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.

I'll just point out that while Necrons may have been dominating lately, it will be Tau and Eldar that change that not FW. While certainly not perfectly balanced, the new refresh cycle has gone a long way.
While past tourney results can be helpful, Daemons have a new codex and Tau and Eldar can put out so many TL Str. 6+ shots that I'd be surprised to see many necron airforces placing well in a few months.
So to get back to the OP: FW seems to do more to unbalance than balance at the moment.

This thread has turned into this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk6JJ875x20

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

 Danny Internets wrote:
You may want to go back and actually read the article I linked. The analysis looked at a set of data composed of the top five finishers of every single GT conducted since 6th edition was released for which results were made available. (Events with less than 5 games or with less than 30 attendees were excluded.) In most cases, these five represented the top 8-12% of finishers, fulfilling what you identify as the "more important measure."

I did read it, I didn't come to the same conclusion. It appears to me that armies at the top are not that diverse, at least not any more than they were in 5th.

Plus you are combining many unlike things into one graph. A 40 man 5 round GT with a Sisters and a Tau player in the top 5 is almost meaningless compared to Adepticon’s 250+ players with no sisters or tau in the top 16. Not to mention that NOVA, DA Boyz, and I believe BFS were all conducted with only one or no 6th ed codices. You’re combining vastly different tournaments (in both size and importance) at vastly different points in the game.

Well, your previous response indicated that you either did not read the methodology or failed to comprehend it because you attempted to criticize on the grounds that it should have been conducted in exactly the way it was, in fact, conducted.

I can respect your opinion regarding the conclusion, though I disagree that a comparison between a 40-player GT and a 250-player GT is meaningless. Simply having more players does not necessarily increase the validity of an event in evaluating what armies are or are not competitive in 6th edition 40k. Likewise, would could argue that the wacky mission design of Adepticon, despite its large pool of players, renders its results less important. In general, I think that any event meeting the nebulous threshold of respect from the community, and thereby drawing a significant number of attendees from beyond the local area, will contribute meaningfully to our understanding of competitive 40k.

Linking to the article mentioned, as well as another interesting post from last page. Very good discussion on the previous last half page or so

 Danny Internets wrote:
I wrote up a much more comprehensive analysis of this recently: http://www.tourneyspy.com/2013/05/40k-mid-year-tournament-results-recap/

Apart from Necron dominance, there's fairly good representation from a number of armies. Furthermore, there's even more variety among the types of list taken from each of the represented codices.

 morgendonner wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'd dispute the former part of this statement, as we haven't seen a huge spread of armies winnings GT's of late, we see Necrons followed by 5 or 6 other armies routinely while the other half of the factions in the game largely languish elsewhere (or include as allies the aforementioned strong armies to rise higher). The mid-ranges have always been a melting pot, at least for the last several years, there's not too much new here, but it's also generally not what people care about when looking at GT performance, they look at the top spaces.

I would disagree with the notion that we haven't seen a huge spread of armies winning GT's as of late. I think it's been far better than it ever was in 5th edition where it was basically one book dominating the scene after another until we had the mess that was GK. People keep saying Necrons are winning everything, but I feel like that's really misleading. They definitely do tend to place well, but they really haven't dominated the tournament scene by any sense of the word and the only major GT wins from them came with very distinct allies.

- Nick won Adepticon using Necrons with the addition of Draigo & Paladins. That's extremely different than just a run of the mill Necron build and really shouldn't be lumped in because of how vastly different it works on the table.

- Ben won WGC with the addition of a Warboss and Meganobs in a Wagon, again a considerable difference vs vanilla Crons, and also not one of the standard ally combinations we see.

IIRC, Indy Open was won with some kind of Crons/CSM? Beyond those events, I don't know any major ones this year which Crons won, while plenty were won by other books as well. Pretty sure Necrons have done nothing on the west coast, and they didn't win anything else out east AFAIK. Off the top of my head we had several GTs go to either GK or GK/IG, and obviously in the fall Daemons were a thing.

