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.

yukishiro1 wrote:
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!"

We're hyper fixated on the top DE players.

Excluding mirrors -

DE #156 tied Orks and lost to DA
DE #150 lost to Sisters, BA, DA, and GK
DE #78 lost to DG, DG, and Guard.
DE #67 lost to RG, Necrons, and Guard ( but to be fair it was like 500 conscripts, literally... )
DE #61 lost to GK
DE #50 lost to WS, Custodes & Admech, and Sisters.

The GK player who got 22nd beat DE once ( 68 to 63 ) and never faced them again.
The GK player in 78th beat DE once ( 88 to 61 ) and never faced them again.

The Sisters in 10th player went 2-2 with DE --

88 to 57
65 to 69
50 to 90
92 to 63

So that's a 50% with a game that's extremely close against Nanavanti. The concept of "no bad matchups" doesn't seem to settle at ground level.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
We're hyper fixated on the top DE players.

Excluding mirrors -

DE #156 tied Orks and lost to DA
DE #150 lost to Sisters, BA, DA, and GK
DE #78 lost to DG, DG, and Guard.
DE #67 lost to RG, Necrons, and Guard ( but to be fair it was like 500 conscripts, literally... )
DE #61 lost to GK
DE #50 lost to WS, Custodes & Admech, and Sisters.

The GK player who got 22nd beat DE once ( 68 to 63 ) and never faced them again.
The GK player in 78th beat DE once ( 88 to 61 ) and never faced them again.

The Sisters in 10th player went 2-2 with DE --

88 to 57
65 to 69
50 to 90
92 to 63

So that's a 50% with a game that's extremely close against Nanavanti. The concept of "no bad matchups" doesn't seem to settle at ground level.

That's great now how does that stack up to how IH were doing in their first month?

 Canadian 5th wrote:
That's great now how does that stack up to how IH were doing in their first month?

BFS GT X - Oct 12th

Rose - Beat IH, Orks, Eldar, Eldar, IH, IH
Hertel - Beat UM, Eldar, Necrons, Eldar, Eldar. Lost to IH
Harpster - Beat Guard, IH, UM, UM, IH. Lost to IH
Blakeborough - Beat Orks, WS, IH, Chaos, Eldar. Lost to....you guessed it...IH!



Automatically Appended Next Post:


One thing that really bugs me. Of all the DE lists only one indicated what the drugs were going to be. Isn't that supposed to be on the list now?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
BFS GT X - Oct 12th

Rose - Beat IH, Orks, Eldar, Eldar, IH, IH
Hertel - Beat UM, Eldar, Necrons, Eldar, Eldar. Lost to IH
Harpster - Beat Guard, IH, UM, UM, IH. Lost to IH
Blakeborough - Beat Orks, WS, IH, Chaos, Eldar. Lost to....you guessed it...IH!

Need I go on?

This just shows that IH was played as a greater percentage of the meta. It says nothing about their placements outside of the top 10...

 Canadian 5th wrote:
This just shows that IH was played as a greater percentage of the meta. It says nothing about their placements outside of the top 10...

8 out of 104. A smaller percentage than the DE we're looking at.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8 out of 104. A smaller percentage than the DE we're looking at.

That's what that post was supposed to say?!? You're terrible at presenting data in a useful fashion.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
8 out of 104. A smaller percentage than the DE we're looking at.

That's what that post was supposed to say?!? You're terrible at presenting data in a useful fashion.

I admit you have me confused at the moment. Have I missed something?

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I admit you have me confused at the moment. Have I missed something?

I replied to a post focusing on the lower placed DE lists. I expected you to show that IH either didn't have any losing lists or had a skewed ratio. I expected this because DE play rate date is completely transparent as is the same data for IH play rates during their period of dominance. There's simply nothing to debate except for speculating on why a play rate might be rising or falling.

Better players will usually beat worse players, even if the worse players are using stupidly overpowered factions. Again, that doesn't mean a faction isn't busted.

