Drukhari Tier Predictions

GET HYPE, watch at 1.5x speed
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/980834886

Agree, disagree? let's hear it

That  was an interesting watch

I don't know enough about the faction yet to really judge it's accuracy but one take away for me is that I probably undervalue poison weapons, I have this distrust of AP0 weapons...

I don't have the time right now to watch it end to end but skimmed through and looks like great content and a fantastic break down of the current meta. This is on my weekend watch list

Will try to check it out later. I believe the Drukhari match for Art of War is tonight, that is my priority

fisheyes wrote:

Will try to check it out later. I believe the Drukhari match for Art of War is tonight, that is my priority

4/15 @ 1pm is the DE one.

I mostly agree with everything you said, now that I've seen the video.

We feel heavily specialized but at the same time we have ways to deal with everything. We don't have flashy units or stratagems that scream "broken", but pointswise, our units are really cheap for what they can do. Of course we need the protection of the Raider, but it is also really cheap. The army feels like it should when you play it, it's an absolute home run of a book.

Maybe we need a few point adjustements (we are really, really efficient) and FAQs (those Succs) here and there, but I also agree that full shooty armies like AdMech, Guard or Tau (when their Codexes) can just oneshot our transports and just destroy our gameplan before we can charge. We also need to see how we fare VS 9th edition pure assault armies, like Cults or Orks.

I like the way GW built our army, as I already played it as an assault force before, with less success.

Denegaar wrote:

I mostly agree with everything you said, now that I've seen the video.

We feel heavily specialized but at the same time we have ways to deal with everything. We don't have flashy units or stratagems that scream "broken", but pointswise, our units are really cheap for what they can do. Of course we need the protection of the Raider, but it is also really cheap. The army feels like it should when you play it, it's an absolute home run of a book.

Maybe we need a few point adjustements (we are really, really efficient) and FAQs (those Succs) here and there, but I also agree that full shooty armies like AdMech, Guard or Tau (when their Codexes) can just oneshot our transports and just destroy our gameplan before we can charge. We also need to see how we fare VS 9th edition pure assault armies, like Cults or Orks.

I like the way GW built our army, as I already played it as an assault force before, with less success.

I don't think points adjustments will be made. Our efficiency is is strictly determined by the skill of the pilot of the army due to its glasscannon nature.

The most important aspect of any tier analysis is: If we have the tools of the job? If this answers yes in multiple categories, then we're in good shape.

HERO wrote:

Denegaar wrote:

I mostly agree with everything you said, now that I've seen the video.

We feel heavily specialized but at the same time we have ways to deal with everything. We don't have flashy units or stratagems that scream "broken", but pointswise, our units are really cheap for what they can do. Of course we need the protection of the Raider, but it is also really cheap. The army feels like it should when you play it, it's an absolute home run of a book.

Maybe we need a few point adjustements (we are really, really efficient) and FAQs (those Succs) here and there, but I also agree that full shooty armies like AdMech, Guard or Tau (when their Codexes) can just oneshot our transports and just destroy our gameplan before we can charge. We also need to see how we fare VS 9th edition pure assault armies, like Cults or Orks.

I like the way GW built our army, as I already played it as an assault force before, with less success.

I don't think points adjustments will be made. Our efficiency is is strictly determined by the skill of the pilot of the army due to its glasscannon nature.

Well, you actually need skill for LOSING with this Codex so....yes, I hope there will be some tweaks in points, because right now we're simply broken.

No, I think the skill needed for this codex is the standard Drukhari player's skill. Maybe a SM player who switch on DE would need few time for mastering it, but for a standard DE player, being able to hide on blos and move/engage with all of your threats is just the standard.

Or I am a super pro player, which definitely I am not, or this Codex is just broken. But not in a matter of combo or choices. It's a matter of points, as I said in the other post, we can put too many dangerous threats on 2000 points.

No offense intended here, Cerve, but you have been more than slightly over-positive about the state of Drukhari for several years now.

It may well be that we see nerfs eventually (our 8th book certainly did!) but I think we need to see how 9th progresses a bit first; I currently think we're top tier but that's because we're one of the first factions to receive a Codex and we're very strong against the current meta armies. I've already had a rough time with the new book against some very off-meta lists which makes me think we could easily struggle versus some upcoming Codexes.

