@Stev54 & Ulrik
What you seem to get wrong is that you think I'm talking about winning. I rarely look at rules, army lists or whatever and think what does this mean to me. I usually think about concepts and how they will affect the game.
I play this kind of game for over 30 years, there was a time I was quite successful in tournaments, there was a time I was involved in development.
When I read rules I get an immediate idea of how the game works.
This idea will usually be proved by the games. Probably a self fulfilling prophecy - probably not.
The same is true for an army list. I read an army list and have an understanding of how it works or could work. This doesn't mean it's the only way it works nor do I have to be right. But usually I am and often my armies look different for what others choose. This doesn't mean my armies a better in an absolute sense, but that they work well for me.
I'm good at reading rules and find holes, ambiguities and conflicts - and the first read is the most productive, because your not spoiled by "inside" knowledge, and "how to interpret which rule", and can be objective.
What I can't do, is to be diplomatic about it (I'm an ugly German after all)
Being not diplomatic is probably one of the reasons why this will be the last edition of Warhammer with my name in the "thank yous".
I prefer games in which the odds are even and the result does not purely rely on the dice roll.
When I take a drop list, starting with nothing, but probably some Land Speeders on the table - the advantage is clearly on my side. Nobody can prevent a draw - if I'm going for it. If I go for a victory - it depends on my enemy, but I'm still at advantage, because I decide where and when the attack takes place. And ignoring dice rolls this should be enough to win or draw. That's why I say playing a drop list, is easier than playing other lists.
To say only bad player play it is provocative and of course wrong. Of course there are people who choose their army for fluff reasons but if you choose your army by biggest advantage possible
or biggest disadvantage for your opponent, ignoring how your opponent my like to play against the army, you might not be as good as you thought or you just need to win too much or you do not have enough confidence. You might just be a good army selector, but are you a good player ?
I choose my armies by different reasons, the SM because I thought nobody plays them and MudMarines because I was told, they will not work. I usually don't use, drop pods, Thunderhawks, , drop terminators ( I use on foot or in Land Raider sometimes to make a change) on 4k I even use a unit of 4 Vindicators, and I doubt that anybody looked at my list and thought he couldn't win against them or thought the army would leave him feeling helpless.
I chose my IG because of the Praetorian theme. Again a balanced force with a bit of everything probably a bit heavy on Rough Riders (3 units).
And I choose the Eldar because I read that Eldar would be weak at larger games and needed some improvement. I couldn't believe it and set up a force to see whether this is true. Only had two games, but can't find anything wrong with them. I agree, the Scorpion is a bit expensive when fighting Shadowswords, but are ok overall (IMHO).
I'd never play Necron rod Drop Lists, because I would feel like annoying my opponent by just setting up such an army. I understand that most player probably wouldn't mind - still that's my opinion and I'm happy to accept that you disagree.
If your army selection is Necron, Drop List SM, Portal Eldar and 4+ Minervan only, think about why and find out whether you would win so many games, if you would play a more average army.
Or don't - just play happily, but I'm free to think that any win will tell more about your army selection skills than your playing skills.
The Necrons might not be broken in the sense that they win every game, but they have so many special rules which add on to each other that it looks and feels like it.
Ulric your a nice guy and I wouldn't presume you designed the Necorns to carry all before them, but my text about how things add up, isn't wrong either.
And I do not need 20 games to realize what my enemy could have done to me when he had known his army better. And I do not play at all to have an idea what to do to win with Necrons.
What you IMHO all ignore is that not only the Necrons' opponents get used to the game, but the Necron players as well.
When a friend (a 40k fan) and I were at the Studio he asked Andy Chambers (that shows just how old I am) why the Eldar were so hard and annoying (they were at that time) he just answered "They are supposed to be".
If you are of this opinion all I write is without consequence (you might say, it is anyway), because than you do not care for having non annoying armies. I can understand this and it is fine, but I just will not play this army and not play against it except on tournaments. Again this is no real concern for you and people may see it different - or not - it's only my opinion - nobody has to agree.
Why do the Necron do have to have those Special rules and so many ? Couldn't you get the same unique way of playing without all the "wrong feeling stuff" ?
Why must living metal be 4+RA,TRA, MW Ignore TK reduce, 1 wound max and that not only for a single real tough unit, but for many units ?
Couldn't it be somme rule which has precedence ? Like a weaker form of holofield or an ordinary save combined with an invulnerable save, or just ordinary 4+RA and give the guys a second wound and/or make them cheaper. Or make them faster, so they do not have to teleport directly in front of the enemey.
Portals working when broken feels completely wrong for me. For me anything working when broken is wrong. Like shooting, even being able to the the SC except for things relating to himself is IMHO wrong (in the sense of concept, not in the sense that it is against the rules as written). It wouldn't be as bad, when the broken rule per se wouldn't be broken (i.e. moving wherever you like, ignoring ZOCs) and/or the units wouldn't be fearless.
Again there must be a simple way to get the list working without having a rule that feels wrong. You could make them more resilient by adding a wound or make them cheaper, so you get 3 instead of 2 Monolith or make them a bit faster, so they do not have to teleport directly in front of the enemy or whatever.
The goal (IMHO) should be that all lists work on a common ground and a balanced list should be well equipped for handling any army.
For that reason I think the Minervan list is a bad list. Because if it is played, with 4+RA vehicles only, the half of your opponent's army that is there to fight AP targets is wasted (exaggeration, but at least much reduced in usefulness). You could do this with other armies as well, the Minervan list is just one who leads people to doing this, because of the tank theme. And yes - I win against Minervan lists, no problem - again my complain is conceptional.
I play mud SMs and I think they are a very balanced and most reliable armies and against Necrons one of the better armies you can choose. It's an army that can take on any enemy some better than others of course.
And it doesn't try to gain advantage by any rules that feel wrong or by rendering parts of balanced armies useless or by trying to put my enemy on the wrong food by starting everything off the table.
And it's strong enough to fight any of those.
If it's of interest, I will post the list I used at the tournament.
And when I loose I don't blame the enemy army, I blame the dices
- sometimes I even honor the fact that my opponent was better than me.
But I don't loose often, probably 1 in 8 or 1 in 9 this includes games made with Eldar and IG. The SMs have a better ratio.
But this is of course not saying too much, as it would be different with different opponents and their armies.
About Necrons finishing 10th.
I know Vampire players who always finish top 3 and I know some who always finish under the last 3 (no they are not the same and these are no 3 player tournaments
)
