Warhammer 40K Tabletop Thread XLI: Secondary Opinions

[Forum Explorer]

Everyone keeps glossing over the absolute nonsense that buying crap units / units whose theme you dont like is. Not even buying, but also building and painting them. Why? If I like Alaitoc and I have planes 'cause I think they look slick, why would I waste money on warwalkers, support weapons, banshees or scorpions (during 8th) if the first two suck and the second two suck, look ugly as sin due to being failcast AND are some of the most expensive points/$ units in the codex ? Why would i spend good money on crap, to even open up the option?

There is nothing wrong with playing a more competitive army. My expectation though is that you communicate to your opponent that you are bringing a more competitive army, and that's what you want to play. If they refuse to play you, well that's fair. They don't want to play competitive. You can find someone else to play. But ideally, upon hearing that you are playing a competitive army, they will bring a more competitive army to match yours.

[Tvtyrant]

Aren't they? They expect people to 'play down', which requires models which you have no reason to own. Yes, nobody is saying 'go and buy new bad stuff', they just expect you to have bad stuff from previous bad purchases. Isnt that the same as expecting casuals to have good stuff from previous good purchases? I mean, you're playing lets say IG; why dont you have 3 tank commanders? What do you mean you cant 'play up' ?

So don't play those people. This entire discussion stems around the fact that you have nothing to incentivize casual players to play you, but you still want to play them for some reason.

This whole conversation is really a supply demand problem; they have what you want or you wouldn't care, and you don't have what they want.

[Don Qui Ho Tep]

Chiming in to say that each gaming group is very different, and the kinds of informal or unspoken expectations that you'd see among a group of close friends are not always applicable in larger groups of people. To an earlier point about communication between gaming groups, it seems like a lot of this could get cleared up with a few texts beforehand, as long as you're honest; "it would be more fun for me if we had a narrative mission, what do you think?" "No thanks, I want to test out this list before next month's league gets started."

Another earlier point, that not everyone's collection is the same size, is worth restating. Communication becomes much more important when one player has fewer options to accommodate the other.

I don't think it's productive to moralize this, I think it's uncontroversial to say that people have fun in different ways. In a lot of anecdotal stories people share, the most important take away is that being nice will smooth over a lot of bad games. I usually lose, often very badly, but I'll usually ask my opponent questions about their army, the choices they've made during the game. That's how I have fun. Nobody's complained so far, and I like to think that's because my local league, although very competitive, is run by some very nice people who are good at organizing some 40+ gamers, and there's social media infrastructure to let players talk directly.

-------------------

SO ANYWAY. I'm jumping on the bandwagon and starting a Necron army. I am going for Winning Games rather than Things I Like, and would appreciate some guidance.

Units that look good to me after a few read-throughs (in no particular order): Technomancers, Chronomancers, Night Scythes, Triarch Praetorians, Hexmarks, Skorpekh Destroyers. Thinking of picking up a Command Barge to take the Voltaic Staff relic. I expect the core of my army will be two or three units of 20 Warriors.

There's a lot of good options for dynastic codes, I was thinking of running Pitiless Hunters (double rapid fire if you remained stationary) and Isolationists (+1 Strength to rapid fire within 12"). Seems like a good way to take advantage of big blobs of warriors.

Here's what I'm thinking:

Spoiler: 1990 pts, 10 CP, 101 PL

Show

HW
Command Barge - Voltaic Staff, WL (Thrall of the Silent King)
Technomancer - Phylactery Hive, Canoptek Cloak, Dynastic Heirlooms (Nanoscarab Casket)
Royal Warden - Rarified Nobility (Immortal Pride)

Troops
20 x Warriors, Gauss Flayers
20 x Warriors, Gauss Flayers
10 x Immortals, Gauss Blaster

Elites
3 x Skorpekh Destroyers
3 x Skorpekh Destroyers, Plasmacyte
Shard of the Void Dragon, Transdimensional Thunderbolt

Heavy Support
Lokhust Destroyers x 2
Heavy Destroyer x 1, Enmitic Exterminator

Flyer
Night Scythe

Tips and critiques are both solicited and welcome.

[Adrastos42]

Worth noting that all the 8th ed books, including PA, are included if you subscribe, though not necessarily in a user friendly manner.

My position continues to be that it is not yet worth paying money for. But once they remove the ‘beta’ flag, and I’m playing regularly again, I probably will. It is showing a good direction of travel, but should have been released as a free service from the start. If they have to charge something, they should be charging on a per book basis, with the codes still included in the paper versions. Buy the physical book, get the code. Don’t want to get the physical book? Get the code for the digital access more cheaply (say 20% of the cost of the physical book).

Huh, I didn't realise you still got all the 8th-ed books for subscribing, somehow I got the impression that was a limited-time thing that had expired.

And thank your for your thoughts on it, that's good to know. And yeah, I don't know their current pricing model but charging a fraction for just the code would certainly make sense!

[Avaris]

Huh, I didn't realise you still got all the 8th-ed books for subscribing, somehow I got the impression that was a limited-time thing that had expired.

And thank your for your thoughts on it, that's good to know. And yeah, I don't know their current pricing model but charging a fraction for just the code would certainly make sense!

It’s time limited in the sense that the 8th ed stuff will gradually be phased out, but as far as I’m aware people who subscribe will always get what’s left (would be very harsh otherwise, as there is no other way to get that stuff into the app).

The pricing is £3.99 per month, or $4.99. I feel this will be a reasonable price to pay for it when it is functional, especially if playing regularly: it will be a good reference tool. But it’s not there yet, so while I have the free version downloaded, and will add my codexes as I get them, I won’t pay yet.

[Renegade Paladin]

Yeah, $60/year is too steep for just the army builder tool - and once the 8th edition stuff is phased out, that's all you'll be paying for.

[Cheesegear]

Aren't they? They expect people to 'play down', which requires models which you have no reason to own. Yes, nobody is saying 'go and buy new bad stuff', they just expect you to have bad stuff from previous bad purchases.

I keep trying to get out, and they keep pulling me back in.

I don't play by the army-building rules in the books. I play by the army-building rules in my head, and I expect you to know what they are:

1. I expect you to know all about the tournament meta, and then deliberately not play those armies and/or units.
2. I expect you to never, ever play any Faction that I consider among the top tier; Guard only. No Relics. Final Destination.
3. If you see a particular combo or idea that you think would work well with the Faction, because GW probably designed it that way, you can't use it. Because that's what a tournament player would likely do, and as per Rule 1, I think you know that it's already banned in my head.
4. I expect you to only like the bad units in your Codex.
5. If GW makes a new unit, and shows you its datasheet, and uses its rules to sell model models, you can't buy it.

