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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Have you seen how well necrons have been doing lately?

Yeah, they had a seventh the showing of GKs in the top 16 at adepticon this year.

They have won two GT's and of the final 16 they made the final 4. Adepticon was kill point heavy. Something that necron's can struggle with especially as a shooty army.

Tomb King wrote:

Target wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Mind you, I'm still firmly in the "GK are most definitely not overpowered" camp, and I believe SW's are still marginally better, GK being second, and IG/DE/BA in the third slot.

Doesn't that directly imply that they, along with the space wolves, are overpowered? When they sit at a tier above all other alternative "good" codexes I would think that the defining characteristic of that feature would be that they are overly powerful within the constraints of the modern game.

The colloquial meaning of "overpowered" or "broken" is that the book is far and away better than all others, and you, if you want to be competitive, are silly not to play it. For instance, people don't complain about SW's being broken or OP. It's one thing to be the best, or one of the best, it's another to be broken/overpowered.

However, whenever you have a set of books, some will always be better than others, in this case those 5 books are better than the others, and SW/GK are top dog. But it isn't old fantasy daemon or Nidzilla levels of brokenness that the game previously experienced.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The colloquial meaning of "overpowered" or "broken" is that the book is far and away better than all others, and you, if you want to be competitive, are silly not to play it. For instance, people don't complain about SW's being broken or OP. It's one thing to be the best, or one of the best, it's another to be broken/overpowered.

Read below comments!

They did until grey knights came along. If you take the top tier (GK, SW, IG) then there is a strong argument for a level of broken and overpowered capability among the three. Those book comprised over half of adepticon for a reason, and it's not for the interesting fluff. Taken as a whole this games top tier is overpowered. The armies that couldn't beat leafblower before (most of them) certainly can't now. The only real check on those three books most broken capabilities are those three books. That's not a healthy meta. It's getting better as ward writes more books (Necrons now counter mech IG which is nice, but a bit late) but the state of the game is as top heavy as it has been in years.

I don't put DE or BA in a tier near IG/SW/GK. Tournament results don't bear that out. They're new, but they don't have a nich and they're countered too hard by the big three. Necrons slide in ok but are far too matchup dependant to really compete either.

Have you seen how well necrons have been doing lately?

-666- wrote:Necrons have been doing very well overall considering their newness. It's too early to rank them but I would definitely say they have knocked IG from the top tier (easily).

QFT! I dont know why people arent ranking necrons in that top tier. MY top 5 is as follows:

GK
SW
Necrons
IG
BA/DE

Necrons can make it night fight for your turn only. They can keep it night fight the whole game with Imohtep and hit with lightning on your side armor of 10 for IG. Necrons have seriously taken IG from the top 3. They can also hang with GK and SW just fine.

Honestly I didn't rank them in my top 5 because I plum forgot!

My revamped top 5, with the memory that yes, necrons do exist, is:

SW/GK/Necron/IG
BA/DE

Tomb King wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Have you seen how well necrons have been doing lately?

Yeah, they had a seventh the showing of GKs in the top 16 at adepticon this year.

They have won two GT's and of the final 16 they made the final 4. Adepticon was kill point heavy. Something that necron's can struggle with especially as a shooty army.

I'll reserve judgement before I'd equate them with the top three, but I will agree that they're a step between top and second tier. They have too many weaknesses in my opinion to be a truly top tier codex, but they slot in against ranged SWs and mech IG well enough to show strongly in highly competitive events where they're likely to see a lot of those.

I just want to understand this;



The dread to the left, is that weapon rack the Forgeworld kit? And are those rifles elevated compared to the rifles included in the Dreadnought kit?

N.I.B. wrote:I just want to understand this;



The dread to the left, is that weapon rack the Forgeworld kit? And are those rifles elevated compared to the rifles included in the Dreadnought kit?