 Danny Internets wrote:

Well, your previous response indicated that you either did not read the methodology or failed to comprehend it because you attempted to criticize on the grounds that it should have been conducted in exactly the way it was, in fact, conducted.

Fair enough. I took the sentiment of the article to be that total army diversity was improving, not just diversity in the top 5.

I generally agree total army diversity is up some. I’m not totally convinced that that means more armies are actually capable of winning a 7-8 round GT than in the past.

And while we can learn some things from a smaller 5 round GT, because of their size and relatively low number or rounds they down play the negative side of a diverse meta that actually limits the number of armies that can win.

For example, a sister’s army has favorable matchups against 80% of the field, neutral to 10%, and a poor against the final 10%. It’s much easier to dodge those bad match ups in a 5 round event than in an 8 round event. And because of the incredible diversity of armies I would suspect the number of “bad” matchups for most lists is more like 33%. Dodging 33% of the field for 8 rounds is almost impossible. So more rounds forces you to confront your bad matchup sooner or later, possibly multiple times, increasing the chances that you will lose. In that environment armies with very few or no “bad” match ups (of which there are only a couple) have an extreme advantage because of the diverse field. That’s a dynamic that doesn’t exist as much in smaller, fewer round GTs.

My other critique would be if you are trying to combine an Adepticon or NOVA with a Colonial or Broadside Bash you DO need to weight the results. The top 10% of finishers at the Colonial probably is the top 5 guys, at Adepticon or Nova it’s more like the top 20-25 guys. If you had taken even just the top 16 guys from Adepticon (about the top 6%) instead of the top 5 your numbers for Necrons and CSM would have exploded. The literal top 5 players for any tournament, especially a smaller GT, can be very eclectic. The full top 10% is very similar.

And I don’t agree with your comment about missions. Every mission system is game-able. Some more than others. In my experience Adepticon’s missions have been some of the fairer, hard to game out of all the major GTs. If you truly want to account for missions you should only combine tournaments that run the exact same missions set up, of which there are very few.

If you only look at 7-8 round GTs (not that you were saying we should, just as a point) that data would be like, what... less than 5 events? So, you have to include 5-round events to get meaningful numbers, as it's far more common.

According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?

The necrons did well early on, but now there are several other codexes that have been released and we are starting to see them move to the front.

If you look at Wargames Con’s results there were as many Demons players in the top 16 as Necron players. This will change too when in a few months we see Tau and Eldar more represented.

For the most part 40k is balanced, and the tournament format and missions almost have as much impact on the winning armies as the armies themselves.

I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.

 Blackmoor wrote:
The necrons did well early on, but now there are several other codexes that have been released and we are starting to see them move to the front.

If you look at Wargames Con’s results there were as many Demons players in the top 16 as Necron players. This will change too when in a few months we see Tau and Eldar more represented.

For the most part 40k is balanced, and the tournament format and missions almost have as much impact on the winning armies as the armies themselves.

I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.

I get the impression that you think you have figured the game out tactically, but Forgeworld units give you a curveball. Rather than deal with that, you want them banned.

 Oaka wrote:
According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?

That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Oaka wrote:
I get the impression that you think you have figured the game out tactically, but Forgeworld units give you a curveball. Rather than deal with that, you want them banned.

Demons, Eldar, and Tau throw me curveballs. Forge World is just unpleasant.

If have to build my army around beating Forge World it narrows not only the units, and options that I have to choose from, but the armies as well.

I find that ironic since is the opposite effect that most FW proponents claim.

 ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

 Danny Internets wrote:

Well, your previous response indicated that you either did not read the methodology or failed to comprehend it because you attempted to criticize on the grounds that it should have been conducted in exactly the way it was, in fact, conducted.

Fair enough. I took the sentiment of the article to be that total army diversity was improving, not just diversity in the top 5.

I generally agree total army diversity is up some. I’m not totally convinced that that means more armies are actually capable of winning a 7-8 round GT than in the past.

