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.

There are miserable people in life who don’t know how or to or don’t want to figure out more productive ways to vent their frustration or find better things to do with their time.

I get it, this is a game we all love. We don’t own it. If it changes and we don’t like it, too bad. Move on. There are more important things in life to worry about.

This is pretty much what I am referring to. The start of 8th was very manageable. We adapted the rules by unanimous consent to work more in a way we thought made sense... like if you’re behind a building, you get cover whether or not you’re “in” it.

We found the balance reasonable. As a Guard player, I gave myself a 10% disadvantage in points, and things played really well for my group.

My interest in 40k resumed! I was playing again after *almost* selling off my collections at the middle of 7th. I was content with the game. Sure it needed a few tweaks, but we could handle that.

But then the rules bloat started... free stuff started coming back into the game with not-formations. Chapter Tactics spread. Decurian-style benefits are returning. The ills of 7th are plaguing us again and I’m unhappy with the game again.

 greatbigtree wrote:
This is pretty much what I am referring to. The start of 8th was very manageable. We adapted the rules by unanimous consent to work more in a way we thought made sense... like if you’re behind a building, you get cover whether or not you’re “in” it.

We found the balance reasonable. As a Guard player, I gave myself a 10% disadvantage in points, and things played really well for my group.

My interest in 40k resumed! I was playing again after *almost* selling off my collections at the middle of 7th. I was content with the game. Sure it needed a few tweaks, but we could handle that.

But then the rules bloat started... free stuff started coming back into the game with not-formations. Chapter Tactics spread. Decurian-style benefits are returning. The ills of 7th are plaguing us again and I’m unhappy with the game again.

Yep, in the form of even more books.

The difference in quality is also often night and Day, even in the same book.
E.g. Csm dex traits, Vigilus traits, index fw astra militarum compared to gw index imperium,new 2.0 dex csm to C:SM dex 2.0, etc.

It's like gw went to simple with base 8th and now has to introduce something to get depth back, except they this time charge even more for it for faux Choice.

The Necron argument is surely a good case for why "if you win a tournament its fine" shouldn't be the be-all and end all.

I think Necrons have a viable list.
Its just that it consists of:
Characters
Immortals
Tomb Blades
Destroyers
Scarabs (maybe, depending on your list something as chaff/go get objectives is probably necessary)
Doomsday Arks
Doom Scythes.

And - possibly sadly - the meta seems to be going away from Immortals. Probably because its 30 or nothing, and 450 points is a lot to drop just for some extra CP, which are not exactly giving you amazing abilities anyway. You can take some chunky units of Tomb Blades that are more vulnerable to D2, but for one point more have an extra point of toughness and are much faster so much more flexible on the table. With say 18 wounds rather than 10 you have a better chance of reanimation protocols going off. No MWBD which sucks - but then you are free to roam the table rather than blob up around your characters as immortals tend to.

And you know what? Compared to a lot of factions, that roster of okay units isn't that bad.
Its just a shame the rest of what the faction has to offer is obviously rubbish. Lychguard are terrible, flayed ones are terrible and the monolith is terrible. Praetorians are terrible - and due to GW's "brilliant" design idea of "no chapter tactic for you don't worry as we make chapter tactics the key to modern 40k", they will likely never be good (certain DE bitterness creeping in here).

Hopefully CA will shake up the meta by tuning various options - not just for Necrons, but for all the factions.

 greatbigtree wrote:
This is pretty much what I am referring to. The start of 8th was very manageable. We adapted the rules by unanimous consent to work more in a way we thought made sense... like if you’re behind a building, you get cover whether or not you’re “in” it.

We found the balance reasonable. As a Guard player, I gave myself a 10% disadvantage in points, and things played really well for my group.

My interest in 40k resumed! I was playing again after *almost* selling off my collections at the middle of 7th. I was content with the game. Sure it needed a few tweaks, but we could handle that.