Left dread is one of my venerables I ripped the arms off of and mounted FW arms onto, I had that FW arm laying around after getting it in a trade a while back. I think it's this one:
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Dreadnoughts/MK-IV-DREADNOUGHT-AUTOCANNONS-(RIGHT_ARM).html

The dreadnought kit doesn't include any rifles, so there is no gw-kit comparison, as there don't make any autocannon arms (only FW or custom). The dread on the right is my dread I played in the tournament, the dreadnought arm was sculpted/cast by myself (the autocannon barrels however were stolen from IG HW teams).

Target wrote:The dreadnought kit doesn't include any rifles, so there is no gw-kit comparison, as there don't make any autocannon arms (only FW or custom).

Ok, thanks for the clear up.

I have read through most of this thread and i really can't tell if people are whining because they where beaten by a GK player a one point in time of if the codex is really that over powered. I have read through the codex, but i don't see why draggio wing is all that great. Yea having only to paint thirty models seems really fun and great. But that means i only have to remove thirty models from your side of the flied. Maybe i am lost in the confusion. I played eldar when both SW and BA came out and to me they both where overpowered and broken. But it sounds like people who play SW IG BA DE are starting to get their arses whipped and are complaining.

If there is a 100 person tournament and 78 are GK they have a good chance of them taking top spots. When i played in the 'Ard boyz right after BA came out, thats all you saw. And the people running 'Ard boyz knew it was coming. And have we stopped to think of the human factor? Lets say that some one is really good at this game and plays Gk, is it the codex that is broken or is it that people play against a better player and lose? The tournaments them selves could be skewed, Lets say the GK players never meet each other till the last few rounds, Or Gks keep getting put up against out dated codexs and win. That would make it so the top ten would be GK armies.

Maybe because of all the threads saying GK are broken and all the people complaining about them as forced more people to play them for a chance at playing that winning codex. Making more GK players.

I used to run a unit that struck at I10 with all power weapons, 30+ attacks on the charge with counter charge with 5 being str 7 and 3 being str 5 with re-rolling wounds and saves, is that broken? is that more broken than Gks Units? Why are they so broken? Is it just because they take top seats in a tournament? Or is it because of something in the codex?

Those dreads look fine. Anyone who complained after you sat one next to a rhino might really be a whiner.

That said, I did play against one TFG that used old Rhinos only for his GK army. I told him he was modeling for advantage and he feigned hurt/astonishment.

newbis wrote:Those dreads look fine. Anyone who complained after you sat one next to a rhino might really be a whiner.

That said, I did play against one TFG that used old Rhinos only for his GK army. I told him he was modeling for advantage and he feigned hurt/astonishment.

Worse even is when you see people mix styles. I've seen people use new and old styles, and put the crappy units in the new, good units in the old, then move them so the good unit in the old rhino is completely blocked from los by the much larger new rhino.

Thats life, if you have to cheat to win at a tabletop game, you've already done something wrong!

Target wrote:

newbis wrote:Those dreads look fine. Anyone who complained after you sat one next to a rhino might really be a whiner.

That said, I did play against one TFG that used old Rhinos only for his GK army. I told him he was modeling for advantage and he feigned hurt/astonishment.

Worse even is when you see people mix styles. I've seen people use new and old styles, and put the crappy units in the new, good units in the old, then move them so the good unit in the old rhino is completely blocked from los by the much larger new rhino.

Thats life, if you have to cheat to win at a tabletop game, you've already done something wrong!

Modeling for advantage isn't cheating... but it certainly is questionable ethics.... USING someones "modeled to look cool" against them is also questionable ethics...

Meh... personally I still think the only cheaty thing you did Andrew was run G K s

Lets see how GKs do this NOVA however.... now that they've been out for a year i am sure thats enough time to determine if they are OP...