And while we can learn some things from a smaller 5 round GT, because of their size and relatively low number or rounds they down play the negative side of a diverse meta that actually limits the number of armies that can win.

For example, a sister’s army has favorable matchups against 80% of the field, neutral to 10%, and a poor against the final 10%. It’s much easier to dodge those bad match ups in a 5 round event than in an 8 round event. And because of the incredible diversity of armies I would suspect the number of “bad” matchups for most lists is more like 33%. Dodging 33% of the field for 8 rounds is almost impossible. So more rounds forces you to confront your bad matchup sooner or later, possibly multiple times, increasing the chances that you will lose. In that environment armies with very few or no “bad” match ups (of which there are only a couple) have an extreme advantage because of the diverse field. That’s a dynamic that doesn’t exist as much in smaller, fewer round GTs.

My other critique would be if you are trying to combine an Adepticon or NOVA with a Colonial or Broadside Bash you DO need to weight the results. The top 10% of finishers at the Colonial probably is the top 5 guys, at Adepticon or Nova it’s more like the top 20-25 guys. If you had taken even just the top 16 guys from Adepticon (about the top 6%) instead of the top 5 your numbers for Necrons and CSM would have exploded. The literal top 5 players for any tournament, especially a smaller GT, can be very eclectic. The full top 10% is very similar.

And I don’t agree with your comment about missions. Every mission system is game-able. Some more than others. In my experience Adepticon’s missions have been some of the fairer, hard to game out of all the major GTs. If you truly want to account for missions you should only combine tournaments that run the exact same missions set up, of which there are very few.

I completely agree about the number of games being of utmost importance in determining how valuable the results with regards to understanding competitive 40k. Unfortunately, there are very few events that feature more than 5 games, so I used this as the cut-off lest the sample size of the data be laughably small (which is not to suggest that the analysis has any kind of statistical validity). That being said, using the top 16 guys from Adepticon would have violated your own standards because the 2013 Qualifiers only featured four games. I think using the top 5 finishers after the 8th game of the Championships yielded more valuable data and didn't violate the 5-game minimum rule.

Regarding missions, I disagree completely about Adepticon's missions. The heavy emphasis on relic and KP-based scenarios was very inconsistent with the rulebook and the missions featured at similar events. Yes, all systems are game-able, but the further a tournament deviates from community standards the less valuable its results are for evaluating said community.

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?

That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)

The change that happened is that every IA book since has incorporated a "THIS IS OFFICIAL" stamp and notice within it. How much more "official" are you expecting GW to get?

 Blackmoor wrote:
The necrons did well early on, but now there are several other codexes that have been released and we are starting to see them move to the front.

If you look at Wargames Con’s results there were as many Demons players in the top 16 as Necron players. This will change too when in a few months we see Tau and Eldar more represented.

For the most part 40k is balanced, and the tournament format and missions almost have as much impact on the winning armies as the armies themselves.

I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.

The prevalence of demons was (IMO) a direct result of the missions. Battle points in general favors that style of army, but the missions heavily favored armies that had lots of fast, lots of heavy, and the ability to generate new troops. Most of the demon armies fit into all three of those categories.

There weren't that many necron players at all, not just the top 16. I think that was a direct results of allowing forgeworld. Tau aren't developed enough to scare Necrons away, and even if they were a lot of people aren't convinced that Necrons < Tau. But necrons vs 6 sabers or the pethora of other intercepting skyfire options is typically a losing proposition.

And yes, tactical choices and player skill are the single most important thing in a tournament, you won't win without them. But you can have them and still lose. If we had major GTs every weekend it wouldn't be such a big deal if the format, missions, meta, or whatever caused you to lose a game. But since most people only make it to 1 or 2 a year its important to discuss and understand everything that influences the outcome of a tournament. People want to maximize their chances of winning, understanding ALL the things that are going to decrease their chances of winning is important.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?

