I'm a newcomer to 40k & this forum, so apologies for my painfully novice questions...I asked previously about building up my first 40k army, using Kill Team as a stepping stone to understanding the game & the 'Get Started!' pack as my foundation for the army itself.

I wanted to field CSM as I like the lore & the models- but after doing some initial research, it seems that CSM aren't popular right now, are going through some sort of 'rough patch' in the evolution of the rules, and even have many poor unit choices compared to other armies. In brief, I feel like their glory days are passed and (for the time being, at least) they've been overtaken by others. Is this accurate?

So, bearing in mind I'm a total beginner, should I grit my teeth & carry on with my plan of collecting CSM? Or would it be wise for me to think about plan B (loyalist marines, most likely Ultramarines or another 'vanilla' chapter)?

Just don't want to waste time & money on an army that isn't good to play as a newbie, or is likely going to be totally overhauled in the near future.

Thanks!

If you are just starting I wouldn't go starting up any large armies or projects. We are very soon to what is rumoured to be an overhaul of 40k rules and armies, it would be a shame to learn all the 7e rules and build a sizable army only for the entire meta to change.

So for now? If you want to play 40k that bad; buy a starter pack, have fun playing the armies, have fun building and painting your models and wait to see want June next year brings.

I haven't played 40k recently or kept up on most developments, but I will say this with absolute certainty from my 15 years of off-and-on 40k gaming and also my 15,000 hours in World of Warcraft.

When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

The reason I and most other veteran gamers will urge you to ignore how powerful an army is, is because an army's power ranking is a temporary situation. Due to the ongoing updates to the game's rules, just because an army is powerful today, is no guarantee it will be powerful in the next update. And similarly, just because an army is weak today, is no guarantee it will be weak the next time the rules change. Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change. And, perhaps most importantly, the constantly shifting power rankings mean that if you always want to play the most powerful army, you will be buying a new army very frequently, which is a crazy-expensive thing to do in 40k.

So the simple answer is to play the army you like best, and do not concern yourself with how powerful it is. Frankly, as a newbie you are still learning the rules and will likely lose a lot of games regardless of how powerful your army is. Personally, I started playing 40k in 2001, and did not win a single game I ever played for my first three years.

 Pouncey wrote:
I haven't played 40k recently or kept up on most developments, but I will say this with absolute certainty from my 15 years of off-and-on 40k gaming and also my 15,000 hours in World of Warcraft.

When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

The reason I and most other veteran gamers will urge you to ignore how powerful an army is, is because an army's power ranking is a temporary situation. Due to the ongoing updates to the game's rules, just because an army is powerful today, is no guarantee it will be powerful in the next update. And similarly, just because an army is weak today, is no guarantee it will be weak the next time the rules change. Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change. And, perhaps most importantly, the constantly shifting power rankings mean that if you always want to play the most powerful army, you will be buying a new army very frequently, which is a crazy-expensive thing to do in 40k.

So the simple answer is to play the army you like best, and do not concern yourself with how powerful it is. Frankly, as a newbie you are still learning the rules and will likely lose a lot of games regardless of how powerful your army is. Personally, I started playing 40k in 2001, and did not win a single game I ever played for my first three years.

+1 for this sound advice

 Pouncey wrote:
Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change.

Unless it gets mattwarded.

 Pouncey wrote:
I haven't played 40k recently or kept up on most developments, but I will say this with absolute certainty from my 15 years of off-and-on 40k gaming and also my 15,000 hours in World of Warcraft.

When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

The reason I and most other veteran gamers will urge you to ignore how powerful an army is, is because an army's power ranking is a temporary situation. Due to the ongoing updates to the game's rules, just because an army is powerful today, is no guarantee it will be powerful in the next update. And similarly, just because an army is weak today, is no guarantee it will be weak the next time the rules change. Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change. And, perhaps most importantly, the constantly shifting power rankings mean that if you always want to play the most powerful army, you will be buying a new army very frequently, which is a crazy-expensive thing to do in 40k.

So the simple answer is to play the army you like best, and do not concern yourself with how powerful it is. Frankly, as a newbie you are still learning the rules and will likely lose a lot of games regardless of how powerful your army is. Personally, I started playing 40k in 2001, and did not win a single game I ever played for my first three years.

Agreed but some armies are far safer bets for power gamers than others. Those being the big sellers. Space Marines and Eldar. Demons are a solid choice if you plan to summon spam but I have sinking feeling that isnt going to last into the next edition.

CSM are low on the power totem pole and they aren't particularly popular, but if you aren't playing in tournaments you usually won't care.

Weak armies in the abstract can field strong builds and be stronger depending on the matchup (ex. GK have a fairly weak book, but they can punch above their weight by min/maxxing to get more Purifiers and Dreadknights on the table), some armies are mediocre on their own but become much stronger with allies (Dark Eldar/Harlequins are much scarier together than they are separately). Some 'weak' armies are simply difficult to build and play well (Harlequins are probably the premier example here).

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with deciding you want to stick with Chaos, so long as you go in understanding what you're taking on. Your learning curve is going to be harder than someone who grabbed a powerful army out of the box; you won't have the luxury of grabbing scatterbikes (for instance) and having an always-useful point-and-click unit. You may have to ask opponents to play softer lists while you get your feet under you. You may not be able to declare yourself a purist who refuses to use allies/Forge World content/supplements.

If you're prepared for all that you're ready to play the underdog's game. You will lose games, you may even lose a lot of games. You will be fighting from the back foot, on the edge, in a corner, where every victory is hard-won and you can be confident that your skill brought you to victory in spite of the tools. If you're prepared to understand and believe that the only victory worth having is one you had to work for you will have a lot of fun with Chaos.

And if you're not happy with that state of affairs you can do a semi-tangential hop into Daemons, and play a CSM/Daemons army with a mix of Codexes that sits in a much higher power bracket.

So at the end of the day you haven't made things easy for yourself by picking CSM, but you can absolutely pick them up, play them, and have a good time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I haven't played 40k recently or kept up on most developments, but I will say this with absolute certainty from my 15 years of off-and-on 40k gaming and also my 15,000 hours in World of Warcraft.

When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

The reason I and most other veteran gamers will urge you to ignore how powerful an army is, is because an army's power ranking is a temporary situation. Due to the ongoing updates to the game's rules, just because an army is powerful today, is no guarantee it will be powerful in the next update. And similarly, just because an army is weak today, is no guarantee it will be weak the next time the rules change. Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change. And, perhaps most importantly, the constantly shifting power rankings mean that if you always want to play the most powerful army, you will be buying a new army very frequently, which is a crazy-expensive thing to do in 40k.

So the simple answer is to play the army you like best, and do not concern yourself with how powerful it is. Frankly, as a newbie you are still learning the rules and will likely lose a lot of games regardless of how powerful your army is. Personally, I started playing 40k in 2001, and did not win a single game I ever played for my first three years.

Agreed but some armies are far safer bets for power gamers than others. Those being the big sellers. Space Marines and Eldar. Demons are a solid choice if you plan to summon spam but I have sinking feeling that isnt going to last into the next edition.

The Scions of the Warp update has made Daemons into a much stronger, more reliable, and more flexible army; summon-spam and Grimoire deathstars probably won't last into the next edition, but they can do a lot more things than that today.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
CSM are low on the power totem pole and they aren't particularly popular, but if you aren't playing in tournaments you usually won't care.

Weak armies in the abstract can field strong builds and be stronger depending on the matchup (ex. GK have a fairly weak book, but they can punch above their weight by min/maxxing to get more Purifiers and Dreadknights on the table), some armies are mediocre on their own but become much stronger with allies (Dark Eldar/Harlequins are much scarier together than they are separately). Some 'weak' armies are simply difficult to build and play well (Harlequins are probably the premier example here).

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with deciding you want to stick with Chaos, so long as you go in understanding what you're taking on. Your learning curve is going to be harder than someone who grabbed a powerful army out of the box; you won't have the luxury of grabbing scatterbikes (for instance) and having an always-useful point-and-click unit. You may have to ask opponents to play softer lists while you get your feet under you. You may not be able to declare yourself a purist who refuses to use allies/Forge World content/supplements.

If you're prepared for all that you're ready to play the underdog's game. You will lose games, you may even lose a lot of games. You will be fighting from the back foot, on the edge, in a corner, where every victory is hard-won and you can be confident that your skill brought you to victory in spite of the tools. If you're prepared to understand and believe that the only victory worth having is one you had to work for you will have a lot of fun with Chaos.

And if you're not happy with that state of affairs you can do a semi-tangential hop into Daemons, and play a CSM/Daemons army with a mix of Codexes that sits in a much higher power bracket.

So at the end of the day you haven't made things easy for yourself by picking CSM, but you can absolutely pick them up, play them, and have a good time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

 Pouncey wrote:
I haven't played 40k recently or kept up on most developments, but I will say this with absolute certainty from my 15 years of off-and-on 40k gaming and also my 15,000 hours in World of Warcraft.

When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

The reason I and most other veteran gamers will urge you to ignore how powerful an army is, is because an army's power ranking is a temporary situation. Due to the ongoing updates to the game's rules, just because an army is powerful today, is no guarantee it will be powerful in the next update. And similarly, just because an army is weak today, is no guarantee it will be weak the next time the rules change. Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change. And, perhaps most importantly, the constantly shifting power rankings mean that if you always want to play the most powerful army, you will be buying a new army very frequently, which is a crazy-expensive thing to do in 40k.

So the simple answer is to play the army you like best, and do not concern yourself with how powerful it is. Frankly, as a newbie you are still learning the rules and will likely lose a lot of games regardless of how powerful your army is. Personally, I started playing 40k in 2001, and did not win a single game I ever played for my first three years.

Agreed but some armies are far safer bets for power gamers than others. Those being the big sellers. Space Marines and Eldar. Demons are a solid choice if you plan to summon spam but I have sinking feeling that isnt going to last into the next edition.

The Scions of the Warp update has made Daemons into a much stronger, more reliable, and more flexible army; summon-spam and Grimoire deathstars probably won't last into the next edition, but they can do a lot more things than that today.

sorry but your premise that if you dont play tournaments they are fine, is a joke. Unless your opponents are agreeing to take subpar lists everygame, you will absolutely be behind the eightball even in fun games vs your opponents 90 percent of the time. The books/units/formations avialable (outside the cabal) are not good. I have close to 10,000 points of chaos space marines, i love the lore, they are my first army. I havnt played them in over 2 years because they are so completely uncompetative vs 90 precent of the armies in the game that its simply not worth it. If i can only play one game a week or a couple a month, im not gonna showup and use an army i know should lose the game before a single dice is even rolled.

Always pick the army that appeals to you, background lore and visually. After all, youre going to be spending more time collecting, assembling, painting, and storing these miniatures than just playing the game with another person.

But to answer why Chaos is in a tight spot right now, it comes to a high points cost per unit (compred to other factions), lack of "freebie" special rules and gimmicks, low shooting output (in a shooty edition of gaming), random unreliable risks and buffs, and a strong push towards Assault style play, all of which other armies can accomplish cheaper, better, and more reliably.

The Chaos faction is richer in its background than its table top performance.

Still, Chaos is my first army (great for beginners), and I always enjoy playing them.

CSM right now are pretty fething terrible. They got marginally better with Traitors Hate etc.

But remember that 8th is going to drop next year. Who knows, it might be a good game or it might be AOS (in which case I will be quitting). We don't actually know how its going to turn our or how it will affect your army.

Also note that most of CSM miniatures are over a decade old and about half of the stuff is Failcast. There is going to probably be one hell of a large update to their miniature catalogue in the future like the Dark Eldar had in 2010. So if you like that miniatures now, then go for it. But if you don't mind waiting to see the new stuff, then I would suggest waiting.

A TL;DR is that the CSM army is fundamentally a 4E/5E army in how it wants to operate and play, and thus they dont really function terribly well in the madness of 7E.

Daemons are in a far better spot, but end up usually being very gimmicky and have lots of internal balance issues, and as such often isnt very fun to play with or against.

Additionally, theyve kinda massacred much of the CSM fluff.

Well, the reason for the poor reputation is that almost any unit that is comparable to a loyalist marine is inferior in power, while costing practically the same.

Add the fact that random effects you got no control over are rather common, and it's a codex simply not fit for heavy tournaments, and that's what people focus on (because when casual, anything goes really)

So, if you are into chaos -regular- marines, codex space marine rules is better.
Where CSM has its own value is in the unique chaos stuff like cult marines, deamon marines, daemon engines, etc.

I own Necrons (a pretty competitive army) and Nid (a very much not competitive army) but actually enjoy playing my nids far more.

As has been suggested, look at what you think you personally will have fun with over the general power level. Especially if your intent is to play casually with friends instead of at tournaments and such. I picked my armys by reading a 40k time line and choosing the ones I enjoyed the stories for most.

I personally steer clear of space marines and the imperium in general because they are the generic good guys. A lot of my opponents are some various color of space marine. I like the xenos races for more variety.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
(Quote truncated for brevity)
sorry but your premise that if you dont play tournaments they are fine, is a joke. Unless your opponents are agreeing to take subpar lists everygame, you will absolutely be behind the eightball even in fun games vs your opponents 90 percent of the time. The books/units/formations avialable (outside the cabal) are not good. I have close to 10,000 points of chaos space marines, i love the lore, they are my first army. I havnt played them in over 2 years because they are so completely uncompetative vs 90 precent of the armies in the game that its simply not worth it. If i can only play one game a week or a couple a month, im not gonna showup and use an army i know should lose the game before a single dice is even rolled.