I wouldn't call us broken. In fact, I haven't heard anyone who play the army or have frequently done well in gts call us broken. The only thing that straddles that somewhat is the ce razorflail 60 pt succy that is faq bait.

@HERO - having just watched your tier video, you call out Orks as being a sleeper army that could give us difficulties. They're exactly the faction that was giving me a very hard time, it felt extremely difficult to deal with the sheer number of models they can bring while weathering their own offense. Certainly might have been a case of me needing to bring more Wyches but I think they're an opponent army to be mindful of.

Burnage wrote:

No offense intended here, Cerve, but you have been more than slightly over-positive about the state of Drukhari for several years now.

It may well be that we see nerfs eventually (our 8th book certainly did!) but I think we need to see how 9th progresses a bit first; I currently think we're top tier but that's because we're one of the first factions to receive a Codex and we're very strong against the current meta armies. I've already had a rough time with the new book against some very off-meta lists which makes me think we could easily struggle versus some upcoming Codexes.

If "forcing my opponents to concede betweent turn 2 and 3" means "being strong in the meta", it is an awful game then.

And right now this is a blame, it's not being "over-positive", is being "over-negative"! I don't want a Codex so strong.
Find to me 1 battle report were Drukhari loss.

I don't know guys, if for you an Incubi at 16 ppm is fine, if Hellions at 17 are ok while Reavers (which are basically the same body) are 20, it's ok for me. If having 4-5+ different chances to force a fight-last in the same list where EVERY other Codex has just 1, in 9th which is all about melee, it's fine...well....it's ok.

I don't wanna sounds harsh, but Jeez, I'm actually losing hope about the medium skill level of this forum. Guess I'm the only one who consider that winning-with-few-efforts 1717 vs 2000 betweent two of the best players in the world is just silly.

We will see...honestly? Being a Drukhari now feels like being an IH before nerfs on 8th, for me

PS: anyway, in the competitive scene, all are struggling against DE. Just saying. I'm curious about the first Faqs.
PPS: I already destroy Orks, it was the easiest match ever. 100+ models, turn 3 there were none. No, we are amazing against both elites and hordes army.
Maybe....the secret it's just "be aggressive". Usually I overwhelm my oppontent, engaging with everything, even with Raiders, killing some stuff and denying any answer from him. That's why I don't feel fragile at all: he can't answer to our assault. Just too many threats, too many. I can figure out some more scary players that prefer to wait and shoot having more difficulties (like, the Venom spam road or the monoKabal road are not my cup of tea nor the best way to play this Codex in my opinion), but if you just spam Raiders, Wyches, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi and powerhouse HQs you're fine. Hide behind Obscuring, give some bait against melee armies or just go straight foward and multiengage everything. That's it, gg. Your guys are going to kill everything, and your Raiders are going to block in melee every other enemy answer. On his turn, the opponent will never recover from the hit. Then repeat.

Burnage wrote:

@HERO - having just watched your tier video, you call out Orks as being a sleeper army that could give us difficulties. They're exactly the faction that was giving me a very hard time, it felt extremely difficult to deal with the sheer number of models they can bring while weathering their own offense. Certainly might have been a case of me needing to bring more Wyches but I think they're an opponent army to be mindful of.

Yeah, there's a couple of armies that might suck against others but are quite good against us.

Orks, Tau, IG, AdMech, are the ones that stand out to me.

In short, any list with: A lot of mediocre, medium strength shooting with plentiful ablative wounds (bodies or otherwise).

Cerve wrote:

Burnage wrote:

No offense intended here, Cerve, but you have been more than slightly over-positive about the state of Drukhari for several years now.

It may well be that we see nerfs eventually (our 8th book certainly did!) but I think we need to see how 9th progresses a bit first; I currently think we're top tier but that's because we're one of the first factions to receive a Codex and we're very strong against the current meta armies. I've already had a rough time with the new book against some very off-meta lists which makes me think we could easily struggle versus some upcoming Codexes.

If "forcing my opponents to concede betweent turn 2 and 3" means "being strong in the meta", it is an awful game then.

