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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
On Oct 5th IH played 80 games ( 67% WR ), then 266 ( 74% ), 112 ( 65% ), 180 ( 67% ), 90 ( 68% ), 160 ( 63% WR ), 148 ( 67% ), 63 ( 65% ), 230 ( 66% ).

The period of IH domination at the worst point ever lasted for a week and began to decline. Why did it decline? Because GW rolled out the hot fix.

So why didn't GW do more? They did. CA rolled out. Then we had a pandemic.

DE Apr 10 - 26 games ( 85% WR )
DE Apr 24 - 128 games ( 70% WR )

These two figures together provide a 74% WR overall. DE are potentially already declining. They are likely no less prevalent than IH were at their peak.

This coming weekend we'll probably see more games with the DAO. I am unsure if the FAQ would apply in time or if the DAO ruled on 20 point Reavers.

Is that because people are learning to counter them or because more players are jumping on the bandwagon and some of them aren't as skilled as the tournament players who had a DE army ready to go for the codex launch?

Probably neither, probably just that 26 games is actually too low a sample size to get a decent read from, whereas 128 is not. BTW, if you include all the smaller RTs in the data, which adds like another 300+ games to the sample, it's still a ~72% win rate, i.e. virtually unchanged.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Vastly less prevalent than IH were. DE are only like 6.5% of the total games during that period; IH at their worst were well over 15% IIRC.

yeah, that's...the opposite of support for your argument. A higher play rate makes a higher win rate more unlikely.

I follow the data, I don't try to manipulate the data to fit my argument. That shouldn't be unusual, but I guess it is?

What would be the counter to dark-eldar? Im thinking maybe hordes. Like might be fun to watch an ork-boy horde teach the pointy ear T3 space elves a lesson in hand-to-hand combat. Or maybe a horde of guards-men pump 500 las-gun dice rolls into some wych-cult and raiders, using some stop-gaps like cheap sentinels to absorb the charge.

Nothing really counters DE effectively, that's the problem in a nutshell. Some stuff is worse than other stuff, obviously, but nothing is actually efficient against it. Hordes don't do particularly well, because DE don't rely on good attacks on expensive units, but instead on bucketloads of crappy attacks on cheap units, and those are just as good at killing hordes as they are at killing better stuff. Pretty much all the strongest stuff in the book does excellently against trash, as well as against more elite stuff. Liq wracks? Those don't mind flaming hordes, even if it isn't ideal. Wyches love slicing up hordes. Even Incubi don't mind it, because they're so cheap that they'll still make their points back. Stupid Succubus loves cutting up a 30-man horde unit. Etc etc.

Probably the closest thing to a counter to DE is something like Guard that can put a lot of throw-away 10-mans on the table to screen and gum things up, along with a lot of efficient shooting and cheap deep-striking plasma units, though even that has its issues because hitting on 5s is super swingy. If GSC was stronger overall they'd be another contender, especially with a Kronos patrol.

The basic issue is that DE stuff is just too cheap for what it does. The army has about 2250 points worth of stuff in a 2k point game, and that means they tend to just wear people down. You can take the first and the second and maybe the third wave, but the fourth wave gets you.

bat702 wrote:
What would be the counter to dark-eldar? Im thinking maybe hordes. Like might be fun to watch an ork-boy horde teach the pointy ear T3 space elves a lesson in hand-to-hand combat. Or maybe a horde of guards-men pump 500 las-gun dice rolls into some wych-cult and raiders, using some stop-gaps like cheap sentinels to absorb the charge.

There's plenty of things that counter DE just going by stats. A Necron silver tide list has all of the tools to just dumpster it on paper as do Marines leaning into Assault Cannons or Onslaught Gatling.

However, a lot of the codex is so undercosted as to make these counters significantly less effective. Like I said earlier, Drukhari are very similar to Sisters and the reasons why Sisters are so strong also apply to Drukhari. Very cheap cost efficient units everywhere that means you can trade favourably every single time. Forget all the FAQ-worthy stuff or the Cult of Strife exploits; even if you fix all that the army would still be in the top 3 performers because it's playing with 150-200 extra points in every game it plays.

