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.

Tyel wrote:

Equally, its hard to see how these factions would say hard counter DE - but not equally be powerful versus every faction in the game.

I mean, just to put forth a quick example - the strength values of 6 and 7 and the AP value of 0 or -1 are generally quite inefficient against most MEQ units, but are exactly optimal against drukhari. Abilities that ignore to-hit modifiers, bonuses against units with FLY, and low-AP autohitting weapons on overwatch are all categorically good vs the powerful drukhari playstyle (melee units jumping out of transports) but are quite bad against most MEQ setups.

It's pretty easy to see how you could turn something in the admech arsenal that currently is a quite minor rule - say, Litany of the Electromancer - and turn it into an actually useful tool for a shooting focused army to really punish an MSU mass-assault. Admech currently have a bunch of weapons that, categorically, should be excellent tools against drukhari but are just undertuned atm and we know will be increased in power in the new codex - Ironstrider Balistarii, shooty electropriests, Icarus Array Onagers, heavy arc rifle breachers, etc.

You create an army that's extremely good at punishing fast, overextended assault blitzes and bypassing unconventional durability methods (modifiers/invulns on units with low T, W and Sv) and you ideally end up with an army whose weakness would be an opponent that DOES bring conventional straightforward defenses and shooty offense.

Comments from the Admech guy

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1008530797?t=06h42m52s

-- Plan versus Lennon was just to stay back, score his 10 points, and win on secondaries. However, he charged forward and that cost him the game. He also picked the mission secondary that he normally wouldn't do.

-- List was not teched into DE. It was just an all-comers list that he'd been playing for months.

It sounds like he got the jitters being on the final table.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I could shoot 1 shot at 30" with my fire warriors turn 1, then 2 shots at 15" turn 2, or I could embark them into a devilfish and....shoot 0 shots turn 1 and 2 shots turn 2. Hm. So I made myself...less effective...by buying this additional unit...

Ridiculously, the tidewall droneport, etc would be far superior transports to the Devilfish if they weren't totally boned by the fortification Deployment rule...

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Comments from the Admech guy

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1008530797?t=06h42m52s

-- Plan versus Lennon was just to stay back, score his 10 points, and win on secondaries. However, he charged forward and that cost him the game. He also picked the mission secondary that he normally wouldn't do.

-- List was not teched into DE. It was just an all-comers list that he'd been playing for months.

It sounds like he got the jitters being on the final table.

Massive props to him. Competing against some of the best players in the world, especially when they are playing DE given the furore around them, is an accomplishment to say the least.

It kinda categorically proves also that they are not the unbeatable monster that some have made them out to be. (That isn't me saying there aren't issues, before someone jumps all over that).

We should probably take it as a good sign that a TAC list, not built with Drukhari in mind, coped with them just fine.
Maybe the elements that made that work aren't an option for every army. Maybe we'll see a 'Mars vs Commoragh' meta for a while. Who knows? I'd like to be optimistic and take it as a break in the clouds though.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, just to put forth a quick example - the strength values of 6 and 7 and the AP value of 0 or -1 are generally quite inefficient against most MEQ units, but are exactly optimal against drukhari. Abilities that ignore to-hit modifiers, bonuses against units with FLY, and low-AP autohitting weapons on overwatch are all categorically good vs the powerful drukhari playstyle (melee units jumping out of transports) but are quite bad against most MEQ setups.

It's pretty easy to see how you could turn something in the admech arsenal that currently is a quite minor rule - say, Litany of the Electromancer - and turn it into an actually useful tool for a shooting focused army to really punish an MSU mass-assault. Admech currently have a bunch of weapons that, categorically, should be excellent tools against drukhari but are just undertuned atm and we know will be increased in power in the new codex - Ironstrider Balistarii, shooty electropriests, Icarus Array Onagers, heavy arc rifle breachers, etc.

You create an army that's extremely good at punishing fast, overextended assault blitzes and bypassing unconventional durability methods (modifiers/invulns on units with low T, W and Sv) and you ideally end up with an army whose weakness would be an opponent that DOES bring conventional straightforward defenses and shooty offense.