Correction/update: "they're fine if you're not playing in tournaments" could be more accurately rendered as "it depends on the competitiveness of your meta."

Secondary point: This actually goes and illustrates my broader point somewhat. Pyrhus is a CSM player who loves the models and lore, doesn't get to play frequently, and wants to have an army that works easily out of the box, so he's not going to have a great time showing up for pick-up games against people who build an infrequent-pick-up-game all-comers list and show up for a quick game. One of the strongest players at my FLGS back home has a CSM army; he plays frequently, goes to tournaments, has the time and energy to spare to work at it, and keeps them on the table (at least in part) because he enjoys the challenge of trying to achieve a reasonable win rate with a subpar army.

I'm not here to make judgements over which approach is better, and I'm aware I'm ascribing motives to Pyrhus that may or may not be accurate (if they aren't I will apologize and invent a character with the necessary qualities to replace him in this example). The point is that if you're looking to 40k as a relaxing exercise where you can show up, push models, roll dice, and have a good time CSM are a bad choice of army. If you're the sort of person who goes into a game with a subpar army because you want to be the deciding factor of your own victory and you're prepared to fight an uphill battle to get to the point where you can overcome the handicap, they're a much better option.

I'm going to approach this issue from another direction to try and illustrate it more concretely. I play Craftworld Eldar. They were my first army; I've been an elf player in every game that let me ever since I started playing games. I liked the aesthetic, I liked the lore. I can't play them today. Any time I put them on the table I'm either up against a casual player who didn't sign up for needing to fight an uphill battle into the strongest book in the game (which translates to bad times for everyone), or I'm up against a more competitive player and I end up in the insidious mental space wherein I don't know if I won because I'm any good or because I had an overpowered army as a crutch. Any situation, any matchup, ends up with some kind of bad emotional outcome for me, my opponent, or both.

At the end of the day whenever any of us tries to play a game we do so expecting to hold the key to the outcome within ourselves and our decisions. Poor game balance takes control away from the players; people playing or playing against very strong or very weak armies get frustrated because the outcome is determined by decisions the game's design team made, not by decisions they're making while playing. Trying to play pick-up games (where the goal is close games and a good time, as opposed to tournaments where the goal is victory at any cost) a strong army can play down towards the middle by using their weaker options, a weak army can play up towards the middle by turning a tournament player's mindset towards it.

And for a lot of us it's too much to ask that we not only buy and paint our expensive toy soldiers but that we also play designer, comp-system-writer, and rules judge to the game as well. There's nothing wrong with that. This isn't an MMO or an XBox FPS here, we don't (or at least most of us don't) heap abuse on people who play less than we do. There are no consequences for taking the army that's going to work well as advertised straight out of the box. There are no consequences for complaining that many armies don't work well as advertised straight out of the box.

If you're aware of the situation, however, and you'd still like to play CSM, then we will offer our respect for choosing to shoulder the challenge, our advice as you proceed, our grumbles that the army doesn't work the way we'd like, and the house rules we use sometimes if you feel like borrowing them. We're here to help.

Kinda off-topic, but as someone who is coming back after a couple of years off (last time I played was in 5th), I'm confused by all the Traitor's Hate stuff floating around. How many CSM-specific supplements are there? Is that where all the god-specific stuff from the old 3.5 dex went, or is that stuff still gone?

No, that stuff is gone.

Traitor's Hate is a bunch of bland looking Black Legion formations designed to get you to buy more models (like most formations), some of which supposedly offer a boost in power.

 odorofdeath wrote:
Kinda off-topic, but as someone who is coming back after a couple of years off (last time I played was in 5th), I'm confused by all the Traitor's Hate stuff floating around. How many CSM-specific supplements are there? Is that where all the god-specific stuff from the old 3.5 dex went, or is that stuff still gone?

instead of updating and fixing the CSM codex, GW put out another $50 book of formations for CSM's. Same codex weve been using for 4 years, but the "fix" is freebies for taking X models in Y quantity.

 odorofdeath wrote:
Kinda off-topic, but as someone who is coming back after a couple of years off (last time I played was in 5th), I'm confused by all the Traitor's Hate stuff floating around. How many CSM-specific supplements are there? Is that where all the god-specific stuff from the old 3.5 dex went, or is that stuff still gone?

The god-specific stuff from 3.5 is pretty much gone right now. The 3.5 book had undivided Marines and marked Marines as the only two divisions, the 4e book split marked Marines into Cult Marines (that get more bonuses along the lines of the 3.5 Marks but are only available as infantry units) and ordinary marked Marines (that get a smaller bonus but can be any variants (Havocs, Raptors, Bikes, et cetera)) and the 6e book has followed that pattern. Marked vehicles, interesting wacky Daemon weapons, and most of the Gifts have been either turned into special character rules/unique items or dropped.

For the CSM enthusiast not aware of the current state of the game, a brief index of where your rules are:

Codex: Chaos Space Marines. This is the one you actually need to play, and if you're so inclined you can stop here. Anything further is optional.

Supplements:
Black Legion: This one's a bit outdated, it does very little for you (Chosen in Troops, pretty much). Feel free to bypass it if you aren't on a completionist bent.
Crimson Slaughter: A Possessed/Daemon Engine-focused supplement. It makes Possessed actually useful (moves them to Troops and gives them a better random ability table), if you weren't planning on using them it doesn't do much.
Traitor's Hate: Your weird 7th-edition meta-detachment is here. It lets you squadron Predators/Vindicators for the same benefits Loyalist Marines get this edition by doing so, I can't comment extensively on the toys the formations offer but they look interesting at a glance. The psychic powers are copy-pasted from the Angels of Death supplement with different names, but they're all quite good.

Allies and Alternate Forces:
Chaos Daemons: A stronger standalone Codex than yours, but you complement each other well. (Note: The 'Daemonic Incursion edition' includes a supplement that adds a few new units, updates the psychic powers (and improves them dramatically), and gives them their own set of formations and new relics, it's well worth it.)
Khorne Daemonkin: If you like Khorne so much you're willing to drop all the other Chaos Gods and play just his stuff this is a book mixing CSM and Daemon units with their own unique and interesting formations and mechanics.

Forge World:
Imperial Armour 13: The big one. This collects all your Forge World units under one happy Dark Mechanicum umbrella, where you'll find Chaos versions of almost every 30k vehicle, a few Flyers, and some wacky Daemon Engines besides. Also contains the Lost and the Damned (Traitor Guard) army list.
Imperial Armour 5: There's a variant set of Traitor Guard rules in here, including a detachment that's got Traitor Guard and CSM units freely mixing (Nurgle-only).

(Yes, Chaos really has this many books today.)

Choosing your army can be hard...

GW says: play the army with the models that looks the coolest to you...

In the past, some of the best looking models got total crap ruling (The dark eldar mandrakes, Chaos space marines mutilators (i tought they looked cool lol), Space Marines centurion assault squad, etc...)

You will waste a ton of money on figs you'll never use...

My suggestion are:

1) Find an army with a general look to your liking, as opposed to specific models, ie.: you like the robotic look of Necrons, the army style of the Astra militarium, you're a big fan of mech and gundam so Tau are looking great, etc...

2) Look into the lore of the army, the background stories, if you like what you're reading, getting the codex at this point is the right thing, read the rules and look online for inspiration and advice on how to build your army.

3) Get some basic componnent, a squad or two of troop choices, perhaps a HQ too, build them and paint them.

4) Play a low point game with a good friend that has no benefit in utterly smashing you for no reasons, you're learning the game at this point.

5) Expand your army around a list to your liking; your first goal should be 1000 pts.

This might be the best way IMO to pick a new army; it's what I do personaly.

Chaos isn't bad, it's not the best in current tournament but it's fun to play for the versatility it offers.

In the past, some of the best looking models got total crap ruling (The dark eldar mandrakes, Chaos space marines mutilators, Space Marines centurion assault squad, etc...)

Aside from Mandrake.. The rest are universally reviled, unless I certainly missed something, most people hated those models looks with the mutilator just looking plain terrible and the centurion being mocked as the marine in a marine.

Yea...most people really hate mutilators and Centurions.

Although to fair, Centurions are salvageable with proper conversions.

Centurions remind me very, very strongly of New Conglomerate MAX suits in Planetside 2. Especially the Ultramarines ones.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 odorofdeath wrote:
Kinda off-topic, but as someone who is coming back after a couple of years off (last time I played was in 5th), I'm confused by all the Traitor's Hate stuff floating around. How many CSM-specific supplements are there? Is that where all the god-specific stuff from the old 3.5 dex went, or is that stuff still gone?

The god-specific stuff from 3.5 is pretty much gone right now. The 3.5 book had undivided Marines and marked Marines as the only two divisions, the 4e book split marked Marines into Cult Marines (that get more bonuses along the lines of the 3.5 Marks but are only available as infantry units) and ordinary marked Marines (that get a smaller bonus but can be any variants (Havocs, Raptors, Bikes, et cetera)) and the 6e book has followed that pattern. Marked vehicles, interesting wacky Daemon weapons, and most of the Gifts have been either turned into special character rules/unique items or dropped.

For the CSM enthusiast not aware of the current state of the game, a brief index of where your rules are:

Codex: Chaos Space Marines. This is the one you actually need to play, and if you're so inclined you can stop here. Anything further is optional.

Supplements:
Black Legion: This one's a bit outdated, it does very little for you (Chosen in Troops, pretty much). Feel free to bypass it if you aren't on a completionist bent.
Crimson Slaughter: A Possessed/Daemon Engine-focused supplement. It makes Possessed actually useful (moves them to Troops and gives them a better random ability table), if you weren't planning on using them it doesn't do much.
Traitor's Hate: Your weird 7th-edition meta-detachment is here. It lets you squadron Predators/Vindicators for the same benefits Loyalist Marines get this edition by doing so, I can't comment extensively on the toys the formations offer but they look interesting at a glance. The psychic powers are copy-pasted from the Angels of Death supplement with different names, but they're all quite good.

Allies and Alternate Forces:
Chaos Daemons: A stronger standalone Codex than yours, but you complement each other well. (Note: The 'Daemonic Incursion edition' includes a supplement that adds a few new units, updates the psychic powers (and improves them dramatically), and gives them their own set of formations and new relics, it's well worth it.)
Khorne Daemonkin: If you like Khorne so much you're willing to drop all the other Chaos Gods and play just his stuff this is a book mixing CSM and Daemon units with their own unique and interesting formations and mechanics.

Forge World:
Imperial Armour 13: The big one. This collects all your Forge World units under one happy Dark Mechanicum umbrella, where you'll find Chaos versions of almost every 30k vehicle, a few Flyers, and some wacky Daemon Engines besides. Also contains the Lost and the Damned (Traitor Guard) army list.
Imperial Armour 5: There's a variant set of Traitor Guard rules in here, including a detachment that's got Traitor Guard and CSM units freely mixing (Nurgle-only).

(Yes, Chaos really has this many books today.)

Good lord, that's a lot of sh*t. I've been reading through the 6th ed. CSM book and I was surprised how similar it is to the last one, just seems so basic.... kind of a bummer.

My view is simple:

Chaos Marines have some good units, and many of their units are not that much worse off compared to their loyalist counterparts. The real issue they have is one of bad FOC design:

-All their long-range units are in Heavy Support.
-Alll their "faster than infantry" units are Fast Attack.

And that's it. While Marines can get Bike Command Squads or Vanguard Veteran Elites, EVERY CSM Elite "moves like infantry". Likewise, no Bike troops (though the Daemonkin Gorepack is nice). While Marines can get Razorback transports, Sternguard can take 2 Heavies or Marine Dreads can "rifleman" (dual TL Autocannons), Chaos doesn't get a real analogue in Troops or Elites.

If sticking to CAD on CAD, Chaos doesn't get the ability to diffuse their threats the way loyalist Marines can.

Thankfully the Black Crusade lets you circumvent this some.

Don't forget all the special rules C:SM get just for being part of a chapter. I mean sure we can pay for rules but they get many rules just for free while everyone else argues you don't need special rules to represent CSM.

But yes besides the strange points costs for units, the movement thing is something I've begun to notice much more lately.

 odorofdeath wrote:
(Quote truncated for brevity)
Good lord, that's a lot of sh*t. I've been reading through the 6th ed. CSM book and I was surprised how similar it is to the last one, just seems so basic.... kind of a bummer.

On one hand it means GW's updating things more frequently, on the other hand it means you need more books.

On the bright side you'll usually be using two or three books for most armies, even with allies (CSM + Traitor's Hate + Daemons, CSM + IA13, Daemons + IA5, et cetera).

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 odorofdeath wrote:
(Quote truncated for brevity)
Good lord, that's a lot of sh*t. I've been reading through the 6th ed. CSM book and I was surprised how similar it is to the last one, just seems so basic.... kind of a bummer.