But then the rules bloat started... free stuff started coming back into the game with not-formations. Chapter Tactics spread. Decurian-style benefits are returning. The ills of 7th are plaguing us again and I’m unhappy with the game again.

Likewise, I'm in the same boat. Been playing 40k since I started wargaming and took 6th and 7th off as they are frankly the drizzling gaks of excuses for wargames. I came back with 8th. I bought into what GW said. They kept that promise initially but now the bloat (and simultaneous removal of units. Pick a lane GW) and stupidity has been doubled down on and we're back to the same problems that plagued 7th. I frankly don't want to play another game of 40k right now unless it is against close friends. I'm not interested in getting my lovingly converted army getting blown off the board in turn 2 by some idiot with their FOTM souped up SM army that was a different chapter last month.

But no, I'm just a bItTeR hAteR!!! and other such things that the positivity police need to label people with as I have dared criticise their sweet m'lady GW.

I guess the haterade rolls off me and the positivity police don’t bother me. I’ll be honest, vitriol is unpleasant no matter which side of the fence I’m on.

I tend to give more attention / respect to an opinion that has a point of view that doesn’t slag someone else. I can be unhappy about the current state of the game without slagging GW as incompetent, or slagging people that are content with the game.

Different people like different things. When a new player comes to the forum, asking about this faction or that, I tend to ask, “what are you looking for in this game?”

If not-auto-losing is important, then advising caution when building a weak faction is valuable advice for someone. As is mentioning that the game changes, and that the FotM may change next week and make something really powerful.

If they want advice on how to best mix sub-optimal units into a force, advise on how best to do that, with a caveat that they’re going to be facing an uphill battle in a “typical” meta. If you like the look of a unit with poor rules, but really like the model/s and want to use it, here’s the best way, and some additional units and strategy that will mitigate the weakness.

I don’t have a particular nostalgia for any edition, though early 6th (Before Knights) was my favourite edition. I liked being able to blend a small allied detachment into a main force, before the FOC basically went out the window and super-heavies created the most skewed of skew lists. I don’t ever expect the game to go backwards to a more limited format. It doesn’t need to. Just the core mechanics need to be more able to differentiate the wider spread of scope.

So here I am. Hopeful that by contributing my thoughts to this community it might someday influence the designers to create a game more to my liking. Sure, it’s a long shot. But it makes sense to take it, when the alternative is to give up on a hobby I want to have ties to.

Darsath wrote:

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!

Again this is the black and white kind of post that just drives me batty. A codex can be competitive, but also bland, because some units within it don't stack up.

Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?

I'm still curious about the game and am waiting for a positive change in the game.

Interesting that this is the highest pick atm.

The games comes and goes. 8th Edition has been pretty good. No reason for casuals not to get into the game.

If your a comp player that comes and goes too. Atm probably a tough time to enter. But before we had Knights and Ynnari be pains. But the amount of tournaments is at an all time high so technically a good time to get into the game but be prepared to meta chase a little.

 Crablezworth wrote:
Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?

Here's your case study, folks.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?

Here's your case study, folks.

Sorry, an edition without terrain rules is objectively good and anyone disagreeing with that is morally flawed or something.

regarding people who want to see positive change, I'm reminded of people who'd stick around a MMO looong after they ceased to like it, complaining all the whiole and insisting they're sticking around because the game has "so much potential" I'm not saying that it's exactly the same but as someone who fell into that trap I found stepping away and taking a real break was REALLY useful

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

balmong7 wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Karol wrote:

They gave you a lot to play with. I admit the stuff is all over the place and imo all missions that have been released in 1 year should be reprinted in the respective CA like a catalogue, so you don't have to look up 3 different books for a mission.

But most of the stuff isn't matched played, and the rest falls under the no thank you to armies that make my army worse, so you can have fun. Double that if their army work just fine under normal match played rules. People interest in other people fun stops at their own wallet.

