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.

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"

I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.

You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.

Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.

There's also a big difference between being disappointed with something and stating as much, and derailing Every. Single. Thread on this forum.

You couldn't have a thread about your favourite sandwich on this board without GW, Marines, and sandwich apologists getting bashed within 10 posts.

It's fine to be unhappy, it's not fine to be utterly unrelenting in complaining and talking down to others like the nonsense we're seeing about Necrons and GK right now.

I play Necrons, I have fun with Necrons, and I can win with Necrons. Can I win every matchup? No, but I don't need to. There's also a very active Necrons tactics thread, which includes other people who seem to manage to win too. That will all get drowned out by absolutes from toxic people though.

I think the question we need to ask ourselves - and the mods and people who kind of steer dakka - is whether we really want this kind of negativity to be the primary image people get of this community.

I'm kind of amazed at the level of tolerance that appears to be displayed here on that very topic.

In the real world, people who are so obsessively negative, close minded and talking in bad faith are simply ignored and rejected by everyone.

So why is such a bevhaviour tolerated here where we're basically focused on one of our few happy chosen activities... I don't know.

I could probably write a AI bot to just flag and spoiler all of these copy paste "GW don't do what I want so I hate them". After all, if you find "utterly imbalanced", "IGOUGO" and "proper rules" in a post, we all know the tone and content of it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"

I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.

You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.

Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.

I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.

When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

morgoth wrote:
I think the question we need to ask ourselves - and the mods and people who kind of steer dakka - is whether we really want this kind of negativity to be the primary image people get of this community.

I'm kind of amazed at the level of tolerance that appears to be displayed here on that very topic.

In the real world, people who are so obsessively negative, close minded and talking in bad faith are simply ignored and rejected by everyone.

So why is such a bevhaviour tolerated here where we're basically focused on one of our few happy chosen activities... I don't know.

I could probably write a AI bot to just flag and spoiler all of these copy paste "GW don't do what I want so I hate them". After all, if you find "utterly imbalanced", "IGOUGO" and "proper rules" in a post, we all know the tone and content of it.

This is sorta funny, since it’s been those so against this negativity that have been the most rude, dismissive and insulting the passed few things I have been discussing here.
I mean, your saying that we as a community should silence and ignore those who do not agree with us, since they are close minded.

Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"

I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.

You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.

Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.

I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.

When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.

I think this argument would only hold water if all GW focused communities were heavily negative. The fact that they aren't suggests that whilst there are issues that stem from the parent company, the community itself has a greater part to play in the attitude that is displayed.

 Overread wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Again you're missing the point. The point isn't about your opinion on the relative performance of different armies and advising people away from weaker choices and toward stronger ones. It's the attitude and your choice of language that you're taking.

Furthermore you're overlooking that not everyone plays; not everyone plays the same and not everyone competes. Furthermore your'e overlooking the variation in meta states. Necrons and Grey Knights are weak now, however a new edition; a new set of rules; a new handbook edition etc.... could all change that situation.



You're taking a very hard, very bossy, very single approach to your viewpoint. Thrusting it upon others without consideration nor without taking into account the wider viewpoint.



Again its not your choice to advise people, its language, attitude and the overall way you present yourself.

I didn't even say anything about competing. Casual anything else is better than streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights. Simple as that.

So why should someone spend their hard earned money on a "they might be good later"?

 Overread wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of those GOP bumper stickers. "If you don't love god, guns and government, you don'l love America, so there's the door"

I like 40K for the fluff and the models, and I want it to be written well. Simple as that.

You don't have to love everything about something in order to want the best for it. I would argue that making suggestions on how to improve a game is tough love. To just stick our heads in the sand and take it for what it is does no favours to anyone.

Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.

I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.

When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.

I think this argument would only hold water if all GW focused communities were heavily negative. The fact that they aren't suggests that whilst there are issues that stem from the parent company, the community itself has a greater part to play in the attitude that is displayed.

I actuly think a lot are, and have mention this a bit in other posts here. Just in other ways. As I point out here just above, it’s at least from where I sit. Mostly from those who dislike this discussion that consistently sets the tone. I when I made my first reply was trying to be positive about why I am here. I even try and use the poll as honestly as I could.