DE aren't even a particularly skill dependent faction. They're not Harlequins or GSC, for example. The current dumb DE list that everyone iterates on is not one of the more complicated or difficult lists to run, I'm sure Lennon and Nanavati etc wouldn't contest that. It's not the most braindead list either, don't get me wrong, but it's not some amazing galaxy-brain-only thing. A moderately skilled player playing that DE list is going to crush the vast majority of other lists out there played by roughly equal skill level players.

It only makes sense to talk about balance when you're assuming both players are of roughly the same skill level, everyone recognizes that someone like Lennon is going to beat your average player no matter what list he takes and what list they take.

yukishiro1 wrote:

 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!"

All take your strawman and raise you and ad-hominem. Also cherry-picking might also beat the others out as well Basically any logical fallacy that lets people pretend they where right all along will be used in mass.

Fun fact guys I called the drukhari book weak when it was first revealed. It’s perfectly ok to change your mind when new evidence/ stats comes to your attention. You’re in no way less of human to do so.


As far as the discussion as a whole goes. I still don’t think drukhari are IHs bad due to having a higher skill floor (I.E one that exists) and there being more counter-play options against them. However, they clearly appear to be stronger than standard 8th Ynnari, which as pointed out is in of itself a major problem.

Even if we throw out sweeping the top 5 of a massive GT this week, they still won 3 of top 10 spots in last week’s biggest tournament (including first place) and have won tons of smaller events while keeping around a 70% win-rate in all of them. The only reason there is still discussion here is because some A) play drukahri and don’t want to see their army nerfed and/or b) don’t play the game enough for this issue to matter more to them than being right in an internet discussion. For those of us who have to face drukahri in locals/ at tournaments, then it’s pretty clear they’re a serious issue.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

One thing that really bugs me. Of all the DE lists only one indicated what the drugs were going to be. Isn't that supposed to be on the list now?

Yes.

Salt donkey wrote:
Fun fact guys I called the drukhari book weak when it was first revealed. It’s perfectly ok to change your mind when new evidence/ stats comes to your attention. You’re in no way less of human to do so.

What if you did call the book being too good from the start as some of us did? I was against changing lances to be D 3+d3 when it was a proposed rule. I was arguing that even Kabalite warriors were looking much improved as objective holders when all we saw was the change to attacks and armor.

I think that those of you who called this one wrong should enjoy other posters feeding you crow until he DE are nerfed.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I admit you have me confused at the moment. Have I missed something?

I replied to a post focusing on the lower placed DE lists. I expected you to show that IH either didn't have any losing lists or had a skewed ratio. I expected this because DE play rate date is completely transparent as is the same data for IH play rates during their period of dominance. There's simply nothing to debate except for speculating on why a play rate might be rising or falling.

Ok gotcha ill yank up the bottom tomorrow.

However, it does show IH operated at a potentially different level during that time where the top wasn't beholden to any other faction. The same cannot yet be said for DE.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

One thing that really bugs me. Of all the DE lists only one indicated what the drugs were going to be. Isn't that supposed to be on the list now?

Yes.

I feel list this could create list tailoring opportunities at the table.

Yuki saved me half an hour by making all my arguments for me. One other thing is that the AdMech dream boy seemed to have gone first in all the games he won according to some Redditor. It might have been down to luck that he did as well against DE as he did, but every AdMech list looks the same so if it's the list then AdMech vs DE WR should be great. It looks like it is sub 50%, it might briefly go above 50% because of dream boy, but it probably won't hold for the long term.

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

One thing that really bugs me. Of all the DE lists only one indicated what the drugs were going to be. Isn't that supposed to be on the list now?

Yes.

They might be rolling two drugs.

 vict0988 wrote:
Yuki saved me half an hour by making all my arguments for me. One other thing is that the AdMech dream boy seemed to have gone first in all the games he won according to some Redditor. It might have been down to luck that he did as well against DE as he did, but every AdMech list looks the same so if it's the list then AdMech vs DE WR should be great. It looks like it is sub 50%, it might briefly go above 50% because of dream boy, but it probably won't hold for the long term.

ccs wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

One thing that really bugs me. Of all the DE lists only one indicated what the drugs were going to be. Isn't that supposed to be on the list now?

Yes.

They might be rolling two drugs.