Well, if you choose to stick only to one narrow way of playing 40K I don't think that's GWs fault. In every WD and many Community articles they encourage you to play however you like and mix between different ways to play (like narrative with points, for example).
And I can't agree on the second part of your vote and I'm not even sure if I get it right. How does having fun with your opponent have anything to do with money (apart from buying minis, of course)? I think it just shows that the community you're in seems very focussed on Win at all costs, but I can't imagine how that even works for a whole gaming group.

The problem there is the culture of the community. I personally would love to play random homebrewed missions with mixed point totals, the open war cards, whatever. However, my local store is pretty much strictly 2000pt matched play ITC pick up games. It's very difficult to plan anything more complex than that without a lot of extra pre-planning and logistical work and the person may bail on you in the end because real life gets in the way. Back before I moved, I had a legit group of friends that all played and we regularly messed around with games like this. but I moved, and now I'm at the mercy of a store community I haven't been able to mesh with yet. I haven't played in like 8 months now due to this.

If that's the case I wonder what GW is even supposed to do. They release refined terrain rules, but people on this board will tell you "nobody plays that way". They release a mere suggestion for tournament play ("rule of 3)" but some people treat it as if that was a rule for all ways to play. Seems arbitrary to me. Same with ITC house rules, that seem to be widely accepted in the USA (and hardly known in europe). If a community can accept ITC rules, it's just as easy to say: Today we're playing Cities of Death, but all matched play rules still apply.

Well on that? GW really should stay silent concerning tourney play. If indeed they're "casual gamers" & design & intend their games to be played that way, then the most they should ever say is that "We do not design our games with the tournament scene in mind." and leave it at that. If you then all go & use 40k in a tourney setting & get wonky results? Well, so what? You were told it's not designed for that environment....

BrianDavion wrote:


regarding people who want to see positive change, I'm reminded of people who'd stick around a MMO looong after they ceased to like it, complaining all the whiole and insisting they're sticking around because the game has "so much potential" I'm not saying that it's exactly the same but as someone who fell into that trap I found stepping away and taking a real break was REALLY useful

Breaks definitely can be good. Since quitting 40k, I've gotten back into Magic (which has its own issues currently- WOTC is making GW-esque decisions with increasing frequency, but it's still fun) and have read up on many other games I would like to play, and will hopefully soon get some forces painted up to bring to the LGS.

I stay around because I do want to see 40K become a game I would enjoy again. I visit the MEDGe forum to stay up to date, browse trough painting and modeling, and proposed rules and Dakka discussions.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
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".

Pfft. I'm saying no such thing. What I am saying to them is Challenge Accepted.

I'm a veteran minis-gamer. I'm well aware when I'm dialing the difficulty up to 11 for myself. And rest assured that I'm confidant that by bringing ______, no matter what you bring, I'll be able to have (and give) a fun & challenging game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
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?

If it's me bringing the gak? Don't worry about it. That's on me. As long as you've got a legal list, bring whatever you like. We'll have a better game than you think we will.

If my opponents not having fun vs stuff I'm fielding (as in it's too strong for them)? All they have to do is talk to me. I've got an extensive collection (the benefit of having done this for 30 years). And there's nothing in it that I don't enjoy playing with. So, as I'm ALWAYS leaving cool stuff at home, I don't have any problem changing what I bring next time*.

* Though if it's not SW/Dreadnoughts/Khorne Demons/Ad Mech/or pure Vostryan infantry IG I'll need to dig it out of storage....
The Ad Mech & Vostroyans are currently on my painting table.

Slayer-Fan123 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 for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.

Um no they really have not.

40kstats = 49% win-rate 3% of primary factions in lists and 3% of top 4s in GTs. There is no big external balance problem for Necrons, there are problems internally and there are other factions that need bigger or smaller nerfs to their most powerful lists, but Necrons are not bottom of the barrel.