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.

I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.

When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.

Don't you see how closely your statement resembles that of a depressive person making an "objective" assessment of pretty much anything?

It's terrible, immensely terrible and nothing is as terrible...

Really?

I've seen this blindness in others. Even going as far as to pretend that other game systems are infinitely better and - why not - flawless.

How realistic does that sound?

Apple fox wrote:


Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.

Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.

I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.

More to the point: If you start Grey Knights, Necrons, or something else that has no sliver of hope of competing if anyone around you makes any effort to be more competitive you're telling your playgroup "Hey, guys, could you not use a bunch of your cool stuff because my army book can't deal with it". It isn't about whether you can win, or whether your playgroup is casual or competitive, so much as it is by picking those armies you're putting some pretty stringent limitations on your entire play environment. You either shelve any list with more than a couple of vehicles in it or the Grey Knight player has to go home and cry. Is that good for the Grey Knight player? Is that good for the player who wants to use tanks? Does anyone have a good time?

morgoth wrote:
I think the question we need to ask ourselves - and the mods and people who kind of steer dakka - is whether we really want this kind of negativity to be the primary image people get of this community.

I'm kind of amazed at the level of tolerance that appears to be displayed here on that very topic.

In the real world, people who are so obsessively negative, close minded and talking in bad faith are simply ignored and rejected by everyone.

So why is such a bevhaviour tolerated here where we're basically focused on one of our few happy chosen activities... I don't know.

I could probably write a AI bot to just flag and spoiler all of these copy paste "GW don't do what I want so I hate them". After all, if you find "utterly imbalanced", "IGOUGO" and "proper rules" in a post, we all know the tone and content of it.

Empty forums make for excellent echo chambers.

Mods are not positivity police and neither should you be.

morgoth wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Sure, but there's a difference between "this is trash" and "this need improvement" -- including the attitude surrounding it.

I think the problem is a lot of 40k is rather bad, when players here can point out rules that flat out don’t work. With the players having to use Rai with a constant stream of rules confusion.
On top of balance issues all over the place, this does not just include power and ability to compete, but access to compete in different ways as the meta shifts, it starts to get to the point of maybe the rules a just as bad as some people think.

When I think of 40k now, I think without the history, IP and momentum gained. I think it’s probably lucky at how much it can weather, a new game would probably not survive if they did what GW does with 40k.
Even other games cannot get away with it once established, And I think that does make me feel a little sad.

Don't you see how closely your statement resembles that of a depressive person making an "objective" assessment of pretty much anything?

It's terrible, immensely terrible and nothing is as terrible...

Really?

I've seen this blindness in others. Even going as far as to pretend that other game systems are infinitely better and - why not - flawless.

How realistic does that sound?

What.

Well, depressive hmm. I am not at all, in fact I find the discussion amusing and interesting. But reading into text is hard.
I also do not think the game is terrible, immensely terrible and nothing is as terrible. And taking that from my statement seems like you are reading into it with the negativity you are pushing onto me.
One thing I have mention a few times here is I think GW could work it all out if they sat back and did just that, rather than pile more on with a scatter design.

But here is the thing, I do see the insults in this thread, I see it when it come up in the USR thread. Whiner, wingers, complainers, depressed with nothing going on in there lives, and that is why they can post all the time.
This is all just from the last week or this thread. Now I do not think that it’s all once side, but reading your own post.
It would seem you are doing exactly what you are in such support of removing.

Apple fox wrote:

But here is the thing, I do see the insults in this thread, I see it when it come up in the USR thread. Whiner, wingers, complainers, depressed with nothing going on in there lives, and that is why they can post all the time.

See? I don't get this line of thinking. It's almost 2020- millions of people have smartphones that they can browse things with in their downtime. Maybe they're painting, having a gak, cooking dinner or waiting for another game. Why is the idea that only people actively playing the game are not posting as they "are doing other things"? You can be doing any of the above and more and still post on forums quite frequently.

 Sentineil wrote:

At the end of the day, they've always said they're casual players not competitive. The game is about having fun with your mates, not net-listing a tournament.

if 40k ever becomes the casual friendly, fun for me and my mates and not "one unit is obviously better than the other" (don't even need net-listing for that) game again, I am glad to give it a try again will move some minis around.