That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)

The change that happened is that every IA book since has incorporated a "THIS IS OFFICIAL" stamp and notice within it. How much more "official" are you expecting GW to get?

How about a line on each codex saying, "for additional unit options, see Imperial Armour XX", as an indication that they are meant to be universal bolt ones to the codecies?

DaddyWarcrimes wrote:

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Blackmoor wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
According to current trends, it does seem like Forgeworld, if it isn't made completely official during sixth edition, it will certainly be official for seventh. I always thought it was official for sixth, but I suppose that is the current argument. Wouldn't it be a good idea to plan for this by allowing it into tournaments as soon as possible?

That was my point in the OP. At the end of 5th everyone said that it would be official (From GW prime) in 6th, so we might as well be ahead of the curve and start to include it. Well that never happened, so there is nothing pointing to it being here in 7th (when ever that will be)

The change that happened is that every IA book since has incorporated a "THIS IS OFFICIAL" stamp and notice within it. How much more "official" are you expecting GW to get?

How about a line on each codex saying, "for additional unit options, see Imperial Armour XX", as an indication that they are meant to be universal bolt ones to the codecies?

It's an unreasonable expectation because Forgeworld books are not aligned to the GW production schedule. Even if they did this, you'll come to have other arguments. Take for example, the Necron 'dex. If it stated "See Imperial Armour XX" but did not include IA12 because the 'dex was released before IA12, it wouldn't state IA12 and then there'd be people that would argue that Necron 'dexes cannot use IA12 as a result.

Don't you think you should play a game like Chess or Magic, that doesn't rely on rolling a dice, if you need to satisfy those cravings to test yourselves against other people when it comes to army composition and execution? This game lends itself to chance, so the best lists can theoretically fail solely on rolling dice. Why ruin it for those of us that like to play this game for fun just because you want to make it more competitive than it was intended for? Forgeworld is official, and should be recognized as such. I don't care if the tournaments at the top level ban it, but it should mention it specifically as a deviation from the official rules. The problem I have is the trickle-down effect. Casual players at the storefront level think Forgeworld is illegal because the tournaments don't allow it, when that is simply not the case. Forgeworld is legal, and it is up to individual tournaments to decide to use house rules to disallow it.

Games of chance are perfectly valid for competition - see Poker if you don't understand why.

Minimizing one's vulnerability to the variance in the results of a throwing of dice is a skill - one which people enjoy competing against others in.

Its also pretty arrogant to tell others to go play another game just because you don't like how they choose to play - IMO.

Exactly, particularly when it's been well expressed why many casual players also want limits on FW, why it benefits them, etc... players such as myself who save up and go to 1, maybe 2 GTs a year (last year was AdeptiCon, this year TempleCon and maybe one more, next year AdeptiCon). I love AdeptiCon because FW is intelligently integrated, but not given blanket allowance. Makes for the most enjoyable experience for the casual, not just the super competitive, players imo.

Eight rounds is brutal. I am not against it though, in fact more power to it. I think the most balanced lists are the best. Everybody is going to have at least one bad matchup in such an event, it's unavoidable... Those are the games that make or break you. I was told going into WGC there might be be some Sabre Thudd spam. My prediction was it would fall eventually to the better designed competitive armies which is exactly what happened. If you use Forge World as a crutch in a big highly competitive event it will fold on you at some point... Usually at the most inopportune time. To me it is mostly good for beating down seals in the early rounds. The top players will know how inherently how to counter it. That's why I don't think it's a big deal. If a tournament is billed as competitive and truly designed as such with no overt favoritism then the natural pecking order will fall into place - it's all about who is number one in the end.

I personally find the game incredibly balanced but I realize people are going to continue to claim it's not.

As for Adepticon I'd say the scenarios had far more to do with who did well (much the same as WGC) than army books did.

One way GW could influence a wider acceptance of FW would be to toot the horn so to speak in WD articles. Until GW becomes more proactive about FW being a part of the game I think the split among players is going to continue and this thread will never die until some mod closes it.

