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.

Haven't seen those results. BA and assault are so bad right now. We might as well not have a chapter tactic except on the captain.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 cuda1179 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Necrons are one of the worst codex so far , not GK bad but nearly everything is overcosted bad.

Yeah, I can see that. They can definitely still be played, just don't expect to win much. I could see them getting a handful of point adjustments in the next CA book.

The biggest problems are fundamental, unfortunately. Reanimation Protocols is costed like it's Disgustingly Resilient but does about as good of a job at saving models as ATSKNF, gauss being changed to -1 AP leaves us unable to deal with high T, high invuln targets. Oh, and all the complaints with the Tac Marine statline? That's the Immortal statline, and the Warrior one is even worse.

Some of us (myself included) were pretty confident the tools the book added like Extermination Protocols and the Nephrekh dynasty would help to mitigate those faults with the faction's design, but... well. Results are results.

Immortals need their T5 back and warriors need 3+ again.
They're just copying 5th ed statlines, and its not working.
They also need to rework the dynasty traits so that every faction can be used independently. I hate this new design concept where you need to soup in order to make an effective force. Its just more book keeping and tedium, as you have to keep track of what unit goes where, and if you paint them differently then your army doesn't look like a coherent force anymore. It ruins the aesthetic of the army.

QS needs to be more reliable too. On paper its strong, but in practice its highly unreliable, as you not only have to roll low, you have to hope your opponent rolls high too. I could see it working much better with set damage values, but with random damage values there's too much variance for it to be effective. I would much rather have it ignore a single unsaved wounding hit from an enemy unit's shooting.
As in, if a lascannon shot gets through and it deals 6 damage, it does nothing. If two lascannon shots from the same unit gets through and both deals 6 damage, then the vehicle takes 6 damage. If 2 lascannon shots from two different units get through, the vehicle ignores both.

Also, translocation crypt needs be a universal necron stratagem and not faction locked, because it makes no sense that only the Nephrekh would have that tech when its been established that necrons in general are capable of teleporting shenanigans.
The necron codex just isn't well designed. You can tell it wasn't designed by a necron fan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 gmaleron wrote:
Can't begin to tell you how I annoying the phrase " this (insert Army/unit) is overpowered actually is. If people would spend as much time as they do complaining about an army or unit and instead look at tactful ways to defeat it chances are, and they usually are most of the time, the said army or unit is not nearly as terrifying as they've psyched it up their heads to be

Sometimes it is overpowered though.

See : Wave serpent energy field from 5th ed.
Or scat laser spam in 6th.
Or constant psy power buffs.
Really, Eldar are bs in general.

I feel like the Necron codex WAS designed by someone who likes Necrons, but that person wasn't able to entirely balance well. Some of the stuff in there IS pretty cool, but we price adjustments across the board overall, and the Nephrekh Stratagem really should've been generic.

I'm no hardcore competitive player and I'm not going to argue that the Necron codex doesn't need some tweaking but I really feel a lot of people are currently playing the army wrong and trying to force it to work in a way that is currently sub-optimal.

For instance; our troops and HQ choices are overcosted/bad? Then stop taking so many of them! We don't even need battallions because we're not actually a CP heavy army.

But no, people keep spending 600-800 points on battalions which then do nothing and refuse to rely on the actual good tools at our disposal.

It's Grey Knights. At least the other armies have a way to win.

Grey Knights might have had a value add to soup until Custodes came out, and the daemon stratagem came out.

Their codex is downright bad.

 Bosskelot wrote:
I'm no hardcore competitive player and I'm not going to argue that the Necron codex doesn't need some tweaking but I really feel a lot of people are currently playing the army wrong and trying to force it to work in a way that is currently sub-optimal.

For instance; our troops and HQ choices are overcosted/bad? Then stop taking so many of them! We don't even need battallions because we're not actually a CP heavy army.

But no, people keep spending 600-800 points on battalions which then do nothing and refuse to rely on the actual good tools at our disposal.

I can tell you don't really play Necrons much. They're a very heavy CP army.