PapaPiggy wrote:I have read through most of this thread and i really can't tell if people are whining because they where beaten by a GK player a one point in time of if the codex is really that over powered. I have read through the codex, but i don't see why draggio wing is all that great. Yea having only to paint thirty models seems really fun and great. But that means i only have to remove thirty models from your side of the flied. Maybe i am lost in the confusion. I played eldar when both SW and BA came out and to me they both where overpowered and broken. But it sounds like people who play SW IG BA DE are starting to get their arses whipped and are complaining.

If there is a 100 person tournament and 78 are GK they have a good chance of them taking top spots. When i played in the 'Ard boyz right after BA came out, thats all you saw. And the people running 'Ard boyz knew it was coming. And have we stopped to think of the human factor? Lets say that some one is really good at this game and plays Gk, is it the codex that is broken or is it that people play against a better player and lose? The tournaments them selves could be skewed, Lets say the GK players never meet each other till the last few rounds, Or Gks keep getting put up against out dated codexs and win. That would make it so the top ten would be GK armies.

Maybe because of all the threads saying GK are broken and all the people complaining about them as forced more people to play them for a chance at playing that winning codex. Making more GK players.

I used to run a unit that struck at I10 with all power weapons, 30+ attacks on the charge with counter charge with 5 being str 7 and 3 being str 5 with re-rolling wounds and saves, is that broken? is that more broken than Gks Units? Why are they so broken? Is it just because they take top seats in a tournament? Or is it because of something in the codex?

Doesnt draigo wing take paladins? so its 60 wounds to kill them all, and with wound Cheat... shenanigans (dont worry i blame the Devs for not picking this up in play testing) it can be hard for certain armies to actually put a simgle unit down

I don't see that there's a huge problem in using old Rhinos / Razorbacks, as long as you're consistent within that army -- all old-style ones.

PapaPiggy wrote:
If there is a 100 person tournament and 78 are GK they have a good chance of them taking top spots.

Not supporting the most overpowered in a decade (I have not played that long) but if you examine a purely random sampling of armies (not totally accurate I know since more 'serious' people gravitate towards the stronger armies), then choosing a sample size of 16 with 44% Gk from a pool with 22% GK and 256 members has a probability below 5% (which is not to say it is impossible of course!).

newbis wrote:Those dreads look fine. Anyone who complained after you sat one next to a rhino might really be a whiner.

That said, I did play against one TFG that used old Rhinos only for his GK army. I told him he was modeling for advantage and he feigned hurt/astonishment.

Depends, was he also using the old, old SMs as the basis for his PAGKs or the old old GK Terminators?

If the whole army had been done in that style then getting the older Rhinos over the newer ones is a logical step.

Target wrote:Worse even is when you see people mix styles. I've seen people use new and old styles, and put the crappy units in the new, good units in the old, then move them so the good unit in the old rhino is completely blocked from los by the much larger new rhino.

Thats life, if you have to cheat to win at a tabletop game, you've already done something wrong!

I mix styles because I have been collecting my SW army for almost 15 years. My Long Fangs didn't have transports until this edition, so they are the larger new Razorback/Rhinos. My GH have had transports since 3rd edition (little rhinos). Standard practice with Razorspam or any transport army is to put the empty ones in front of the full ones to give cover on the first turn.

Am I a cheaty cheaterson because I haven't repainted all of my Rhinos to gain the least advantage?

Edit: Now with pic!

pretre wrote:

Target wrote:Worse even is when you see people mix styles. I've seen people use new and old styles, and put the crappy units in the new, good units in the old, then move them so the good unit in the old rhino is completely blocked from los by the much larger new rhino.

Thats life, if you have to cheat to win at a tabletop game, you've already done something wrong!

I mix styles because I have been collecting my SW army for almost 15 years. My Long Fangs didn't have transports until this edition, so they are the larger new Razorback/Rhinos. My GH have had transports since 3rd edition (little rhinos). Standard practice with Razorspam or any transport army is to put the empty ones in front of the full ones to give cover on the first turn.