I think that a lot of players lose a lot and think it is because of balance, when it is really their bad play.

Allan - So I am a bad player now? : ) I realize I am an old fart and there is a whole new generation of 40K gamers ok .. maybe two… and that the time I once spent crushing face is now spent organizing AdeptiCon. But for the history of 40K, my decades of playing it, my interactions with the various game designers both past and present over the years it has NEVER been about a balanced system. It was never intended to be a balanced system in the way that some folks want to make it “balanced”. It was intended to be just balanced enough to be a fun game with your mates as a mechanism to sell MODELS!

If balance was even remotely a priority, do you think they would have released the Grey Knight codex in the manner in which it was done. Doing horrible horrible things to the meta at the tail end of 5th edition? Which months later when 6th edition did release it made sense all of a sudden. How was the balance in the mid-term? Need another example. If they cared about balance, they would have launched 6th edition with flyers and anti-flyer support for all codexes right out of the gate. They didn’t and instead will ride the peaks and valleys throughout the various codex releases as they have always done. Why, because it generates a lot more sales! Which ultimately is what is all about.

Sure at points it has been more balanced than others, and at points it has been dangerous close to not being “as fun” and having an adverse effect on sales. ( see the current state of WFB for reference ) 40k is generally close enough to be fun, and have some "competitive" games. Wait around long enough it will go through those same cycles all over again.

Instead .. maybe it is “40k” must be balanced in order to somehow validate all of our competitive juices and if it isn't what does that all mean?

@Hulksmash - Missions always play a role in what codexs do well. Same can be said for the Terrain, the Field, and the Pairings. Heck for this years AdeptiCon the weather certainly played a factor as well given that a number of players had an exhausting time just getting to the convention.

No offense to anyone posting..but if anyone thinks that current 40k is balanced now is simply deluding themselves. With that being said...that doesn't necessarily make the game no fun to play...and it certainly means that including FW overall has little bearing on the perception that many have of "competitive 40k" and this mythical pursuit to make it such. The game isn't balanced period. How is adding anymore units going to really affect that? The imbalance isn't with the units, but with the core mechanics of the rules themselves. Here's a thought: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BS FW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?

 CaptKaruthors wrote:
No offense to anyone posting..but if anyone thinks that current 40k is balanced now is simply deluding themselves.

"So no offense but you're delusional" I always love that

How about "No offense but if anyone thinks that current 40k isn't balanced simply doesn't know how to play 40k".

See, I can do it too

But seriously, I might not be the most awesome player ever but I find 40k to be extremely balanced.

JWhex wrote:
One way GW could influence a wider acceptance of FW would be to toot the horn so to speak in WD articles. Until GW becomes more proactive about FW being a part of the game I think the split among players is going to continue and this thread will never die until some mod closes it.

Given how much the quality of WD has fluctuated in a downward direction for the past decade, I think we can give up hope on WD.

Another thing people fail to take into account is that newer armies often come out of the gate strong because of a general lack of familiarity with them. Until the combined internet wisdom told Johnny Netlist how you handle Cron Cylon Death Fleet, Crons won a lot. Dark Eldar and GK won a bunch when they hit, as well. Daemons are kind of doing that right now. If a book has an easily spamable power option, people are going to abuse it early for some easy wins until word gets out on it. There is a world of difference between that and books that have been around forever and are still racking up the wins, like IG and SW where people have had years to figure then out and still are getting facerolled by them.

Point of that is, I think any discussion of metagame or balance as it pertains to FW is not relevant to is acceptable use in tournament play, aside from issues with certain armies getting more from it. I think the debate on cost and familiarity is more of an issue. I personally don't care that a Breeching Drill is really good, but how happy can someone be if their first introduction to the thing is the giant wall of text that explains how it works and they have to read this during a tournament?

Dracos wrote:Games of chance are perfectly valid for competition - see Poker if you don't understand why.