In fixing this GW has the potential to completely mess it up too. It really depends on how they manage points changes this time as their devotion to the print schedule in 8th meant that points were changed at a certain time but didn't come into effect months later. It's why GSC got hit with brutal points increases despite not really being a problem anymore because those points changes had been made like, 7 months prior. There is also a really fine line to tread with Drukhari as increasing the points of say, transports, runs the risk of just completely breaking the faction since they are defined by their mass use of transports. Same with some of the individual units; at the end of the day a lot of them are still T3 1W and even a 5++ doesn't make that particularly resilient, especially with how lethal 9th is in general atm. Going too far with increases there risks just pricing the units out of any and all viability completely.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Surprised? No. More amused and slightly annoyed to see people trotting out the same stuff they always do after every release, even when the data here is markedly different. The situation we're seeing with DE here is unlike anything we have ever seen in the past (at least since we started tracking data), except for the IH debacle.

Well, sure, how very dare they be a counter to mehreenz


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yuay but goodkishiro1 wrote:
Nothing really counters DE effectively, that's the problem in a nutshell. Some stuff is worse than other stuff, obviously, but nothing is actually efficient against it. Hordes don't do particularly well, because DE don't rely on good attacks on expensive units, but instead on bucketloads of crappy attacks on cheap units, and those are just as good at killing hordes as they are at killing better stuff. Pretty much all the strongest stuff in the book does excellently against trash, as well as against more elite stuff. Liq wracks? Those don't mind flaming hordes, even if it isn't ideal. Wyches love slicing up hordes. Even Incubi don't mind it, because they're so cheap that they'll still make their points back. Stupid Succubus loves cutting up a 30-man horde unit. Etc etc.

Probably the closest thing to a counter to DE is something like Guard that can put a lot of throw-away 10-mans on the table to screen and gum things up, along with a lot of efficient shooting and cheap deep-striking plasma units, though even that has its issues because hitting on 5s is super swingy. If GSC was stronger overall they'd be another contender, especially with a Kronos patrol.

The basic issue is that DE stuff is just too cheap for what it does. The army has about 2250 points worth of stuff in a 2k point game, and that means they tend to just wear people down. You can take the first and the second and maybe the third wave, but the fourth wave gets you.

Aggressors (of honestly any pray-and-spray unit) will wreck our day but good

Catulle wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Surprised? No. More amused and slightly annoyed to see people trotting out the same stuff they always do after every release, even when the data here is markedly different. The situation we're seeing with DE here is unlike anything we have ever seen in the past (at least since we started tracking data), except for the IH debacle.

Well, sure, how very dare they be a counter to mehreenz

What a dumb post. They don't just counter "mehreenz".

True, they beat up marines and all the other armies too. But the same was said about harlis, that they are only good vs marines, when all the data the goons showed, clearly pointed out that the army had positive win rates with practically all armies being played.

In the end even if DE drop 10%, which I don't think ever happened to an army in w40k without a total rules rewrite, They will still sit at above 60% win rate.

Aggressors (of honestly any pray-and-spray unit) will wreck our day but good

What about armies who don't have such options?

 Bosskelot wrote:

bat702 wrote:
What would be the counter to dark-eldar?

There's plenty of things that counter DE just going by stats. A Necron silver tide list has all of the tools to just dumpster it on paper as do Marines leaning into Assault Cannons or Onslaught Gatling.

Deja vu.
End of May '93, almost exactly 28 years ago now, my first actual step into 40k was blowing away a hoard of on-rushing Eldar (mostly Banshees) with massed SW assault cannons + cyclone missile launchers in a RT tourney at the local shop.

Flash forward to early May 2021? Oh look, now it's eeevil Eldar charging across the tourney boards....
That's fine, solutions the same as it's always been - a good BS, a high rate of fire, & a maybe bit of counter-charge/melee capability (just in case).

Karol wrote:

People are winning with 20pts reavers too. Plus lets say they do drop even 10%, this still would put them at 66% win rate, which makes them as broken as harlequins are and with a similar to IH win rates.

