Steve54 wrote:
Brumbaer - I'm sure you have some decent points but its difficult to give them credence when
- the tone of the post and boasts of army selection, 40k rulebook accreditation, name dropping and ability as some kind of wargame rules savant come across as, at best, breathtakingly arrogant.
- past trolling about SM tactics
- that the examples you talk about are either dubious (all powerful drop pod armies) or blatantly false (intermingling at 4k)
- none of it is based on playtesting
I'll agree brumbaer's slightly self-important monologue doesn't do him any favours, but I think it's understandable given he's being attacked on the basis of his knowledge and his argument being misrepresented.
IMO the playtesting bit is not relevant to his point, or at least the half of his point that resonates with me. It's completely irrelevant if my opponent has played vs a given army - if I show him my list and he thinks "I don't want to play you", then that's a shame. So personally I think it's worth making some sacrifices and abstractions in order to produce a list that doesn't elicit that reaction. That is of course the extreme manifestation of the issue, and I'm not saying it's true of Necrons, but you have to admit that the list looks a bit cheesy when you first read it, no?
Maybe brumbaer's tolerance for such things is lower than most other people (e.g. I don't really get the same impression from the Minervan list as he does), but that doesn't invalidate his point entirely.