40k Woes

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.

**Akiasura**

Really Salous?

Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.

For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.

For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.

The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?

Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).

**Salous**

Akiasura wrote:
Really Salous?

Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.

For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.

For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.

The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?

Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).

Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.

**Vaktathi**

Salous wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Really Salous?

Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.

For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.

For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.

The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?

Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).

Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.

I mean, if you're not going to address any arguments or provide counter-examples, you can make whatever statements you want and accuse people of all sorts of things. Doesn't make it true.

Likewise, for all the "L2P" we've seen thrown around, I've yet to see someone suggest what people are doing wrong or some new inherent weakness in many of these power lists that people are apparently missing...

**Akiasura**

Salous wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Really Salous?

Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.

For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.

For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.

The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?

Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).

Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.

You might want to try addressing a single point instead of making generalizations about someone you don't know personally.
But I doubt you'll try it.

**krodarklorr**

Salous wrote:
Akiasura wrote:
Really Salous?

Some models are extremely op in this game, to the point where playing them becomes the only option in a competitive environment. This is true for most of the factions in the game, but especially the stronger ones.

For many of these armies, their strongest units include newer models (lately) or formations that require an odd spamming of units. The best marine formation requires more transports than even 5th edition used. The best unit is the centurion.

For eldar, Wraithguard, Scatbikes, and the LoW model are all extremely strong. Wraithguard had a brief time where they were good, but scat bikes and the LoW are very new.

The list building trumps everything else in this game. A new player that buys an optimized list will destroy a player who is using a bad codex. Go to the tactics forum. It's rare to see discussions that revolve around how to correctly implement a strategy. The more common suggestions are "that unit is crap, buy this unit instead". How is that not pay to win?

Even casual games require a "pay to play" mentality. If me and my opponent want to sit down and design lists together to ensure a fun game, we both need a relatively large model collection to do so. Even worse, the bigger the disparity in the powers of our codexes played in the meta, the larger our model collections need to be to play a game with everyone (assuming most players own the models that have been good for a while, and not the ones that are traditionally bad).

Think you're a bit out of touch with the majority of 40k players. Might wanna spend less time on the forums discussing "meta" and more time playing the game. You might be able to see your errors. Then again, I doubt you would admit it.

Yes, it is his error that the game is imbalanced. Darn him! It's his error to not play the flavor of the month OP codex. Sound logic. And why is it wrong to discuss on a forum? I'm at work right now, unable to play the game, but it's nice to discuss these things with fellow forum-goers.

Look, if you're a new player and have been doing well, that's fine. Again, all depends on the army you choose, nowadays.

**Lobokai**

I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...

almost 70% giving it a 6 or higher.... not too shabby

**Vaktathi**

Lobukia wrote:
I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...

Methnks you're vastly over-esitmating the number of "bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago""...

almost 70% giving it a 6 or higher.... not too shabby

Lets keep in mind that this is hardly a well defined poll, and is probably the most optimistic poll I've seen on Dakka, well, ever.

**Yoyoyo**

40k is a fun game, if you're playing with the right people.

It's also fun to complain on the internet, so either way, it's a win-win situation.

**Psienesis**

I must say, at the time of this post, 46% of people gave it a 6 or lower, given the number of wide-eyed neophytes new to wargaming who've never played another game that still feel the need to post even though they "just started playing", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...

Nearly a quarter of respondents rating it "below average" to "worse than 4 Hitlers"... GW must be the only business that relies on churn.

**Crimson Devil**

Vaktathi wrote:
Lobukia wrote:
I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
Methnks you're vastly over-esitmating the number of "bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago""...

For some people, anything short of unconditional love is equal to hate.

**LordSolar**

I would heartily recommend playing some fun stuff from back when GW would put awesome stuff in the White Dwarfs.

Me and a mate of mine recently played the old version of kill team, with klaxon counters and goon squads. By far the best hour we have had playing a 40k game in a long time

**MarsNZ**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Lobukia wrote:
I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...
Methnks you're vastly over-esitmating the number of "bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago""...

For some people, anything short of unconditional love is equal to hate.