True, but do you really think tourney players (other than those running Orks & who remember the old days) are going to leave it to chance to get the perfect drug?
I don't.

ccs wrote:

True, but do you really think tourney players (other than those running Orks & who remember the old days) are going to leave it to chance to get the perfect drug?
I don't.

Yes. As you can re-roll doubles (unlike Sacred Rites or some such), there's no real risk and neither are there really terrible / super-situational options (again unlike Sacred Rites).

People have been going towards rolling for Exalted Daemons as well, which are also missing enough "bad" options to dis-incentivise just taking 100% more free upgrades for no added cost.

Rolling is definitely viable, it's all basically just gravy because you don't actually *need* any of it.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Better players will usually beat worse players, even if the worse players are using stupidly overpowered factions. Again, that doesn't mean a faction isn't busted.

DE aren't even a particularly skill dependent faction. They're not Harlequins or GSC, for example. The current dumb DE list that everyone iterates on is not one of the more complicated or difficult lists to run, I'm sure Lennon and Nanavati etc wouldn't contest that. It's not the most braindead list either, don't get me wrong, but it's not some amazing galaxy-brain-only thing. A moderately skilled player playing that DE list is going to crush the vast majority of other lists out there played by roughly equal skill level players.

It only makes sense to talk about balance when you're assuming both players are of roughly the same skill level, everyone recognizes that someone like Lennon is going to beat your average player no matter what list he takes and what list they take.

John Lenon submarined this event, he was the lowest scoring winner, so he managed to dodge alot of top players and list that could have beaten him.
For instance Nanavathi had 2 hard games, 1 close win vs sisters and one lose vs the admech. His last game was auto win, because he played on the pizza terrain and the opponent could not shoot his raiders who were in the middle.
I doubt any of them wanted to play vs Sean Nayden funky shooting list, that could have presented them with big challenge. I think Nayden managed to beat atlast 3 drukhari players.

What data is showing, is what exactly people said that you need stuff and plan to play vs drukhari.
The sister player that was playing on top tables included extra rhinos, Nayden input alot of CWE shooting, WS list with good shooting and alot of veterans, AM with alot of conscripts, GK have good matchup vs drukhari.

I think you are waiting for some super nerf that will fix all your problems, i expect that even after the nerfs that drukhari will be really good and you will still need to do something. You just cant autopilot list and expect GW to fix all your matchups.

psipso wrote:

Oh dear, this discussion makes me feel even worst for the poor overprized rhino. I wonder if at the moment has the honor to be the worst transport in the whole game.

I will remind the court that the Tyrannocyte exists and ONE DAY I will have it actually do *SOMETHING* to help me win the game!

 Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

psipso wrote:

Oh dear, this discussion makes me feel even worst for the poor overprized rhino. I wonder if at the moment has the honor to be the worst transport in the whole game.

I will remind the court that the Tyrannocyte exists and ONE DAY I will have it actually do *SOMETHING* to help me win the game!

You could always throw it at an opponent and scare him off the table to forfeit?

/S

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
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!"

We're hyper fixated on the top DE players.

Excluding mirrors -

DE #156 tied Orks and lost to DA
DE #150 lost to Sisters, BA, DA, and GK
DE #78 lost to DG, DG, and Guard.
DE #67 lost to RG, Necrons, and Guard ( but to be fair it was like 500 conscripts, literally... )
DE #61 lost to GK
DE #50 lost to WS, Custodes & Admech, and Sisters.

The GK player who got 22nd beat DE once ( 68 to 63 ) and never faced them again.
The GK player in 78th beat DE once ( 88 to 61 ) and never faced them again.

The Sisters in 10th player went 2-2 with DE --

88 to 57
65 to 69
50 to 90
92 to 63

So that's a 50% with a game that's extremely close against Nanavanti. The concept of "no bad matchups" doesn't seem to settle at ground level.

These discussions focus on the top because there we can expect good players to have played good players and it becomes less likely that skill was the deciding factor.
Skill still influences games and the lower in the standings you go the more skill differences will skew results and make any attempt at declaring army balance harder and harder.

Trying to say that DE has a bunch of bad matchups because 'lesser skilled' players lost against army X is incredibly disingenuous.