I also doubt 20 point reavers tanks DE. It may shift some people ever so slightly. Harlies and Sisters are pretty common in the 60% zone, but they're beatable as it has been demonstrated quite often with recent tournaments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Probably neither, probably just that 26 games is actually too low a sample size to get a decent read from, whereas 128 is not. BTW, if you include all the smaller RTs in the data, which adds like another 300+ games to the sample, it's still a ~72% win rate, i.e. virtually unchanged.

The quality of players in RTT can be ramshackle. A strong army like DE can probably dominate those more easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Vastly less prevalent than IH were. DE are only like 6.5% of the total games during that period; IH at their worst were well over 15% IIRC.

Apologies if I didn't read the data set correctly, but I show 4,298 games for the period where IH played 266, which made them about 6.2%. It gets a little different when you count lists and weirder still, because the way they counted lists back then with all the soup. Grain of salt in any case, because I could have double counted. I'll double check later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Nothing really counters DE effectively, that's the problem in a nutshell.

It would be better if Raiders were 9 wounds and no bracket. 10 is a weird spot where flat 3 doesn't cut it clean so you need some D6 or flat 2. Otherwise you need follow up shooting, but that's the shooting you want hitting the occupants. MM is probably still the best option, but with a 3man carrying a MM you can expect to get just a bit over 2 shots through so you're leaning hard on those hitting for 5 damage each.

Catulle wrote:


Aggressors (of honestly any pray-and-spray unit) will wreck our day but good

But this isn't actually true, and is a prime example of people missing what the actual issue with the faction is. Aggressors are good at killing infantry DE, but that's not the issue. Everything kills infantry DE just fine. Nobody ever lost to DE because they couldn't kill their infantry once it's out and exposed.

The issue is the way that DE play, you never get a chance to shoot more than one unit of infantry at a time, and typically only after it's done whatever it's intended to do, so it doesn't matter if you have a unit that can kill 30+ of them a round, that's just wasted points. And then next turn they just bring in another unit to kill your unit. And in the end, you lose because they trade more effectively than you do.

What beats DE is cheap screens that can gum things up, and long-range, preferably non-LOS shooting that can knock down raiders in their back field. Aggressors are frankly just what you want to see if you're playing DE.

Karol wrote:
True, they beat up marines and all the other armies too. But the same was said about harlis, that they are only good vs marines, when all the data the goons showed, clearly pointed out that the army had positive win rates with practically all armies being played.

In the end even if DE drop 10%, which I don't think ever happened to an army in w40k without a total rules rewrite, They will still sit at above 60% win rate.

Aggressors (of honestly any pray-and-spray unit) will wreck our day but good

What about armies who don't have such options?

I know youre Karol so youll just pull the "all my opponents get to instantaneously chanfe put their entire 2k army for whatever up to the second competitive meta build im currently complaining about but I must only use the exact same jumble of random crap I paid 3x too much for" excuse but id rather have gk than basically any marine army besides maybe DW against drukhari rn.

Isnt there a warp tide to make the gk special weapons like +1D? That would make psilencers incinerators and psycannons all incredible vs drukhari.

After the FAQ and all the discussion that's been going on, I think this is where I've landed (for what it's worth, and as far as It's interesting)


Data tells an important part of the story, but not the complete one.

Tournament data is important, should never be discounted, and is frankly the best indicator we generally have that something is wrong. I can't and wouldn't argue against 'something' being wrong when an army has a 70% + win rate.

The data doesn't tell us what the issue is though - not entirely.

I'm convinced that elements of the Drukhari codex are in part responsible. I'm not convinced that this is the sole issue though. The impact of Covid on events and turnout, the existing meta, the exotic and unfamiliar nature of Drukhari as an army, the skill level of players who have stuck by that less collected army - all of these (and I'm sure more) are also potential factors, though we'll likely not ever be able to know for sure from the data we use. The point really being, it's dangerous to state it's a simple matter of the codex alone being problematic. We cannot know that.