At the same time many people will dub anyone who doesn't vehemently hate GW as apologists and fanboys.

**Crimson Devil**

Interesting, with our statements combined it is implied the Black Knights out number the White Knights. I wonder if that is true.

Both sides share the same goal, the destruction of the GW fanbase. One side demands purity and loyalty to GW, so only the faithful remain. And the other quixotically preaches enlightenment to the heathens.

**jonolikespie**

Lobukia wrote:
I must say, at the time of this post, 56% of people gave it a 7 or higher, given the number of trolling bitter Betties that still feel the need to post even though they "quit years ago", that's a pretty solid number for DakkaDakka...

almost 70% giving it a 6 or higher.... not too shabby

I can't help but wonder how different that poll would be if asked in Dakka Discussions not 40k General.

Methinks you might find just a teeeeeeny bit more bias down here in the 40k forums.

**Makumba**

50% or more play marines and marine got a good codex in 7th and had an ok codex until they got the new one. IMO it is natural that at least 50% find the edition more then good. It is geared for grav bikers, drop pods, small msu units that are resilient etc. The same question asked on an IG forum would probably be closer then 5.

**krodarklorr**

Makumba wrote:
50% or more play marines and marine got a good codex in 7th and had an ok codex until they got the new one. IMO it is natural that at least 50% find the edition more then good. It is geared for grav bikers, drop pods, small msu units that are resilient etc. The same question asked on an IG forum would probably be closer then 5.

You forgot that a huge portion of people play Eldar, who are killing it right now. So yeah, it may be a little biased.

**SDFarsight**

Comparing it to the 40K of around 4th-5th edition, I gave it a 7 or in other words it’s got a lot of great things in it but it could do better:

Pros:
Games Workshop has done a good job of keeping 40K and general wargaming in the mainstream.
The new models and fluff is interesting- not necessarily balanced, but interesting. Especially the Adeptus Mechanicus.
I'm glad to see flyers added. They could do with some slightly more realistic* rules though.
Pre-measuring is great. If 40K was a PC game you'd press something like tab to get a range circle. (I can't remember if that's the case in DOW, anyway the principle is there.)
Glad to see overwatch added.

* Yes I know 40K rules aren't supposed to be 100% realistic, but they could at least make the flyers less like fast skimmers. The old Forgeworld rules were great, albiet somewhat complicated.

Meh:
Wound allocation and who you're able to fire at: In general I prefer unit-based rules rather than model-based rules, but at least it's not as bad as the 'magic disappearing wound' shenanigans of 5th edition.
Psyker powers: It's nice to see that the powers have been made more complex and fluffy, but an extra phase in the turn? Really?

Cons:
The codex creep is real.
True Line of Sight: I really dislike how the things like LOS are becoming increasingly literal rather than simulated. It's tabletop wargaming- it's not supposed to accurately portray what a model can or can't see.
Hull points...oh the damned hull points: Even when I'm benefiting from them in my mechanised lists I still don't like them. They make armour feel spongy, as if we're reducing armoured warfare down to health points.
Combat speed: The game is faster now, with units moving faster and being able to fire and move at the same time. Some people may see this as a positive thing as it makes the game 'flow' more and feels less Napoleonic. However I'm concerned if it's just dumbing down the game- not sure if you should move or shoot? No problem- do both! Not sure if you should pull your tank into that dangerous position? No problem- you've still got 2 hull points after losing one.

**Ratius**

50% of voters giving it a 7 or more is interesting with over a third 8 or more.

**Ventus**

Vaktathi wrote:
Warhammer 40,000, as a game, is terrible.

The universe has tons of great backgorund and cool stuff, tons of the model kits are super cool, but the game itself is awful.

We have multiple issues.