People also have to remember that not all units in the book are equal in their output so there are probably some DE players in there with atrocious/subpar lists. Add on top of that that not all players know their armies well.

On top of that not everyone has the money or the patience to buy and paint what is needed in top lists and instead just bring what they have. Which is why I think the problem areas are very specific and do not necessarily apply to the overall codex. This means that a lot of the non-hardcore Drukhari players will be performing worse.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Better players will usually beat worse players, even if the worse players are using stupidly overpowered factions. Again, that doesn't mean a faction isn't busted.

DE aren't even a particularly skill dependent faction. They're not Harlequins or GSC, for example. The current dumb DE list that everyone iterates on is not one of the more complicated or difficult lists to run, I'm sure Lennon and Nanavati etc wouldn't contest that. It's not the most braindead list either, don't get me wrong, but it's not some amazing galaxy-brain-only thing. A moderately skilled player playing that DE list is going to crush the vast majority of other lists out there played by roughly equal skill level players.

It only makes sense to talk about balance when you're assuming both players are of roughly the same skill level, everyone recognizes that someone like Lennon is going to beat your average player no matter what list he takes and what list they take.

This is pointlessly pedantic - but I'm not sure I'd totally agree with this.
I think the whole problem with DE is that they are *exactly* like Harlequins and GSC - its all about being fast and thereby maintaining board control and getting positive trades. Generally a good combo for scoring big/denying your opponent in 9th edition.
The difference I think is that GSC are mostly criminally overcosted - so crap, Harlequins were historically a bit undercosted (becoming diluted with codex creep), so excellent, and DE look incredibly undercosted - bringing more (damage, speed, resilience) for their points, so seemingly quite overpowered.

But you do have to play it right - utilising your speed, FLY on transports to dodge behind/ignore terrain and so on. (Obviously this is not a massive revelation, and its relatively easy to learn - but I don't think we are yet seeing threads to the tune of "I played someone with 80 kabalites and they demolished me, how come they can outshoot fire warriors and outpunch Orks? Nerf pls.")

For countering DE I guess the interesting question is whether you stack to try and blow up 4~ raiders in the first turn (preferably having won the rolloff - but they may be able to hide), or you go with some sort of depth to eat the charges. Preferably both. I think the cynical thing though is that even if DE weren't incredibly lethal, they'd still have an excellent objective game, and with enough terrain hiding small 5 man infantry squads all over the map is cheap.

Seems to me that each new book is vastly more powerful than the last. I remember SM complaints about heavy intercessors, then complaints about death guard, then dark angel deathwing, now dark eldar. The puppet strings are pretty visible at this point.

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Seems to me that each new book is vastly more powerful than the last. I remember SM complaints about heavy intercessors, then complaints about death guard, then dark angel deathwing, now dark eldar. The puppet strings are pretty visible at this point.

That's quite untrue and mostly depends on the fact that every time a new dex comes out someone screams "OP!!".

Truth is that right now SM, Necrons, DG BA, SW and DA have around an equal footing, with DA having a slight lead and IF being crap. Even DW which was considered very bad for a while is now rising again.
Barring DE there has been quite the good balance until now.

Also DE doesn't look 100% unbalanced. If you look at the OP lists they are very very similar to each other, meaning that there are a few outliers which can be safely hit to restore balance to that dex.

So, DE are far more broken than IH were (vastly more broken when you consider a big chunk of IH strenght came from broken pay to win FW crap, they were never that strong with Codex dreads the army was designed for) and yet a lot of people are coming up with excuses how this poor xeno army is weak or that incompetent DE player with bad army (who, funnily enough, placed far above where he should land) somehow "proves" DE are balanced.

It just shows what sane people had been saying all along, all the SM screeching had nothing to do with power level, just b-hurt the army dared to be OK for the first time in THREE editions and was no longer a whipping boy (and 95% of the problems were trivially fixed, banning FW junk and calling it a day). But to be honest, you could tell it already with Harlequins at the start of 9th, same excuses, same nonsense why the current strongest army in the game is 'weak' and SM need to be nerfed to zero because DW with their 30% winrate is clearly OP

Note, this is with rushed DE, both in terms of list optimization and actually buying and painting models to field them. The book is far stronger than even current above IH level shows - I can't wait for even more inane excuses in 6 months (unless some counter army comes out by then, then the usual clowns will pretend DE are totes OK even if they have 90% winrate against everyone else)...