Am I a cheaty cheaterson because I haven't repainted all of my Rhinos to gain the least advantage?

Edit: Now with pic!

It's one of those hard to tell scenarios, since you've got so many old models, most people wouldn't bat an eye, as it's obvious you just have an old school army. However, if you play them as the old small size, and you move them behind the bigger rhinos the entire time and deny LOS, that's when it gets a bit iffy.

See, curiously, I have no problem with that sort of play.

To me, it's a good example of a commander (say, Wolf Lord Terrax or whatever) using his army's equipment (say, Rhino Invictus from the 30th Millenium and Rhino Defenestratus from Tuesday) to maximize his advantage in battle.

It'd be like using a bulldozer to hide an MBT IRL.

Target wrote:It's one of those hard to tell scenarios, since you've got so many old models, most people wouldn't bat an eye, as it's obvious you just have an old school army. However, if you play them as the old small size, and you move them behind the bigger rhinos the entire time and deny LOS, that's when it gets a bit iffy.

That's what I'm saying I'm doing.
Recap:
The new rhinos are Long Fang rhinos. The Long fangs don't ride in them since they are too busy shooting.
I place the empty LF rhinos in front of my full GH rhinos.
The full GH rhinos are the old rhinos.

I don't think I've ever had a complaint. If someone did, I'd certainly let them count them either way, but to ascribe cheaty-ness to me because I have a variety of editions of models is pretty lame.

Your army looks awesome and that is all that matter Pretre (love the colored front panels with heraldry).

Also, I so need a Rhino named Defenestratus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

calypso2ts wrote:Your army looks awesome and that is all that matter Pretre (love the colored front panels with heraldry).

Thanks! That's about the perfect distance to view it, any closer and you notice the flaws. lol

I actually miss that the new rhinos don't have panels like that. I use those little recesses on the front and rear quarter panels, but they aren't the same.

I'm actually working right now to put some more SW Bling (as my wife puts it) onto the LF rhinos since they look so boring.

Anyways... Back to the original topic, I think that you have to be careful ascribing intent to model use when having different size models. I would always allow my opponent to play as if they are the same size if he has any question. Also, there are certainly some REALLY extreme examples in other armies that are truly unfortunate (and I would never play those models as is). I'm looking at you skateboard trukk.

pretre wrote:Also, I so need a Rhino named Defenestratus.

You could even throw it out of a second or third story window before painting it, and say that it is battle damage

To be fair pretre your army has a number of models and a painting style that shows its pedigree and age. Because of that there is no shenanigans. I assume at worst your opponents and you come to an agreement that a Rhino is Rhino sized so no one should be fretting about what is larger or smaller as in theory it shouldn't matter either way!

Unit1126PLL wrote:

pretre wrote:Also, I so need a Rhino named Defenestratus.

You could even throw it out of a second or third story window before painting it, and say that it is battle damage

lol. Wolf Lord Roland Krakenbeard so named the Rhino after an incident during the battle to retake the Hive City of Reallytallbuildings. An overzealous gray hunter accelerated towards a squad of the enemy, causing them to flee and causing the vehicle to fall 5 stories when it crashed through a nearby window.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkStarSabre wrote:To be fair pretre your army has a number of models and a painting style that shows its pedigree and age. Because of that there is no shenanigans. I assume at worst your opponents and you come to an agreement that a Rhino is Rhino sized so no one should be fretting about what is larger or smaller as in theory it shouldn't matter either way!

Woohoo, I'm old! I tend to be a lot more laid back at events than I am on the internet.

pretre wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

pretre wrote:Also, I so need a Rhino named Defenestratus.