First and foremost, the game simply does not know what it wants to be. This has been true since really 5th edition, but has become a dramatically larger and more obvious problem over the last couple of years. The game is simply trying to be too many things, and abstracts in the wrong direction. The unit types and model sizes that GW is attempting to hamfist into literally any size game just is not working particularly well. The game tries to make it so that each individual humble basic guardsmen and his weeny Lasgun have just as much stats and rolling to do as a gigantic titan, and is, if anything, even more detailed. The abstraction happens at the highest levels, with big units ignoring charts and effects and having less detail while smaller units are more detailed and granular, which is rather bass-ackwards. The model count, unit scale, and special rule count is simply out of control, particularly when GW is writing their ruleset to allow everything in any sized game. 40k is trying to be both Epic and Kill Team and everything in between, and failing miserably.

Second, GW's rules design has two major problems. First, they seem to change design paradigm every year or so. The 2012/early 2013 stuff was much less powerful than the rest of the 2013 stuff, while the 2014 books were significantly toned down relative to the 2013 armies, and the 2015 books have ramped up the power level beyond anything 40k has ever seen before, along with aggravating the scale issues mentioned above.

Add to it that GW simply does not do rules errata nor address FAQ issues, we get a game where power levels are all over the place resulting in absurdly stilted games, scale has gone out the window, and rules issues simply go unaddressed.

As a game, 40k is pretty bad. It's never been a great game, but I don't recall it ever being in this bad a state. It's totally unsuitable for pickup or even pretending to be suitable for any sort of competitive play anymore, and that makes getting games that are worth playing rather difficult. Pre-determined outcomes and one-sided games are much more common now these days.

For my own anecdotal experiences, particularly over the course of the last 6 months or so, fewer people are showing up for games and events.

This ^ sums it up nicely. 40K has lots of potential but GW made an average game at best into a terrible mess. Balance isn't evil - nobody expects perfection but a serious effort in trying would make a huge difference along with proper errata/FAQs.

**Alcibiades**

Vaktathi wrote:
scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.

**Vaktathi**

Alcibiades wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.

Oh I know, but it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even with that, it's not like the warboss running in at full speed on his bike is going to have much in the way of finesse other than to simple punch something real hard or grab *something* and try to tear it off

More to the point, most vehicles (particularly MBT's) really shouldn't have anything *that* vulnerable anywhere on their front arc except maybe locomotion (popping a wheel or breaking a tread link) that would be vulnerable to such an attack.

Ventus wrote:

This ^ sums it up nicely. 40K has lots of potential but GW made an average game at best into a terrible mess. Balance isn't evil - nobody expects perfection but a serious effort in trying would make a huge difference along with proper errata/FAQs.

RIght? The whole paradigm that seems to be getting pushed that "balance is bad" is simply mind boggling

**SDFarsight**

Alcibiades wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.

Exactly, fixing krak grenades etc to the weak points; or if they only have a combat knife or their bare hands I think of it as how the Major attempts to remove the top entry hatch from a tank in nearly every single film/series of Ghost in the Shell; it'll half break their arms but they're Space Marines, they can take it.

**Vaktathi**

SDFarsight wrote:
Alcibiades wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.

Exactly, fixing krak grenades etc to the weak points; or if they only have a combat knife or their bare hands I think of it as how the Major attempts to remove the top entry hatch from a tank in nearly every single film/series of Ghost in the Shell; it'll half break their arms but they're Space Marines, they can take it.

The GITS example sort of exactly illustrates my problem with the 40k mechanic. Doing something like that isn't possible with most of the attacks a lot of these units are making. Even the attempt in GITS required a vehicle that was in a confined space, with an ultra agile opponent, physically climbing on top and spending almost 30 seconds (probably far longer than a typical 40k CC round would be) getting nowhere and doing nothing to the tank, physically destroying her body in the process, and then just got tossed aside by a simple rotation of the turret, being saved only by close range application of 8 heavy anti-tank gun shots.

Kusanagi also wasn't a slouch in the strength department, there was a scene with her from one of the prequel series where she's able to temporarily arrest the forward travel of a helicopter

**SDFarsight**

Vaktathi wrote:
SDFarsight wrote:
Alcibiades wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
scommy wrote:
8 out of ten

Compared to Flames of War I think 40k is far superior. You want silly rules try FoW. eg Infantry assaulting a tank - if they bail the tank out, the tank goes into a stasis type thing where the tank cannot be targeted whilst the crew are "cowering at the bottom of the tank". This implies the attacking infantry, climbing all over the tank, upon realised the crew are hiding in the bottom of tank, just politely walk away and wait for the tank crew to compose themselves and drive off guns blazing! Ridiculous from a gaming perspective and woefully inaccurate historically.
As opposed to an Ork Warboss slamming up on a bike at top speed to a main battle tank from the front and lashing out with a Powerklaw and somehow hitting rear armor? 40k has just as many, if not more, absurd logical issues.