Darsath wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:
I'm no hardcore competitive player and I'm not going to argue that the Necron codex doesn't need some tweaking but I really feel a lot of people are currently playing the army wrong and trying to force it to work in a way that is currently sub-optimal.

For instance; our troops and HQ choices are overcosted/bad? Then stop taking so many of them! We don't even need battallions because we're not actually a CP heavy army.

But no, people keep spending 600-800 points on battalions which then do nothing and refuse to rely on the actual good tools at our disposal.

I can tell you don't really play Necrons much. They're a very heavy CP army.

I've been playing them solidly for months and came 5th in a local tourney recently but ok m8. Aside from the one game I dropped at the tourney I've won my last 10 games too, often going into turn 5 or 6 with a spare CP left over after only having started with 5.

What are you spending your CP on other than Extermination Protocols?

hobojebus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

I thought we were crying about Brigitte these days, did I miss a memo?

I'm speaking from the perspective of a Heroes of the Storm player, I probably could have been more clear on that.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
I'm not going to blame GW too much for it given every other goddamn competitive game has the exact same problem.

fething Tracer...

I thought we were crying about Brigitte these days, did I miss a memo?

I'm speaking from the perspective of a Heroes of the Storm player, I probably could have been more clear on that.

Tracer eh? Nont really on the same level of Genji in HotS breaking through walls

BrianDavion wrote:
I don't think I've ever played an edition where people were happy with space marines. Space Marines could be better but they're not BAD.

I have. The transition from 3rd to 4th saw vanilla Marines drop from 30 points to 15 with no appreciable difference in capability. Nobody else came even remotely close to that big of a points drop, and MEQs were the armies to beat. All the complaints were from non-MEQ players about how borked 3+ armor saves were with how AP worked in 4th. Only CSMs and 'crons gave loyalist marines a hard time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

phydaux wrote:
as a loyalist Marines player I've always had Chaos Envy. It just seems like they get so many cool toys & options that loyalists don't get.

This has got to be satire

Or leftover preconceptions from earlier editions. I was busy with Warmachine/Hordes when 5th, 6th, and 7th were out so I can't speak for them, but in 3rd and 4th CSMs kicked loyalists up and down the field all day long. And what current Death Guard can field compaired to my Ravens for the same points gives me tbe envies too.

Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

Well I would say CSM were at their worst in 6th, where they were stuck with 1 good unit (Heldrakes) and two mediocre ones (Obliterators and Termicide).

Granted I ought to give more credit to Lords and Sorcerers.

7th was a little better when we got more detachments to use (so basically even more Termicide and Heldrakes with the simple Cultist tax) and the HQ's doing their thing of sorts, and then the Legions codex came out and, while not terribly well balanced as per usual, it gave the fluff top notch justice.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

depends on what grabs your intreast I suppose. If you really like Obliterators but don't care much for land raider crusaders.. say

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

It's possible they meant model envy? Sure, the loyalist models are all totally up to date, but while the loyalists were getting the tenth new tactical marine model CSM were getting cool gak like the heldrake.

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen those results. BA and assault are so bad right now. We might as well not have a chapter tactic except on the captain.

LVO 2018 - top 8 consisted of 4 eldar lists, 3 Imperial lists containing varying amounts of Blood Angels, and one chaos list.
IIRC the 9th and 10th place lists were also mixed imperial/blood angel armies.

A few more books and no more first turn assaults now, but it's not as if anything drastic has happened since the LVO to give other factions a big leg up over the BA beyond those that have moved away from their index rules.

A.T. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Haven't seen those results. BA and assault are so bad right now. We might as well not have a chapter tactic except on the captain.

LVO 2018 - top 8 consisted of 4 eldar lists, 3 Imperial lists containing varying amounts of Blood Angels, and one chaos list.
IIRC the 9th and 10th place lists were also mixed imperial/blood angel armies.

A few more books and no more first turn assaults now, but it's not as if anything drastic has happened since the LVO to give other factions a big leg up over the BA beyond those that have moved away from their index rules.

Now the question is: how many of those BA lists were anything outside Scouts and Captains?