And right now this is a blame, it's not being "over-positive", is being "over-negative"! I don't want a Codex so strong.
Find to me 1 battle report were Drukhari loss.

I don't know guys, if for you an Incubi at 16 ppm is fine, if Hellions at 17 are ok while Reavers (which are basically the same body) are 20, it's ok for me. If having 4-5+ different chances to force a fight-last in the same list where EVERY other Codex has just 1, in 9th which is all about melee, it's fine...well....it's ok.

I don't wanna sounds harsh, but Jeez, I'm actually losing hope about the medium skill level of this forum. Guess I'm the only one who consider that winning-with-few-efforts 1717 vs 2000 betweent two of the best players in the world is just silly.

We will see...honestly? Being a Drukhari now feels like being an IH before nerfs on 8th, for me

PS: anyway, in the competitive scene, all are struggling against DE. Just saying. I'm curious about the first Faqs.
PPS: I already destroy Orks, it was the easiest match ever. 100+ models, turn 3 there were none. No, we are amazing against both elites and hordes army.
Maybe....the secret it's just "be aggressive". Usually I overwhelm my oppontent, engaging with everything, even with Raiders, killing some stuff and denying any answer from him. That's why I don't feel fragile at all: he can't answer to our assault. Just too many threats, too many. I can figure out some more scary players that prefer to wait and shoot having more difficulties (like, the Venom spam road or the monoKabal road are not my cup of tea nor the best way to play this Codex in my opinion), but if you just spam Raiders, Wyches, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi and powerhouse HQs you're fine. Hide behind Obscuring, give some bait against melee armies or just go straight foward and multiengage everything. That's it, gg. Your guys are going to kill everything, and your Raiders are going to block in melee every other enemy answer. On his turn, the opponent will never recover from the hit. Then repeat.

You know, like I said in the video, did you watch?

We're going to make a huge splash. People are going to have to adapt to us or die miserably. This means more effective screening, less aggressive deployment, taking more mediocre units to down our transports, different target prioritization, the list goes on and on.

Only the best players adapt quickly to a new book, I haven't met a lot of those, which is why the bulk of casual RTTs suffer against the new "hotness" time and time again. I don't take any of those BRs to heart, a lot of players are still trying to figure crap out for the most part.

However, if people think they can continue to take the same crap and be successful with DE now back in the meta, then they're bound to be disappointed and lose. Our defensiveness actually went down, however, our offensive capabilities have skyrocketed. Other players need to prepare or lose, simple as that.

For example, I literally do not care about the Death Guard list loaded with expensive terminators and Morty (or vehicle-heavy like the last tabletop tactics vid lmao). Literally give zero fs. However, I do care about the large lists of poxwalkers and regular plague marines playing MSU.

It so happens to be that people need to adjust and rewrite some of their lists. Like I mentioned in my video, not only are there going to be armies that are considered good against us, sleeper ones mentioned above, but every single army out there is bound to have some anti-DE tech. It's on those players, on their forums, to find them. I'm sure good players exist for those armies out there and do vids like me explaining what's going to be a cost-effective solution vs. XYZ-DE.

Cerve wrote:

Burnage wrote:

No offense intended here, Cerve, but you have been more than slightly over-positive about the state of Drukhari for several years now.

It may well be that we see nerfs eventually (our 8th book certainly did!) but I think we need to see how 9th progresses a bit first; I currently think we're top tier but that's because we're one of the first factions to receive a Codex and we're very strong against the current meta armies. I've already had a rough time with the new book against some very off-meta lists which makes me think we could easily struggle versus some upcoming Codexes.

If "forcing my opponents to concede betweent turn 2 and 3" means "being strong in the meta", it is an awful game then.

And right now this is a blame, it's not being "over-positive", is being "over-negative"! I don't want a Codex so strong.
Find to me 1 battle report were Drukhari loss.

I don't know guys, if for you an Incubi at 16 ppm is fine, if Hellions at 17 are ok while Reavers (which are basically the same body) are 20, it's ok for me. If having 4-5+ different chances to force a fight-last in the same list where EVERY other Codex has just 1, in 9th which is all about melee, it's fine...well....it's ok.