If you are a new player? Doesn't matter. I expect things from you already.
If you are a poor player? Doesn't matter. I expect you to buy units to please me.

[Avaris]

Yeah, $60/year is too steep for just the army builder tool - and once the 8th edition stuff is phased out, that's all you'll be paying for.

I’m hoping their plans for new content don’t end at the current army builder tool, but there’s currently no indication of what may be coming in future (and nor should there be: they need to get this tool working first). The other obvious additions in my mind would be a Crusade roster tool, and an in game tracker for things like objectives, CP etc. All stuff that can be done in other ways, and indeed by other third party apps, but having them all in one package might make it worth paying for.

[Cheesegear]

Guide to White Scars
Sons of the Great Khan

Spoiler: Abilities

Show

Chapter Tactics - Lightning Assault: WHITE SCARS models can Advance or Fall Back and declare a Charge in the same turn. The ability to Fall Back and Charge isn't anything good, since all's it does is give your opponents more opportunities to fire Overwatch, or interrupt your turn using ranged attacks. However, the ability to Advance and Charge in the same turn is all about making your Charges easier. Which is what you want. Additionally, WHITE SCARS don't suffer the penalty for Advancing and Firing Assault weapons...Be careful not to soften your target up so much that you make your Charge harder. Most BIKER units should be able to perform a Turn 1 Charge since they automatically Advance 6" without rolling.

If you have a WHITE SCARS Army:
Devastating Charge: While the Assault Doctrine is active, units deal +1 Damage on their Melee attacks on the turn that they Charge. Well, this wont happen until Turn 3, by which time you should have been in combat for 1-2 turns by then. Maybe it isn't worth having a White Scars Army, and you may want to look into forming Detachments made up of other Chapters' units.

---

Successor Tactics: 'Advance and Charge in the same turn' is already better than any other Successor Tactic you could pick when you consider your White Scars Stratagems and Relics later on. Maybe, maybe, maybe you might like to do your own thing, and pick up Inheritors of the Primarch, so you get that sweet Chapter Tactic, but still get to claim it as your 'own' Chapter. Like White Scars, but worse. The only real reason to play a White Scars Successor is if you find 'white' too difficult to paint. However, only the most toxic of metas will enforce that rule, and you can paint your army any colour you want and just call them White Scars.

Spoiler: Characters

Show

Kor'sarro Khan: CAPTAIN. He's a Primaris Captain with a Relic Blade. In addition, he has a single ability (12") vs. VEHICLES that is used in the Shooting phase; Roll a 4+ and deal a Mortal Wound. It's not great. But it's not nothing, especially 'cause you can use it even if you Advance. Additionally, Kor'sarro has an Aura 6"; WHITE SCARS CORE and CHARACTERS have +1 to wound on the the turn that they Charge. That's really nice since it effectively gives you a pocket of Blood Angels around Kor'sarro Khan, in addition to the bonus you already get from being White Scars. Which is incredibly deadly on units like Bladeguard Veterans. Since your Captain slot is being used, here, you can still run a Primaris Chaplain on Bike to make at least one devastating Turn 1 Charge.

Khan on Bike: BIKER CAPTAIN. He comes with a weird Force Sword, that turns into a Power Fist on the turn he Charges. Pretty good. In addition, when in Melee, he counts as having a Storm Shield. For only 110 Points, this guy is actually really good, especially since you're White Scars - you should always be Charging. Arguably, this might be the only unit you have, that wants to Fall Back and Charge in the same turn. Additionally, you can run a combo Charge with a Primaris Chaplain on Bike. Running two strong Characters into your opponent's battle-line on Turn 1 can be very strong. And when you know that your Biker Characters can reliably make Charges, Chogorian Storm and The Imperium's Sword become incredibly, incredibly good.

Spoiler: Army List Options

Show

Warlord Traits
1. When your Warlord successfully Charges, roll a 2+ and deal a single Mortal Wound.
2. When your Warlord successfully Charges, gain +D3 Attacks. Very strong. Since your Warlord should be Charging on Turn 1.
3. Gain +1 Attack until the end of the battle, each time your Warlord destroys a CHARACTER.
4. BIKER. Re-roll Charges. Additionally, your opponent has -1 to hit if your Warlord Advances. Can be very strong. But, again, if your Warlord is a BIKER, they should already be making fairly reliable 4" Charges.
5. +1 to wound vs. MONSTERS and VEHICLES. Arguably not necessary if you're running Thunder Hammers or Power Fists.
6. If your Warlord is Engaged and the enemy tries to Fall Back, roll a 4+; They can't Fall Back.

---

Relics of Chogoris
WHITE SCARS (specifically) can choose from Relics or Special-Issue Wargear when choosing a 'Relic'.

Mantle of the Stormseer. PSYKER. +1 to manifest from the Stormspeaking Discipline.

The Hunter's Eye. Choose a WHITE SCARS unit within 6"; That unit gains Ignores Cover. Not a great use of your Relic. But it's one way to make gunline White Scars work, if you're desperate.

Banner of the Eagle. ANCIENT. Aura 6"; WHITE SCARS CORE units gain +1 Strength. Can be extremely strong if you have a Chapter Champion Warlord with 're-roll Charges' Warlord Trait coming out of Drop Pods. But, again, doing this kind of feels like you're not playing White Scars, and are you sure you wouldn't be happy playing with another Chapter?

Wrath of the Heavens. BIKER. Increase Move to 16" - remember to also auto-Advance 6" and Charge. Additionally, effectively gain FLY. A very, very strong Relic which will have your Captain- or Primaris Chaplain on Bike, in Melee, on Turn 1.

Scimitar of the Great Khan. [Power Sword]. It deals 2 Damage. On a '6' to wound it deals 4 Damage. It's better to keep your Relic slot for something else and just take a Thunder Hammer or Power Fist like a normal person.

Plume of the Plainsrunner. Aura 6"; WHITE SCARS INFANTRY gain +1 to Advance and Charge rolls. This is almost mandatory and possibly the best Relic here.

Glaive of Vengeance. Turns your Khan's Khan Spear, into a Power Fist at all times, even when you don't Charge. Not great. s

Special-Issue Wargear - White Scars Successor Chapters can only take Special-Issue Wargear as their Relics.

Adamantine Mantle. Ignore Wounds (5+). Yep.

Artificer Armour. 2+ Save, 5+ Invulnerable. Yep.