Spoletta wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Seems to me that each new book is vastly more powerful than the last. I remember SM complaints about heavy intercessors, then complaints about death guard, then dark angel deathwing, now dark eldar. The puppet strings are pretty visible at this point.

That's quite untrue and mostly depends on the fact that every time a new dex comes out someone screams "OP!!".

Truth is that right now SM, Necrons, DG BA, SW and DA have around an equal footing, with DA having a slight lead and IF being crap. Even DW which was considered very bad for a while is now rising again.
Barring DE there has been quite the good balance until now.

Also DE doesn't look 100% unbalanced. If you look at the OP lists they are very very similar to each other, meaning that there are a few outliers which can be safely hit to restore balance to that dex.

Whic is the most frustrating thing in this debacle. A first fix is quite easy, just delete dark lotus toxin or rewrite it, do the same for compedge, change dark technomancers for liquifiers (make it +1 strengh on liquiefiers instead of what it does on other weapons), then just add 20 points to each raider (15 then 5 for a dark lance), then add 1 point to each wrack model, 1 point to whych models, 20 to succubus, 30 to drazhar, etc.

Then see what happens. It should not take GW more than a week to do this after the Dallas Drukhari Dominance Debacle (the "DDDD"). Not if they were even remotely serious in their attempts to balance games.

Lets also remind everyone that GW is not making much money out of this codex "OPness", as many kits are out of stock world wide, and have been for weeks.

Oh look who's talking, i hate everthing FW ibris.
Mind, none of the FW dreads were considered overpowered before SM2.0 and their great synergistic tie in allowed for an escalation in power, especially supplements but i am sure ibris gonna ibris and ignore that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 addnid wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Midnightdeathblade wrote:
Seems to me that each new book is vastly more powerful than the last. I remember SM complaints about heavy intercessors, then complaints about death guard, then dark angel deathwing, now dark eldar. The puppet strings are pretty visible at this point.

That's quite untrue and mostly depends on the fact that every time a new dex comes out someone screams "OP!!".

Truth is that right now SM, Necrons, DG BA, SW and DA have around an equal footing, with DA having a slight lead and IF being crap. Even DW which was considered very bad for a while is now rising again.
Barring DE there has been quite the good balance until now.

Also DE doesn't look 100% unbalanced. If you look at the OP lists they are very very similar to each other, meaning that there are a few outliers which can be safely hit to restore balance to that dex.

Whic is the most frustrating thing in this debacle. A first fix is quite easy, just delete dark lotus toxin or rewrite it, do the same for compedge, change dark technomancers for liquifiers (make it +1 strengh on liquiefiers instead of what it does on other weapons), then just add 20 points to each raider (15 then 5 for a dark lance), then add 1 point to each wrack model, 1 point to whych models, 20 to succubus, 30 to drazhar, etc.

Then see what happens. It should not take GW more than a week to do this after the Dallas Drukhari Dominance Debacle (the "DDDD")

Why? DDDD is a great sales advert for the competitive playerbase to buy into DE and their totaly not DLC rules sold separetely cut out of codex scheme.

DDDD will make the 3D printing people rich, more than it will make GW rich, at the current GW stock re-supply rate.

I don't know for sure but I'd wager some paying 3D printer "digital models" looking like wyches, incubi, etc. are being sold A LOT atm

Does someone really think that the DE fail is good for GW??

This is costing them money. Lots of it.

You know that GW loves? When she launches a new dex and it looks cool, fun and with lots of viable builds. This means that existing players of that factions expand their ranges, while other factions players get tempted into starting a side DE project which will grow in time.

This fail? This focused all the attention on half a dozen models which went immediately out of supply, and the DE fever induced by the dex is exploding in the secondary market instead of bringing money to the company.

I'm quite sure that they would have already acted if only preparing a nerf didn't take at the very least one month of internal procedures due to all the sale and production impacts it entails.