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

It's possible they meant model envy? Sure, the loyalist models are all totally up to date, but while the loyalists were getting the tenth new tactical marine model CSM were getting cool gak like the heldrake.

context of the post was in direct response to someone talking about the strength of the dexes, so while I could almost understand model envy he is most definitely talking about unit strength unfortunately.



That being said, I'm not even sure I can agree with CSM getting all the good gak MODEL WISE. Loyalists have double the amount of entries for sale as CSM, and look at the state of some of of CSM's CURRENT range lol. https://www.games-workshop.com/en-AU/Chaos-Space-Marines-Khorne-Berzerkers so much other garbage their too for just baseline units.

Hey, CSM is one of my armies, I'm fully aware how old and bad a lot of the CSM infantry models are. My point is A) largely in jest and B) that while SM gets a mountain of releases they're all boring as hell and not nearly as good as the few things Chaos does end up getting, lol.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Hey, CSM is one of my armies, I'm fully aware how old and bad a lot of the CSM infantry models are. My point is A) largely in jest and B) that while SM gets a mountain of releases they're all boring as hell and not nearly as good as the few things Chaos does end up getting, lol.

Centurions was in their last release and ended up being a top 3 threat in the meta

This one brought Primaris right, and that's some of their dexes best units



Loyalists get plenty of dope gak CSM doesn't, and vice versa. They are different armies, I'm jealous of gak from every army, everyone has their cool gak

My point literally has nothing to do with effectiveness on the tabletop, I'm only talking about the coolness of the models here. CSM gets some really interesting and visually appealing models; Raptors, Rubric Marines, the aforementioned Heldrake... Loyalists get... dreadnoughts? Yeah, the basic, blocky dreadnought is cool. Other than that... eh.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
My point literally has nothing to do with effectiveness on the tabletop, I'm only talking about the coolness of the models here. CSM gets some really interesting and visually appealing models; Raptors, Rubric Marines, the aforementioned Heldrake... Loyalists get... dreadnoughts? Yeah, the basic, blocky dreadnought is cool. Other than that... eh.

Legion of the Damned is cool.

 Arachnofiend wrote:
My point literally has nothing to do with effectiveness on the tabletop, I'm only talking about the coolness of the models here. CSM gets some really interesting and visually appealing models; Raptors, Rubric Marines, the aforementioned Heldrake... Loyalists get... dreadnoughts? Yeah, the basic, blocky dreadnought is cool. Other than that... eh.

Interesting most people I know, either put focus on efficiency only or they like the sleak renegade stuff without those crazy horns, mutations etc. People play different csm chapters here, but all of them look like IW.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yes. If "always" means "3rd edition and 8th ed" but also excludes the decade of play in between that was 5th, 6th and 7th, then maybe I can see how someone can play loyalists and non-ironically claim to be jealous that CSM get all the good stuff.

Well I would say CSM were at their worst in 6th, where they were stuck with 1 good unit (Heldrakes) and two mediocre ones (Obliterators and Termicide).

Granted I ought to give more credit to Lords and Sorcerers.

7th was a little better when we got more detachments to use (so basically even more Termicide and Heldrakes with the simple Cultist tax) and the HQ's doing their thing of sorts, and then the Legions codex came out and, while not terribly well balanced as per usual, it gave the fluff top notch justice.

The Legions book was great, I was a little sorry not to have done anything with that before 8 dropped.

In comparison the 8th ed codex feels a little flat. I'm still disappointed that marks of the different gods are nothing more than a keyword with no flavour to them. Having them literally doesn't matter at all, other than needing to tick a box to say 'yes this has mark of khorne' on everything to make a World Eaters detachment.

Each codex has its own issues the real power difference comes from how can you build around those weakness.
Some codex's can build to cover their own weaknesses and others can't do anything about their weaknesses.

Some codex bring too little good to the table to outweigh the bad ecen in soup lists, the worst example being GK

Marines have a poor codex being carried by some crutch builds.

Crons got a few places abusing some units but arn't going to rewrite the meta, basically marines without Bobby G.

Tau codex has some horrible internal balance, but a couple of builds are competitive spamming strategums.

Knights is a good codex but the army still has inherent weaknesses.

Aldari has some bad internal balance but enough entries to just forgo the bad units for competitive units.
while having psychic and strategums to basically make an entire army of -2 to hit.