Master-Crafted Weapon. Choose a weapon that isn't a Relic or Master-Crafted weapon already; Add 1 to its Damage. Solid. Extra Damage is usually good.

Digital Weapons. Whenever the bearer Fights, make an additional special attack. If the special attack hits, deal a Mortal Wound.

Equis Pattern Bolt Pistol. The name alone should've told you it's bad.

Headtaker's Trophies. Aura 6"; Enemy units have -1 Leadership. Hard pass.

Stormwrath Bolts. Take a Bolt weapon. Give it an alternative fire mode; S7, AP-1. D6 Damage vs. MONSTERS. Go back to Space Wolves.

Cyber-Eagle Helm. Aura 6"; WHITE SCARS CORE units Overwatch on a 5+. Chalk another one up to the gunline for some reason.

Stormspeaking Discipline
1. WC7, 18". Target unit can't Advance and only rolls 1d6 to Charge. lol.
2. WC7, 18". The closest enemy unit - visible or not - takes D3 Mortal Wounds. If the unit doesn't die, roll a 4+ and deal another one. Roll a 5+ and deal another one. Roll a 6 and deal another one.
3. WC6, 12". Target WHITE SCARS unit gains +2" to Advance and Charge rolls. Where's that Plume of the Plainsrunner?
4. WC6, 12". Target WHITE SCARS unit can't be Overwatched against. In addition, when the target unit completes a Charge, roll a 6 for each model in the unit and deal a Mortal Wound.
5. WC6, 18" Target visible unit takes -1 to Leadership and has -1 to hit. The -1 to hit is nice enough.
6. WC6, 12". Roll a 4+ for every enemy unit in range, and +1 if the unit has FLY. Deal a Mortal Wound.

Spoiler: Stratagems

Show

All White Scars Successors count as White Scars.

Born in the Saddle. WHITE SCARS BIKER unit can Advance and Shoot in the same turn.

Butchered Quarry. When an enemy unit Falls Back from one of your WHITE SCARS INFANTRY or BIKER units, your unit may make a single Melee attack (remember Chainswords give +1 Attack every time you use them). After the unit has Fallen Back - if it wasn't destroyed - your unit may move 3" towards that unit.

Wind-Swift (2). A unit that make a Normal Move, can immediately Advance (i.e; They move twice). That unit can't manifest, shoot or declare a Charge this turn. You'll be in Melee on Turn 2 for sure, even with a non-Biker unit. Can't be waiting around for Assault Doctrine. Turn 3? Too slow. This is great for units whose ranged attacks aren't very good - or non-existant - but want to get into Melee really fast, but you don't really want to run the risk of coming in from Reinforcements and having a 9" Charge.

Ride Hard, Ride Fast. When your WHITE SCARS unit Advances, your opponent has -1 to hit it with ranged attacks.

Lightning Debarkation. You can Disembark from a non-Flyer Transport, after it has moved. You can't declare a Charge. Still very strong, though. All Vehicles are now basically do what Impuslors do.

Khan's Champion. Choose a 'Sergeant' in your army and give it one of the following; Master-Crafted Weapon, Digital Weapons, Headtaker's Trophies or Stormwrath Bolts. Pick the Sergeant in your best unit and give his best weapon +1 Damage?

Hunters' Fusillade. If a WHITE SCARS unit Advances, treat its Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons as Assault weapons. Very nice and for only 1 CP that's a joke. Heavy weapons are not Assault weapons. That's not how that works. And it definitely shouldn't be how it works for only a single CP.

Chogorian Thunderbolts. When a WHITE SCARS BIKER unit completes a Charge, roll a 6 for each model in the unit; The enemy takes a Mortal Wound.

Quarry of the Khan.

A Mighty Trophy. When a WHITE SCARS model destroys an enemy Warlord, for the rest of the game, all your White Scars units automatically pass Morale tests. Well, you're Space Marines. Is this even worth a CP?

Fierce Rivalries. Each phase, the first unit to declare a Charge in your army, rolls 3d6 and discards the lowest. Very strong.

Strike for the Heart (2). When a WHITE SCARS unit consolidates, it goes D3+3", or, if your unit has a Movement of 10+, it goes D6+6". Yeah. That's the reason it's 2 CPs. 'Cause a unit of Bikes can Consolidate up to 12".

Feinting Withdrawal. Fall Back and Shoot in the same turn.

Tempered by Wisdom. Your non-named Warlord gets a second Warlord Trait. Always nice to have.

The Eternal Hunt (2). If the Assault Doctrine is active, when rolling a '6' to wound, increase the AP of the attack by another -1. Can only be used once. Should never be used at all.

Encirclement. Pay a CP to put any unit you want into Outflank. 1 CP, no matter the Power Rating. Can be very strong.

Gift of the Khans. A Successor Chapter, when selecting a Relic, can choose from the Relics of Chogoris... Why aren't you just playing White Scars? Their Successors don't even get to Advance and Charge in the same turn. It's really good.

[Renegade Paladin]

Lightning Debarkation. You can Disembark from a non-Flyer Transport, after it has moved. You can't declare a Charge. Still very strong, though. All Vehicles are now basically do what Impuslors do.

They had better give me Rapid Redeployment back when the Guard codex comes around.

[Avaris]

The ability to Fall Back and Charge isn't anything good, since all's it does is give your opponents more opportunities to fire Overwatch, or interrupt your turn using ranged attacks.

What, giving all of your units +1 attack through Shock Assault always being on in your turn isn’t good enough for you? Plus it means you can pick and choose who you engage with even if you were previously in combat. Plus it means you can shoot the unit you were in combat with before assaulting it again. Plus Overwatch is now a once per turn thing, unless you’re facing T’au. All seems good to me!

Edit: oh yeah, also means all your units attack before your opponent gets to use anything, as they count as charging. There is almost no reason why a WS player should ever NOT fall back. Maybe if the opponent would be able to use a stratagem that punishes falling back. Maybe.

[LeSwordfish]

I keep trying to get out, and they keep pulling me back in.

I don't play by the army-building rules in the books. I play by the army-building rules in my head, and I expect you to know what they are:

1. I expect you to know all about the tournament meta, and then deliberately not play those armies and/or units.
2. I expect you to never, ever play any Faction that I consider among the top tier; Guard only. No Relics. Final Destination.
3. If you see a particular combo or idea that you think would work well with the Faction, because GW probably designed it that way, you can't use it. Because that's what a tournament player would likely do, and as per Rule 1, I think you know that it's already banned in my head.
4. I expect you to only like the bad units in your Codex.
5. If GW makes a new unit, and shows you its datasheet, and uses its rules to sell model models, you can't buy it.

