for months.

Of course, you could end up facing Dimachareons or even Tau or whatnot at the top table. But any serious tournament player making a short list of what they would likely face, would have Harlequins and Sisters on the top of that list.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Thanks for showing they are part of the top armies, being played, and that you can expect to see them as well as sisters or quins. Just b.c sisters and quins are a little higher doesn't mean all 5 of your games are them. You still will fight marines, custodes, DG, etc.. I mean look custodes its right under Sisters.

That chart is also not a popularity chart, there are way more custodes, marines and DG players than sisters. But a magnitude more actually, I think the number said only 3% of imperial is sister players for events.

You will not play 5 games of Drukhari either. Not sure how that's different?

And GTs as far back as September / October had as high as 20% Clown-participation rates. It's pretty impossible to not face either Sisters or Quins at least once in a GT (pre-Drukhari). And if your plan is to win at the top table (!), not having an army designed and proven to play well against lots of fast, punchy T3 elves / girls in fast boats with some insane little t3 characters doing the wildest tricks has not been an option for months.

Of course, you could end up facing Dimachareons or even Tau or whatnot at the top table. But any serious tournament player making a short list of what they would likely face, would have Harlequins and Sisters on the top of that list.

There is no difference, the point was players in here are saying b.c DE is in the meta it makes it harder to deal with Custodes, DG, Necrons, etc.... they are literally saying that. You came in saying that those armies are not in the meta but yet they are and you even show some proof that that. And I am saying you might fight quins or sisters, but you are more likely to fight other armies bc how low of a population those 2 armies are, the more wins you get then you'll have a higher chance to get those, but the first 1-3 games will more likely be the more popular armies which is Marines, custodes, DG and Necrons. With the meta shift maybe DE now.

 Amishprn86 wrote:


There is no difference, the point was players in here are saying b.c DE is in the meta it makes it harder to deal with Custodes, DG, Necrons, etc.... they are literally saying that. You came in saying that those armies are not in the meta but yet they are and you even show some proof that that. And I am saying you might fight quins or sisters, but you are more likely to fight other armies bc how low of a population those 2 armies are, the more wins you get then you'll have a higher chance to get those, but the first 1-3 games will more likely be the more popular armies which is Marines, custodes, DG and Necrons. With the meta shift maybe DE now.

That's not what I said. What I said was that the idea that "Drukhari overperform because people aren't anticipating / building for this kind of army as a top contender" was wrong, because that this style/archetype of army is already behind the best performing armies in the game and the style of army that people with ambitions to win tournaments build for (notwithstanding that other types/archetypes of armies existed and will continue to exist).

The meta cannot adapt much, because it's already build for that .. which is the main difference to the Iron Hands / Marine 2.0 splash, which indeed came into a meta NOT geared towards these type of armies / unit profiles, etc.. . This is not the case here.

Both Harlequins and Sisters (pre-Drukhari) were a greater percentage of the Meta then Drukhari last week. There is no difference there.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Thanks for showing they are part of the top armies, being played, and that you can expect to see them as well as sisters or quins. Just b.c sisters and quins are a little higher doesn't mean all 5 of your games are them. You still will fight marines, custodes, DG, etc.. I mean look custodes its right under Sisters.

That chart is also not a popularity chart, there are way more custodes, marines and DG players than sisters. But a magnitude more actually, I think the number said only 3% of imperial is sister players for events.

You will not play 5 games of Drukhari either. Not sure how that's different?

And GTs as far back as September / October had as high as 20% Clown-participation rates. It's pretty impossible to not face either Sisters or Quins at least once in a GT (pre-Drukhari). And if your plan is to win at the top table (!), not having an army designed and proven to play well against lots of fast, punchy T3 elves / girls in fast boats with some insane little t3 characters doing the wildest tricks has not been an option for months.

Of course, you could end up facing Dimachareons or even Tau or whatnot at the top table. But any serious tournament player making a short list of what they would likely face, would have Harlequins and Sisters on the top of that list.

Hmmm, you are ignoring the fact that Covid stopped most tournaments, so there is not real data. It`s true harlequins started
super strong the edition, but as time progressed the opponent learning how to play vs them they fall back immensely.
They are not putting alot of top 3 finishers, so it looks like their WR is boosted vs nub players.
Sisters are considered to be the top factions, but they dont put up the top 3 numbers, it seem they have better performance in soup with custodes.
Imperium and Chaos soup were the army to be beaten again, with custodes dominating metta and huge representation.
If you look at that its better to complain for custodes, that are dominating even in anti-power armor metta.

