Support of a DE theorem (so to speak)...

http://theback40k.blogspot.com/2011/09/army-performance-at-nova.html#more


So, from (nearly) the release of the codex on, I have been of the opine (which I have shared) that DE are competitive...but at the bottom end of the competitive curve.

Looking at the data sort from NOVA, I think this bears out.

My posit is simple;
given equal player skill&list builds, balanced scenarios and standardized (not quarter/half of table weighted) terrain a DE player must contend with a few too many 'missing' elements (no reserve manipulation, no true p-defense, little FOC manipulation and no 'weighty' vehicles) from modern codex trends to be able to manipulate the environment they play in...and given all these things equally weighted, a DE player takes a far greater hit to the 'nads when initiative is seized on them (arguably, they lose upon being seized...barring bad rolls on their opponent's side of the table).

Interesting stuff. But there really is a small margin of difference between upper top tier and lower top tier and I think we'll agree that DE are not for the faint of heart. They are and I think always have been more of a finesse army. An army to challenge experienced players. Thats how I always envisioned it anyways and one of the things I liked about it.

Warmonger wrote:

DE are not for the faint of heart. They are and I think always have been more of a finesse army. An army to challenge experienced players. Thats how I always envisioned it anyways and one of the things I liked about it.

QFT!

I have heard too many people (on the receiving end of a good DE game) say they're just another example of 'codex creep'...
I just point at the consistently high performance of SW, and IG...and low performance of 'Nidz...and I kinda haveta laugh!