That said, it'd be disingenuous to say 'nothing to see here' with regard to the codex. I don't however believe that if we were to fix say the Razorflail interaction, and Dark Technomancers, a great deal would change.
I believe those changes are necessary, but though we might see an improvement from them, I think the major issue with Drukhari is not these problematic interactions - it's that our units are simply too cheap. The units as a whole are too effective for their cost and trade far too well because of it. Raiders are especially problematic here. Raiders are a fundamental part of this army, almost every build is reliant on them to a degree and they are seriously bloody good.

A decent points increase to them, without going so far as to cripple the army, would certainly slow things down some and would almost certainly be effective in doing so across lists.

Finally, given the state of the recent FAQ's and the level of seeming effort involved in them, I think looking to GW for competitive balance is becoming foolish. I have to wonder, if the competitive community don't have to start looking to themselves to fix things. These problems aren't going away.

 StrayIight wrote:
After the FAQ and all the discussion that's been going on, I think this is where I've landed (for what it's worth, and as far as It's interesting)


Data tells an important part of the story, but not the complete one.

Tournament data is important, should never be discounted, and is frankly the best indicator we generally have that something is wrong. I can't and wouldn't argue against 'something' being wrong when an army has a 70% + win rate.

The data doesn't tell us what the issue is though - not entirely.

I'm convinced that elements of the Drukhari codex are in part responsible. I'm not convinced that this is the sole issue though. The impact of Covid on events and turnout, the existing meta, the exotic and unfamiliar nature of Drukhari as an army, the skill level of players who have stuck by that less collected army - all of these (and I'm sure more) are also potential factors, though we'll likely not ever be able to know for sure from the data we use. The point really being, it's dangerous to state it's a simple matter of the codex alone being problematic. We cannot know that.

That said, it'd be disingenuous to say 'nothing to see here' with regard to the codex. I don't however believe that if we were to fix say the Razorflail interaction, and Dark Technomancers, a great deal would change.
I believe those changes are necessary, but though we might see an improvement from them, I think the major issue with Drukhari is not these problematic interactions - it's that our units are simply too cheap. The units as a whole are too effective for their cost and trade far too well because of it. Raiders are especially problematic here. Raiders are a fundamental part of this army, almost every build is reliant on them to a degree and they are seriously bloody good.

A decent points increase to them, without going so far as to cripple the army, would certainly slow things down some and would almost certainly be effective in doing so across lists.

Finally, given the state of the recent FAQ's and the level of seeming effort involved in them, I think looking to GW for competitive balance is becoming foolish. I have to wonder, if the competitive community don't have to start looking to themselves to fix things. These problems aren't going away.

DE aren't any more exotic or unfamiliar than Quinns, Daemons, and SoB, and those do generally similar things to what DE want to do. So this isn't some out-of-context problem that has suddenly rocked the tournament scene, especially at top levels where you know players were reading every leak and rumor they could find to prep. The issue is that to counter DE you need to devote too much of your army to that task and then start losing to power armor lists who resist your firepower. Unless DE take up a significant - 15% or greater - share of the meta you're still less likely to meet the than you are to meet nothing but power-armored lists until the final round.

This is the issue and why all balance considerations must account for the meta and the gatekeeper nature of marine lists.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The issue is that to counter DE you need to devote too much of your army to that task and then start losing to power armor lists who resist your firepower.

You've quoted the entire reply, but commented on a very specific throwaway example within it of a possibility I listed. I'm not sure why that is?

Anyway, above you say you'd need to devote too much... etc etc. You've stated that very much as though it were fact not opinion (I promise I'm not trying to be awkward here, I genuinely want to understand your point), but you haven't shown how we can know this to be factually true - what's the evidence behind it?

If we tailor a part of our army to counter Drukhari, why will power armour lists then suddenly resist our fire power? Other than the Raiders they sit in, Drukhari generally die to a stiff breeze when shot at, (it's after all, why Raiders are so necessary in large part) but if you're teching to kill Raiders, why will you have any issue against power armour? There are absolutely weapons that are efficient at killing both.