On one hand it means GW's updating things more frequently, on the other hand it means you need more books.

On the bright side you'll usually be using two or three books for most armies, even with allies (CSM + Traitor's Hate + Daemons, CSM + IA13, Daemons + IA5, et cetera).

No. The update cycle isn't more frequent. GW releases a book which mirrors previous releases just with new names (new CSM psychic stuff) with some copy-paste formations. You just paid for something you probably already own. Or you get the Eldar/SM/Tau effect where popular powerful books are reprinted for an extra cash injection.

I don't see how hauling 3-5kgs of books with me along with a sizeable army, then having to cross-reference between the various sources during a game is a `bright side`.

Well, CSM is a nice army to model and paint.
At the competitive level, CSM is at the lowest tier. But this doesnt matter if you dont plan to attend tourneys atm.
A kill team is a good starting point as is the starter box for CSM.

SaltySeaDog wrote:
I'm a newcomer to 40k & this forum, so apologies for my painfully novice questions...I asked previously about building up my first 40k army, using Kill Team as a stepping stone to understanding the game & the 'Get Started!' pack as my foundation for the army itself.

I wanted to field CSM as I like the lore & the models- but after doing some initial research, it seems that CSM aren't popular right now, are going through some sort of 'rough patch' in the evolution of the rules, and even have many poor unit choices compared to other armies. In brief, I feel like their glory days are passed and (for the time being, at least) they've been overtaken by others. Is this accurate?

So, bearing in mind I'm a total beginner, should I grit my teeth & carry on with my plan of collecting CSM? Or would it be wise for me to think about plan B (loyalist marines, most likely Ultramarines or another 'vanilla' chapter)?

Just don't want to waste time & money on an army that isn't good to play as a newbie, or is likely going to be totally overhauled in the near future.

Thanks!

I said no to 40K for ten years while my friends yammered on about it. I wasn't interested. I played D&D pretty hard core and that hasn't changed even now.

Then at some random point I looked at a Tau Codex and saw the Tau Stealthsuits. I was instantly hooked and I now boast what can only be termed a completely unnecessary amount of 40K. Lol.

Whatever fires your imagination the most is what makes it worth playing. I dont think new rules will be out until 2018 at the earliest. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

If the Chaos Space Marines fire your imagination, I say do it. Death to the False Emperor.

 MarsNZ wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 odorofdeath wrote:
(Quote truncated for brevity)
Good lord, that's a lot of sh*t. I've been reading through the 6th ed. CSM book and I was surprised how similar it is to the last one, just seems so basic.... kind of a bummer.

On one hand it means GW's updating things more frequently, on the other hand it means you need more books.

On the bright side you'll usually be using two or three books for most armies, even with allies (CSM + Traitor's Hate + Daemons, CSM + IA13, Daemons + IA5, et cetera).

No. The update cycle isn't more frequent. GW releases a book which mirrors previous releases just with new names (new CSM psychic stuff) with some copy-paste formations. You just paid for something you probably already own. Or you get the Eldar/SM/Tau effect where popular powerful books are reprinted for an extra cash injection.

I don't see how hauling 3-5kgs of books with me along with a sizeable army, then having to cross-reference between the various sources during a game is a `bright side`.

The "bright side" is "yes, there are eight books you could use, but you aren't actually going to need more than two most of the time (and can get away with using only one if you need to)".

And the update cycle looks more frequent to me. When I started playing having armies skip over editions without getting updated was fairly normal, through 4th and 5th about half the game was using a Codex one or two editions old at any one time. Right now there are 25 'Codexes' sitting around, and of those 6 are 6th edition. Of those six (Tyranids, MT, Inquisition, AM, Sisters, CSM) three (Tyranids, AM, CSM) have received large-scale overhauls in supplements.

So we've gone from leaving 30-50% of the game out of date in 4th/5th to leaving about 12% of the game out of date right now. I'd call that an improvement.

I dont think chaos is the "lowest tier". I mean ITC rankings states that is false. Its actually more like CSM are sitting at the middle of road with alot of codex's behind them and just as many ahead. And this is without traitors hate. Chaos can put the hurt on when fielded correctly. The problem is the list of units/formations we have to do this is very small. Nerf or no nerf, the Heldrake is still a insane flyer for its points. The raptor talon is overlooked for the disorganized charge, but its really, REALLY good. Our psychic game is top notch and we have some hard hitting assault options (if you can get them into CC). People rave about Oblits (i find them 25 points overcosted). And now we get rules for renegade knights as allies. Sure we have a load of stinker choices (bezerkers, 1k sons) but once you find out what those are its a simple matter of not taking them.

I dont think any other faction needs its Forge World additions more than CSM. Forgeworld can actually make the faction playable in a decently competitive level. Its not a faction for those without cash. And if you are not prepared to spend it, then its probably not a faction one should be looking at. But dakka tends to be a bit reactionary. People speak on things as that every meta and every game is against 4 wraith knights and scat spam. This is just not the case. So when people say go with what you like, thats about the best advice you are going to get here.

Chaos is impressive to model, converse (any demon touch on humans as well any mutation you could imagine) and paint.

And a cool looking army



But his rules are really really bad on the table jajajjaja

SaltySeaDog wrote:

I wanted to field CSM as I like the lore & the models- but after doing some initial research, it seems that CSM aren't popular right now, are going through some sort of 'rough patch' in the evolution of the rules, and even have many poor unit choices compared to other armies. In brief, I feel like their glory days are passed and (for the time being, at least) they've been overtaken by others. Is this accurate?

This is all I needed to read. Yes, collect CSMs - there is no point collecting something your heart isn't really set on. Codex power levels come and go, but the glory of Chaos is eternal and everlasting! Join us in the Long War, and you will stand atop the walls of Terra as the corpse-god is cast from his gilded throne as his empire crumbles to dust around him! Death to the False Emperor!

If you're using just the Codex: Chaos Space Marines, you might have trouble competing even in casual settings, but there have been a LOT of releases that can add some minor buffs.

The top tier armies are just too far ahead at this point, but if you start adding the Supplements you can make a fairly competitive list; Traitors Hate is actually pretty decent.

I realize this next idea usually gets shot down by mouth-foaming "thats not CSM!!@#!" rage, but if you are willing to add Forgeworld and/or FW Renegade stuff you can actually make an army that CAN compete on the higher levels.

The other option is to add Daemons. Back in the famous 3.5CSM codex the Daemons were right in the book and even now they work well together.

Disagree. they compete well. The Traitors Hate supplement did a lot for them. It's a must have.

Table wrote:
I dont think chaos is the "lowest tier". I mean ITC rankings states that is false. Its actually more like CSM are sitting at the middle of road with alot of codex's behind them and just as many ahead. And this is without traitors hate. Chaos can put the hurt on when fielded correctly. The problem is the list of units/formations we have to do this is very small. Nerf or no nerf, the Heldrake is still a insane flyer for its points. The raptor talon is overlooked for the disorganized charge, but its really, REALLY good. Our psychic game is top notch and we have some hard hitting assault options (if you can get them into CC). People rave about Oblits (i find them 25 points overcosted). And now we get rules for renegade knights as allies. Sure we have a load of stinker choices (bezerkers, 1k sons) but once you find out what those are its a simple matter of not taking them.

I dont think any other faction needs its Forge World additions more than CSM. Forgeworld can actually make the faction playable in a decently competitive level. Its not a faction for those without cash. And if you are not prepared to spend it, then its probably not a faction one should be looking at. But dakka tends to be a bit reactionary. People speak on things as that every meta and every game is against 4 wraith knights and scat spam. This is just not the case. So when people say go with what you like, thats about the best advice you are going to get here.

Lol. Hilarious post. Chaos might be on the lower half of the middle in ITC, but i flat out challenge you to find chaos space marine lists that actually use the majority of points on CSM. The only tournament competing unit/formation they even have is the sorc cabal, which is usually just tacked onto a demon or KDK list. CSM are garbage for anything outside of fun games

@looking at ITC rankings... this is problematic because it was (is?) Solely about who the warlord is and very little to do with what you actually take.
So you get armies like Belakor, 2x cultist squads, brass scorpion. Or sorcerer cabal + KDK. Or simply belakor + cultists + heldrakes as with a Daemon army.
I think if you look at the actual makeup of the armies, you'd be hard pressed to find one that contains an actual chaos marine.

Trasvi wrote:
@looking at ITC rankings... this is problematic because it was (is?) Solely about who the warlord is and very little to do with what you actually take.
So you get armies like Belakor, 2x cultist squads, brass scorpion. Or sorcerer cabal + KDK. Or simply belakor + cultists + heldrakes as with a Daemon army.
I think if you look at the actual makeup of the armies, you'd be hard pressed to find one that contains an actual chaos marine.

ITC rankings tend to be poor judgements on an army because most of them tend to be very allied heavy to begin with, it's hard to tell the state of a codex when half your list is another codex in its entirety.

Franarok wrote:
Chaos is impressive to model, converse (any demon touch on humans as well any mutation you could imagine) and paint.

And a cool looking army



But his rules are really really bad on the table jajajjaja

That is very true. My favorite 40k model is a maulerfiend, they do look very cool

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
@looking at ITC rankings... this is problematic because it was (is?) Solely about who the warlord is and very little to do with what you actually take.
So you get armies like Belakor, 2x cultist squads, brass scorpion. Or sorcerer cabal + KDK. Or simply belakor + cultists + heldrakes as with a Daemon army.
I think if you look at the actual makeup of the armies, you'd be hard pressed to find one that contains an actual chaos marine.

ITC rankings tend to be poor judgements on an army because most of them tend to be very allied heavy to begin with, it's hard to tell the state of a codex when half your list is another codex in its entirety.

But one can argue that allies is common in competitive circles so how the codex operates on its own does not really matter. Just throwing that out there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:

Table wrote:
I dont think chaos is the "lowest tier". I mean ITC rankings states that is false. Its actually more like CSM are sitting at the middle of road with alot of codex's behind them and just as many ahead. And this is without traitors hate. Chaos can put the hurt on when fielded correctly. The problem is the list of units/formations we have to do this is very small. Nerf or no nerf, the Heldrake is still a insane flyer for its points. The raptor talon is overlooked for the disorganized charge, but its really, REALLY good. Our psychic game is top notch and we have some hard hitting assault options (if you can get them into CC). People rave about Oblits (i find them 25 points overcosted). And now we get rules for renegade knights as allies. Sure we have a load of stinker choices (bezerkers, 1k sons) but once you find out what those are its a simple matter of not taking them.

I dont think any other faction needs its Forge World additions more than CSM. Forgeworld can actually make the faction playable in a decently competitive level. Its not a faction for those without cash. And if you are not prepared to spend it, then its probably not a faction one should be looking at. But dakka tends to be a bit reactionary. People speak on things as that every meta and every game is against 4 wraith knights and scat spam. This is just not the case. So when people say go with what you like, thats about the best advice you are going to get here.

Lol. Hilarious post. Chaos might be on the lower half of the middle in ITC, but i flat out challenge you to find chaos space marine lists that actually use the majority of points on CSM. The only tournament competing unit/formation they even have is the sorc cabal, which is usually just tacked onto a demon or KDK list. CSM are garbage for anything outside of fun games

I fail to see the reason for your attitude. But then again this is the internet. Regardless, Name one fact I was wrong about in my post. Ill be waiting.

But one can argue that allies is common in competitive circles so how the codex operates on its own does not really matter. Just throwing that out there.

I figure as much, but does it state the actual power of a codex when you only use one or two things from the codex period?
In this case it just shows that competitive 40k will do their best to take the most broken aspects of a codex and mix it with another just for pure beneficial power, in which case it really should not be seen as a measure of showing a strength of the average 40k codex. This isn't MTG where it's cheaper to splat out different colors if you need it!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
@looking at ITC rankings... this is problematic because it was (is?) Solely about who the warlord is and very little to do with what you actually take.
So you get armies like Belakor, 2x cultist squads, brass scorpion. Or sorcerer cabal + KDK. Or simply belakor + cultists + heldrakes as with a Daemon army.
I think if you look at the actual makeup of the armies, you'd be hard pressed to find one that contains an actual chaos marine.

ITC rankings tend to be poor judgements on an army because most of them tend to be very allied heavy to begin with, it's hard to tell the state of a codex when half your list is another codex in its entirety.

This doesnt differ from normal play at all. The same allies in ITC missions are allowed in every day missions. I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

If anything the ITC limits them more than in normal play, because of the Detachment limitation.

 Jancoran wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
@looking at ITC rankings... this is problematic because it was (is?) Solely about who the warlord is and very little to do with what you actually take.
So you get armies like Belakor, 2x cultist squads, brass scorpion. Or sorcerer cabal + KDK. Or simply belakor + cultists + heldrakes as with a Daemon army.
I think if you look at the actual makeup of the armies, you'd be hard pressed to find one that contains an actual chaos marine.

ITC rankings tend to be poor judgements on an army because most of them tend to be very allied heavy to begin with, it's hard to tell the state of a codex when half your list is another codex in its entirety.

This doesnt differ from normal play at all. The same allies in ITC missions are allowed in every day missions. I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

If anything the ITC limits them more than in normal play, because of the Detachment limitation.