If you are a new player? Doesn't matter. I expect things from you already.
If you are a poor player? Doesn't matter. I expect you to buy units to please me.

You've made up all of this in your head. Nobody is saying this. If you're going to be "dragged back in" at least have the courtesy to read what people are saying.

[Forum Explorer]

You've made up all of this in your head. Nobody is saying this. If you're going to be "dragged back in" at least have the courtesy to read what people are saying.

I suspect/worry that those are things that people have literally said to him in his meta.

[Cheesegear]

Edit: oh yeah, also means all your units attack before your opponent gets to use anything, as they count as charging. There is almost no reason why a WS player should ever NOT fall back. Maybe if the opponent would be able to use a stratagem that punishes falling back. Maybe.

My point is that there are certain ways that your opponent can interrupt your turn. A good example being "Shoot at a unit arriving from Reserves." or the infamous Astartes Banner. If your opponent is engaged in Melee, they can't do that. I will make it more clear.

But at the end of the day White Scars are the most or second-most powerful Chapter you can put on the board if you play them right. I hope that's at least clear.

You've made up all of this in your head. Nobody is saying this.

Yes they are. What they're not doing is saying it the way I said it.
Can someone play whatever they want? If the answer is 'No.' in any capacity, then you're telling them that they need to buy new models. Even if that's not what you mean to say.

You can't play me 'cause I will roflstomp you. Buy new models.
You can't play me 'cause I will get roflstomped. Buy new models.

"I am willing to play you if you bring a different list."
I don't have a different list.
"Well then we're not playing."

[Drasius]

Aren't they? They expect people to 'play down', which requires models which you have no reason to own. Yes, nobody is saying 'go and buy new bad stuff', they just expect you to have bad stuff from previous bad purchases. Isnt that the same as expecting casuals to have good stuff from previous good purchases? I mean, you're playing lets say IG; why dont you have 3 tank commanders? What do you mean you cant 'play up' ?

I think part of this is kinda expecting people to have sufficient models that they can make more than 1 list, and another part of it is coming from different perspectives on what units people buy.

One of the first bits of advice given out here (and hopefully elsewhere) when the age old question of "what army should I collect?" gets asked is "the one that you like the look of", and to a certain extent, the same goes for models. Edition changes will also decrease the power of some models and enhance others, to the point where anyone who has collected for a while generally has a wide selection of stuff, some of which is better than other stuff.

If you're less well off, and can only buy good units and sell off anything that becomes bad with an edition change to buy the new power unit, well, that kinda sucks, but you're also expecting everyone else to play to your level to a degree, so why shouldn't there be a bit of that same expectation back? Doubly so if not everyone in your meta is a power chasing sort of player.

I have like 7 different armies, and from edition to edition, they all fall in different spots on the power curve, so I generally play an army appropriate to my opponent where possible, or if I want to play a specific army, try and play against a particular opponent who matches said armies power (ie I'll play my competitive armies selectively against the guys who enter tournaments and if I feel like getting my casual army out for a run, they go against either a casual player, or see if one of the competitive guys also wants a casual match).

Actually, now I'm not. That's a legitimate list that I'm going to run in one next games per the Challenge put forward by Forum Explorer.

This is now a real exercise. How bad can I be and still win games. For real. That's the worst list I have, and if it can still win games convincingly, then I can prove that I've accidentally broken it simply by running units that I like that aren't even that good. If I barely win games, then I guess that that is the actual list I can run now, playing Space Marines and getting games. That is a list, using all models I like - except for the Phobos Lieutenants, but I just have them.

That's real. This is you saying that the Craftworlds Codex is broken because you made random army by rolling a D6.
Trying to prove a point, and I'm actually putting my models where my mouth is.

Then you have my apologies (though I still reckon that you're going to be getting the others offside if even I think you're acting like a ****), and it will be interesting to see the results that you get from running your "worst" list.

[LeSwordfish]

"I am willing to play you if you bring a different list."
I don't have a different list.
"Well then we're not playing."

A) personally, nine times out of ten, i'd shrug and play anyway.
B) ...is that really so bad? We're not looking for the same thing from the game, neither of us will have much fun, why waste an evening?

If you can have fun even when a massive imbalance means that the game is decided from turn one, then more power to you. But I don't think that should be required to play the game, and if you have a conversation you can avoid it.

If you're less well off, and can only buy good units and sell off anything that becomes bad with an edition change to buy the new power unit, well, that kinda sucks, but you're also expecting everyone else to play to your level to a degree, so why shouldn't there be a bit of that same expectation back? Doubly so if not everyone in your meta is a power chasing sort of player.

I agree pretty strongly with this. I have a lot of sympathy for someone who can't afford to buy anything but what they really need each time, but if the choice you're making is to keep as close to the top of the power curve as possible, you should be aware you're doing that, and that not everyone else is interested in keeping up, right?

[Avaris]

A) personally, nine times out of ten, i'd shrug and play anyway.
B) ...is that really so bad? We're not looking for the same thing from the game, neither of us will have much fun, why waste an evening?

If you can have fun even when a massive imbalance means that the game is decided from turn one, then more power to you. But I don't think that should be required to play the game, and if you have a conversation you can avoid it.



I agree pretty strongly with this. I have a lot of sympathy for someone who can't afford to buy anything but what they really need each time, but if the choice you're making is to keep as close to the top of the power curve as possible, you should be aware you're doing that, and that not everyone else is interested in keeping up, right?

And this all cycles back to what I said about the game having definite cooperative elements. The aim of the game isn’t entirely to win, it’s to ensure that both players have an enjoyable time, given the hours they are committing. Sometimes that will mean both going as competitive as possible, but sometimes that will mean one or both of them downplaying it a bit. That’s not a bad thing. And it’s something that can occur both in list building and in actual gameplay: if you’re playing a game and absolutely annihilating your opponent, it’s possible to ease off a little, not by making bad plays, but perhaps suboptimal ones. Save your CP for a different stratagem than the one that maximises the power of your best unit for example. But it very much depends on the circumstances and opponent.

[Drasius]

A) personally, nine times out of ten, i'd shrug and play anyway.
B) ...is that really so bad? We're not looking for the same thing from the game, neither of us will have much fun, why waste an evening?

If you can have fun even when a massive imbalance means that the game is decided from turn one, then more power to you. But I don't think that should be required to play the game, and if you have a conversation you can avoid it.