I don't wanna sounds harsh, but Jeez, I'm actually losing hope about the medium skill level of this forum. Guess I'm the only one who consider that winning-with-few-efforts 1717 vs 2000 betweent two of the best players in the world is just silly.

We will see...honestly? Being a Drukhari now feels like being an IH before nerfs on 8th, for me

PS: anyway, in the competitive scene, all are struggling against DE. Just saying. I'm curious about the first Faqs.
PPS: I already destroy Orks, it was the easiest match ever. 100+ models, turn 3 there were none. No, we are amazing against both elites and hordes army.
Maybe....the secret it's just "be aggressive". Usually I overwhelm my oppontent, engaging with everything, even with Raiders, killing some stuff and denying any answer from him. That's why I don't feel fragile at all: he can't answer to our assault. Just too many threats, too many. I can figure out some more scary players that prefer to wait and shoot having more difficulties (like, the Venom spam road or the monoKabal road are not my cup of tea nor the best way to play this Codex in my opinion), but if you just spam Raiders, Wyches, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi and powerhouse HQs you're fine. Hide behind Obscuring, give some bait against melee armies or just go straight foward and multiengage everything. That's it, gg. Your guys are going to kill everything, and your Raiders are going to block in melee every other enemy answer. On his turn, the opponent will never recover from the hit. Then repeat.

Spoken like a true kin.
Arrogant. Self indulging. Monologues.

Don't get me wrong, you might be right, but that was unnecessary.

What about those that have Kabals and no Cults because they were garbage?

What does one do that only has Kabals, Grotesques, Haemonculi?

I've mostly played Chaos and while the list I currently run would struggle against Drukhari I don't think it would be difficult at all to tailor a list to beat them. The tricky part will be not to sacrifice the other matchups doing so.

For what it is worth, Ive only won 1 of 4 games so far, and it was by litterally 1 VP (82 to 81).

We are still a very skill-based army, and I imagine most "average" players to have a sub-50% win rate when going against a similar player.

Something to note: due to how weak we have been historically, many DE players have developed actual game skill to make up for the lack of punch in their army. This built-in-skill could help push us to do slightly better than the average Timmy who picks up Death Guard.

CptMetal wrote:

Cerve wrote:

Burnage wrote:

No offense intended here, Cerve, but you have been more than slightly over-positive about the state of Drukhari for several years now.

It may well be that we see nerfs eventually (our 8th book certainly did!) but I think we need to see how 9th progresses a bit first; I currently think we're top tier but that's because we're one of the first factions to receive a Codex and we're very strong against the current meta armies. I've already had a rough time with the new book against some very off-meta lists which makes me think we could easily struggle versus some upcoming Codexes.

If "forcing my opponents to concede betweent turn 2 and 3" means "being strong in the meta", it is an awful game then.

And right now this is a blame, it's not being "over-positive", is being "over-negative"! I don't want a Codex so strong.
Find to me 1 battle report were Drukhari loss.

I don't know guys, if for you an Incubi at 16 ppm is fine, if Hellions at 17 are ok while Reavers (which are basically the same body) are 20, it's ok for me. If having 4-5+ different chances to force a fight-last in the same list where EVERY other Codex has just 1, in 9th which is all about melee, it's fine...well....it's ok.

I don't wanna sounds harsh, but Jeez, I'm actually losing hope about the medium skill level of this forum. Guess I'm the only one who consider that winning-with-few-efforts 1717 vs 2000 betweent two of the best players in the world is just silly.

We will see...honestly? Being a Drukhari now feels like being an IH before nerfs on 8th, for me

PS: anyway, in the competitive scene, all are struggling against DE. Just saying. I'm curious about the first Faqs.
PPS: I already destroy Orks, it was the easiest match ever. 100+ models, turn 3 there were none. No, we are amazing against both elites and hordes army.
Maybe....the secret it's just "be aggressive". Usually I overwhelm my oppontent, engaging with everything, even with Raiders, killing some stuff and denying any answer from him. That's why I don't feel fragile at all: he can't answer to our assault. Just too many threats, too many. I can figure out some more scary players that prefer to wait and shoot having more difficulties (like, the Venom spam road or the monoKabal road are not my cup of tea nor the best way to play this Codex in my opinion), but if you just spam Raiders, Wyches, Hellions, Reavers, Incubi and powerhouse HQs you're fine. Hide behind Obscuring, give some bait against melee armies or just go straight foward and multiengage everything. That's it, gg. Your guys are going to kill everything, and your Raiders are going to block in melee every other enemy answer. On his turn, the opponent will never recover from the hit. Then repeat.