Now, will you please stop trying to make people not play Necrons? If they like the aesthetics and the lore they'll find a way to make the rules work for them. You can say "I think Necrons and Grey Knights are pretty weak, you might have a difficult time winning games, I'd suggest you play x faction if you want to win more". You had an argument back in 5th, 6th or 7th when a codex might not even come in an edition, now we get CA once a year + FAQs that sometimes nerf powerful factions.

 kodos wrote:

 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

I was ridiculing people that said IH were balanced in Maelstrom and only broken in ITC by saying that even if IH are even more absurd in ITC that they still had an unreasonably high win-rate upon release in Maelstrom games. 70% is not good or fair, it was a huge failure by the playtesters, one that it seems the game designers set their playtesters up for by suggesting poor testing mechanics.

I walked into Dakka Dakka when it was an actual store on their 11th day of being open. I was there when the website went online but immediately forgot my password.
I played 40k there for years.
I stay here for all my gaming related stuff.
I used to post artwork until they locked my thread for necromancy even though I followed the rules about posting new and relevant content.

I like to come here to read opinions like "games workshop should just produce more miniatures and sell them cheaper" ... even though GW's production facilities are running full bore almost 24 hours a day 7 days a week and they are constantly selling out of what they produce the most (new products).

Apparently new production facilities are being built so that will be interesting once they are done.

I also poke my head in to believe the fantasy that i get to play more than I really do. Sometimes going on the forums will inspire me to arrange a game IRL, work on an old project, pick up new hobby materials, etc.

I also like to check on if Slayer, Peregrine and Martel are doing okay. Where is Martel? Did GW fix blood angels?

nareik wrote:
I like to come here to read opinions like "games workshop should just produce more miniatures and sell them cheaper" ... even though GW's production facilities are running full bore almost 24 hours a day 7 days a week and they are constantly selling out of what they produce the most (new products).

Apparently new production facilities are being built so that will be interesting once they are done.

I also poke my head in to believe the fantasy that i get to play more than I really do. Sometimes going on the forums will inspire me to arrange a game IRL, work on an old project, pick up new hobby materials, etc.

I also like to check on if Slayer, Peregrine and Martel are doing okay. Where is Martel? Did GW fix blood angels?

To my knowledge Martel changed to C:SM 2 and uses the self build traits to simulate BA.
And he seems a lot happier for it.
But he also rarely comments nowadays cause Marines are not bad anymore.

 Brother Castor wrote:
Dakka does seem an unusual forum in terms of the amount of negativity for the hobby being discussed. It's a shame as it's not reflective of what I see in my local gaming group, and it does seem to be a minority of very vocal members.

I disagree that Dakka is negative about the hobby. Check out the painting and modelling section, not really any negativity there, for example. Or the Fiction section for people's homebrew army fluff.

What there is on Dakka, is criticism of GWs business model and of GWs ability to write rules for the game. Some people are unable to separate the hobby from the company that makes things for them to use in your hobby.

I've lost my Mojo - but I have invested so much time, money and effort into the game that I hope I will get the enthusiasm back at some point.

GW are so hit and miss right now - I'm either cheering for them, or wondering wtf are they smoking, and feeling sad about the missed opportunities.

They also still appear to be unable to write balanced rules for toffee, so there is that (not necessarily an issue for me given I only play casually now).

Not Online!!! wrote:

Firstly my replies are generally court, ergo i can get interpreted as salty even though I state a regular fact /Information.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

This is the definition of salt. "The match is predetermined because my army is underpowered." That is salt, classic salt. Like in a fighting game if you keep spamming a move and your opponent doesn't know how to counter it and says that you're just using an easy cheese tactic or that they only lose because they are using a bad character, that's salt. You can either embrace the salt and say "hey I'm a salty guy, I have every right to be, my faction is kind of garbo ATM, I'll stop being salty when my faction is more balanced" or you can say "I guess I am salty, I'll stop it immediately". But this "Nah I'm not salty" does not make sense.