When one is trying to bring up the power level of a codex there does need to be a distinction whether one is discussion overall power level of the entire codex (mono-build) which is generally what most people tend towards talking about. If it's fine as a combined codex because all you need is Belakor, Cabal, and then you fill it up with cultists and bring in allied codex that needs to be properly measured as well.

My distinction tends towards that on average the codex is barely being used at all except for these very specific pieces, and then people call towards the rankings and say "This codex is fine! ITC says so!" despite most of the codex being very unwell.

Though I suppose my issue is that most people don't actually look at the lists being brought to ITC, it aint as if the codex is winning with a mono-build with thousand sons and defilers.. If one did I would be rather impressed however.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

But one can argue that allies is common in competitive circles so how the codex operates on its own does not really matter. Just throwing that out there.

I figure as much, but does it state the actual power of a codex when you only use one or two things from the codex period?
In this case it just shows that competitive 40k will do their best to take the most broken aspects of a codex and mix it with another just for pure beneficial power, in which case it really should not be seen as a measure of showing a strength of the average 40k codex. This isn't MTG where it's cheaper to splat out different colors if you need it!

I guess it depends on context. The relative power of a codex that is. In a ITC context where allies are normal the codex fairs decently well. And now with Traitors Hate id reckon it will perform even better. In the context of non ITC tournaments id wager its even stronger with few to no restrictions in place. In a no allies setting where its codex vs codex is where it falls flat. No one is going to argue its a subpar codex when its used on its own. But where it gets better is the introduction of forgeworld and demons. Both of which are legal and expected in the most commonly played tournament setting. The thing is, and ill say this for the 5th time. Dakka is a echo chamber in which only Eldar, Tau, Demons and Gladius matters. People here have a strange way of looking at the game and I guess that is to be expected. So my answer to the OP stays the same. CSM gets a bad rap because of the internet echo chamber and hyperbole. Its really that simple. Add in the fact that some players are going to use the excuse of "its abad faction" to make themselves feel better when their fluff 1ksons list tanks for the 100th time. Chaos may not be the top tier tourney faction, but it certainly isnt "trash". Several factions have it far worse.

That being said. I hope that one day chaos is given a flavorful codex that can stand up to the big 4 on its own two feet. But going by past precedent I dont see that happening. Its probably going to remain a middling faction until they get a new creative team. Which is to bad. Because its my favorite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
@looking at ITC rankings... this is problematic because it was (is?) Solely about who the warlord is and very little to do with what you actually take.
So you get armies like Belakor, 2x cultist squads, brass scorpion. Or sorcerer cabal + KDK. Or simply belakor + cultists + heldrakes as with a Daemon army.
I think if you look at the actual makeup of the armies, you'd be hard pressed to find one that contains an actual chaos marine.

ITC rankings tend to be poor judgements on an army because most of them tend to be very allied heavy to begin with, it's hard to tell the state of a codex when half your list is another codex in its entirety.

This doesnt differ from normal play at all. The same allies in ITC missions are allowed in every day missions. I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

If anything the ITC limits them more than in normal play, because of the Detachment limitation.

When one is trying to bring up the power level of a codex there does need to be a distinction whether one is discussion overall power level of the entire codex (mono-build) which is generally what most people tend towards talking about. If it's fine as a combined codex because all you need is Belakor, Cabal, and then you fill it up with cultists and bring in allied codex that needs to be properly measured as well.

My distinction tends towards that on average the codex is barely being used at all except for these very specific pieces, and then people call towards the rankings and say "This codex is fine! ITC says so!" despite most of the codex being very unwell.

Though I suppose my issue is that most people don't actually look at the lists being brought to ITC, it aint as if the codex is winning with a mono-build with thousand sons and defilers.. If one did I would be rather impressed however.

But on the same note. I dont see people winning with mono build Eldar running guardians and banshee's. There is a thousand ways to make a bad list. This is not codex specific.

Table wrote:

I guess it depends on context. The relative power of a codex that is. In a ITC context where allies are normal the codex fairs decently well. And now with Traitors Hate id reckon it will perform even better. In the context of non ITC tournaments id wager its even stronger with few to no restrictions in place. In a no allies setting where its codex vs codex is where it falls flat. No one is going to argue its a subpar codex when its used on its own. But where it gets better is the introduction of forgeworld and demons. Both of which are legal and expected in the most commonly played tournament setting. The thing is, and ill say this for the 5th time. Dakka is a echo chamber in which only Eldar, Tau, Demons and Gladius matters. People here have a strange way of looking at the game and I guess that is to be expected. So my answer to the OP stays the same. CSM gets a bad rap because of the internet echo chamber and hyperbole. Its really that simple. Add in the fact that some players are going to use the excuse of "its abad faction" to make themselves feel better when their fluff 1ksons list tanks for the 100th time. Chaos may not be the top tier tourney faction, but it certainly isnt "trash". Several factions have it far worse.

That being said. I hope that one day chaos is given a flavorful codex that can stand up to the big 4 on its own two feet. But going by past precedent I dont see that happening. Its probably going to remain a middling faction until they get a new creative team. Which is to bad. Because its my favorite.

QFT.

The real problem with the CSM Codex is the fact it has to be made better with supplements, allies and Imperial Armor. If the main codex included Fire Raptors, Sicarans, and Rapiers, you would have an army with long range firepower that can bog down enemies while your troops make their way up the board. If the main Codex included Fateweaver and Fleshounds, you would have psychic advantages and cheap beasts to strike as a first wave. You get all these through additional books, but... who really wants to spend $400 just for the rules?

CSM have no delivery method other than land raiders for assault.

The units that can deepstrike then assault are either underwhelming, or cost more than a terminator once you give them a mark.

The book is fun, but you find out quickly there are units that are just way underperforming once they start dying. (IE: You lose them and go, "Huh, that was a ton of points".)

 sfshilo wrote:
CSM have no delivery method other than land raiders for assault.

The units that can deepstrike then assault are either underwhelming, or cost more than a terminator once you give them a mark.

The book is fun, but you find out quickly there are units that are just way underperforming once they start dying. (IE: You lose them and go, "Huh, that was a ton of points".)

I would actually argue if we could get Rhinos with upgrades and Stubborn for free, we could possibly use Rhinos as a delivery method and go back to the 5th edition Rhino Rush the codex is designed for. We could afford to sacrifice a few squads to get the rest into close combat. However, I completely agree that they are not a viable delivery method as it currently stands

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Trasvi wrote:
@looking at ITC rankings... this is problematic because it was (is?) Solely about who the warlord is and very little to do with what you actually take.
So you get armies like Belakor, 2x cultist squads, brass scorpion. Or sorcerer cabal + KDK. Or simply belakor + cultists + heldrakes as with a Daemon army.
I think if you look at the actual makeup of the armies, you'd be hard pressed to find one that contains an actual chaos marine.

ITC rankings tend to be poor judgements on an army because most of them tend to be very allied heavy to begin with, it's hard to tell the state of a codex when half your list is another codex in its entirety.

This doesnt differ from normal play at all. The same allies in ITC missions are allowed in every day missions. I'm not sure what distinction you're making.

If anything the ITC limits them more than in normal play, because of the Detachment limitation.

When one is trying to bring up the power level of a codex there does need to be a distinction whether one is discussion overall power level of the entire codex (mono-build) which is generally what most people tend towards talking about. If it's fine as a combined codex because all you need is Belakor, Cabal, and then you fill it up with cultists and bring in allied codex that needs to be properly measured as well.

My distinction tends towards that on average the codex is barely being used at all except for these very specific pieces, and then people call towards the rankings and say "This codex is fine! ITC says so!" despite most of the codex being very unwell.

Though I suppose my issue is that most people don't actually look at the lists being brought to ITC, it aint as if the codex is winning with a mono-build with thousand sons and defilers.. If one did I would be rather impressed however.

Supposing that people are bringing allies is also not necessarily true.

Supposing that those allies are anything but bit players is not also necessarily true.

I went to the BAO and my ally was 34 points of my list. In the ITC, the portion of the list that is in the majority is counted as your faction forthat tournament. So while significiant portions of a list can definitely be from a second or third codex, this has nothingto do with ther ITC itself nor tha rankings.

Simply put, anyone OUTSIDE the ITC can do all of the above or not do all of the above. It's no more or less common. So what the faction really tells us is that GIVEN that MOST of the list is this faction, how do you do?

Chaos is technically capable of Assault but they're not a deathstar army. Yes, you could do stuff like the Cabalstar/Daemonkin Hounds, but Imperials get more resources/combinatorics for more deathstar options, as well as units that can split off and recombine (Iron Priests).

More than anything else, Chaos gets "just enough" CC threat distributed in their army. Their Terminators are cheaper and can be run in units of 3/tooled for trouble-shooting.

Their Bikers get the extra Pistol/CCW, Obliterators provide fire support before moving in to punch stuff, and their basic Marines can run BP/CCW swaps at minimal cost. Yes, you can argue Bolters are more relevant for shooting, but without Drop Pods/Tactical Doctrine, you won't get as much mileage playing them as a CQC alphastrike, and if you're running Meltateams, chances are you're shooting vehicles/MCs anyway and the bolters would be mostly inconsequential either way.

Spawn are handy, and Dirge Casters are always useful. Even a basic Rhino can move 12/flat out 6/project a 6" aura, and you only need to hit one model to shut off Overwatch.

One thing I've found useful so far with Traitors Hate is giving Biker Champions a Power Weapon (Lance if Slaanesh). Path to Glory/Favored Scions can turn a champion into a decent assassin (remember enemy Librarians are I4), while they remain cheapish enough that you don't mind them transforming; personally, I find that the Daemon Prince of Slaanesh is the best wingless version, due to fleet and extra run distance.

 sfshilo wrote:
CSM have no delivery method other than land raiders for assault.

The units that can deepstrike then assault are either underwhelming, or cost more than a terminator once you give them a mark.

The book is fun, but you find out quickly there are units that are just way underperforming once they start dying. (IE: You lose them and go, "Huh, that was a ton of points".)

I wouldnt call raptors underwhelming nor would I call Warp Talons the same when used in a raptor talon formation. As far as the Warp Talons go, the biggest problem they had was not being able to assault after the DS. And the talon takes that away. Sure its a disorganized charge. But in the end its probably the cheapest set of lightning claws you are going to field in any codex. Add in demon and MoZ and you have tough assault unit that can put a hurt on anything ap3 or less. Add in blind (i know, its not a huge perk) and the potential leadership hit and you have dangerous threat to almost any army (DS mishaps will always be a factor for any unit with the capability). Is it expensive? Probably. Marks in general need to halved in cost. And yes, it hurts to lose high cost msu units. You can mitigate this by not marking them and using them correctly. Dont assault targets that you have a low chance of breaking on the first round and dont fill your list with them They are an excellent addition to a raptor talon when used correctly and your luck doesnt tank on a mishap.

Look, I am still a novice when it comes to the faction. I admit this. Im a recent convert and the bulk of my 40k exp comes from playing Necrons, which is a whole different beast. But even I can see past the hyperbole of dakka when it comes to chaos, so why arnt the better players and more experienced CSM generals doing the same? Which leads into my points made in previous posts.

Disagree. they compete well. The Traitors Hate supplement did a lot for them. It's a must have.

Traitor's Hate took CSM from a complete flatline to giving them a *small* heartbeat. Tiny. IMO the thing it did was add some flavor they were desperately missing. I would agree with you that if a person wants to play CSM and they aren't running Demonkin, that Traitor's Hate probably is a must have. It's at least an attempt to fix some of what's been broken in the main book since its release.

This really underscores one of the book's main issues though. Like techsoldaten said, the main CSM codex requires a LOT of support to really function. Just look at the number of threads where someone says "Guys! I figured it out! Chaos is AMAZING! All you have to do is take 20 cultists from the main book, combine it with IA:13, this data-slate, these two supplements and that WD article and it's KILLER!" Additionally, nine times out of ten, the "lists" that appear in those threads contain almost no actual Chaos MARINES.

Unfortunately, nothing short of a total re-write is going to get the book to where it really needs to be. In it's current state, it lacks flavor, has no synergy, has no way to really capitalize on the few "strengths" it does have and actively punishes the player for using it. That said, it's probably still in better shape than Orks and 'Nids are at the moment.

"You can win with Chaos Space Marines if your army has no Chaos Space Marines."

Unfortunately, that's been an issue with 40k Marines since 5th in general. If the Gladius didn't exist and Power Armor Marines didn't get Grav Cannons, nobody would field Tacticals; they would do like the 6e codex and do Bikers or Sentinels of Terra Scouts. If it weren't for formations in general, there would be no point to Tacmarines.

Table wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
CSM have no delivery method other than land raiders for assault.

The units that can deepstrike then assault are either underwhelming, or cost more than a terminator once you give them a mark.

The book is fun, but you find out quickly there are units that are just way underperforming once they start dying. (IE: You lose them and go, "Huh, that was a ton of points".)