 StrayIight wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The issue is that to counter DE you need to devote too much of your army to that task and then start losing to power armor lists who resist your firepower.

Anyway, above you say you'd need to devote too much... etc etc. You've stated that very much as though it were fact not opinion (I promise I'm not trying to be awkward here, I genuinely want to understand your point), but you haven't shown how we can know this to be factually true - what's the evidence behind it?

If we tailor a part of our army to counter Drukhari, why will power armour lists then suddenly resist our fire power? Other than the Raiders they sit in, Drukhari generally die to a stiff breeze when shot at, (it's after all, why Raiders are so necessary in large part) but if you're teching to kill Raiders, why will you have any issue against power armour? There are absolutely weapons that are efficient at killing both.

The issue is that after you crack the boats using 1 to 2 units worth of shooting - which many lists can't do on turn one either due to terrain density or a lack of efficient long-range anti-tank - you also need to devote a unit to killing what comes out of the boat. If these tools are ranged you may then need a 3rd or 4th unit to claim the point you just cleared. This means that DE lists will trade up in terms of efficiency while not suffering the same issues when they go to remove a threat from their opponent's board. This is what we see happening on the top tables at major tournaments and what we hear high-level players saying about their experiences against DE.

What evidence do you have that counters these statements?

I think your totally missing the point of the "2 week" (lol more like 4-6 week) FAQ.

It's for clarification of poorly written rules and misunderstandings.

It's not to go back and knee jerk react to perceived power levels.

I also disagree with this sentiment that DE units are all too cheap. They really aren't in context of other 9th codexes. It's 100% a shift in play style. DE front load offense and save on defense, meanwhile you have most lists running around that commit absurd levels of overkill. This is nothing new to the game, it's MSU at it's finest which is something the DE faction has always excelled at.

This is classic conditionaing by GW. They literally released one xenos faction then 6 straight power armor codexes and folks are shocked that and army tailor made to punish power armor landed with a massive splash?

It's going to be fun when admech and sisters arrive and not only double down on the MSU tech, but do their killing twice as efficiently at range.

Meanwhile the Marine codex has what? 120 fething data sheets, yet apparently the same 12 that have been seeing play for the past 9 months are the only ones that should be considered lol.

Dear lord is that a deep bench, but the marine brats are so used to healing 5-7 wounds automatically from the chief apothecary which is now somehow fine, but apparently orchestrating a difficult fly over with a fragile unit (it is unless your hemorrhaging strats) for similar damage needs to be capped lol.

Heres a hint, stop taking pricey elite, slow, or borderline immobile, units that sit mid table cashing in on give me secondaries like Oath and learn to play a fluid and flexible game around the table with a variety of units.

I'm positive points can be rejiggered for every faction down the line, but I find it disingenuous that DE need to be immediately hit before the meta has had a chance to adapt when Eradicators, blade guard vets, apothecaries etc. etc. have all gotten a free pass for 9 months.

Some of the issue comes from what has been the recent tactic for winning 9th games....elite, durable infantry taking the middle ground and boasting decent to lethal AT assets. This plays right into Drukhari's hands. They're let you take that middle, then hit you hard with a massive number of attacks while spreading over the table.
Armies will need to layer their capabilities, IMHO, to take on this threat, absorbing that punch from drukhari, but having decent counterpunch in deepstrike, or behind terrain. I don't know if many armies have enough units to be able to pull this off, and marines may have to look down their lists to those middle to low units to act as counters. As yuki stated, killing DE infantry is no problem, you just have to get them out of their transports.
5 Assault marines (jump packs) with 2 flamers and hand flamer on sgt is cheap (115pts) and will handle most DE infantry sqds, but who thinks of these guys? A few of these cheap counter units may need to be added.
The issue on popping raiders is tough due to an efficient way of doing so quickly, before they achieve their purpose.

One thing for certain, I'm glad someone in my group has DE, and I look forward to approaching the challenge (although I don't believe he has wyches...shame)

 Canadian 5th wrote:


What evidence do you have that counters these statements?