But how i sad before, there is no real data, because Covid locked most of the USA and UK tournaments did not happened.
Harlequins are not dominating nor in Australia and not in Sweden, two countries that had the most tournaments.

Marin wrote:

Hmmm, you are ignoring the fact that Covid stopped most tournaments, so there is not real data. It`s true harlequins started
super strong the edition, but as time progressed the opponent learning how to play vs them they fall back immensely..

Harlequins did not fall back in the slightest. See graphic above. They retained the exact same win rates in the mid 60-ish% consistently for over 6 months now.

And sure, real tournaments were rare, but also on places like TTS, people have also been used to play in tournaments with 60-70% of the field playing Harlequins/Sisters at times (which, even though it's obviously a different environment, people like Brad Chester, etc.. have been practicing).

Again. People know the style. People know it's the most powerful "archetype" of army in 40K atm. Has been for months. People know how to play against that style of army.

Drukhari win-percentage has nothing to do with "people not being prepared" (at the top tables). Drukhari win-rate is purely their efficiency at doing the thing the best armies in 40K 9th have already been doing (and players also knowing how to play that style of army if they played Sisters/Harlequins and switched, such as Brad Chester, Nick Nanavati, etc.. .. i.e. not needing to change play-style, simply having more units that do the same thing even better).

Guys, I have a radical idea to turn all of this pointless arguing and bickering about the game into a fun time... settle it on tabletop simulator! Show, don’t tell.

No it is a lot about their "players not prepared" but you ignore that when i first talked about it, i even went over some of the lists the top DE player of the week went against and how bad those lists were and how they didn't even have anything to counter DE and I also went over how some others lost games 2-3, 3-2, and 3-2, 4-1, 5-0, which is a 64% winrate, high yes but once DT and comp edge are fix it will even out easily.

Y’all bring the most OP force you can think of from the faction you are arguing is op or make a list designed to target the other list’s faction. You want to make the claim that blood angels can stomp dark Eldar? Make a blood angels list and prove it.

I keep going back and forth between "bring more guardsmen" and "bring more artillery"

macluvin wrote:
Y’all bring the most OP force you can think of from the faction you are arguing is op or make a list designed to target the other list’s faction. You want to make the claim that blood angels can stomp dark Eldar? Make a blood angels list and prove it.

What does that prove?

Of course Blood Angels can beat Drukhari. Doesn't mean Drukhari are balanced against Blood Angels coming out at a roughly 50-50 win rate over, dunno, a hypothetical million games across all missions with roughly equal player skill.

There's a difference between (a) "too strong" and (b) "literally unbeatable", lol.

Fortunately, the latter has not ever happened in 40K since GW started in the 1980s or whatever. Brimstone Horrors with a 4++ and a true Smite that didn't get harder didn't win ALL games. GW still changed the smite rules. 15 Hive Tyrants didn't win ALL games, GW still introduced the rule of 3. Ynnari didn't win ALL games, GW still nerfed them. 0"-charges Blood Angles captains and GSC Patriarchs one-shotting Castellan Knights with Mental Onslaught didn't win ALL games. GW still cut that back. The vast majority of Broviathan Iron Hands got beaten at the LVO. GW still changed the mechanics that fuelled that list.

If GW ever creates an army that truly cannot be beaten 100% in the game, that's a different conversation.

Old IH was literally unbeatable for some armies, so yes they have done that lol.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Old IH was literally unbeatable for some armies, so yes they have done that lol.

Current Drukhari (and current Sisters, current Clowns, current Mortarion, current Dark Angels) are also literally unbeatable in that same sense to many armies. No difference there.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Old IH was literally unbeatable for some armies, so yes they have done that lol.

Current Drukhari (and current Sisters, current Clowns, current Mortarion, current Dark Angels) are also literally unbeatable in that same sense to many armies. No difference there.

The difference is IH was literally unbeatable for some armies that didn't have older edition problems like how GSC and Tau does now. The same can be said about Custodes, DG, Sisters against Tau and GSC also.