Spoken like a true kin.
Arrogant. Self indulging. Monologues.

Don't get me wrong, you might be right, but that was unnecessary.

What about those that have Kabals and no Cults because they were garbage?

What does one do that only has Kabals, Grotesques, Haemonculi?

Uhm...so? It's their choice, it's not a bug of the game or the Codex. I don't get it.
(You can run over them even with Kabal+Mercs, or mono-Coven, not such an issue on that anyway).


Anyway, guys, I'm not saying that with pride. I'm aware about our strongness! I DON'T WANNA be so good. I wanna play a game like chess, not like Johnny (Timmy plays DeathGuard) who played IH in 8th before the nerfs.
I'm not enjoying what I'm saying lol. It's not an healthly scenario. Just don't get me wrong.


If time will show me that I'm wrong, I will feast and enjoy that day! I hope it's only a matter of opponents that needs to learn about playing against us, and nothing else.

Cerve wrote:

...

I don't see the problem. Run some beasts, run Flayed Skull, a custom cult or some other sub-optimal builds which aren't close contenders for our top-picks.

The meta will catch up to us as it always does. We have no clue what we will be seeing from Tau, Knights, Orcs or Sisters. They all have the potential to counter us hardcore.

Just think of Disintegrators at the start of 8th. They were clearly undercosted and a powerful counter to many lists, but as 8th progressed we became more reliant on them until they were hardly worth it anymore. The same might happen with our strong options right now.

It's way too early to make any tier predictions.

The Strange Dark One wrote:

It's way too early to make any tier predictions.

OK, I'm going to go off a bit, but this is not targeted specifically at you Dark One, as a person.

Have you watched the video, or just commented in the thread?

If you watched the video, I'd like for you to make some arguments on why you feel we're not going to be tread-setters and be the current movers-shakers of the meta.

I'm going to pick on something you said that has bothered me for a long time, being a former pro-gamer and competitive player in RTS games for as long as its been a genre.

The notion of: "It's too early" is the general excuse of the inexperienced, unintelligent and weak-minded. Players who have wisdom accumulated in the game, have played competitively and have actively pursue their desire to win with practice games, list building and active discussions are always going to be in stronger positions to make judgement calls than casual players. This is true in any sport, not even eSports, but all competitive games. Those who are more practiced, experienced and well-trained will always be, for the lack of a better word, better than those who play casually. This is not some elitist ideology or movie fantasy, it's the truth and we have hundreds of years of experience, collectively as a human species to prove it.

This is the same reason why player houses for eSports teams i.e. SK, EG, TSM, or any pro team that have players actively living together, eating together, thinking together, collaborating, discussing strats will always be better than some rando sitting in their mom's basement. This is also why the Art of War guys, who are desperately trying to make 40K a real eSport per se, are going to be dominant in the tournament scene. Not saying that they're always going to win, but why we're going to see the same guys in the top tables time and time again. They've literally turned into a player house.

With that context aside, when you say "it's too early", what do you mean by this exactly? Is it early enough for us to see that monstermash and vehicle-heavy lists are being exposed to poison and lances again? When was it that poison was meta-relevant? When was it that lances got improved? What about points effectiveness in the book? This just become a math equation for how much damage we can do against X target with Y points. Do you see other armies having similar traits? What about Sisters, who are universally compared to as a the best army of 9th? The point you made about the factions looking into their toolbox to face the new DE threat? Well, good thing I mentioned it in the video. There's going to be sleepers, there's going to be natural counters, there's going to be changes to the meta, which validates what I'm saying.