This pretty much. If I've only got the army that I'm currently painting units for at the shop and it's low tier trash, I'm not going to waste both our time facing a high tier army. If the only thing in my case is a top tier army, I'll ask what sort of game they're after, and dial it up or down as appropriate, but sometimes I'm only bringing stuff I need to paint for a upcoming tourney, and if it's going to be a faceroll, I'll ask if they're really sure they want to play.

There's one guy who loves seeing his guard wiped off the table by the handfull, but he's a bit odd, and most people aren't keen for a one sided bloodbath. I lost count of the amount of times I declined games in 7th 'cause all I had at the time was TS or IW and the only opponents were Eldar or SM, and I was requested not to take my Knights or SM (and even my mech Tau once!) more than a few times in 6th/7th as well.

[Avaris]

It occurs to me that a big part of the problem is that in modern 40k each kit is very specific (unless you have magnets); you buy a thing, it’s forever that thing. This is a problem, as it means that you can’t adapt your list through taking other choices.

If only there were a format where you could have a list of units to choose from, with somewhat different abilities even if they have the same models, and where you can adapt your list a little based on what your opponent is likely to bring to the table. Perhaps where you get to choose the abilities units get game to game, and don’t have to always pick the most powerful.

Oh. Wait. It’s called Crusade.

In all seriousness, this is one of the things I think Crusade could be good for. I could easily see myself having a roster where a specific type of unit appears more than once, but I only have one set of models for it, and picking out which unit to use based on the sort of game we’re going for. I’d also quite like to see rules for creating an already advanced Crusade army, rather than having to start with a basic list each time. Start with a bigger RP pool, spend RP to get XP on units, for each X XP spent also gain a battlescar sort of thing.

[Cheesegear]

A) personally, nine times out of ten, i'd shrug and play anyway.
B) ...is that really so bad? We're not looking for the same thing from the game, neither of us will have much fun, why waste an evening?

a) You would. I would (...Now. I do remember what I said in 7th when Craftworlds players showed up with 2+ Wraithknights). The only time I've ever refused games (aside from a brief window in 7th Ed., and then I realised and admitted I was an a*hole pretty quickly for doing so), was because of interpersonal issues, and how I'm not a fan of a 'particular brand' - shall we say - of trash talk, and that's not something I want to be subjected to during a game of toy soldiers, especially in a public space.

b) No, see. We are looking for the same thing. I just want to play games. You just want to play games. The problem, is that there are certain people who don't play the game using the rules that are presented. Where is it written that I can't go out and buy 6 Skyweavers and put Zephyrglaives on them? The Codex says I can. So what's the problem? The problem is that there are people who - quite rightly - believe that Harlequin Skyweavers are really, really, really ****ing good.

There's an assumption that someone buying Skyweavers, either needs to know ahead-of-time not to buy them at all, or, if they are going to buy them, to limit themselves in their purchases. Otherwise they wont get games from certain people who have arbitrary limitations on what they will and wont play against. Once again, where does it say you can't run 6 Skyweavers? It doesn't say that anywhere. You just made it up. That's very frustrating.

I had The Gladius. The one with a combination of 14 Razorbacks and Drop Pods. I bought it. I should get to use it. No. Wrong. I should never be allowed to use it, even though it's a printed Formation that I'm pretty sure everyone knew about. Now. I knew where my opponents were coming from. I understand that the Gladius is strong. I can read. But what sucks is that I rarely got to use it, because my opponents would arbitrarily ban me from using it. I get it...But it still sucks for me. Because I bought a thing, and now everyone is calling me an a*hole, even though I don't even know what I did wrong. Maybe the problem was that I had yellow White Scars, and if only they had been painted white, my opponents would've given me a pass? ...Doubt it.

But I am not your average player. I was a competitive whale, buying competitive whale things.

Once again, I have anecdotal (!) proof that buying Custodes, of any kind, wont get you games.

Spoiler

Show

Captain-General Trajann Valoris - 190 Points
Shield-Captain; Sentinel Blade, Storm Shield - 112 Points

Custodian Guard (x5); Sentinel Blades, Storm Shields - 280 Points
Custodian Guard (x5); Sentinel Blades, Storm Shields - 280 Points
Custodian Guard (x5); Sentinel Blades, Storm Shields - 280 Points
Custodian Guard (x5); Guardian Spears, Misericordiae - 260 Points
Custodian Guard (x5); Guardian Spears, Misericordiae - 260 Points
Custodian Guard (x3); Guardian Spears, Misericordiae - 156 Points

Vexilus Praetor; Misericordia, Storm Shield, Vexila Magnifica - 128 Points

This person has already lost several games, just by buying six boxes of Troops and Trajann Valoris. Is there some way that they can do less than that? I don't think so. That's just the way that Custodes are, and there's not a lot that anyone can do about it - the owning player included.

I have equal anecdotal proof that playing Craftworlds - even without Wraithknights - in 7th Ed. causes you to not get games, except that one was in my local meta, and elsewhere.

Even more better, I had Guilliman in 8th Ed. People said that they would play me, if I removed Guilliman from my list. WHAT!? You know he's 400 Points, right? He's been nerfed twice. My army would be better if I got rid of him...But people still had this idea in their heads of what Guilliman did, being overpowered. Kind of-but-not really. And especially not when he's 400 Points.

If you can have fun even when a massive imbalance means that the game is decided from turn one

I think there is an assumption that for those who read and follow the rules, that doesn't really happen.
There is an assumption going around that if you buy something, it will be good. Because you bought it. If it's not good, then you've wasted your money, and that hurts.

What you like, isn't good, which causes you to lose games, and that makes you feel bad, especially if you have had no chance of winning the first place.

Some of us - speaking for myself - have accepted that what I like, might not be good, a long, long time ago. And what I - personally - try to do, is try and find units that I like, that are also good. However, I'm finding that increasingly difficult - as an Imperial Fist player - because the scope of the game is now so narrow. Hence why I'm sort of waiting for one last poor business decision from GW before I quit for good. I've seen what Faction Secondaries are. I've seen what Faction Codecies add to Crusade. The game is getting worse, not better. IMO.

Some of us, read Guides and ask Facebook and other communities what we should buy, before making purchases. And "Yeah, that doesn't sound like it's for me." is a perfect response to being told how to play and what to buy if you don't want to feel like ****. If it's not for you, it's not for you. Nobody can tell you what to like. But they can, objectively, tell you how the game is played, and how to win at it. As I've said many times, if what you like is bad, that sucks. But if what you don't like is good, that's just as bad. The game is getting worse and worse, the way to win games is more narrow than it's ever been before, and some people are doing what it takes to win games - because those are the rules, now, and it behooves you to play within those rules in order to win - and some people are not doing what it takes to win games, and then feeling bad about it, because how the game is played isn't what they want anymore ('Sup horde-likers!). I've seen it. In my own meta. In the competitive national meta. And on Facebook Groups where anyone is from anywhere.