I do think 40k has a weird meta - because you see very capable people pointing out that skewing to beat DE (or Sisters, or Harlequins) - who represent just 10-15% of all lists risks leaving you with gaping holes versus Marines/DG/Custodes, who make up 40-50% of all lists. But I'm sort of tempted to say that's just a cross you have to bear. You'll need to rely on skill to get through those early rounds with a weaker army, in order to have an advantage later on - where you presume these lists will be more common (if the stats confirm that, and I'm not totally sure it does.) If there are no DE "predators" in the meta, its not surprising they will perform well.

Harlequins are undoubtedly good - but I will maintain until the end of time part of their power is that no one wants to tailor for what is often that one guy in a tournament running them (who then comes in the top 4). If 30% of players played them there would be evolution. But there isn't.

Its a bit like how the power of MMs (and now super lances) has obliterated itself. I.E. because no one runs vehicles/monsters (aside from raiders), there's not much point bringing many. So increasingly you see top lists stripping them out, because it gives you an advantage in the mirror. Which I feel is weirdly causing this semi-renaissance in Knight play when they should be deader than disco.

Tyel wrote:
Which I feel is weirdly causing this semi-renaissance in Knight play when they should be deader than disco.

I couldn't agree more. I love my Knights and they are the army I'm most comfortable with, but without significant changes they're not ready for 9th edition. That they've placed well recently I'm sure is an element of, as you say, simply people dropping the anti armour tools you need when facing them, because they aren't very relevant in the meta.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

The difference is IH was literally unbeatable for some armies that didn't have older edition problems like how GSC and Tau does now. The same can be said about Custodes, DG, Sisters against Tau and GSC also.

Who cares?

GW does a new edition roughly every three years, and even within an edition there's often a new wave of books / updates.

How long did the period last in 8th when "everyone had a Codex" and "nobody had a 2.0 / Psychic Awakening"? Like 6 weeks? Maybe 8 weeks?

Are we only looking for a "balanced game" for 6 weeks every 3 years?

If balance is a goal / ideal, balance of new books must be measured against older, weaker and dated books more than anything else. That is the benchmark that ultimately must be met. Just balancing a release against a sub-set of more recent books does nothing at all.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

The difference is IH was literally unbeatable for some armies that didn't have older edition problems like how GSC and Tau does now. The same can be said about Custodes, DG, Sisters against Tau and GSC also.

Who cares?

GW does a new edition roughly every three years, and even within an edition there's often a new wave of books / updates.

How long did the period last in 8th when "everyone had a Codex" and "nobody had a 2.0 / Psychic Awakening"? Like 6 weeks? Maybe 8 weeks?

Are we only looking for a "balanced game" for 6 weeks every 3 years?

If balance is a goal / ideal, balance of new books must be measured against older, weaker and dated books more than anything else. That is the benchmark that ultimately must be met. Just balancing a release against a sub-set of more recent books does nothing at all.

Everything about this is right

Plus there is a difference between having an OP list in the first two years of an edition, comparing to the last 6 months of an edition. The impact is a lot different, and often the books don't even seem to be writen with the current edition in mind.

Harlis as a non Inari mono list made little sense to me, besides haywire spam. The same book in 9th makes perfect sense, and feels tailor made for it.

IH would have to have the old staying in heavy doctrin rule to be even remotely considered powerful.

Sunny Side Up wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

The difference is IH was literally unbeatable for some armies that didn't have older edition problems like how GSC and Tau does now. The same can be said about Custodes, DG, Sisters against Tau and GSC also.

Who cares?

GW does a new edition roughly every three years, and even within an edition there's often a new wave of books / updates.

How long did the period last in 8th when "everyone had a Codex" and "nobody had a 2.0 / Psychic Awakening"? Like 6 weeks? Maybe 8 weeks?

Are we only looking for a "balanced game" for 6 weeks every 3 years?

If balance is a goal / ideal, balance of new books must be measured against older, weaker and dated books more than anything else. That is the benchmark that ultimately must be met. Just balancing a release against a sub-set of more recent books does nothing at all.

B.c other brought it up if you don't care stop commenting on it.

There was about 6 months from Codex GSC being released to Marines 2.0. Whether you'd consider the game at its most balanced at that point is open to question - although there's an argument it saw the most active meta evolution since the indexes following the April FAQ/white dwarf that terminated the Castellan/Ynnari meta.

Unfortunately the seeming winners of this evolution (who got maybe 3 months in the sun before Marines killed the edition) really upset GW, hence the exterminatus approach to GSC and Thousand Sons/Nurgle Daemons.