I wouldnt call raptors underwhelming nor would I call Warp Talons the same when used in a raptor talon formation. As far as the Warp Talons go, the biggest problem they had was not being able to assault after the DS. And the talon takes that away. Sure its a disorganized charge. But in the end its probably the cheapest set of lightning claws you are going to field in any codex. Add in demon and MoZ and you have tough assault unit that can put a hurt on anything ap3 or less. Add in blind (i know, its not a huge perk) and the potential leadership hit and you have dangerous threat to almost any army (DS mishaps will always be a factor for any unit with the capability). Is it expensive? Probably. Marks in general need to halved in cost. And yes, it hurts to lose high cost msu units. You can mitigate this by not marking them and using them correctly. Dont assault targets that you have a low chance of breaking on the first round and dont fill your list with them They are an excellent addition to a raptor talon when used correctly and your luck doesnt tank on a mishap.

Look, I am still a novice when it comes to the faction. I admit this. Im a recent convert and the bulk of my 40k exp comes from playing Necrons, which is a whole different beast. But even I can see past the hyperbole of dakka when it comes to chaos, so why arnt the better players and more experienced CSM generals doing the same? Which leads into my points made in previous posts.

I love Raptors. Night Lords for the win.

Table wrote:
Look, I am still a novice when it comes to the faction. I admit this. Im a recent convert and the bulk of my 40k exp comes from playing Necrons, which is a whole different beast. But even I can see past the hyperbole of dakka when it comes to chaos, so why arnt the better players and more experienced CSM generals doing the same? Which leads into my points made in previous posts.

Simple: Too many source books and too weak a codex. On it's own, the codex is just weak. Why take CSM when Eldar and SM do everything it does, but better/cheaper? Second, some tourneys crack down on the amount of CADs/Formations/Sourcebooks a list can use. This hurts CSM when, as shown before, they excel with allies, Imperial Armour, etc.

Seriously, why play CSM when you can play mono-Daemons, SM, or Eldar and do way better?

Table wrote:


I wouldnt call raptors underwhelming nor would I call Warp Talons the same when used in a raptor talon formation. As far as the Warp Talons go, the biggest problem they had was not being able to assault after the DS. And the talon takes that away.

Look, I am still a novice when it comes to the faction. I admit this. Im a recent convert and the bulk of my 40k exp comes from playing Necrons, which is a whole different beast. But even I can see past the hyperbole of dakka when it comes to chaos, so why arnt the better players and more experienced CSM generals doing the same? Which leads into my points made in previous posts.

Hyperbole is what Dakkadakka does. Lol.

But seriously... here is what the Raptor Talon and Traitors Hate does for you:

1. The most feared version of Eldar is a jetbike spam list. The Talon allows you to shut three of the things down in the critical second round. Some reserve manipulation isn't expensive and is worth being able to say that you nuked their feared jetbikes and when you are done with them (preferably in their round because of the Disorganized charge) you can start in on the next unit. This is a very significant thing to be able to say.

2. White Scar Battle Companies with Grav Spam. Here again, you are able to focus down three Rhinos and charge their innards. Here again the combination of Dirge Caster and Raptors makes cleaning up one flank a pretty good bet and allows you to enforce your will on them as far as target priorities go. one of the problems Battle Companies like this have is range and los once the hullas start to mount up and with Grav they tend not to explode hulls as often because they so frequently kill them through the technicality of Immobilizing. Its like watching a game of Pacman if you can make that first rhino busting session a success.

3. Units of Three predators. What a win for Chaos players. So often the problem for them has been that they cannot afford to take tanks because they get too few of them and so things like Obliterators make more sense. But AV 13 armor is pretty good and when its kept to the rear its better. Being able to fire 9 lascannon shots, some twin linked will rapidly do damage to anything you care to do damage to and it encourages the enemy to fire at them rather than the buzzing bees around their head. Range will limit their ability to hurt you. So this means you can even null deploy a tank squadron, here again with reserve manipulation, and give them a good resting zone to affect the battle once their buzzing bees are present to keep the heat off.

4. The Tau Empire and its Riptide Wings will be none too happy to see the Raptors dropping in. While the Raptors cannot do an extremely good job of harming the Riptides on their own (though as they are not fearless, Riptides will likely lose eventually) the Chaos Lord that comes with them certainly can end the Riptides hopes of escape and survival. The Riptide wing has been included in a LOT of armies and they FREQUENTLY get their 3+ invul save up, but one failure is all it takes to send them careening off the table if you arm your Chaos Lord correctly and now with the great upgrades you will constantly be getting from the Boons table in a Black Legion force, this could be twice as true.

5. Heldrakes were already good. The new Formation improves them and lets be honest...who WASN'T taking two of them when they were taking them at all except maybe me? Now you can DARE people to go to ground against your other units and also drive people off the table with just a few wounds when they are falling back. How this works is you want to arm your force so that the enemy must take an LD check in every phase possible. Dirge Casting Tank shocks and incoming Vector Strikes can force it in Movement phase, Terrify and the like in the psyker phase, shooting in the shooting phase and so on. Once a unit is falling back it auto fails morale tests when forced to take one again, which can happen in every phase. Obviously fearless stuff wont care AS much but then, a LOT of 40K simply isnt fearless. the recognizably most potent forces in the ITC aren't as a rule.

6. Making Termiantors and other units Objective Secured in the Core Formation is sweet. As many armies that rely on this mechanic heavily for victory, like Militarum Tempestus for example, or Battle Companies can tell you, giving the entire formation that benefit is kinda a big deal. the detachable lord can even use it to good effect. I think this did a ton to make Chaos more effective. Terminators are annoying in 3's but have not been able to take objecrtives from troops before so their value was seen as somewhat lesser. Now they can drop right in and run to an objective. No longer can they be ignored in favor of "better" targets because unlike before they now at minimum contest it if not take it outright and many units wil not be nearly as excited about charging them as they would be other units Chaos had to use before for the same duty. Its certainly not game breaking but ignoring its positive impact seems equally silly.

I have always chosen to look for the positive way forward instead of wallowing in the misery some people enjoy wallowing in. they must enjoy it because some do it an awful lot! Are Chaos Mariens the most powerful faction? Good lord, no. But they don't need to be. They just need a capable general who knows what he's doing. Be that General!

You're literally becoming "L2P" in poster form.

 Jancoran wrote:

Table wrote:


I wouldnt call raptors underwhelming nor would I call Warp Talons the same when used in a raptor talon formation. As far as the Warp Talons go, the biggest problem they had was not being able to assault after the DS. And the talon takes that away.

Look, I am still a novice when it comes to the faction. I admit this. Im a recent convert and the bulk of my 40k exp comes from playing Necrons, which is a whole different beast. But even I can see past the hyperbole of dakka when it comes to chaos, so why arnt the better players and more experienced CSM generals doing the same? Which leads into my points made in previous posts.

Hyperbole is what Dakkadakka does. Lol.

But seriously... here is what the Raptor Talon and Traitors Hate does for you:

1. The most feared version of Eldar is a jetbike spam list. The Talon allows you to shut three of the things down in the critical second round. Some reserve manipulation isn't expensive and is worth being able to say that you nuked their feared jetbikes and when you are done with them (preferably in their round because of the Disorganized charge) you can start in on the next unit. This is a very significant thing to be able to say.

2. White Scar Battle Companies with Grav Spam. Here again, you are able to focus down three Rhinos and charge their innards. Here again the combination of Dirge Caster and Raptors makes cleaning up one flank a pretty good bet and allows you to enforce your will on them as far as target priorities go. one of the problems Battle Companies like this have is range and los once the hullas start to mount up and with Grav they tend not to explode hulls as often because they so frequently kill them through the technicality of Immobilizing. Its like watching a game of Pacman if you can make that first rhino busting session a success.

3. Units of Three predators. What a win for Chaos players. So often the problem for them has been that they cannot afford to take tanks because they get too few of them and so things like Obliterators make more sense. But AV 13 armor is pretty good and when its kept to the rear its better. Being able to fire 9 lascannon shots, some twin linked will rapidly do damage to anything you care to do damage to and it encourages the enemy to fire at them rather than the buzzing bees around their head. Range will limit their ability to hurt you. So this means you can even null deploy a tank squadron, here again with reserve manipulation, and give them a good resting zone to affect the battle once their buzzing bees are present to keep the heat off.

4. The Tau Empire and its Riptide Wings will be none too happy to see the Raptors dropping in. While the Raptors cannot do an extremely good job of harming the Riptides on their own (though as they are not fearless, Riptides will likely lose eventually) the Chaos Lord that comes with them certainly can end the Riptides hopes of escape and survival. The Riptide wing has been included in a LOT of armies and they FREQUENTLY get their 3+ invul save up, but one failure is all it takes to send them careening off the table if you arm your Chaos Lord correctly and now with the great upgrades you will constantly be getting from the Boons table in a Black Legion force, this could be twice as true.

5. Heldrakes were already good. The new Formation improves them and lets be honest...who WASN'T taking two of them when they were taking them at all except maybe me? Now you can DARE people to go to ground against your other units and also drive people off the table with just a few wounds when they are falling back. How this works is you want to arm your force so that the enemy must take an LD check in every phase possible. Dirge Casting Tank shocks and incoming Vector Strikes can force it in Movement phase, Terrify and the like in the psyker phase, shooting in the shooting phase and so on. Once a unit is falling back it auto fails morale tests when forced to take one again, which can happen in every phase. Obviously fearless stuff wont care AS much but then, a LOT of 40K simply isnt fearless. the recognizably most potent forces in the ITC aren't as a rule.

6. Making Termiantors and other units Objective Secured in the Core Formation is sweet. As many armies that rely on this mechanic heavily for victory, like Militarum Tempestus for example, or Battle Companies can tell you, giving the entire formation that benefit is kinda a big deal. the detachable lord can even use it to good effect. I think this did a ton to make Chaos more effective. Terminators are annoying in 3's but have not been able to take objecrtives from troops before so their value was seen as somewhat lesser. Now they can drop right in and run to an objective. No longer can they be ignored in favor of "better" targets because unlike before they now at minimum contest it if not take it outright and many units wil not be nearly as excited about charging them as they would be other units Chaos had to use before for the same duty. Its certainly not game breaking but ignoring its positive impact seems equally silly.

I have always chosen to look for the positive way forward instead of wallowing in the misery some people enjoy wallowing in. they must enjoy it because some do it an awful lot! Are Chaos Mariens the most powerful faction? Good lord, no. But they don't need to be. They just need a capable general who knows what he's doing. Be that General!

Good god. What a post. Some really good info for newer chaos players such as myself. Many thanks. But if I could trouble you to know your thoughts on Warp Talons in the Talon? I know the big factor of not including them is simply you lose a raptor unit. But for those of us who love the models im not seeing a big decrease in the potency of the formation by including a unit. But id like to know your thoughts on how you would go about outfitting and using the unit in a talon. I have my general thoughts but Id love some info from a better player. And once, more thanks for the post above.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're literally becoming "L2P" in poster form.

I literally wish you would stop pretending like getting better at the game isnt important too. Lol.

That's what i wish. I know I won't get it. Because if you attack anyone who advocates getting better, then you get away with claiming lists are all that matter. Good luck with that. I look forward to following your standings with great interest in 2017.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

Good god. What a post. Some really good info for newer chaos players such as myself. Many thanks. But if I could trouble you to know your thoughts on Warp Talons in the Talon? I know the big factor of not including them is simply you lose a raptor unit. But for those of us who love the models im not seeing a big decrease in the potency of the formation by including a unit. But id like to know your thoughts on how you would go about outfitting and using the unit in a talon. I have my general thoughts but Id love some info from a better player. And once, more thanks for the post above.

I'll share an article i wrote a long while ago about them but things HAVE changed since then so read it in that light: http://40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/01/warp-talons.html

As for the current state of affairs, the Warp Talons article goes over a lot of what I would say. but the issue you have with them is the same as it ever was: cost and no grenades. The grenade thing is explained by the fact that they are Daemons in the end. So okay whatever. But this really does impact things. Cover is prolific most of the time and going second AND disorganized charge on top of it really hurts the feelings. You can also bet that the enemy will direct its attacks against the Talons first and though the 5+ invulnerable save is great against harder hitters, a lot of your targets wont kill you with any more difficulty than anything else they are used to fighting.

So the easy answer is that if you DO take them, they are less useful when attacking the same target (as you would want to do perhaps when trying to use the Formation ability) because they will be the first to take hits a lot of the time and they are more expensive.

The blinding effect is really good though and with the Dimensional Key which is tough to pull off you could make real use of Warp Talons. I view them kind of as a better unit to have jumping forward behind the Rhino wall instead of deep Striking which further takes away from what they do. After all the Rhino wall is important for Dirge Casting and giving the enemy the unenviable choice between trying to get around to the Warp Talons ooooor...killing the rhinos... I mean you can see how this creates some defense for your rhinos. Its not on paper, but target priority is a very real way for a general to protect the squishier things in a list. Once the enemy kills the first rhino for first blood as they inevitably probably will, their interest in killing rhinos lessens and their wish to kill Warp Talons increases. the question though is, are you going to take Warp Talons if that's your strategy with them? You lose some of what makes them cool on the drop that way.

Nonetheless I would perhaps deploy it normally and walk it up, forming a curtain with the rhinos to protect them. Use its eventual arrival to conicide with that of the Raptors to get the morale penalty later on, against the most important target.