This is what I said before, at least twice. In 9th Ed., casual players will become competitive players, because the Core Rulebook now describes a competitive game. That was a design goal from the start. That's why the ITC was involved in the first place. Even the Narrative part of the game where rules are supposed to matter less (i.e; Crusade), is very competitive when read and played to correctly, because the whole thing is actually even more very competitive rules to follow - I believe I have proven that by this point.

Spoiler

Show

A big issue, is that in 40K, climbing that mountain, requires spending money, because that's GW's business model. I fully understand that. However, there are many people who don't have to adapt to climb that mountain, because they already have the tools to climb the mountain to begin with. Space Marine players have not had to change their armies, that much. I strongly doubt that Death Guard players are going to see radical shifts in their armies. Harlequins and Custodes players literally didn't have to do anything, because their Codecies are so limited, and they lucked-the-****-out that their 'limited Codecies' were exactly what the meta called for.

However, many players who ran Vehicle-heavy armies (Guard, Orks, Iron Hands), saw themselves get reamed by the meta-shift... Is that the Custodes and Harlequins' players faults? I don't think so. That's just what happened.

I know some people don't like it, and are trying very hard to ignore it. But that doesn't mean that the rules aren't fundamentally broken in many places. And, instead of adapting to new rules and new editions, many people who are unwilling to change, are trying to dictate to those who can, and/or are willing to change to the new win conditions, that they shouldn't. Maybe not here - but also here - but I read it, and I see it, in a lot of places.

[LeSwordfish]

b) No, see. We are looking for the same thing. I just want to play games. You just want to play games.

I've only skimmed the rest of this post because it is around fourteen hundred words long(!!!) and nobody is paying me for this, so i'm only going to dial in on this point. No I don't. I don't just want to play a game, any game, I want to have fun. If playing against you won't be fun then i'm not going to do it out of charity. What we're trying to achieve with our limited spare time doesn't match up.

If you happen to have accidentally bought something super good then i'll try my best to match that and we can play on that level, and if you happen to have accidentally bought something super bad then i'll try and match that and we can play on that level. We can, not to belabor this point, have a conversation, (and I imagine one of the things i'll be able to dial in on is whether your ability to play the game is going to make your list better or worse). But if we can't find a happy medium we'll both enjoy, then i'm not going to waste my evening doing something that isn't fun. I'll play somebody else, or do some painting, or go home and play computer games.

[LansXero]

We can, not to belabor this point, have a conversation, (and I imagine one of the things i'll be able to dial in on is whether your ability to play the game is going to make your list better or worse)

I dont think thats his issue, and I know it isnt mine. Its the entrenched, mental banlist, wont even try people who are more of an issue. Also, those who overblow the actual quality gap between armies, and on top dont even try to play better. Secondaries choice alone makes such a large difference now, as does deployment and terrain placement, the gaps vs anything that inst tooled up marines can get overcome with player skill, or at least really shortened. Anecdotal as it might be, my hero's path list is absolute trash in mechanical terms but I still can edge in a 65% winrate so far (most losses being to new!marines of course) and through 8th the consistent finalists on most of our tournaments were AdMech, pure Dark Eldar and pure Imperial Knights. So I agree with the trying to find a happy medium but for many people online that happy medium is really close to their own trenches.

[Avaris]

I dont think thats his issue, and I know it isnt mine. Its the entrenched, mental banlist, wont even try people who are more of an issue. Also, those who overblow the actual quality gap between armies, and on top dont even try to play better. Secondaries choice alone makes such a large difference now, as does deployment and terrain placement, the gaps vs anything that inst tooled up marines can get overcome with player skill, or at least really shortened. Anecdotal as it might be, my hero's path list is absolute trash in mechanical terms but I still can edge in a 65% winrate so far (most losses being to new!marines of course) and through 8th the consistent finalists on most of our tournaments were AdMech, pure Dark Eldar and pure Imperial Knights. So I agree with the trying to find a happy medium but for many people online that happy medium is really close to their own trenches.

So... what you’re saying is that it is no longer just about the list that people bring to the table, and that it is very possible to mitigate a bad match up through choice of secondaries and deployment, meaning player skill is a factor there?

And what you don’t say, but is the logical conclusion from what you said, is that a reasonable way to manage different player skill match ups is to change your choice of secondaries. “Oh, my opponent has bought a non optimised list, or is new, I’ll pick some second choice secondaries and see how I do.”

Seems a pretty good place for the game to be to me. There are ways to make your game harder in a mismatch without anyone saying ‘you can’t play that’ (which no-one here has argued for that I have seen).

And the only faction that pushes against that is tooled up Marines. Which is a problem, as everyone has marines, though I would argue that the sheer size of the Marine range means it is unlikely someone would accidentally end up with a fully optimised list, which mitigates the problem there somewhat.

Am I missing something?

[LansXero]

Am I missing something?

Practical experience likely. Let me explain:

So... what you’re saying is that it is no longer just about the list that people bring to the table, and that it is very possible to mitigate a bad match up through choice of secondaries and deployment, meaning player skill is a factor there?

This has always been the case, except in edge cases. However, there are several caveats:
- through practice or natural predisposition, it often follows that difference in player skill mirrors differences in list / faction power; the exceptions being tied to income (skilled but poor) or time (like the release of a new edition, so now).
- An aspect of the aforementioned mirror is the propensity to skirt challenges. Yes, one-sided curbstomps are not fun for anybody, but not taking risks and avoiding losses through heavy banlisting leads to never improving, which doubles down on itself and makes a player worse than he could be with but a little more effort, attention or openness to simple advice.
- In this vein, being married to a flawed concept (9th is all about area control! Terrain is super meaningful, interesting and varied! all secondaries are balanced with each other!) further handicaps casuals who dont try to acquire the tools for proper decision making at pivotal points through the match, compounding their disadvantages into worsening thus reinforcing their misconception of list imbalance being the main decisive factor (as they reject personal responsability).

And what you don’t say, but is the logical conclusion from what you said, is that a reasonable way to manage different player skill match ups is to change your choice of secondaries. “Oh, my opponent has bought a non optimised list, or is new, I’ll pick some second choice secondaries and see how I do.”