You are right - but I suspect Admech are going to retain a big bag of mid-S AP-2 attacks, some with 2/D3 damage which are generally good for shooting marines.

 the_scotsman wrote:
I could shoot 1 shot at 30" with my fire warriors turn 1, then 2 shots at 15" turn 2, or I could embark them into a devilfish and....shoot 0 shots turn 1 and 2 shots turn 2. Hm. So I made myself...less effective...by buying this additional unit...

I don't think that's the right analysis.

You shoot one turn 1 then die or you shoot 2 turn 2 and then still have a vehicle that puts out the same number of turn 1 shots as a full strike team for 28 points less. And then you could put breachers in there instead.

Tyel wrote:

 the_scotsman wrote:
I mean, just to put forth a quick example - the strength values of 6 and 7 and the AP value of 0 or -1 are generally quite inefficient against most MEQ units, but are exactly optimal against drukhari. Abilities that ignore to-hit modifiers, bonuses against units with FLY, and low-AP autohitting weapons on overwatch are all categorically good vs the powerful drukhari playstyle (melee units jumping out of transports) but are quite bad against most MEQ setups.

It's pretty easy to see how you could turn something in the admech arsenal that currently is a quite minor rule - say, Litany of the Electromancer - and turn it into an actually useful tool for a shooting focused army to really punish an MSU mass-assault. Admech currently have a bunch of weapons that, categorically, should be excellent tools against drukhari but are just undertuned atm and we know will be increased in power in the new codex - Ironstrider Balistarii, shooty electropriests, Icarus Array Onagers, heavy arc rifle breachers, etc.

You create an army that's extremely good at punishing fast, overextended assault blitzes and bypassing unconventional durability methods (modifiers/invulns on units with low T, W and Sv) and you ideally end up with an army whose weakness would be an opponent that DOES bring conventional straightforward defenses and shooty offense.

You are right - but I suspect Admech are going to retain a big bag of mid-S AP-2 attacks, some with 2/D3 damage which are generally good for shooting marines.

I'm not saying they won't have tools that can be used to deal with space marines. They will - Plasma Servitors are an excellent example of that. But S6 Ap-2 D2 is a whole hell of a lot better of a TAC profile in a meta that includes nasty drukhari and nasty marines than S8 Ap-3 D2 is. its not nearly as optimal against marines - it wounds on 3s, they save on 5s, but if you come up against drukhari being able to ace hellions on 2s or wound their vehicles on 4s and 3s is going to be welcome.

It's vastly amusing to see the reaction of some here to Drukhari completely sweeping a tournament as "hey, an ad mech player did pretty well! Proof DE aren't as bad as people say!"

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's vastly amusing to see the reaction of some here to Drukhari completely sweeping a tournament as "hey, an ad mech player did pretty well! Proof DE aren't as bad as people say!"

Considering who several of the players involved were, it's an exceptionally important data point. Taking out some of the best players in the game (two of whom conspired to mutually exploit the major offenders in the new ruleset) while they're running an overtuned codex says quite a lot about the player, and the army, especially when the latter wasn't remotely tailored to counter Drukhari.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's vastly amusing to see the reaction of some here to Drukhari completely sweeping a tournament as "hey, an ad mech player did pretty well! Proof DE aren't as bad as people say!"

I don't recall anyone saying what you are eluding to.

We're capable of both celebrating his success at defeating multiple DE lists, piloted by some of the best players on the planet, being interested in what he did, and took, that made that possible, while still acknowledging that there are issues surrounding DE.

That's why people are interested in discussing this list. Because it was clearly able to defuse something seen as problematic. Reasonably, that demands our attention does it not?

Your post adds nothing but vitriol and side line 'jeering' to the discussion, which is a shame because much of your commentary so far I've found fairly thought provoking.

Sterling191 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It's vastly amusing to see the reaction of some here to Drukhari completely sweeping a tournament as "hey, an ad mech player did pretty well! Proof DE aren't as bad as people say!"

Considering who several of the players involved were, it's an exceptionally important data point. Taking out some of the best players in the game (two of whom conspired to mutually exploit the major offenders in the new ruleset) while they're running an overtuned codex says quite a lot about the player, and the army, especially when the latter wasn't remotely tailored to counter Drukhari.

It's not only not exceptionally important, it's almost completely irrelevant to whether DE are seriously overpowered as a faction. That only one non-DE list was able to crack the top results says that DE are exceptionally, unprecedentedly in 9th edition overpowered, not that they aren't.