Nurgle is absolutely the Mark to use for Raptors and for Warp Talons because they are going STRAIGHT into the teeth of the enemy and they are ever so good and holding the enemy in place if you make them tough. Makes sure you can get a chaos lord up there to join them. a biker lord is probably the answer there. zoom it up, wait for the drop and then join them. As both units can charge at that point, you can get Fearless. The Chaos lord is super important because he makes them fearless. Time and again this has been important. Don't underestimate it. Warp Talons i think come fearless as Daemons so they are good to go without the Chaos Lord. An Objective Secured Biker lord is pretty snazzy though... You can attack and still be contesting/taking objectives that way if he's from the Chaos Warband...

I don't know if that is what you're interested in knowing but that's my general answer.

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're literally becoming "L2P" in poster form.

I literally wish you would stop pretending like getting better at the game isnt important too. Lol.

That's what i wish. I know I won't get it. Because if you attack anyone who advocates getting better, then you get away with claiming lists are all that matter. Good luck with that. I look forward to following your standings with great interest in 2017.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

Good god. What a post. Some really good info for newer chaos players such as myself. Many thanks. But if I could trouble you to know your thoughts on Warp Talons in the Talon? I know the big factor of not including them is simply you lose a raptor unit. But for those of us who love the models im not seeing a big decrease in the potency of the formation by including a unit. But id like to know your thoughts on how you would go about outfitting and using the unit in a talon. I have my general thoughts but Id love some info from a better player. And once, more thanks for the post above.

I'll share an article i wrote a long while ago about them but things HAVE changed since then so read it in that light: http://40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/01/warp-talons.html

As for the current state of affairs, the Warp Talons article goes over a lot of what I would say. but the issue you have with them is the same as it ever was: cost and no grenades. The grenade thing is explained by the fact that they are Daemons in the end. So okay whatever. But this really does impact things. Cover is prolific most of the time and going second AND disorganized charge on top of it really hurts the feelings. You can also bet that the enemy will direct its attacks against the Talons first and though the 5+ invulnerable save is great against harder hitters, a lot of your targets wont kill you with any more difficulty than anything else they are used to fighting.

So the easy answer is that if you DO take them, they are less useful when attacking the same target (as you would want to do perhaps when trying to use the Formation ability) because they will be the first to take hits a lot of the time and they are more expensive.

The blinding effect is really good though and with the Dimensional Key which is tough to pull off you could make real use of Warp Talons. I view them kind of as a better unit to have jumping forward behind the Rhino wall instead of deep Striking which further takes away from what they do. After all the Rhino wall is important for Dirge Casting and giving the enemy the unenviable choice between trying to get around to the Warp Talons ooooor...killing the rhinos... I mean you can see how this creates some defense for your rhinos. Its not on paper, but target priority is a very real way for a general to protect the squishier things in a list. Once the enemy kills the first rhino for first blood as they inevitably probably will, their interest in killing rhinos lessens and their wish to kill Warp Talons increases. the question though is, are you going to take Warp Talons if that's your strategy with them? You lose some of what makes them cool on the drop that way.

Nonetheless I would perhaps deploy it normally and walk it up, forming a curtain with the rhinos to protect them. Use its eventual arrival to conicide with that of the Raptors to get the morale penalty later on, against the most important target.

Nurgle is absolutely the Mark to use for Raptors and for Warp Talons because they are going STRAIGHT into the teeth of the enemy and they are ever so good and holding the enemy in place if you make them tough. Makes sure you can get a chaos lord up there to join them. a biker lord is probably the answer there. zoom it up, wait for the drop and then join them. As both units can charge at that point, you can get Fearless. The Chaos lord is super important because he makes them fearless. Time and again this has been important. Don't underestimate it. Warp Talons i think come fearless as Daemons so they are good to go without the Chaos Lord. An Objective Secured Biker lord is pretty snazzy though... You can attack and still be contesting/taking objectives that way if he's from the Chaos Warband...

I don't know if that is what you're interested in knowing but that's my general answer.

There's a difference between helping someone getting better at the game and not realizing there's gakky codex writing and merely writing off as someone not improving. You fall into the latter because we are talking about the CSM codex and ALL its supplements not coming to light in tournament gaming and you completely ignoring it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:



There's a difference between helping someone getting better at the game and not realizing there's gakky codex writing and merely writing off as someone not improving. You fall into the latter because we are talking about the CSM codex and ALL its supplements not coming to light in tournament gaming and you completely ignoring it.

The irony being that you quoted an entire wall of text wherein I offered a lot of thoughts that I think are useful for him to know. Lol.

Also, we weren't actually talking about "realizing" there's a "gakky" codex. You were. We were discussing WHY it has that perception. And perception, last time I checked...wasn't reality.

I also read somewhere in my post... that its not the most powerful codex. I'm not feeding him a false narrative. I'm telling him how to make it work. I make it work just fine. The reason I know I can help is because I'm actually doing it and by your own admissions, you're actually not.

You make this constant demand that we all admit flat out despair BEFORE moving on with useful discussion. Its just so pointless. I refuse this mode of thought you want to force on me and others, utterly.

Winning is an attitude that allows you not to lose your focus when bad things happen or die go sideways. Winning is an attitude that allows you to keep searching for the way out, long after others in the same maze have crawled in a corner and given up hope. Winning is an attitude that allows you to be creative and think around the problem instead of seeing only the problem itself. That is who I am. I am really sorry that you feel this need to try and corner people into being negative before they can say anything else you will accept. I'm really sorry for that. But just stop already. I don't win every game, but I win more than frequently enough to tell you that it's at least worth considering what I am saying. You rarely do. Yet you say it's a terrible codex and the only reason I can think of that anyone would say it so vociferously is if they were losing a lot. If that is the case, then perhaps let soemone who ISN'T losing as often speak up. sheesh.

 Jancoran wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You're literally becoming "L2P" in poster form.

I literally wish you would stop pretending like getting better at the game isnt important too. Lol.

That's what i wish. I know I won't get it. Because if you attack anyone who advocates getting better, then you get away with claiming lists are all that matter. Good luck with that. I look forward to following your standings with great interest in 2017.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

Good god. What a post. Some really good info for newer chaos players such as myself. Many thanks. But if I could trouble you to know your thoughts on Warp Talons in the Talon? I know the big factor of not including them is simply you lose a raptor unit. But for those of us who love the models im not seeing a big decrease in the potency of the formation by including a unit. But id like to know your thoughts on how you would go about outfitting and using the unit in a talon. I have my general thoughts but Id love some info from a better player. And once, more thanks for the post above.

I'll share an article i wrote a long while ago about them but things HAVE changed since then so read it in that light: http://40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2014/01/warp-talons.html

As for the current state of affairs, the Warp Talons article goes over a lot of what I would say. but the issue you have with them is the same as it ever was: cost and no grenades. The grenade thing is explained by the fact that they are Daemons in the end. So okay whatever. But this really does impact things. Cover is prolific most of the time and going second AND disorganized charge on top of it really hurts the feelings. You can also bet that the enemy will direct its attacks against the Talons first and though the 5+ invulnerable save is great against harder hitters, a lot of your targets wont kill you with any more difficulty than anything else they are used to fighting.

So the easy answer is that if you DO take them, they are less useful when attacking the same target (as you would want to do perhaps when trying to use the Formation ability) because they will be the first to take hits a lot of the time and they are more expensive.

The blinding effect is really good though and with the Dimensional Key which is tough to pull off you could make real use of Warp Talons. I view them kind of as a better unit to have jumping forward behind the Rhino wall instead of deep Striking which further takes away from what they do. After all the Rhino wall is important for Dirge Casting and giving the enemy the unenviable choice between trying to get around to the Warp Talons ooooor...killing the rhinos... I mean you can see how this creates some defense for your rhinos. Its not on paper, but target priority is a very real way for a general to protect the squishier things in a list. Once the enemy kills the first rhino for first blood as they inevitably probably will, their interest in killing rhinos lessens and their wish to kill Warp Talons increases. the question though is, are you going to take Warp Talons if that's your strategy with them? You lose some of what makes them cool on the drop that way.

Nonetheless I would perhaps deploy it normally and walk it up, forming a curtain with the rhinos to protect them. Use its eventual arrival to conicide with that of the Raptors to get the morale penalty later on, against the most important target.

Nurgle is absolutely the Mark to use for Raptors and for Warp Talons because they are going STRAIGHT into the teeth of the enemy and they are ever so good and holding the enemy in place if you make them tough. Makes sure you can get a chaos lord up there to join them. a biker lord is probably the answer there. zoom it up, wait for the drop and then join them. As both units can charge at that point, you can get Fearless. The Chaos lord is super important because he makes them fearless. Time and again this has been important. Don't underestimate it. Warp Talons i think come fearless as Daemons so they are good to go without the Chaos Lord. An Objective Secured Biker lord is pretty snazzy though... You can attack and still be contesting/taking objectives that way if he's from the Chaos Warband...

I don't know if that is what you're interested in knowing but that's my general answer.

This is exactly what I wanted to know. Thank you so much for taking the time out to type this.

Buy the CSM models you love, play them with the juiced up loyalist rules if you want to stand your competitive ground.

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
...but i flat out challenge you to find chaos space marine lists that actually use the majority of points on CSM. The only tournament competing unit/formation they even have is the sorc cabal, which is usually just tacked onto a demon or KDK list. CSM are garbage for anything outside of fun games

I still don't understand this sort of reasoning. I've been running Blood Angels for years without Tactical marines, ...most Eldar I see certainly don't have anywhere near "the majority of points on" guardians or dire avengers, or Tau with majority points of fire warriors, or Nids with majority points on guants, or really anything else in 40k right now except for SM gladius. This arguments makes NO sense at all.

That said, I get hating to lug around several books, I get holding onto the old idea of a "single codex", I understand that core CSM troops are over-costed as is much in the CSM book -- but seriously, you CAN make a competitive army with the Supplements now and further, if you want to add Forgeworld and/or Daemons (I know - "its not majority CSM!@!!!") you can still have a very fluffy/flavorful army that actually can compete on higher levels.

 Gunzhard wrote:

PyrhusOfEpirus wrote:
...but i flat out challenge you to find chaos space marine lists that actually use the majority of points on CSM. The only tournament competing unit/formation they even have is the sorc cabal, which is usually just tacked onto a demon or KDK list. CSM are garbage for anything outside of fun games

I still don't understand this sort of reasoning. I've been running Blood Angels for years without Tactical marines, ...most Eldar I see certainly don't have anywhere near "the majority of points on" guardians or dire avengers, or Tau with majority points of fire warriors, or Nids with majority points on guants, or really anything else in 40k right now except for SM gladius. This arguments makes NO sense at all.

That said, I get hating to lug around several books, I get holding onto the old idea of a "single codex", I understand that core CSM troops are over-costed as is much in the CSM book -- but seriously, you CAN make a competitive army with the Supplements now and further, if you want to add Forgeworld and/or Daemons (I know - "its not majority CSM!@!!!") you can still have a very fluffy/flavorful army that actually can compete on higher levels.

You know he's not talking about Troops right? It tends to be Cabal/Belekor, cultists, maybe the Raptor talon and then add in Daemonkin or Chaos Daemons allies. At best you'll have the Cabal/Raptors as "Actual Chaos Space Marines"

Well when you say, "tends to be" you mean at very select Tournament settings. Also since Traitors Hate that isn't necessarily the case either.

I second everything that Jancoran said. Traitors Hate has a ton of potential, and in particular, Chaos Sorcerors got a huge boost with their new powers. Also, as a loyalist, I'm jealous of the Chaos "demi company" equivalent because of it's flexibility. I would field that all day every day if my Chaos collection were further along.

That aside, Chaos armies just look awesome. If you love the models and the background, that's the army you should play.

Games Workshop failed their own game and their players by making regular troop choices bad. What should have been the core of an army, is now ignored for all specialist roles.

 Whitebeard wrote:
Games Workshop failed their own game and their players by making regular troop choices bad. What should have been the core of an army, is now ignored for all specialist roles.

It's true and I get what you're saying but... if they really wanted to stick closer to cannon, than IG would fight pretty much every battle from the Imperial side with only rare and minimal involvement from marines of any sort (elite or core or specialist whatever)... and we'd certainly never see Custodes. People love shiny and elite stuff.

I have no problem with whats what. I mean its being a bit idealistic to think that an army already as "elite" as Marines claim to be wouldnt have very large portions of their forces being in other than Tactical Marine roles. Tactical marines are more of a fluff fluffer unit. Its as if to say "man... if one Tactical Marine can do THAT conceptually, IMAGINE what an ASSAULT MARINE can do! hell a Damn Terminator is a natural born killah compared to all of them, its like a God in combat' and so on.

I don't see how it matters much what you put in the force as long as it's recognizably that Faction.

Chaos Marines are kind of like the lost brethren and they are in that same mold. "Imagine how crazy it is when you take this super killing Machine Tactical guy that can singlehandedly hold off a horde of hormagaunt... and give him DAEMON MAGIC!" Its a fluff fluffer here again.

the 3rd Edition Chaos codex was great. Thousand Sons had two wounds. Awesome. If they made that change right now and kept their points the same...done. Sign me up. But as they stand they are just mariens with cool guns that you pay a lot for. the Magician they get in the unit is cool but its not cool enough. I am champing at the bit to see what they do wit hthem in the new Tzeentch book. I probably won't play them a whole bunch but I am definitely going to test them out in a few games just to say i did.