There are no theoretical second choice secondaries though, the existing ones lack granularity. I cant score psychic ritual or pierce the veil with no psykers. I cant score titan hunter without enemy heavies. There is only so far secondaries stretch, and not all of it is within my control AFTER I meet my enemy. However, most casuals evaluate their pool of secondaries poorly, thus sabotaging themselves trying to achieve unlikely goals. "big risk, big reward!" is a misnomer; its actually "big risk, same reward as the guy playing it safe" because points cap at 45 for both.

Seems a pretty good place for the game to be to me. There are ways to make your game harder in a mismatch without anyone saying ‘you can’t play that’ (which no-one here has argued for that I have seen).

The description more accurately describes 8th. 9th's 'innovations' have narrowed the viable model / unit pool so much that it now takes a lot more creative play and list building than before to cover gaps. However, I'd venture there is a lot of room for improvement for most casual players to grow into before they absolutely need to get a single new mini to get better.

And the only faction that pushes against that is tooled up Marines. Which is a problem, as everyone has marines, though I would argue that the sheer size of the Marine range means it is unlikely someone would accidentally end up with a fully optimised list, which mitigates the problem there somewhat.

New DG is bringing a complete meta buster in Contagions of Nurgle. Area -1T might break a lot of math currently working in the edition. I hope future codices alter the current stale state of the game in a similar manner to keep things fresh and interesting, but mainly I hope CA21 brings an entire new type of mission that does away with the currently broken scoring system, or that some fan organization brings forth a widely accepted optional one.

[Avaris]

Practical experience likely. Let me explain:



This has always been the case, except in edge cases. However, there are several caveats:
- through practice or natural predisposition, it often follows that difference in player skill mirrors differences in list / faction power; the exceptions being tied to income (skilled but poor) or time (like the release of a new edition, so now).
- An aspect of the aforementioned mirror is the propensity to skirt challenges. Yes, one-sided curbstomps are not fun for anybody, but not taking risks and avoiding losses through heavy banlisting leads to never improving, which doubles down on itself and makes a player worse than he could be with but a little more effort, attention or openness to simple advice.
- In this vein, being married to a flawed concept (9th is all about area control! Terrain is super meaningful, interesting and varied! all secondaries are balanced with each other!) further handicaps casuals who dont try to acquire the tools for proper decision making at pivotal points through the match, compounding their disadvantages into worsening thus reinforcing their misconception of list imbalance being the main decisive factor (as they reject personal responsability).

So lists aren't the problem. Gotcha. Everyone seems in agreement: players shouldn't be seeking to control what their opponent is bringing to the table.

However...

There are no theoretical second choice secondaries though, the existing ones lack granularity. I cant score psychic ritual or pierce the veil with no psykers. I cant score titan hunter without enemy heavies. There is only so far secondaries stretch, and not all of it is within my control AFTER I meet my enemy. However, most casuals evaluate their pool of secondaries poorly, thus sabotaging themselves trying to achieve unlikely goals. "big risk, big reward!" is a misnomer; its actually "big risk, same reward as the guy playing it safe" because points cap at 45 for both.

You can't have both "There are no theoretical second choice secondaries though" and "most casuals evaluate their pool of secondaries poorly". Either there is a meaningful difference between secondaries depending on scenario and match-up, meaning 'casuals' are able to make the 'wrong' choice (in which case the first is untrue) OR there is no meaningful difference, and you can't tailor your choice down to your opponent (in which case the second is untrue, as it wouldn't matter what the casual player takes).

So, unless the secondaries are equal (which they are demonstrably not), what this means is it is entirely possible for you, as an experienced player, to use your secondary choice to tailor to your opponent somewhat, so that you both have a decent game. Obviously don't take the ones which are outright useless in your matchup, but you could for example take a higher risk objective if you know you are playing a less experienced player. It's also a good teaching point post game: helping someone pick better secondaries is an easy way to improve their play, without them having to change anything about their actual army.

The description more accurately describes 8th. 9th's 'innovations' have narrowed the viable model / unit pool so much that it now takes a lot more creative play and list building than before to cover gaps. However, I'd venture there is a lot of room for improvement for most casual players to grow into before they absolutely need to get a single new mini to get better.

Honestly, needing more creative play to cover gaps sounds like a good thing to me. Armies should have weaknesses, and if even experienced players are finding it difficult to cover gaps, that means even less experienced players have a chance to exploit those gaps. And I agree, there is definitely space for less experienced players to learn without buying new models.

New DG is bringing a complete meta buster in Contagions of Nurgle. Area -1T might break a lot of math currently working in the edition. I hope future codices alter the current stale state of the game in a similar manner to keep things fresh and interesting, but mainly I hope CA21 brings an entire new type of mission that does away with the currently broken scoring system, or that some fan organization brings forth a widely accepted optional one.

Likewise, I hope future codices continue shaking things up. If 8th was GW finding their feet with a whole load of new tools (like the stratagem and relics systems), 9th is where they can really play into each army's individual character. Although they're still Marines, Death Guard should be able to play very differently to, say Thousand Sons.

[LansXero]

You can't have both "There are no theoretical second choice secondaries though" and "most casuals evaluate their pool of secondaries poorly". Either there is a meaningful difference between secondaries depending on scenario and match-up, meaning 'casuals' are able to make the 'wrong' choice (in which case the first is untrue) OR there is no meaningful difference, and you can't tailor your choice down to your opponent (in which case the second is untrue, as it wouldn't matter what the casual player takes).

Fine. There is no absolute, non-caveats second rate secondaries. If you list CAN teleport, blink, fly over stuff, etc. stuff like Linebreaker become top rate; if not, its worthless. Its all 100-0 and you cant 'play it down' unless you just throw the game as what you shift to is unscorable. Which is why casuals feel its a curbstomp, because 'second rate' secondaries picked on a whim end up making for a huge point difference, conflating the 'I never could've won' perception.

So, unless the secondaries are equal (which they are demonstrably not), what this means is it is entirely possible for you, as an experienced player, to use your secondary choice to tailor to your opponent somewhat, so that you both have a decent game.

Ok, maybe. So lets agree both players should be open to advice and try to meet each other halfway. Imho it'd be better if the 'weaker' player could just take the best secondaries and they had an even race from there, but half/half is better than 'I wont play'.

Honestly, needing more creative play to cover gaps sounds like a good thing to me. Armies should have weaknesses, and if even experienced players are finding it difficult to cover gaps, that means even less experienced players have a chance to exploit those gaps. And I agree, there is definitely space for less experienced players to learn without buying new models.

if experienced players are finding it difficult, less experienced players of the same factions either give up, or avoid playing 'unwinnable' matches.