I was salty when the first codexes came out in 8th and Necrons which were already a poor faction got left in the dirt and then buried below the dirt in anticipation of the codex by nerfing the Pylon with CA17, I quit my faction for a while and played Craftworlds that already had their codex, salt is justified at times IMO. Thankfully balance advocacy does work in 2019, GW messed up with IH and toned things down, they'll need to be toned down another two or three times probably before they are put in their place, we'll see, I'm glad GW toned down the worst of it within a month instead of waiting 6 months like some people wanted. GK are going to get some of the bigger buffs in psychic awakening, obviously Drukhari and Craftworlds didn't get much, they were already top competitive factions. GW knows that GK are a problem, I'm more worried about Harlequins and Dark Angels which might just float under the radar. Especially if GW wants to continue with same prices for different chapters, even in different books BA are going to pay another 40-70 pts for Smash Captains and DA will pay full price for tanks with half the rules.

Edit: This was not meant as a personal attack and I did not mean to imply that NotOnline!!! is a bad player although I understand why my comment might come across that way.

Thank you all for the responses. It pleases me to see that about 2/3rds of respondents on here that don't play 40k are here because they either like keeping up to date with 40k, and/or because they are waiting to see the game get better. I hope some folks can come forward with ideas for the second open question, as I don't think I've seen (or may have missed) any answers to that.

 vict0988 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Firstly my replies are generally court, ergo i can get interpreted as salty even though I state a regular fact /Information.

Not Online!!! wrote:

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.

This is the definition of salt. "The match is predetermined because my army is underpowered." That is salt, classic salt. Like in a fighting game if you keep spamming a move and your opponent doesn't know how to counter it and says that you're just using an easy cheese tactic or that they only lose because they are using a bad character, that's salt. You can either embrace the salt and say "hey I'm a salty guy, I have every right to be, my faction is kind of garbo ATM, I'll stop being salty when my faction is more balanced" or you can say "I guess I am salty, I'll stop it immediately". But this "Nah I'm not salty" does not make sense.

I was salty when the first codexes came out in 8th and Necrons which were already a poor faction got left in the dirt and then buried below the dirt in anticipation of the codex by nerfing the Pylon with CA17, I quit my faction for a while and played Craftworlds that already had their codex, salt is justified at times IMO. Thankfully balance advocacy does work in 2019, GW messed up with IH and toned things down, they'll need to be toned down another two or three times probably before they are put in their place, we'll see, I'm glad GW toned down the worst of it within a month instead of waiting 6 months like some people wanted. GK are going to get some of the bigger buffs in psychic awakening, obviously Drukhari and Craftworlds didn't get much, they were already top competitive factions. GW knows that GK are a problem, I'm more worried about Harlequins and Dark Angels which might just float under the radar. Especially if GW wants to continue with same prices for different chapters, even in different books BA are going to pay another 40-70 pts for Smash Captains and DA will pay full price for tanks with half the rules.

Lol. Again, I state what i percive according to Schulze von Thun as a factual statement.
Secondly: I'd like to see where you can turn that into a positive spin for Renegades and heretics. I did my 77 rounds with a high end win rate during index of about 45% to a low rate recently to less then 25%, i personally like uphill battles but there is a point where i deem the question necessary of what the point is when the intention is an actuall challangeing game won through skill. But sure, i must be salty and a bad player, btw i switched back to CSM preciscly because my R&H army couldn't perform. Further unlike in a fighting game, last time i checked not all off us can just switch out chosen factions and archetypes like fighters in one. I got lucky that i still have had 2 csm warbands and projects i had lying around others might not.

Context would matter vict.



Removed

morgoth wrote:

Further many like the hobby not because of the game but often despite it.

"Nobody really likes 40K and neither should you"

That's not a fair take on their post at all. I, too, like 40K despite the game's rules, not because of them. The game itself is a mess and if released on the market today with anyone but GW behind it, would be a dismal failure. But the models are great and I like the background, so I stick with it and eagerly hope that some of the refreshingly modern changes introduced in Apoc and Kill Team make their way into 40K proper.

It's not 'nobody likes 40K'. It's 'some people like 40K for reasons other than the game itself'.

morgoth wrote:

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.