Khorne Berzerkers are kinda boring and always have been but they should be at least as cool a blender as the Flayed Ones right? They aren't.

Nurgle dudes should be T5. i mean come on! fortitude is all they do.

Slaanesh is fine. Being uber fast was always their schtick. They have cool weapons and they have speed so there ya go. They were at least an okay way to go but maybe repoint their weapons a little.

Anywho, onething I likedabout Chaos Marines is they could take 20 in a unit. Now i used to use a Sisters of Battle army before 6E that had zero vehicles. just Sisters and more sisters streaming across at you and it won a lot.

When I did the Fabius Bile horde, it was equally glorious. Fabius really made those large units fun to play. 20 Chaos Marines is a load and the extra marines sort of form the "rhino" for the unit as ablative wounds. When you coupled it with stuff that could get up there quick on you and kind of take up your atention (I used to use Raptors even when they were really really expensive because fearless Hit and Run back then was BOSS) until we got there.

So I think that I have seen a 20 man Chaos Squad like once besides myself? No one does it. I would be interested to see someone actually experiment with that kind of thing and see if they could make it work again. Fabius is still good in 20 man squads even if not game breaking...

I generally avoid Marks, except on a few choice units. I know Mark of Nurgle is the go-to for Bike Lords, Spawn, and Obliterators, but I find use in the other bonuses too. With Traitor's Hate and the Chaos Warband in particular, I feel slightly better about giving Marks to small squads due to Path/Favored Scions allowing me to buff Champs ("why yes, I'll take Shrouded for my Bike Champ"), as well as getting a better prince with Dark Apotheosis should that happen (and inversely, helping protect my Lord/Sorcerer from inopportune transformations).

I don't like Nurgle on regular Bikers due to cost and the proliferation of attacks that circumvent toughness. Also, the Daemon Prince of Nurgle is not as annoying without Jink. It's still good on the three units that don't have any champion.

I've mentioned my appreciation for Slaanesh on Bikes, and that's before taking the Icon of Excess into account. I "could" see it being a use of leftover points for a Terminator squad that didn't use Axes, though I'd rather do Tzeentch if I really wanted to mark them.

Speaking of Tzeentch, I gave that Mark to my Lord instead of Nurgle. I found that in practice, a 3++ helps more against stuff like gravguns/melta, and S10 can be avoided with LOS. Also, the Disc makes him a Jetbike and gives an extra attack...and with the Warband, he still remains Obsec, so this let's him turbo to cap objectives, or move over enemy chaff/blockers. I'd consider a Daemon Prince of Tzeentch the second-best Prince to get Wingless, due to rerolling 1s for saving throws.

...from a more controversial position, I gave him the Scrolls of Magnus/a Spell Familiar. I generally consider this overcosted, but thought it over and said "yeah, I'd rather that than two additional Spawn." I traded some wounds/durability for an extra psychic vector. On one hand, he now costs like Ahriman/Typhus while only having one WC. On the other hand, he now a "backup" Psyker should my Sorcerer bite it. I figure I have a 50% chance of getting a usable Primaris my first time around (even Biomancy's Smite becomes somewhat worthwhile when you're BS 5), and comboing Scrolls/Scions/Path gives him the potential to snowball in power with a few opportune rolls.

 Jancoran wrote:

So I think that I have seen a 20 man Chaos Squad like once besides myself? No one does it. I would be interested to see someone actually experiment with that kind of thing and see if they could make it work again. Fabius is still good in 20 man squads even if not game breaking...

I've tried it recently. Huron, Sorc, Cypher. 20 MoS marines with an icon. Played against marines with pods, dreads and Calgar with cents. Sorc turned into a spawn, Huron turned into a DP and got insta-killed by a dread cause he was now a separate squad. Regular marines killed nothing across the whole game but lasted for 3 turns, so not too bad. MoS and icon was a waste - too expensive and an icon is too vulnerable when you're spread out.

I used to run something like this in 6-th edition and it was pretty good vs ig gunlines and non-melee armies overall - except for tau and eldar cause those were just too shooty and ignored cover. But now there's really not much sense in running csm without psy spam cause you can always meet wuffen, honor guards and even meganobz that'd murder marines like no big deal for half the cost. Also, marines are slow. You can just take a dogstar for cheaper - they're faster, somewhat more durable, choppier, fearless base and generate btp. Oh, and they have scout, so you don't need to take Huron.

So, from what i can tell, 20 csm can be used but they're way worse than khornedogs at doing the same thing. It's like you can run your biker lord in a unit of possessed and he'll still do stuff occasionally but he'll do more with spawns for cheaper.

If you're looking at meat for a deathstar, go with dogs, spawns or even cultists when you're dead sure you're gona get this invis and a flying ruin or soulswap. They'll be more effective most of the time.

 koooaei wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

So I think that I have seen a 20 man Chaos Squad like once besides myself? No one does it. I would be interested to see someone actually experiment with that kind of thing and see if they could make it work again. Fabius is still good in 20 man squads even if not game breaking...

I've tried it recently. Huron, Sorc, Cypher. 20 MoS marines with an icon. Played against marines with pods, dreads and Calgar with cents. Sorc turned into a spawn, Huron turned into a DP and got insta-killed by a dread cause he was now a separate squad. Regular marines killed nothing across the whole game but lasted for 3 turns, so not too bad. MoS and icon was a waste - too expensive and an icon is too vulnerable when you're spread out.

I used to run something like this in 6-th edition and it was pretty good vs ig gunlines and non-melee armies overall - except for tau and eldar cause those were just too shooty and ignored cover. But now there's really not much sense in running csm without psy spam cause you can always meet wuffen, honor guards and even meganobz that'd murder marines like no big deal for half the cost. Also, marines are slow. You can just take a dogstar for cheaper - they're faster, somewhat more durable, choppier, fearless base and generate btp. Oh, and they have scout, so you don't need to take Huron.

So, from what i can tell, 20 csm can be used but they're way worse than khornedogs at doing the same thing. It's like you can run your biker lord in a unit of possessed and he'll still do stuff occasionally but he'll do more with spawns for cheaper.

If you're looking at meat for a deathstar, go with dogs, spawns or even cultists when you're dead sure you're gona get this invis and a flying ruin or soulswap. They'll be more effective most of the time.

I wasn't really comparing it to things. I just wonder how best to make that work. Like a lot of the lists I build, half the fun is seeing how far you can go with an idea. 20CSM units have always intrigued me, in particular with Fabius. I understand that bringing it to bear in melee wouldnt work with regularity. but you are still throwing 20 bolter shots plus or minus the special weapons and that isn't nothing. It's fairly large area denial. So while I cannot say that I would do such a thing with great expectations, figuring out how to make it work would be fun.

 Jancoran wrote:

I wasn't really comparing it to things. I just wonder how best to make that work. Like a lot of the lists I build, half the fun is seeing how far you can go with an idea. 20CSM units have always intrigued me, in particular with Fabius. I understand that bringing it to bear in melee wouldnt work with regularity. but you are still throwing 20 bolter shots plus or minus the special weapons and that isn't nothing. It's fairly large area denial. So while I cannot say that I would do such a thing with great expectations, figuring out how to make it work would be fun.

There are a few ways of doing it. The shooty one and the choppy one. The shooty one is very underwhelming nowadays but the choppy one could be fun.

The easiest way to make them work is stick Kharn and sorconclave in there. Paired with things like a flying ruin or scouting msu khornedogs, you can place a 1-st turn assault. I'd also stick Cypher in there for hit and run. Get yourself 2 meltas and full ccw. Don't bother arming sarges or giving marks to marines - it won't be worth it.

The fun unexpected one is Bile + Khornates with icon + sorconclave. They can become s8 with 4 attacks each on the charge if you get hammerhand. But they're very overpriced and still fail vs invis or re-rollable saves. But you could try to deny those with your sorcs or an allied cullexus or sisters of silence.

You could try running them in a black legion formation where they can get free fnp (and zealot?) near an apostle. You got to pay for votlw though. Could be fun if you get 1-st turn.

Or the black legion formation - Hounds of Abbaddon. They get the potential of +1 str on the charge if they roll 8+, free MoK and Waaagh! Have to pay for votlw and also a zerker tax. This formation is better for raptors imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, i've once ran Bile + 20 mos guyz with icon + slaanesh lord on a steed in 6-th edition. It was a thematic list with noize marines in rhinos.

I was facing an ig gunline with pasknisher and buddy, 2 or 3 other russes, a bunch of uncombined platoons and aegis defense line. Lord on a steed granted outflank, so that was the way to go. t1 noize marines suffered a lot. T2 the guyz came onut and endured a lot of damage thanks to armor, cover and fnp. I was very lucky and passed 3+ like it was 2+ really. Than they proceeded to multicharge everything they could reach, slaughtering all in their way. IG were no slouches though and casualties were horrendous on both side. By the end of the game, there were just a few leftover guards here and there, a few marines - all the characters died - and a few noize marines. But the outflanking 20-man slaanesh unit made the game and csm won by a few points. Was fun.

 Pouncey wrote:
Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change.

Key point relating to OP here.

In the case of Chaos we've not had a consistent aesthetic for the army since 2nd edition - 2nd ed was all about ornate armour patterns with baroque trims and that was kept constant throughout.

Then along came 3rd edition with the 'new' plastic CSM which were basically imperial SM with sculpted chaos icons or trims - what was originally an army that had a very strong Mk IV, Mk V aesthetic became Mk VII with spiky bits - at odds with the Terminators still in use at the time and the metal Raptors that came out with 3.5. Even at odds with the plastic Berserkers which had a very Mk III, Mk IV aesthetic save the odd random pair of Mk VII legs.

But wait, there's more. The late 4th ed. CSM book gave us plastic raptors that looked closer to 2nd ed. CSM and Terminators that looked closer to the resculpted Imperial approach.

And then Dark Vengeance had even stranger aesthetics...and we got the cartoony dinobots.

Top it off with the fact that GW haven't had a consistent paint scheme for their studio Chaos army since the Black Legion of 3.5 and...well...

And no, they haven't.

Look at the bases for start - the 3.5 CSM had green, later brown trim with ash and static grass. The 4th ed. had bland brown bases. Then the 6th ed releases went even kookier with brown and static. They've also forgotten that they had squads designated - Chosen had gold helmets and trims - and then started getting scattered through different units randomly.

Hell, even their 'renegade' army has been through phases.

Their 4th ed. 'World Eaters' predator became a Red Corsair predator for a WD article, then a KDK predator for the KDK book and then it became a Crimson Slaughter predator. This is literally the same model with a panel being repainted on a regular basis. Heck, their KDK book is a tragedy as half the models there are either Red Corsair or Crimson Slaughter scheme with a shoulder repainted.

And yet they can afford to have 4 entirely different Eldar craftworld armies.

And they can have multiple SM chapter armies painted up.

Yet Chaos literally has to either reuse the same model in 4 different appearances or they have to dip into staff member armies (the Night Lords in the 6th ed book are a staff army).

 koooaei wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

So I think that I have seen a 20 man Chaos Squad like once besides myself? No one does it. I would be interested to see someone actually experiment with that kind of thing and see if they could make it work again. Fabius is still good in 20 man squads even if not game breaking...

I've tried it recently. Huron, Sorc, Cypher. 20 MoS marines with an icon. Played against marines with pods, dreads and Calgar with cents. Sorc turned into a spawn, Huron turned into a DP and got insta-killed by a dread cause he was now a separate squad. Regular marines killed nothing across the whole game but lasted for 3 turns, so not too bad. MoS and icon was a waste - too expensive and an icon is too vulnerable when you're spread out.

I used to run something like this in 6-th edition and it was pretty good vs ig gunlines and non-melee armies overall - except for tau and eldar cause those were just too shooty and ignored cover. But now there's really not much sense in running csm without psy spam cause you can always meet wuffen, honor guards and even meganobz that'd murder marines like no big deal for half the cost. Also, marines are slow. You can just take a dogstar for cheaper - they're faster, somewhat more durable, choppier, fearless base and generate btp. Oh, and they have scout, so you don't need to take Huron.

So, from what i can tell, 20 csm can be used but they're way worse than khornedogs at doing the same thing. It's like you can run your biker lord in a unit of possessed and he'll still do stuff occasionally but he'll do more with spawns for cheaper.

If you're looking at meat for a deathstar, go with dogs, spawns or even cultists when you're dead sure you're gona get this invis and a flying ruin or soulswap. They'll be more effective most of the time.

I run something similar. 4 Sorcerers (3 are Cyclopia Cabal) and 20 CSMs with MoS, VotLW, and IoE. The Icon helps massively, but otherwise, we have the exact same experience.

Note that icons only affect models with the same marks. So, no fnp for sorcs - unless they're pervs MoS

 koooaei wrote:
Note that icons only affect models with the same marks. So, no fnp for sorcs - unless they're pervs MoS

Aye, thanks for the correction

 ChazSexington wrote:

 koooaei wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

So I think that I have seen a 20 man Chaos Squad like once besides myself? No one does it. I would be interested to see someone actually experiment with that kind of thing and see if they could make it work again. Fabius is still good in 20 man squads even if not game breaking...