When you start thinking deeply into these questions, most of which can be analyzed by 40kstats center or another resource so you can extract common cases, and have excellent resources like Goonhammer to analyze it for you, AND you have experienced DE players who's been in the army for 20 years i.e. me, you can start to build a clear picture of what you THINK will happen. Predictions are literally for the THINKING man, that's all it is. You have data, trends, some anecdotes, but wisdom from players around the world who are in the tournament scene, who tell you why they think DE will fare well in the meta, you should listen. It is literally the same exercise as making predictions on stocks, the weather, this frak virus, who's going to win the Super Bowl, what's selling hot on Amazon..etc.

Lastly, and I see this in the FB thread as well, but a lot of people are confusing Tier with placement. What I mean by this is that you can be a crap pilot of a top tier army. The two are not interchangeable and one clearly focuses on individual player skill. How you individually perform with an army does not tell me if the army itself, is in position to be effective against big lists in the meta or if we have all the tools for the job. A lot of people think it does, but it doesn't. A good pilot of a crap army does not make the army good. Likewise, a bad pilot of a good army does not make the army bad. The only difference, with DE in mind specifically, is that because of the skillcap of the army, this calibration swings rather wildly.

I had something for Cerve but I completely forgot, I'll just leave you guys with this (spoilers: 2 DE in top5, taking 1st out of 79):
https://www.40kstats.com/ratcon2021

I will be following the meta closely for the next couple of months. I have made my predictions quite public, quite loudly, but hey, you don't need to listen to me. Let's just continue to monitor tournament results, data and rely on the wisdom from GT-level DE players from around the world over time to confirm what I've predicted.

I don't want to put words into the Strange Dark One's mouth but I'd suspect the reason he feels it's too early to be making predictions is that we're only the 4th full 9e codex to be released, alongside 4 SM supplements. The meta now will not be the meta after another 4 codexes, so predictions are only of limited use.

Count Adhemar wrote:

I don't want to put words into the Strange Dark One's mouth but I'd suspect the reason he feels it's too early to be making predictions is that we're only the 4th full 9e codex to be released, alongside 4 SM supplements. The meta now will not be the meta after another 4 codexes, so predictions are only of limited use.

Sure, I'll play. When is it appropriate to make predictions on an always moving meta with a blend of 8th and 9th books?

HERO wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

I don't want to put words into the Strange Dark One's mouth but I'd suspect the reason he feels it's too early to be making predictions is that we're only the 4th full 9e codex to be released, alongside 4 SM supplements. The meta now will not be the meta after another 4 codexes, so predictions are only of limited use.

Sure, I'll play. When is it appropriate to make predictions on an always moving meta with a blend of 8th and 9th books?

I think you've answered your own question, or at least shown the limited usefulness of predictions in such an environment.

Count Adhemar wrote:

HERO wrote:

Count Adhemar wrote:

I don't want to put words into the Strange Dark One's mouth but I'd suspect the reason he feels it's too early to be making predictions is that we're only the 4th full 9e codex to be released, alongside 4 SM supplements. The meta now will not be the meta after another 4 codexes, so predictions are only of limited use.

Sure, I'll play. When is it appropriate to make predictions on an always moving meta with a blend of 8th and 9th books?

I think you've answered your own question, or at least shown the limited usefulness of predictions in such an environment.

On the contrary, I'm arguing the opposite. That's like saying stocks, the weather, or medicine trend analysis is useless What about football, do you watch sportscenter or anything that talks about games/cups predictions? Why is the logic different in this case?

I mean, I see your argument and acknowledge your position, I just think its a really weak one, and rather unwinnable. To say predictions are limited in usefulness is to stick your head in the sand and pretend the modern world doesn't exist.

Case in point, see my earlier post and the tournament results that came out of last weekend. Let's up the stakes a bit here. If we're to set success criteria for let's say, when HERO predicted correctly about our Tier, let's set a line for how many and by when. That'll be fun

HERO wrote:

The Strange Dark One wrote:

It's way too early to make any tier predictions.

OK, I'm going to go off a bit, but this is not targeted specifically at you Dark One, as a person.

Have you watched the video, or just commented in the thread?

I did watch it, I just had a poor choice of words and most of it was directed towards Cerve.
Indeed, Count Adhemar put it the right way: It's a little too early now.