You could even throw it out of a second or third story window before painting it, and say that it is battle damage

lol. Wolf Lord Roland Krakenbeard so named the Rhino after an incident during the battle to retake the Hive City of Reallytallbuildings. An overzealous gray hunter accelerated towards a squad of the enemy, causing them to flee and causing the vehicle to fall 5 stories when it crashed through a nearby window.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkStarSabre wrote:To be fair pretre your army has a number of models and a painting style that shows its pedigree and age. Because of that there is no shenanigans. I assume at worst your opponents and you come to an agreement that a Rhino is Rhino sized so no one should be fretting about what is larger or smaller as in theory it shouldn't matter either way!

Woohoo, I'm old! I tend to be a lot more laid back at events than I am on the internet.

And the Iron Priests studied the STC fragment long and hard. After four days of research, they came up with the Space Wolves' unique Marine vehicle: the Defenestrator-pattern Rhino!

Defenestratus was the prototype

pretre wrote:

Target wrote:It's one of those hard to tell scenarios, since you've got so many old models, most people wouldn't bat an eye, as it's obvious you just have an old school army. However, if you play them as the old small size, and you move them behind the bigger rhinos the entire time and deny LOS, that's when it gets a bit iffy.

That's what I'm saying I'm doing.
Recap:
The new rhinos are Long Fang rhinos. The Long fangs don't ride in them since they are too busy shooting.
I place the empty LF rhinos in front of my full GH rhinos.
The full GH rhinos are the old rhinos.

I don't think I've ever had a complaint. If someone did, I'd certainly let them count them either way, but to ascribe cheaty-ness to me because I have a variety of editions of models is pretty lame.

True, but I didn't ascribe cheatyness to you, I did to one particular opponent I had, who I knew had specifically sourced old rhinos, which didnt match his army, just to use for his assault units he wanted to hide as they advanced. He even flat out said that was what he was doing to me during the game. I rolled my eyes a bit, but it's legal so I played on. I also clarified that with a good mix of old models (as you have) which clearly shows that you've had the army for a while, it's generally a non-issue, as you can assess "intent" so to speak.

Also, you're willing to play their size either way, which makes all of this a moot point, as you're taking no advantage from it.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Single games can also be very matchup dependent. I wouldn't rush to call his opponent a newbie simply because he has no major tournaments under his belt. 40k isn't a particularly difficult game to play or win, you don't need to be some sort of separate breed to defeat the "best". There's a low skill ceiling, especially with armies like GKs and Space Wolves (SWs being arguably easier to play than the Inquisitorial GKs in that specific matchup).

I disagree that there is a low skill ceiling, as year after year, the same group of people take the top 10% of finishes at these big events. Sure, sometimes there is a new person among that group, but writing off the game as a low skill ceiling is simply ignoring the wealth of evidence that clearly demonstrates that, realistically, only 20% of any given tournament field are actually in any competition to win it. The other 80% make up numbers, but they're like the Cubs - they play the games but it doesn't matter, they'll never win it all.

Grey Knights or not.

Eidolon wrote:
However, what really bothers me is how much people care to whine about these things. When I was younger, and gaming was basically all I did hobby wise, I used to wonder why less people were involved. Now that I am older, and 40k has become something I play maybe 2 games of a month, I dont. I have moved out into the world, my social network has gone from only gamers to gamers being a very small minority, and looking back its things like that thread that make me realize how dysfunctional the community really is. And I dont wonder why more people arent involved anymore, because its full of people who dont have anything better to do than sit around and complain about how army x beats army y.

You have the time in your life to go out and spend hours and hours playing with plastic toy soldiers. Why not just enjoy that? Remember when ig and the 'leafblower' were the big thing, and everyone threw a gak fit about how imba ig were? I remember this forum blowing up about how so many people brought them to adepticon, and how darkwynn quit playing that build because people spread their butthurt to him about it. Now though, nobody cares about ig, and its gk that are broken. Give it another year, and we will have some other army that will be bitched about endlessly. Why? Its just the cycle, I enjoy it, new armies provide new challenges and require different tactics to beat. So the game is an ever changing problem, and not a simple equation.