Drukari are an codex of odd balance decisions.
Lots of viable builds but siem competitive lists are meta changers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now the question is: how many of those BA lists were anything outside Scouts and Captains?

At least two - the pure list had a lot of incessors with some death company and sanguinary guard - lemartes at the lead, while the top ba/guard soup had three squads of sang-guard, no captains, and 10 full squads of catachan infantry.

Two others I recall were guard CP soup, BA captains, and some form of Imperial support (the top wolves list - adding thunderwolves, and the top sisters list - adding seraphim)

So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

Eldar are not at the top. I think we're generally seeing Imperial Soup (Guard CP / artillery spam + Custodes or BA as an assault element) as the dominant tournament winners.

Close second, though, I feel.

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

Marines across the board need buffs, because for some reason GW felt it was more appropriate to take things that were shared between the codexes that were universally bad (Terminators, CTs not on vehicles, Primaris Marines, Land Raiders Vindicators etc) and KEEP them terrible rather than fixing them well past the time when they know they'd mostly gotten their heads out of their butts. I'm guessing it was done to avoid complaints from base marine players that, say, Blood Angels got 100% better vehicles, etc. But it's still a wildly crappy decision from an overall balance standpoint.

Looking objectively at what armies people are bringing to tournaments, you've got clear tiers:

"a large fraction of stuff in the book is good" tier:

-Eldar, Dark Eldar, Tau, Custodes, Guard, Admech (seeing a serious resurgence with the FW drill), Harlequins, Tyranids

"A small fraction of the stuff in the book is good enough to make one competitive build or include in a competitive soup build" tier:

-Daemons (specifically nurgle), Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Chaos marines, Space Marines, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Sisters of Battle, Orks, Deathwatch, Necrons

"Pretty much nothing is good, only ever makes marginal appearances very occasionally"

-Grey Knights, Space Wolves, GSC, All Forgeworld armies

See how ALL the power armor stuff is sitting in that second tier or below? That's because almost all of them have a bunch of stuff that's either copies of already useless things (Vindys, LRs, Rhinos, Drop Pods etc) or based on a template of useless things (Terminator based units, Power Armor based units with few exceptions, Dreadnought based units). After the completion of the baseline codexes, this is the biggest balance hurdle 40k has to jump over to achieve better balance.

That said, the fact that there are ONLY three armies that are non-viable entirely in tournament play would have been pretty much crazy talk in any other edition of the game.

 Marklarr wrote:
So what I gather from this thread, is that Grey Knights are the worst codex, then comes every other codex, except Eldar, who are at the top?

So buff Grey Knights and nerf Eldar and everything is balanced, yes?

That's only half the story though due to being able to take imperial armies and choas armies and Aldaeri armies, as souping allows you to cherry pick the best units out of multiple codex's for optimised lists. It would be closer than where 8th edition currently is but not close to balanced.

Also many codex's have poor unit costing rendering iconic units unplayable bad
GW's 40K design team doesn't seem to have the time/ability to be able to understand why units do or don't work and what they need to do to balance them.

Like a tau crisis suit without weapons costs 42 points, more than a 40p custodes without weapons and this is the same rules team who then gave out 3ppm conscripts and gave drukari always wounds on a 2+, not to mention the can't see me codex of -4 to hit.

Honestly. My crons are unbeaten in 1v1 since the new edition came out, granted, these are only in semi-competitive games in a local meta.

Overpriced. Yes.
Have to play smart? Absolutely.
Need to run solid lists to have a chance to win? Definitely.

But I wouldn't call the dex bottom-dweller.

A.T. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Now the question is: how many of those BA lists were anything outside Scouts and Captains?

At least two - the pure list had a lot of incessors with some death company and sanguinary guard - lemartes at the lead, while the top ba/guard soup had three squads of sang-guard, no captains, and 10 full squads of catachan infantry.

Two others I recall were guard CP soup, BA captains, and some form of Imperial support (the top wolves list - adding thunderwolves, and the top sisters list - adding seraphim)

Community won't forgive you for this intolerable attitude. Everything must be crap.