People have so far lost sight of balance that "one non-DE list came close!" is being cited as evidence that things aren't that bad, rather than the proof it is of just how bad things are. Nobody looks back at the IH debacle - the only other time in recent 40k history where one faction has taken all the results at a big tournament - and is like "well but one non-IH player did well too! Maybe IH weren't so bad after all!" Even at the height of IH's ridiculousness, other lists beat them every now and then. But being beaten only every now and then by another list is a sign of a massively overpowered faction.

As an individual achievement it's impressive no doubt, but it's got no relevance to the wider discussion except as affirmative evidence of just how bad the situation is. Every top result at a major tournament going to a single faction is a disaster, whether or not one other player managed to do well.

yukishiro1 wrote:


It's not only not exceptionally important, it's almost completely irrelevant to whether DE are seriously overpowered as a faction. That only one non-DE list was able to crack the top results says that DE are exceptionally, unprecedentedly in 9th edition overpowered, not that they aren't.

People have so far lost sight of balance that "one non-DE list came close!" is being cited as evidence that things aren't that bad, rather than the proof it is of just how bad things are. Nobody looks back at the IH debacle - the only other time in recent 40k history where one faction has taken all the results at a big tournament - and is like "well but one non-IH player did well too! Maybe IH weren't so bad after all!" Even at the height of IH's ridiculousness, other lists beat them every now and then. But being beaten only every now and then by another list is a sign of a massively overpowered faction.

As an individual achievement it's impressive no doubt, but it's got no relevance to the wider discussion except as affirmative evidence of just how bad the situation is. Every top result at a major tournament going to a single faction is a disaster, whether or not one other player managed to do well.

You know, it's actually quite impressive to watch you simultaneously argue that an N of 1 is irrelevant, while completely losing your gak about an N of 1.

Either a singular event is worth scrutinizing when it provides important information, or it is not. You don't get to have it both ways when one supports your argument but the other doesn't. We have one event with Drukhari doing this, supported by literally the best faction jumping mercenary players on the planet. We also have a standout example of someone taking Drukhari down repeatedly (including said mercenary players) without explicitly tailoring against them.

Both are important data points in the analysis and understanding of where things are at right now. By your very own logic, that shouldn't be happening right now. But it did. And understanding why is a critical piece of the puzzle.

I am going to consciously not rise to that obvious bait, because it won't help the discussion, and instead focus on the substance of your post.

1) An "N of 1" when it's a tournament of 180 players is different than an "N of 1" that is literally one of those 180 players. In fact, it's the difference between an N of 180 and an N of 1, to use your terminology. Describing them both as Ns of 1 is about as misleading as a statement can get.

2) It isn't even an N of 1 tournament either. We have a month's worth of data that was building up to this, all showing a similar pattern, though admittedly not quite this bad.

So in conclusion, your one guy is a N of 1, compared to an N of 179 on the other side at this tournament alone, and an N of about 500 total.

If one list out of 180 being able to seriously compete against DE shows anything at all, it shows that the situation is every bit as bad as people thought it was. People get so confused by their expectations that it leads them to conclude the exact opposite from data than what that data is actually telling them.

yukishiro1 wrote:

1) An "N of 1" when it's a tournament of 180 players is different than an "N of 1" that is literally one of those 180 players. In fact, it's the difference between an N of 180 and an N of 1, to use your terminology. Describing them both as Ns of 1 is about as misleading as a statement can get.

You're absolutely right, and it makes the singular N of 1 that much more important because it's a significant change in result. But you're again so fixated on bitching about elves that you're downplaying what the AdMech result means, what we can learn from it, and how it can help us to understand data as it comes in.

yukishiro1 wrote:

2) It isn't even an N of 1 tournament either. We have a month's worth of data that was building up to this, all showing a similar pattern, though admittedly not quite this bad.

Kindly show me where Drukhari took all top five placings in the last month in a single event. You can't, because it didnt happen before this specific event.

yukishiro1 wrote:

So in conclusion, your one guy is a N of 1, compared to an N of 179 on the other side at this tournament alone, and an N of about 500 total.

If one list out of 180 being able to seriously compete against DE shows anything at all, it shows that the situation is every bit as bad as people thought it was. People get so confused by their expectations that it leads them to conclude the exact opposite from data than what that data is actually telling them.