But I haven't had much fun with the game since the end of 5th, tried to give each edition a chance but got more and more the feeling that you need to constantly be with the game and keep track on the releases to have fun.
Not the "take your already long ago painted Minis once every 3 months to a campaign weekend or visit the store/club once a month, have some good games, purchase 1 or 2 boxes of minis you like enjoy painting them and play again"

 Sentineil wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.

Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.

I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.

I think I could find a few, but it comes down to. Is it the same tired complaints, or a continuation of issues. It’s the same reason I think GW has lead a lot of this far more than people realise. I regular ply get a few people who want me to set up 40k tournaments again here. And the response is Luke warm at best, the same people who would sit and say there was nothing wrong, are now sitting alone with no one to play with.
Now our area is probably unique, but I think it’s a real possibility that we are not entirely unique.

Thinking to news, I liked several things. But in both cases did not like other things. Then in both cases so far I have been so outpriced that It sour the positives I had. This my personal experiance with GW news and rulers recently.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.

Apple fox wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.

Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.

I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.

I think I could find a few, but it comes down to. Is it the same tired complaints, or a continuation of issues. It’s the same reason I think GW has lead a lot of this far more than people realise. I regular ply get a few people who want me to set up 40k tournaments again here. And the response is Luke warm at best, the same people who would sit and say there was nothing wrong, are now sitting alone with no one to play with.
Now our area is probably unique, but I think it’s a real possibility that we are not entirely unique.

Thinking to news, I liked several things. But in both cases did not like other things. Then in both cases so far I have been so outpriced that It sour the positives I had. This my personal experiance with GW news and rulers recently.

I'm not sure I see the difference between the same tired complaints and a continuation of issues? I think the issue is that people want 40k and GW to be something they're not, and take every opportunity to vent when they don't get what they want.

I've been in the hobby for over 20 years. Marines have always gotten more releases than other factions. That doesn't mean we need to sit through the same nonsense every time a marine release is announced. Whether it's a continuation of an issue or not doesn't matter, it's a broken record, and it's not going to change.

It's incredibly frustrating to jump into a thread on a new release to see what it's like and all you see is page after page of the same arguments and negativity. You can sum up any thread with scary accuracy- yes it's Marines not Xenos, all Marines should be rolled into one codex, the price increased, GW doesn't know it's customer, it's trash, GW can't balance, let's wait for tournament results, it's now OP, GW can't balance, why did chaos not get the this, more bloat, and so on.

Even the inconsistency of arguments is tiresome.

I'm here mostly to lurk the News and Rumors for kickstarters and other info about minis I'd be interested in painting.

The 40k aspect of it, well I remember having fun with 3rd ed. The minis may have gotten better, but the game certainly hasn't

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.

 Sentineil wrote:

Apple fox wrote:

 Sentineil wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.

Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.

I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.

I think I could find a few, but it comes down to. Is it the same tired complaints, or a continuation of issues. It’s the same reason I think GW has lead a lot of this far more than people realise. I regular ply get a few people who want me to set up 40k tournaments again here. And the response is Luke warm at best, the same people who would sit and say there was nothing wrong, are now sitting alone with no one to play with.
Now our area is probably unique, but I think it’s a real possibility that we are not entirely unique.

Thinking to news, I liked several things. But in both cases did not like other things. Then in both cases so far I have been so outpriced that It sour the positives I had. This my personal experiance with GW news and rulers recently.

I'm not sure I see the difference between the same tired complaints and a continuation of issues? I think the issue is that people want 40k and GW to be something they're not, and take every opportunity to vent when they don't get what they want.

I've been in the hobby for over 20 years. Marines have always gotten more releases than other factions. That doesn't mean we need to sit through the same nonsense every time a marine release is announced. Whether it's a continuation of an issue or not doesn't matter, it's a broken record, and it's not going to change.

It's incredibly frustrating to jump into a thread on a new release to see what it's like and all you see is page after page of the same arguments and negativity. You can some up any thread with scary accuracy- yes it's Marines not Xenos, all Marines should be rolled into one codex, the price increased, GW doesn't know it's customer, it's trash, GW can't balance, let's wait for tournament results, it's now OP, GW can't balance, why did chaos not get the this, more bloat, and so on.