Our codex is the first one that doesn't fit the durable archetype that Marines, Necrons and Death Guard fall into and we brought a completely new dynamic to the table. I suspect that the same will happen with dexes such as Sisters, Tau, Knights and Genestealers.

I'm not completely sold on what he said, but he has reasonable points. Not sure I'm so sold on his take on the Court, but hey, time will tell.

Of course we have shaken the meta, every codex so far has, no big surprise here.

HERO wrote:

I'm going to pick on something you said that has bothered me for a long time, being a former pro-gamer and competitive player in RTS games for as long as its been a genre.

The notion of: "It's too early" is the general excuse of the inexperienced, unintelligent and weak-minded. Players who have wisdom accumulated in the game, have played competitively and have actively pursue their desire to win with practice games, list building and active discussions are always going to be in stronger positions to make judgement calls than casual players. This is true in any sport, not even eSports, but all competitive games. Those who are more practiced, experienced and well-trained will always be, for the lack of a better word, better than those who play casually. This is not some elitist ideology or movie fantasy, it's the truth and we have hundreds of years of experience, collectively as a human species to prove it.

And I've been designing RTS games for 7 years
I dare say your statement towards "it's too early" are "a little bolt" to say the least

In a typical RTS game all factions start with equal footing and you know all core mechanics of the factions but In 40k we don't. In fact, the singular biggest issue why 40k is so difficult to balance is because factions change all the time, sometimes drastically.

Balancing is an iterative process, where you use each iteration to refine status-quo and try out some changes to the best of your knowledge (and sometimes to experiment a little). But it's impossible to do polishing if you constantly create new content. It gets even worse by the fact that old factions are only revisited in new editions.

Thankfully GW addressed this by designing all codices at once when they made 9th edition. And adjusting point changes to polish balance has helped a lot as well, good move on GW's part (frankly, the best move would be to make all rules available online and turn it into a living ruleset, but that is more difficult to monetize). But that doesn't change the fact that each new codex is a breaking change to the current meta.

It could be that T3 armies are becoming so powerful that the meta shifts into the kind of small firearms spam that will nuke us badly. Or maybe Knights become scary to the degree that everybody needs a hardcounter to them, potentially leading us to become even better in the process.

Unless you got a crystal ball, I don't believe that anybody can make a reasonable prediction how the meta will be 5 codices from now (except maybe the people who know all codices). Looking at status-quo isn't that hard. But status quo in 40k isn't very long lived which makes statements about status-quo difficult to quantify as it has little time to settle.

Even at that, people get better with existing mechanics and polishing existing mechanics can turn into overpowered combinations later one when the meta has matured. After 10 years of Starcraft 2 they nerfed creep because Zerg players have gotten just that good at spreading it. Large creep coverage wasn't a thing when the game released.

HERO wrote:

With that context aside, when you say "it's too early", what do you mean by this exactly? Is it early enough for us to see that monstermash and vehicle-heavy lists are being exposed to poison and lances again? When was it that poison was meta-relevant? When was it that lances got improved? What about points effectiveness in the book? This just become a math equation for how much damage we can do against X target with Y points. Do you see other armies having similar traits? What about Sisters, who are universally compared to as a the best army of 9th? The point you made about the factions looking into their toolbox to face the new DE threat? Well, good thing I mentioned it in the video. There's going to be sleepers, there's going to be natural counters, there's going to be changes to the meta, which validates what I'm saying.

Sorry, but now it's my time to say that this is naive. Quantifying the strength of units in effectiveness is a good start, but it's severely lacking. You can numerically compare units in terms of points cost, firepower and durability but it gets exceedingly difficult to factor in range, speed, synergy and other support. Now also consider all faction traits, stratagems, warlord traits.

And all it takes are a couple broken mechanics to entirely transform a meta. If a game is out of balance, it goes ham pretty fast.

9th edition has set a good foundation because it added more constraints (such as the Core keyword, limitation to souping, a cap on hit modifiers etc.) but all the work that you can't solve numerically you must find out with playtesting. Obviously GW has done this extensively and I'm sure they didn't do a bad job. But we don't have that information and can only make educated guesses. Which is really just guessing.

Indeed, my educated guess is that we will do well which is a shared sentiment apparently. But it's also just a guess as well.