That said, when I played flames of war, I do not recall this issue, is this a thing in the newest set of rules or just a weird loophole?

I'm 99% sure that "hitting the rear armour" in close combat indicates merely using the vehicle's lowest AV value, this representing attacking weak points. Not literally attacking the rear.

Exactly, fixing krak grenades etc to the weak points; or if they only have a combat knife or their bare hands I think of it as how the Major attempts to remove the top entry hatch from a tank in nearly every single film/series of Ghost in the Shell; it'll half break their arms but they're Space Marines, they can take it.
The GITS example sort of exactly illustrates my problem with the 40k mechanic. Doing something like that isn't possible with most of the attacks a lot of these units are making. Even the attempt in GITS required a vehicle that was in a confined space, with an ultra agile opponent, physically climbing on top and spending almost 30 seconds (probably far longer than a typical 40k CC round would be) getting nowhere and doing nothing to the tank, physically destroying her body in the process, and then just got tossed aside by a simple rotation of the turret, being saved only by close range application of 8 heavy anti-tank gun shots.

That's just one of those strange rules where realism has to just lay down in the face of good cinematics/gameplay. The awesomeness apparently creates a warp-disturbance that causes logic to shrug its shoulders and look the other way.

**Psienesis**

.... do remember that the Major almost tore her arms off in that scene (and, later on, iirc, *did* actually tear both of her own arms off trying that!)

**A Town Called Malus**

LordSolar wrote:
I would heartily recommend playing some fun stuff from back when GW would put awesome stuff in the White Dwarfs.

Me and a mate of mine recently played the old version of kill team, with klaxon counters and goon squads. By far the best hour we have had playing a 40k game in a long time

I remember that game from the back of the 4th ed rulebook

Buying upgrades for your awesome team of commandos (or getting yourself a redshirt to try and keep alive), or upgrading your base if you were playing the bad guy. Lots of fun, especially if you modelled your kill team so they reflected their specialities

**hanshotfirst**

if you play with a group of non competitive no butt players its fun

**Talizvar**

40k is definitely not "fair".
So you can go all competitive and that can be fun.
Designing balanced scenarios work well too.
It sounds like the dreaded 40k burn-out for the OP.
I could not find any game fun for a bit.
Just look at what you are trying to get out of a game.
There is too much random in 40k so the most effective choices is the army and units.
I agree Chaos could use some love, shelved for a few years now, but use in scenarios works well.
Replies can get chilly when you disrespect their #1 game: the honeymoon does end, you reach an understanding and move-on.
Or engage the services of a mistress like X-wing.

It is ok.
We all change, rules certainly do, your perspective as well.
Do not sell your stuff, you will find a use for everything eventually: I promise.

OP thanks for letting us peek into your gamer mind, it is OK, much of what you observed is agreeable.
Find your fun and good luck!

**LogosVeritas**

Vryce wrote:
You lost me when you said your Necrons struggle to compete.

bahahahahahahahahahaha

exactly.... wth?

wait wait love.... bahahahahahah please don't hate me op, Necrons are beast right now. So much so I sold mine. Had to sell an army so I sold that one. To easy to faceroll so many opponents, and i got tired of eyerolls and groaning when I was pulling out my wraiths and barges, Not to mention my cheap infantry that can kill vehicles. And tend to get back up. A lot. Wait a sec... why did I sell those?

**MonumentOfRibs**

I gave it a 9. Frankly I love this game. Then again, I only regularly play with one person, so we both have an understanding where we try to make it as fun as possible. I feel for the guys who can only find competitive players to have a game with. That kind of situation would probably sour my experience