Even the inconsistency of arguments is tiresome.

I will just give a short response as I want to eat.
But I have also being in the hobby for 20 years now.
And I have been waiting for a single charecter release for the entire time, and I am still waiting. It sounds like all ongoing issues that GW has yet to fix when I read a lot of it. I can shift though it and left quite positive at the end of the day, in the end this could be that I play several games. I also buy alternatives where I can. GW just being GW does not impact my life as it seems some posters may think it may.

With marines, I see it both as a thing that’s annoying. But I also worry that there own mistakes have led to a reliance on space marines where even a positive and well reserved release is not enough to cover for the time it’s taken. And that is a worry I think others probably share.

In the 3 other main games I play, my factions have all got more support this year than GW has support my current 40k army’s in 5 years.

Maybe all things in life, games included, create bitterness for some people.

Maybe there's always a thin share of those people who can't let go of that bitterness, somehow hoping they can get their time or interest - or really anything at all - back after this perceived betrayal of their own dreams.

Maybe when a game is as successful and lasts as long as 40K, those thin shares pile up and the accumulated stack of bitter spectres becomes enough to create what I've just named "the dakka effect", where an uninformed observer could have the impression that 50% of people are just iredeemably pissed at 40K and GW.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.

I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.

I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.

Then you must be opposed to the faction receiving any buffs or improvements anytime soon then. I look forward to seeing your objections come Chapter Approved!

Sentineil wrote:

Apple fox wrote:


Just read the second reply here and ask who set the tone of this thread.

Whoops... I definitely did set the tone of this thread, so sorry about that. I'll wait in future. I've lurked on these forums for years without posting, but the negativity and complaining pushed me over the edge a while back where I couldn't just sit back and ignore it.

I would ask though, if you can find a single thread in General Discussion or News and Rumours (40k related) that's made it a full page before the usual suspects arrive with the same tired complaints.

Dont think that they can help themselves. It seems an innate desire to gak all over anything not to their liking cannot be quenched.

Darsath wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.

I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.

Then you must be opposed to the faction receiving any buffs or improvements anytime soon then. I look forward to seeing your objections come Chapter Approved!

From a competitive standpoint things don't get more balanced than 50%, the external balance could use a little work and internal balance is pretty bad, but I'd be sad if Immortals or Doomsday Arks got any cheaper.

Darsath wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.

I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.

Then you must be opposed to the faction receiving any buffs or improvements anytime soon then. I look forward to seeing your objections come Chapter Approved!

This is the kind of asinine argument this thread has needed to prove the point.

Apparently a faction is either bottom tier or perfect and not on need of any updates. Cool.

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yes they shouldn't start those armies because both those armies are a waste of time if you want play a game. Streamlined Necrons and Grey Knights are still garbage against casual Eldar or Genestealer Cults or Orks or...anything else.

Could you at least get it right? Necrons are not bottom tier, if you played the game more you'd know. Necrons are solid high mid tier. I just won a game against competitive WS today, I have a hugely positive win-rate in 2019. Casual Craftworlds would be easy to beat with competitive GK assuming you soup at least a little bit for a Battalion and some Mortar Squads.

Riiiiiiiiiight. You go tell everyone in the Necron Tactica your anecdotal evidence that Necrons aren't bad. I'll get the popcorn.

I've been saying Necrons are pretty strong all year, 50% win-rate for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.

Um no they really have not.

None of the above.

I still collect and paint 40k minis and I still write silly little stories about them, even if I play increasingly rarely.

There isn't really a point atm for my main army to be fielded because of the fact that it is basically a predetermined conclusion to the match.
Basically.

So yeah atm i am more painting and building then playing.

As for the big number of unhappy players 7th too 8th was a shift in design paradigms however gw has fallen back into their old Modus operandi.
That people are unhappy about that is understandable.
Further many like the hobby not because of the game but often despite it.

 vict0988 wrote:

From a competitive standpoint things don't get more balanced than 50%.

in a different topic the statement was that a balanced army in 40k has 70% win rate (to counter the argument that a specific faction is over powered)

and the disagreement on such basic values also is a reason why the discussions always end up the same