I'm not making a claim, nor am I saying I necessarily disagree with yours. I'm just asking that an apparent statement of fact be supported, (unless it's a priori), and how you're doing that.

 StrayIight wrote:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

The issue is that to counter DE you need to devote too much of your army to that task and then start losing to power armor lists who resist your firepower.

You've quoted the entire reply, but commented on a very specific throwaway example within it of a possibility I listed. I'm not sure why that is?

Anyway, above you say you'd need to devote too much... etc etc. You've stated that very much as though it were fact not opinion (I promise I'm not trying to be awkward here, I genuinely want to understand your point), but you haven't shown how we can know this to be factually true - what's the evidence behind it?

If we tailor a part of our army to counter Drukhari, why will power armour lists then suddenly resist our fire power? Other than the Raiders they sit in, Drukhari generally die to a stiff breeze when shot at, (it's after all, why Raiders are so necessary in large part) but if you're teching to kill Raiders, why will you have any issue against power armour? There are absolutely weapons that are efficient at killing both.

They also die to a stiff breeze to enemy assaults, COS wyches included. Which is why I find the examples that BA are particularly worse off so humorous. BA have access to the entire Marine proper codex, only every single scrub with a gun can tear through enemies like most factions dedicated assault entries. That makes them perfectly suited but you have to take elements besides the super elite overkilling options like death company.

It's kid of funny seeing folks apparently struggle with mechanized factions so badly, this is nothing new as a concept. Maybe its because I played so heavily in 5th when I'd regularly face mech vet guard where an entire BS3+ onslaught of rapid firing plasma plus las gun arrays casually shot from inside a chimera and you would easily see 4-6 of just those in addition to manticores, hellhounds and hydras and you had to somehow crack all that AV 12 saturation when hull points didn't exist. Ironically DE particularly struggled to crack all their tanks back then and often ran out of steam doing so, but it was just chalked up to the meta being what it was.

Again, the issue isn't killing DE stuff, it's that DE are too points efficient so they have roughly about 250-350 extra points worth of stuff compared to other armies. This is why they are so dominant right now. 60 point DT liq wrack squads are really worth 100 points, so you're getting about 120 free points there. Stupid Succubus is really worth 100 points, so there's another 40 (admittedly non-Stupid Succubus is not worth 100, but she's not the problem). Raiders are 10-15 points too cheap, so there's another 50-75 free points. You can go through most of the taken units in the codex, and the unifying thing is that they're all a bit too cheap, mostly in the 10-15% range like raiders.

A fair amount of this comes from broken interactions, which is why it's especially disappointing to see GW totally drop the ball on DT in the FAQ. If you fixed the obviously broken stuff, the average DE list would lose about 150 points of power; it'd still probably be overpowered on the back of still-too-cheap raiders, incubi etc, but it might not be nearly such a big deal.

 StrayIight wrote:
I'm not making a claim, nor am I saying I necessarily disagree with yours. I'm just asking that an apparent statement of fact be supported, (unless it's a priori), and how you're doing that.

I can't prove why even very skilled players are failing to beat DE. All I can do is report what seems to be happening on the table, what those players have said about playing and playtesting against expected lists, and what the win rate data says. If you're projecting an adjustment that brings down this win rate to sub 60% levels I'm going to need a detailed explanation of why and how it will happen.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
I'm not making a claim, nor am I saying I necessarily disagree with yours. I'm just asking that an apparent statement of fact be supported, (unless it's a priori), and how you're doing that.

I can't prove why even very skilled players are failing to beat DE. All I can do is report what seems to be happening on the table, what those players have said about playing and playtesting against expected lists, and what the win rate data says. If you're projecting an adjustment that brings down this win rate to sub 60% levels I'm going to need a detailed explanation of why and how it will happen.

I can tell you again what I think will help. I cannot say (nor do I think anyone else can), how far this will lower win rates. I do believe we can be reasonably sure it will lower them. For what it's worth, I'm seeing the same noises being made by some of the competitive players you mention:

Raise points costs on the army. Especially importantly, on the Raider. Cost increases across several units, especially the Raider mean, logically, fewer of those transports being present. It follows that we then hamper both the armies mobility, and survivability.
If lists can only bring 4, rather than say 6 (which seems pretty common in many lists I'm sure you'd agree), that's 33% less 'firepower' you now need to invest in solving the issue of key units hiding in boxes - which is the issue you yourself were describing as problematic right?