It shows nothing of the kind in a system with as many variables as competitive 40k does. But please, continue to make conclusions then scramble around to try and pin numbers on it to make yourself sound legitimate.

 StrayIight wrote:

Your post adds nothing but vitriol and side line 'jeering' to the discussion, which is a shame because much of your commentary so far I've found fairly thought provoking.

I wasn't trying to jeer at anyone. I guess I didn't express myself well and I apologize if it came off that way. I wasn't trying to laugh at anyone, I was more laughing at the way expectations people have going into something can confuse them into drawing precisely the wrong conclusions. The fact that one list at a tournament of 180 was able to compete with DE should illustrate just how busted they are, but because people went into it with the expectation that DE would totally dominate, one of the most dominant results in 40k history is instead being perceived as something other than what it is because it wasn't quite so dominant as some people expected.

This is the one of the most dominant results for a faction at a major tournament in 40k history. Rather than thinking "but one list was able to compete!" we should be thinking "this is bad when only one other list can compete."

yukishiro1 wrote:

If one list out of 180 being able to seriously compete against DE shows anything at all, it shows that the situation is every bit as bad as people thought it was. People get so confused by their expectations that it leads them to conclude the exact opposite from data than what that data is actually telling them.

With respect, I think you may have missed the substance of his post.

I don't think any firm conclusion is being reached about the Ad Mech players performance at all - at least in terms of how that reflects on the issues surrounding Drukhari. You seem to be implying that one is, and I think you're possibly reading more into what is being stated than is there.

His performance doesn't say anything about whether or not DE are OP, broken - whatever term you want to use. You are absolutely right in that it doesn't discount several weeks of results so far.

What we know is this: An Ad Mech player, apparently without teching, had an 80% win rate (4 out of 5 games from memory), against the best players around, and their Drukhari lists.

It sounds very much like, if it were not for nerves and (by his own admission) some poor mission choices, he may have had a 100% win rate.

If we are not content to sit and wait for GW to 'fix' Drukhari, any reasonable person in this discussion should be clamouring to understand what it was about his list and play that allowed him to do that. And at no time should it be implied this is that a statement that 'DE are fine'.

Does it add some credence to the idea that the meta can evolve productively to help reduce the DE win rate? We won't know without exploring this.

I think we have to be careful about bias - we're all guilty of it (I know I am), but it's important to not let it make us make assumptions about what people are saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

yukishiro1 wrote:


I wasn't trying to jeer at anyone. I guess I didn't express myself well and I apologize if it came off that way. I wasn't trying to laugh at anyone, I was more laughing at the way expectations people have going into something can confuse them into drawing precisely the wrong conclusions. The fact that one list at a tournament of 180 was able to compete with DE should illustrate just how busted they are, but because people went into it with the expectation that DE would totally dominate, one of the most dominant results in 40k history is instead being perceived as something other than what it is because it wasn't quite so dominant as some people expected.

This is the one of the most dominant results for a faction at a major tournament in 40k history. Rather than thinking "but one list was able to compete!" we should be thinking "this is bad when only one other list can compete."

Totally understandable buddy - and I appreciate you saying this. We've all been there, I've been guilty of similar posts in the past, and constantly have to remind myself to 'reign it in'

Sterling191 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:

2) It isn't even an N of 1 tournament either. We have a month's worth of data that was building up to this, all showing a similar pattern, though admittedly not quite this bad.

Kindly show me where Drukhari took all top five placings in the last month in a single event. You can't, because it didnt happen before this specific event.

It isn't possible to have a discussion with someone who quotes you then literally ignores what's in the quotation in the next breath.

 StrayIight wrote:

With respect, I think you missed the substance of his post.

I don't think any firm conclusion is being reached about the Ad Mech players performance at all - at least in terms of how that reflects on the issues surrounding Drukhari. You're implying that one is, and I think you're reading more into what is being stated than is there.

His performance doesn't say anything about whether or not DE are OP, broken - whatever term you want to use. You are absolutely right in that it doesn't discount several weeks of results so far.

What we know is this: An Ad Mech player, apparently without teching, had an 80% win rate (4 out of 5 games from memory), against the best players around, and their Drukhari lists.