Ah, the poker analogy. I love this one, because it's so very wrong. A hand of poker is a random event. But a game of poker isn't one hand, it's many many hands, drawing out over the course of a night (and, in some cases, a week).

A while back, when I was running some events, I had players answer a short questionaire about what happened early in the game. Who won the roll to go first, who actually went first, and whether the initiative was stolen. Turns out picking to go first of second correlates more to winning or losing the game than actually going first or second (and, that makes sense, as that choice will differ with armies and scenarios). But, the biggest correlation between early events and winning was stealing the initiative. When someone successfully stole the initiative, they won like 90% of the time.

Back to poker - so, first hand, you get a crap draw. Okay, fold, you lose the ante, or a blind, or possibly even nothing at all, and play continues. That first hand, the early event, has nearly no correlation to the outcome of the whole game.

Continuing, in poker, the outcome of one set of random events has a minimal impact on later events. Sure, if earlier events leave your opponent with a larger stack than you have, you may be limited, but each hand is a new battle to be won.

In 40k, the results of one random set of events continues throughout the game. If your commander dies first, you lose the warlord point, with no way to get it back. If your opponent gets super-hot and eliminates half your army on turn one, you can't get those models back to try again.

A hand of poker may be a five-ten minute exchange, of which there will be a hundred of more during the course of a tournament. A game of 40k is a two hour affair, which in many tournaments, one loss puts you out of contention.

While you're correct from a very high-level perspective (minimizing the vulnerability to dice is a skill), in practice, the control a player has over the impact of those rolls is significantly smaller than it is in a game like poker.

Its also pretty arrogant to tell others to go play another game just because you don't like how they choose to play - IMO.

It's not so much about how they choose to play, it's about what they seem to want. Sure, 40k can be played competitively, but it is not designed to be, and many concessions have to be made in order to do so. Players who really wish to test themselves in a competitive game are going to be better served by playing a game that's designed for competitive play. That's not really telling them to go play something else, it's simply pointing out that what they're seeking is better found elsewhere.

That's so wrong, Red! I get pocket kings but run into a guy who somehow stayed in with 6 and 2 unsuited. Flop is low, I slow play, get a king on the turn card, see a low river card and bet big with trip kings.

It's nearly impossible to peg my opponent as 6 and 2, the numbers needed for a straight with that flop, and I lose most of my chips.

Single events that have a lot of randomness to them absolutely affect outcomes in Poker. A bit off-topic, but that's just how it is... it takes skill, but chance is heavily involved, no question.

 Phazael wrote:


Point of that is, I think any discussion of metagame or balance as it pertains to FW is not relevant to is acceptable use in tournament play, aside from issues with certain armies getting more from it. I think the debate on cost and familiarity is more of an issue.

Cost I don't think is relevant. Nobody is saying that you can't play Eldar because their book costs half again as much as the Dark Eldar book, or that you can't play Imperial Guard because a mech IG army costs twice what a Space Marine list costs to build. That and GW's prices for books and models is in many instances on par or nearing FW's prices.

Familiarity is best solved by increasing its allowance, otherwise it'll remain the shadowy nether thing forever.

I personally don't care that a Breeching Drill is really good, but how happy can someone be if their first introduction to the thing is the giant wall of text that explains how it works and they have to read this during a tournament?

They're actually *really* bad now, though their rules admittedly are long, FW was just rather thorough in explaining how everything works, which is a good thing.

So no offense but you're delusional" I always love that

How about "No offense but if anyone thinks that current 40k isn't balanced simply doesn't know how to play 40k".

See, I can do it too

Lolz. :rolls eyes:

But seriously, I might not be the most awesome player ever but I find 40k to be extremely balanced.

Seriously? What would lead you to that conclusion? Lastly, my point still stands: If Necrons win the next big GT. Will the anti FW people finally accept the possibility that Necrons are far more dumb than any BS FW unit that is labeled as a "problem"? How many overalls would it take to reach that possibility? 1 more? 2 more?

Nobody from the anti FW crowd has yet to answer that question.