"My army can't win ever"

That quote would actually apply equally well to an incredibly underpowered army and a massively overpowered army if your intent is to have a fun game. Stomping someone with no difficulty is equally as boring as being stomped with no difficulty.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?

Here's your case study, folks.

Sorry, an edition without terrain rules is objectively good and anyone disagreeing with that is morally flawed or something.

See, but you didn't say that. You said 8th was hot garbage and accused others who like it of believing its the only game around.

It was a substance-less low-effort post. The kind of gak that drives people nuts.

Sure, the terrain rules are NOT fantastic - that's why I play ITC. It doesn't make the game hot garbage.

Okay folks, I did some cleaning, warnings have been issued and the thread has been unlocked once more.

I am only going to ask this once nicely: Rule #1 is not optional, so remain polite and stay on topic.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
Is it possible that the reason 40k get so much flak is because in addition to 8th being hot garbage, people pretend it's the only game that exists, especially on a forum with how many section dedicated to games other than 40k?

Here's your case study, folks.

Sorry, an edition without terrain rules is objectively good and anyone disagreeing with that is morally flawed or something.

See, but you didn't say that. You said 8th was hot garbage and accused others who like it of believing its the only game around.

It was a substance-less low-effort post. The kind of gak that drives people nuts.

Sure, the terrain rules are NOT fantastic - that's why I play ITC. It doesn't make the game hot garbage.

What does create garbage games is poor external/internal balance and IGOUGO, which is frankly an outdated system. People STILL defend it for whatever fething reason though, and we still have some clown defending the state of Necrons in this thread too!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 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 for Crons at tournaments and multiple top 4s at GTs prove me right.

Um no they really have not.

40kstats = 49% win-rate 3% of primary factions in lists and 3% of top 4s in GTs. There is no big external balance problem for Necrons, there are problems internally and there are other factions that need bigger or smaller nerfs to their most powerful lists, but Necrons are not bottom of the barrel.

Now, will you please stop trying to make people not play Necrons? If they like the aesthetics and the lore they'll find a way to make the rules work for them. You can say "I think Necrons and Grey Knights are pretty weak, you might have a difficult time winning games, I'd suggest you play x faction if you want to win more". You had an argument back in 5th, 6th or 7th when a codex might not even come in an edition, now we get CA once a year + FAQs that sometimes nerf powerful factions.

 kodos wrote:

 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

I was ridiculing people that said IH were balanced in Maelstrom and only broken in ITC by saying that even if IH are even more absurd in ITC that they still had an unreasonably high win-rate upon release in Maelstrom games. 70% is not good or fair, it was a huge failure by the playtesters, one that it seems the game designers set their playtesters up for by suggesting poor testing mechanics.

LOL at using 40k stats. They take even small time tournaments for their statistics. That's one of the worst websites to make use of your argument.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

What does create garbage games is poor external/internal balance and IGOUGO, which is frankly an outdated system. People STILL defend it for whatever fething reason though, and we still have some clown defending the state of Necrons in this thread too!

People "defend" IGOUGO, because alternating activations is abuseable in a game like 40K where players are allowed to take units of varying sizes and strengths. Proposals need layers of rules to make it work. And THEN if you were successful at implementing such a system you'd likely have to rework the balance of all the units.

Its totally out of scope for the edition.

We're going to play IGOUGO, because it is the system we have. It's great to push for change. It's great to debate options. It's a total dick move to pretend like you've got the answers to everything and act like those that oppose you are clueless morons / white knights.

Regarding Necrons - this is another common issue. People talking out both sides of their mouth. They'll be happy to point to 40kstats and show how terrible GK are, but then when you see 40kstats showing Necrons sitting in a decent spot, oh, well that data doesn't count! 40kstats IS a terrible method for analyzing performance, but it's also a decent DIRECTIONAL tool to assess issues.

People who play Necrons can win games. Are they going 5 for 5? No, but that doesn't make the game unplayable for them or make it impossible for them to have fun.