It sounds very much like, if it were not for nerves and (by his own admission) some poor mission choices, he may have had a 100% win rate.

If we are not content to sit and wait for GW to 'fix' Drukhari, any reasonable person in this discussion should be clamouring to understand what it was about his list and play that allowed him to do that. And at no time is that a statement that 'DE are fine'.

Does it add some credence to the idea that the meta can evolve productively to help reduce the DE win rate? We won't know without exploring this.

I think we have to be careful about bias - we're all guilty of it, but it's important to not let it make assumptions about what people are saying.

Got it in one. There was a cavalcade of hellaciously abusive rules interactions on parade at the Dallas GT, several of which need to be dealt with. Yet despite all of that, someone with a TAC list from an 8th edition faction wiped the floor with those abusive rules.

Is the player the important variable? Entirely possible.

Is the list the important variable? Entirely possible.

Was the table setup the important variable? Entirely possible.

Was something else the important variable? Entirely possible.

We need more data. And if we get that data, we may find the answer to both bringing Drukhari to a level that's playable but also successful, while also understanding the mechanical needs of how to play against them in an equally playable but successful manner without either side of the equation getting out of balance.

yukishiro1 wrote:

It isn't possible to have a discussion with someone who quotes you then literally ignores what's in the quotation in the next breath.

And yet, here you are trying to lecture the entire forum about how we should all sit down, shut up and take your word as gospel.

I'll ask again: Outside of the Dallas GT, which events did Drukhari take all five top placements in?

If Drukhari counter marines we shouldn't be above discussing how marines would get better at taking them on and how someone else ( different army ) was able to do it with consistently, without slim margins, and without taking one or two types of units.

It shouldn't be above discussion.

Sterling191 wrote:


And yet, here you are trying to lecture the entire forum about how we should all sit down, shut up and take your word as gospel.

I'll ask again: Outside of the Dallas GT, which events did Drukhari take all five top placements in?

You refuse to read what's written even when it is specifically pointed out to you. You clearly just want to personally attack me, and that's a waste of my time (and yours too, for that matter). Our discussion is over.

yukishiro1 wrote:

You refuse to read what's written even when it is specifically pointed out to you. You clearly just want to personally attack me, and that's a waste of my time (and yours too, for that matter). Our discussion is over.

For the third time please: outside of the Dallas GT, which events ended with Drukhari taking 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th place?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Drukhari counter marines we shouldn't be above discussing how marines would get better at taking them on and how someone else ( different army ) was able to do it with consistently, without slim margins, and without taking one or two types of units.

It shouldn't be above discussion.

It's totally fine to discuss what "works" against DE, just like it was fine to discuss what works against IH at the height of that debacle. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a debacle. GW has a major mess to clean up here. The fact that one list was able to compete, if it shows anything at all, shows just how big that mess is.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
If Drukhari counter marines we shouldn't be above discussing how marines would get better at taking them on and how someone else ( different army ) was able to do it with consistently, without slim margins, and without taking one or two types of units.

It shouldn't be above discussion.

It's totally fine to discuss what "works" against DE, just like it was fine to discuss what works against IH at the height of that debacle. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a debacle. GW has a major mess to clean up here. The fact that one list was able to compete, if it shows anything at all, shows just how big that mess is.

Yea, but there's a whole range of possibilities from DE are unreconcilably OP to DE are strong, but people still need some level of adaptation so that we don't crater DE by freaking out.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Yea, but there's a whole range of possibilities from DE are unreconcilably OP to DE are strong, but people still need some level of adaptation so that we don't crater DE by freaking out.

Indeed. Knowing what can be fixed, what needs to be tweaked, what needs to be slagged, and how to fight against the Codex are all important things to suss out. The AdMech result is an exceptionally important milestone for the 4th objective.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Yea, but there's a whole range of possibilities from DE are unreconcilably OP to DE are strong,

No, there really isn't. Not any more. We have enough data now to say that the realistic range is from "DE is an IH-level debacle" to "DE is a Ynnari-level debacle." For it to be anything less than that, we'd have to have something happening now that has never happened before even once in 40k competitive history. Every prior time we've had a faction even close to this dominant, it has needed significant nerfs to bring it down to an acceptable level.