Its this nerd rage from people who spend hundreds of dollars to go play 40k in some other part of the country, and then come back and complain cause they lost to what they feel is a broken army. This attitude is what keeps people away from gaming. You have the time and money to go play with plastic toys for a weekend in some far away city, what are you complaining about?

Well, I guess you can write off other people's thoughts as whining if that makes you feel better. I don't think that's it though. I think that a lot of people aren't good at expressing their thoughts and feelings, and so what they say is "Grey Knights are OP", when what they mean to say is that 40k, as a whole, isn't as much fun to play as they remember from years ago, and unfortunately, Grey Knights are the most recent example of why, preceded by Space Wolves and Imperial Guard...

My eight team games at Adepticon were against 5 Space Wolves, 2 Grey Knights and 1 mech blood angels. In these games, we had a grand total of two assault phases. (?!) The ruleset has skewed away from heroic models doing heroic things, making last stands against hordes of humanities foes to a game of cheap transports scooting and shooting other cheap transports. Were actual men not required for scoring purposes and in order to take these cheap transports, I have no doubt that many players would just as happily do without them. The Grey Knight henchman archetype is as close as that gets, where 3 normal humans are seen as the key to getting a scoring razorback cheaply.

Grey Knights are seen as overpowered because of the current metagame. Their default weapons are equally as good against transports as against the transported, and their shooty vehicles don't suffer from suppression fire like other shooty vehicles. If transports weren't so undercosted and underbalanced (risk vs reward), Grey Knights would be just fine. They'd be a mid-ranged expensive elite force that would die to shooting as easily as less elite forces. But in the world of transport-hammer, unsuppressable vehicles and the cheapest scoring guys are a potent combo.

But, and this is the more relevant idea, I think that the real issue isn't that Grey Knights are too good - they might be, but they still die - or even that they're too common, but more that the overall diversity of the game is seriously lacking, and entire aspects, such as assault, that people used to enjoy have been replaced by a battle between cheap APCs. You ask, "you get to spend a weekend playing toy soldiers, why are you complaining?" The answer is, unfortunately, that too much of the weekend is spent playing unfulfilling games against too-similar enemies, with a hint of bitter nostalgia for when the games were more fun, when you wouldn't play against the same army over and over, and when it was more than just hoping to get good rolls on the vehicle damage table.

@redbeard: The game will always seem to have been more fun in the past because 1) it was newer and there was still the thrill of discovery and 2) you were younger. Your memories of your previous games are probably enhanced by nestolgia for your youth. It happens with everything we experience.

Also on wheather or not the game has a low skill ceiling, I think 40k is best described as hard to learn easy to master. What I mean is it is hard to learn how to play 40k well. the rules can be awkward, each codex has a lot of options and there are many potential enemies you need to play against to learn how to handle. Of course the internet provides a short cut in learning, and some books are easier than others (GK, SW, IG and to a lesser extent BA), which is why we see so many of those 4 armies. To master the game once you have really learned it, is too be able to take advantge of quirks in the game and have enough expierence to be more adaptable. the reason you see the same top 105 doing well is not that they are so much better than everyone its that only 10% of the field represent players who have massive armies/can change wholesale for the meta and consistantly play big 6 round plus tournaments.

calypso2ts wrote:

PapaPiggy wrote:
If there is a 100 person tournament and 78 are GK they have a good chance of them taking top spots.

Not supporting the most overpowered in a decade (I have not played that long) but if you examine a purely random sampling of armies (not totally accurate I know since more 'serious' people gravitate towards the stronger armies), then choosing a sample size of 16 with 44% Gk from a pool with 22% GK and 256 members has a probability below 5% (which is not to say it is impossible of course!).

Seriously. I wonder how many more posts before someone says that 100% of the armies at Adepticon were GK so it's natural that they won.

Feh, 110% of the armies at Adepticon were GK. Get your facts straight!

By round 4 of the team tournament, my team was happy to see a fully mech-IG army against us, just to break up the waves of GK.