I think we'll likely see this happen too. Bad news is, probably not for some time.

I'm a Drukhari player, and I promise, I don't want to see them at a 70% win rate either.

 StrayIight wrote:
I can tell you again what I think will help. I cannot say (nor do I think anyone else can), how far this will lower win rates. I do believe we can be reasonably sure it will lower them. For what it's worth, I'm seeing the same noises being made by some of the competitive players you mention:

Raise points costs on the army. Especially importantly, on the Raider. Cost increases across several units, especially the Raider mean, logically, fewer of those transports being present. It follows that we then hamper both the armies mobility, and survivability.
If lists can only bring 4, rather than say 6 (which seems pretty common in many lists I'm sure you'd agree), that's 33% less 'firepower' you now need to invest in solving the issue of key units hiding in boxes - which is the issue you yourself were describing as problematic right?

I think we'll likely see this happen too. Bad news is, probably not for some time.

I'm a Drukhari player, and I promise, I don't want to see them at a 70% win rate either.

That's something that GW may or may not do. If this is left alone do you feel like simply adjusting the meta will make a meaningful dent in the current DE win rate?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

That's something that GW may or may not do. If this is left alone do you feel like simply adjusting the meta will make a meaningful dent in the current DE win rate?

I honestly don't know. I think it'll almost certainly make some difference for people to start reacting to DE more than they are (I don't entirely buy the argument that they are the same problem as Harlequins or SoB in terms of how you list build), but whether that'd be enough to break the back of things... no clue. I guess we'll find out in the coming weeks

That said, all I have here is opinion. I think I'm reasonably well read and have some level of understanding of competitive 40K, so hope it's at least an educated one, but I'm also far from being a prominent member of the competitive scene. Most of us who post here are likely in that boat I guess.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 StrayIight wrote:
I'm not making a claim, nor am I saying I necessarily disagree with yours. I'm just asking that an apparent statement of fact be supported, (unless it's a priori), and how you're doing that.

I can't prove why even very skilled players are failing to beat DE. All I can do is report what seems to be happening on the table, what those players have said about playing and playtesting against expected lists, and what the win rate data says. If you're projecting an adjustment that brings down this win rate to sub 60% levels I'm going to need a detailed explanation of why and how it will happen.

And I say the win rate is a lie, i went through the 7 events Goon posted and 2 other, DE (excluding the 2 mirror matches and the 2 players that dropped out) DE had a 64% win rate. I have no idea where this 70-75% win rate is coming from. If they are using TTS data then they should not b.c some of the TTS maps are extremely terrible and skewed (example you can hide literally 100% of your army behind 3-4 "L" obscuring terrain) also the model sizes clip in terrain, clip through other models, etc... if you look at ANY TTS Hellion unit they take up literally (and i mean literally) 1/2 the foot print as real models, this means a 20man unit can hind in a spot that only a 10man can hide in real life games, there are some other problems too. So we need to ignore TTS until those issues are taken care of. Also most events had 2-4 DE at the most, 2 had just 1 DE player.

I pay for the apps so I can look at all the lists and events, not only are DE not higher than SOB or Quins, they also have some of the most skewed match ups. Fighting Space Marine armies with 4 Dreads, 2 Eradicators, and 3 troops with 3 characters, how is that going to be good against DE at all? Its 6 threating ish units, a majority of the lists are set up to counter DG and Custodes it feels like. DE is really good at facing those types of lists.

I would LOVE to see here people are getting these high win rate numbers, b.c I literally looked and can't get the same results.

Oh look some of the top players and DE didn't take 1st.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Oh look some of the top players and DE didn't take 1st.

...the tournament isn't over yet, and DE is obviously overrepresented in the upper echelons so far

Plus #1 is Nayden and I assume it's his DE/Ynnari mix.