There is essentially no chance at this point that DE are merely strong. Not being the most busted army in 40k history (and to be clear, that isn't ruled out yet either) doesn't mean an army isn't busted. This is a busted faction we're looking at.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Yea, but there's a whole range of possibilities from DE are unreconcilably OP to DE are strong,

No, there really isn't. Not any more. We have enough data now to say that the realistic range is from "DE is an IH-level debacle" to "DE is a Ynnari-level debacle." For it to be anything less than that, we'd have to have something happening now that has never happened before even once in 40k competitive history. Every prior time we've had a faction even close to this dominant, it has needed significant nerfs to bring it down to an acceptable level.

There is essentially no chance at this point that DE are merely strong. Not being the most busted army in 40k history (and to be clear, that isn't ruled out yet either) doesn't mean an army isn't busted. This is a busted faction we're looking at.

Who was beating IH? Marines and whatever gimmicky combo wombo SSAG style lists could occasionally bubble closer to the top. Admech is a strong army right now, but this particular list doesn't rise to the level of gimmick in the past. It also doesn't employ much of what has been recently regarded as the overtuned pieces of Admech.

There's a possible distinction there worth exploring.

Not that the subject will remain static as Admech should have had their book already - the conceptual approach to how to play matters more.

You could go back and look. My memory is that IF flyer spam could beat IH when it went first (which obviously wasn't reliable, but did result in a decent win rate). Some other stuff too. A faction doesn't have to be literally unbeatable in every matchup to be wildly overpowered. That there is a list that is competitive with a faction doesn't mean that faction isn't way out of whack.

But the point is it doesn't really matter if DE are an IH-level debacle or "merely" a Ynnari-level debacle. Either way it's a mess.

yukishiro1 wrote:
You could go back and look. My memory is that IF flyer spam could beat IH when it went first (which obviously wasn't reliable, but did result in a decent win rate). Some other stuff too. A faction doesn't have to be literally unbeatable in every matchup to be wildly overpowered. That there is a list that is competitive with a faction doesn't mean that faction isn't way out of whack.

But the point is it doesn't really matter if DE are an IH-level debacle or "merely" a Ynnari-level debacle. Either way it's a mess.

Right, understood, it is not allowed to discuss the thing that appeared to work against drukhari, because drukhari are OP. The only thing that is allowed is to either A, complain that they are OP, or B, wait for GW to nerf them.

So........

............................

................uh, anyone catch the game last night, i guess?

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, understood, it is not allowed to discuss the thing that appeared to work against drukhari, because drukhari are OP. The only thing that is allowed is to either A, complain that they are OP, or B, wait for GW to nerf them.

So........

............................

................uh, anyone catch the game last night, i guess?

Your supposition of the DE problem being different from IH or Ynnari would hold more weight if you could show that there weren't other lists of those eras that got a boost in popularity due to having a good matchup against them. Just saying well this looks like it could be a way to beat them isn't as effective as doing the work and proving your case with stats and examples.

 the_scotsman wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
You could go back and look. My memory is that IF flyer spam could beat IH when it went first (which obviously wasn't reliable, but did result in a decent win rate). Some other stuff too. A faction doesn't have to be literally unbeatable in every matchup to be wildly overpowered. That there is a list that is competitive with a faction doesn't mean that faction isn't way out of whack.

But the point is it doesn't really matter if DE are an IH-level debacle or "merely" a Ynnari-level debacle. Either way it's a mess.

Right, understood, it is not allowed to discuss the thing that appeared to work against drukhari, because drukhari are OP. The only thing that is allowed is to either A, complain that they are OP, or B, wait for GW to nerf them.

So........

............................

................uh, anyone catch the game last night, i guess?

The straw man is both the most popular mode of "debate" on dakka, and the most fundamentally boring and pointless. The only lower form of interaction is repeating a straw man that has already been called out and refuted a few posts earlier in the thread:

yukishiro1 wrote:

It's totally fine to discuss what "works" against DE, just like it was fine to discuss what works against IH at the height of that debacle. But that doesn't mean that it isn't a debacle. GW has a major mess to clean up here. The fact that one list was able to compete, if it shows anything at all, shows just how big that mess is.

I have no problem with people discussing how to counter DE (and you don't need my permission to discuss whatever you want, anyway!). My problem was with people pointing to the one list out of 180 that could compete iwth DE and being like "look! the situation isn't as bad as is being made out!"