Likewise, I hope future codices continue shaking things up. If 8th was GW finding their feet with a whole load of new tools (like the stratagem and relics systems), 9th is where they can really play into each army's individual character. Although they're still Marines, Death Guard should be able to play very differently to, say Thousand Sons

.

Their make or break for me is Drukhari. It'd be very hard to make DAs suck, considering the strength of the Marine baseline. If Drukhari turns into Necrons 2.0, as in, forgettable and barely able to keep up, it means future 9th will be a hodgepodge of haves and havenots, which is a clownfest I dont want to care about. We'll revisit the game in case they ever fixt it in a year or 18 months from now, for the brief period of happyness where we get a good game before they screw it with a new edition.

[9mm]

t means future 9th will be a hodgepodge of haves and havenots

Congratulations, you've just described every 40k edition ever made.

[LansXero]

Congratulations, you've just described every 40k edition ever made.

Yes and no; I dont care what editions before 8th were, I didnt play then and grandfathering in mistakes is a mistake all its own. However, I dont feel the gaps during most of 8th (besides outliers like post-supplement IH or un-nerfed Soulburst on one end, pre-PA GKs or Necrons on the other) were as pronounced as the difference between Marines/9 and Necrons/9 is. It felt like a more varied, better distributed playing field. Now, the 'I dont have a /9 codex yet so I suck' period is acceptable, if sucky. But Necrons do have a /9 codex, and still suck, and no hope of 'codex will fix it' makes it so they suck even more; until maybe some campaign supplement or FAQ or CA. So if Drukhari continues that trend, that means its 2x the amount of suck time: suck until you get your /9 codex, then suck some more until it gets fixed. No thanks.

However, if Drukhari is interesting / viable even if Marines continue at the top, then it means its just a wait until codex hits. I dont actually want every new book to be 'best ever'; just to be able to compete within the same bracket without houseruling or softbanning better lists / players.

[Forum Explorer]

Yes and no; I dont care what editions before 8th were, I didnt play then and grandfathering in mistakes is a mistake all its own. However, I dont feel the gaps during most of 8th (besides outliers like post-supplement IH or un-nerfed Soulburst on one end, pre-PA GKs or Necrons on the other) were as pronounced as the difference between Marines/9 and Necrons/9 is. It felt like a more varied, better distributed playing field. Now, the 'I dont have a /9 codex yet so I suck' period is acceptable, if sucky. But Necrons do have a /9 codex, and still suck, and no hope of 'codex will fix it' makes it so they suck even more; until maybe some campaign supplement or FAQ or CA. So if Drukhari continues that trend, that means its 2x the amount of suck time: suck until you get your /9 codex, then suck some more until it gets fixed. No thanks.

However, if Drukhari is interesting / viable even if Marines continue at the top, then it means its just a wait until codex hits. I dont actually want every new book to be 'best ever'; just to be able to compete within the same bracket without houseruling or softbanning better lists / players.

Well the question is do Necrons suck or are Space Marines OP? Personally, I feel like the Necrons are in a good spot. They have some very nasty tricks and models. But neither are they so off the hook good that they can't just invalidate entire lists. They do have a big flaw in that each respawn counts for Thin Their Ranks though.

Space Marines on the other hand are OP. Being able to respawn things like Centurions at full wounds is nuts. Eradicators getting to double shoot is nuts. Having a secondary that is ridiculously easy to max out is nuts. And that's just off the top of my head, and doesn't get into things like how doctrines are still way too good or how all of their chainswords got a free AP for no apparent reason.

[Cheesegear]

Honestly, needing more creative play to cover gaps sounds like a good thing to me. Armies should have weaknesses, and if even experienced players are finding it difficult to cover gaps, that means even less experienced players have a chance to exploit those gaps. And I agree, there is definitely space for less experienced players to learn without buying new models.

As I've covered previously, there are three or four things you need to be a 'good player':

1. You need a good army,
2. You need to be able to pick good Secondaries.
3. You need to deploy correctly.
4. You need to know what Stratagems to use, when.

However, the main problem, is Step 1 determines all the other steps.
2. You can't pick good Secondaries if your army sucks.
3. You can't deploy with advantage if your army sucks.
4. You can't use good Stratagems on bad units.
That's the problem.

Corollary, having a good army, can often make the other three steps irrelevant. This is what I mean when I say you can break the game by accident. You can, in fact, accidentally play the right Faction and like the right units, and, you like the really right Faction, and you like the really right units, you don't even need to learn to play the game because there's nothing you can do to beat them anyway.

In the tournament space, that becomes less true. But most people aren't tournament players, so it's moot. In a tournament space, you know what the best Factions are, and you know what the best units are. So you've already picked them on purpose, or you've designed your army with those in mind. And, with your good army that exists to begin with, you then apply the other three steps to being a good player, and then you win games. A player with a good army, who doesn't have the other three steps, is going to do poorly at a tournament. But once again, most players are not tournament players. Most players have not memorised the meta. Most players barely even understand what it's the opponent's army, even after the opponent has given them their army list.

Additionally, dice rolls are not your choice. You can't be a better player by rolling dice. But, there are some games, when a great player who made all the right choices, just gets ****ed by the dice. It happens. Any Faction, can win games.

It's not so much there are 'best' and 'worst' armies - or Secondaries. It's that there are certain ways to play - and win - the game that some Factions don't even have to try, in order to succeed (let's call it 'privilege'). And other Factions are forced into taking certain units, and are far more reliant on dice rolls that their opponent might. Forum Explorer already made a great example that I can use forever until it stops being true;
Six Basilisks. That's what you need. No, no. You misunderstood. You need them. You should already be buying six Basilisks as you read this sentence.

Space Marines don't need Repulsors. Space Marines don't need Terminators. Space Marines don't need Drop Pods. Space Marines can do a lot of things that don't force you into a particular army build. I've put together a list that I believe is the worst list I can make without buying any new models, and I still think that I win games with it, because a) I believe I am good player who does the lower 3 steps, and b) The units I have, aren't actually that bad, so I'm still partially completing step 1.

As a Space Marine player, I have a lot more viable choices than a Guard player does. So, if you're a new player, who already can't pick good Secondaries because you don't know anything, you can't deploy correctly 'cause you don't know what you're doing, and you barely even understand what half your Stratagems do...And on top of that, you accidentally picked a Faction that sucks? How can you get better at the game when nothing you do matters?

Well the question is do Necrons suck or are Space Marines OP?

Space Marines aren't OP. You beat them easily by having S5, AP-1 or -2, 2 Damage weapons.