I've tried it recently. Huron, Sorc, Cypher. 20 MoS marines with an icon. Played against marines with pods, dreads and Calgar with cents. Sorc turned into a spawn, Huron turned into a DP and got insta-killed by a dread cause he was now a separate squad. Regular marines killed nothing across the whole game but lasted for 3 turns, so not too bad. MoS and icon was a waste - too expensive and an icon is too vulnerable when you're spread out.

I used to run something like this in 6-th edition and it was pretty good vs ig gunlines and non-melee armies overall - except for tau and eldar cause those were just too shooty and ignored cover. But now there's really not much sense in running csm without psy spam cause you can always meet wuffen, honor guards and even meganobz that'd murder marines like no big deal for half the cost. Also, marines are slow. You can just take a dogstar for cheaper - they're faster, somewhat more durable, choppier, fearless base and generate btp. Oh, and they have scout, so you don't need to take Huron.

So, from what i can tell, 20 csm can be used but they're way worse than khornedogs at doing the same thing. It's like you can run your biker lord in a unit of possessed and he'll still do stuff occasionally but he'll do more with spawns for cheaper.

If you're looking at meat for a deathstar, go with dogs, spawns or even cultists when you're dead sure you're gona get this invis and a flying ruin or soulswap. They'll be more effective most of the time.

I run something similar. 4 Sorcerers (3 are Cyclopia Cabal) and 20 CSMs with MoS, VotLW, and IoE. The Icon helps massively, but otherwise, we have the exact same experience.

This sums up 20 man squads. Going beyond 10 men does nothing for you. Nothing. No extra special or heavy weapons and it starts to become disproportionately more expensive with stacking costs from Marks. Furthermore, the squad loses its ability to be transported (because for some reason CSM Land Raiders are capped at 10 capacity while Imperials get access to 12/16 capacity Land Raider variants. Thanks GW), takes up a bigger footprint and pretty much becomes harder to tuck away into safety.

Now, if we got say, 1 special weapon per 5 CSM and the option of 1 heavy per 10 CSM then bigger blobs might pick up some value. Or, if we got 30k rules like the Tacticals have then maybe we would see bigger CSM units....

But really, nah. We have no reward for going beyond 10 men. Paying 30 points for a marked unit is already pricy, especially when you figure that if we want our army special rule equivalent and want to kit them up we're adding another 20 points on top....doubling that? Well, that's just silly. That's half the cost of another unit right there.

The problem isn't with chaos, it is that many other factions have units that greatly over perform for their point cost

NightWinds5121 wrote:
The problem isn't with chaos, it is that many other factions have units that greatly over perform for their point cost

No is both. Proof: internal balance. If points were assigned carefully, people would have no problem in choosing, say, Thousand Sons (lol) over Plague Marines. Instead out of 4 cults, 1 works properly, one is meh, one is ignored in his own other book in favour of a bunch of dogs, and one is in a new shiny book just to show what utter failure the current GW design is.

What makes Chaos Marines feel like crap is that they have the Champion of Chaos Boon table gimmick that is generally weaksauce and doesn't provide that much of a material benefit when compared to the gimmicks of other codexes. Traitor's Hate helps out but the Boon table idea, as our gimmick, fundamentally isn't on comparative footing with other codexes. Also there aren't many stand out units that are competitive either. Units feel ridiculously overpriced as well, which doesn't help...Defiler anyone?

Even with these deficiencies, I still play and love them. Aesthetically mostly. When playing, both players should have an understanding of where their codex and army stands and there should be no doubt that playing CSM makes you a considerable under dog. At least take solace in knowing that a win with a CSM army is a bigger deal than winning with Eldar, Necrons, SM, Tau, etc.

 Bach wrote:
What makes Chaos Marines feel like crap is that they have the Champion of Chaos Boon table gimmick that is generally weaksauce and doesn't provide that much of a material benefit when compared to the gimmicks of other codexes. Traitor's Hate helps out but the Boon table idea, as our gimmick, fundamentally isn't on comparative footing with other codexes. Also there aren't many stand out units that are competitive either. Units feel ridiculously overpriced as well, which doesn't help...Defiler anyone?

Even with these deficiencies, I still play and love them. Aesthetically mostly. When playing, both players should have an understanding of where their codex and army stands and there should be no doubt that playing CSM makes you a considerable under dog. At least take solace in knowing that a win with a CSM army is a bigger deal than winning with Eldar, Necrons, SM, Tau, etc.

The Boon table is part of the reason Chaos is overpriced across the board and it infuriates me.

We're pointed on the assumption that we will get appropriate rewards from the Boon table - almost as though the designers didn't see the fact that the dud results are oh so prevailent (Oh boy, Shred on my Lightning Claws. Sigh. +1 BS and I have no ranged weapons. +1 Initiative.....on a power fist. Thanks.)

Even worse, our closest mirror can pick half the results as wargear or get half them as default kit and still somehow cost less points.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Bach wrote:
What makes Chaos Marines feel like crap is that they have the Champion of Chaos Boon table gimmick that is generally weaksauce and doesn't provide that much of a material benefit when compared to the gimmicks of other codexes. Traitor's Hate helps out but the Boon table idea, as our gimmick, fundamentally isn't on comparative footing with other codexes. Also there aren't many stand out units that are competitive either. Units feel ridiculously overpriced as well, which doesn't help...Defiler anyone?

Even with these deficiencies, I still play and love them. Aesthetically mostly. When playing, both players should have an understanding of where their codex and army stands and there should be no doubt that playing CSM makes you a considerable under dog. At least take solace in knowing that a win with a CSM army is a bigger deal than winning with Eldar, Necrons, SM, Tau, etc.

The Boon table is part of the reason Chaos is overpriced across the board and it infuriates me.

We're pointed on the assumption that we will get appropriate rewards from the Boon table - almost as though the designers didn't see the fact that the dud results are oh so prevailent (Oh boy, Shred on my Lightning Claws. Sigh. +1 BS and I have no ranged weapons. +1 Initiative.....on a power fist. Thanks.)

Even worse, our closest mirror can pick half the results as wargear or get half them as default kit and still somehow cost less points.

Even worse is that the Boon Table was a testbed for Warriors of Chaos which ended up with a BETTER boon table as a result (Able to resist going chaos spawn on a LD, DP's did not lose items, all the other results are stat boosts, Abbadon's counterpart could never become a spawn)

 koooaei wrote:
There are a few ways of doing it. The shooty one and the choppy one. The shooty one is very underwhelming nowadays but the choppy one could be fun.

The easiest way to make them work is stick Kharn and sorconclave in there. Paired with things like a flying ruin or scouting msu khornedogs, you can place a 1-st turn assault. I'd also stick Cypher in there for hit and run. Get yourself 2 meltas and full ccw. Don't bother arming sarges or giving marks to marines - it won't be worth it.

The fun unexpected one is Bile + Khornates with icon + sorconclave. They can become s8 with 4 attacks each on the charge if you get hammerhand. But they're very overpriced and still fail vs invis or re-rollable saves. But you could try to deny those with your sorcs or an allied cullexus or sisters of silence.

You could try running them in a black legion formation where they can get free fnp (and zealot?) near an apostle. You got to pay for votlw though. Could be fun if you get 1-st turn.

Or the black legion formation - Hounds of Abbaddon. They get the potential of +1 str on the charge if they roll 8+, free MoK and Waaagh! Have to pay for votlw and also a zerker tax. This formation is better for raptors imo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw, i've once ran Bile + 20 mos guyz with icon + slaanesh lord on a steed in 6-th edition. It was a thematic list with noize marines in rhinos.

I was facing an ig gunline with pasknisher and buddy, 2 or 3 other russes, a bunch of uncombined platoons and aegis defense line. Lord on a steed granted outflank, so that was the way to go. t1 noize marines suffered a lot. T2 the guyz came onut and endured a lot of damage thanks to armor, cover and fnp. I was very lucky and passed 3+ like it was 2+ really. Than they proceeded to multicharge everything they could reach, slaughtering all in their way. IG were no slouches though and casualties were horrendous on both side. By the end of the game, there were just a few leftover guards here and there, a few marines - all the characters died - and a few noize marines. But the outflanking 20-man slaanesh unit made the game and csm won by a few points. Was fun.

These are all cool ideas. I've been dusting off some old Chaos models and I'm looking at giving the 20-man-mob a go. I'm leaning towards the Mark of Slaneesh and the banner for I5 and FNP, but I'm going to see how the new Legions book pans out. I just finished repairing 20 odd Berzerkers from 1999(?), the generic CSMs are next.

SaltySeaDog wrote:
I'm a newcomer to 40k & this forum, so apologies for my painfully novice questions...I asked previously about building up my first 40k army, using Kill Team as a stepping stone to understanding the game & the 'Get Started!' pack as my foundation for the army itself.

I wanted to field CSM as I like the lore & the models- but after doing some initial research, it seems that CSM aren't popular right now, are going through some sort of 'rough patch' in the evolution of the rules, and even have many poor unit choices compared to other armies. In brief, I feel like their glory days are passed and (for the time being, at least) they've been overtaken by others. Is this accurate?

So, bearing in mind I'm a total beginner, should I grit my teeth & carry on with my plan of collecting CSM? Or would it be wise for me to think about plan B (loyalist marines, most likely Ultramarines or another 'vanilla' chapter)?

Just don't want to waste time & money on an army that isn't good to play as a newbie, or is likely going to be totally overhauled in the near future.

Thanks!

Okay first things first. Ignore stuff like this

 Pouncey wrote:
When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

For lack of a better phrase, it's unthought out. Figure out what you want from this game. That should be your first step. If your a competitive person (like I am) then the power level of the army is important, since being able to win will determine how much fun you will have in this game. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying winning is the most important thing, but losing every game wares thin very fast, and when you see the opposing players start to modify their army so that you can have a chance at winning, that is when its time to stop. It is not fair for your opponents to have to build a weak army that they don't want to field so that you can have a chance to win.

So after you have decided how often you need to win (Never, 25%, 33%, 75%) THEN look at the lore, the aesthetics are irrelevant, you can proxy any model for just about anything. I can use TS to represent SW if I want so long as my opponent agrees, and most people don't care as long as you have some defining marks on them to let you know what they are. You can literally paint them any color you want. Just after starting some 16 years ago, when I was 16, I found my Guard army opposite the "Glitter Boys" which was a Neon Pink/Light Pink color scheme SM Chapter that has literal glitter sprinkled on them. You can color the army however you want.

Now, if you can square yourself with rarely winning, with most of the rules written in favor of the opposing army, having to pay more points for less models, then CSM is your army. CSM is for people that want to be challenged in every way, where even your "areas of advantage" can utterly fail you and you can and will end up losing 200+ point models to your own rules. You will be driven to your breaking point and beyond you will have to scheme and plot to figure out ways to do simple tasks, you will learn every single rule by heart so that you don't miss a single beat, because if you do you will lose, you will be forced to think about things that other players will never think about, because they don't need to. You will twist simple spells that have simple uses every way humanly possible in your mind to try and get a use out of them that others will never consider, you will take units and do things with them that no one ever considered, because you will have to. In short if you want easy mode, go with Vanilla marines, if you want hard mode, go with CSM.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

SaltySeaDog wrote:
I'm a newcomer to 40k & this forum, so apologies for my painfully novice questions...I asked previously about building up my first 40k army, using Kill Team as a stepping stone to understanding the game & the 'Get Started!' pack as my foundation for the army itself.

I wanted to field CSM as I like the lore & the models- but after doing some initial research, it seems that CSM aren't popular right now, are going through some sort of 'rough patch' in the evolution of the rules, and even have many poor unit choices compared to other armies. In brief, I feel like their glory days are passed and (for the time being, at least) they've been overtaken by others. Is this accurate?

So, bearing in mind I'm a total beginner, should I grit my teeth & carry on with my plan of collecting CSM? Or would it be wise for me to think about plan B (loyalist marines, most likely Ultramarines or another 'vanilla' chapter)?

Just don't want to waste time & money on an army that isn't good to play as a newbie, or is likely going to be totally overhauled in the near future.

Thanks!

Okay first things first. Ignore stuff like this

 Pouncey wrote:
When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

For lack of a better phrase, it's unthought out. Figure out what you want from this game. That should be your first step. If your a competitive person (like I am) then the power level of the army is important, since being able to win will determine how much fun you will have in this game. Don't get me wrong I'm not saying winning is the most important thing, but losing every game wares thin very fast, and when you see the opposing players start to modify their army so that you can have a chance at winning, that is when its time to stop. It is not fair for your opponents to have to build a weak army that they don't want to field so that you can have a chance to win.

So after you have decided how often you need to win (Never, 25%, 33%, 75%) THEN look at the lore, the aesthetics are irrelevant, you can proxy any model for just about anything. I can use TS to represent SW if I want so long as my opponent agrees, and most people don't care as long as you have some defining marks on them to let you know what they are. You can literally paint them any color you want. Just after starting some 16 years ago, when I was 16, I found my Guard army opposite the "Glitter Boys" which was a Neon Pink/Light Pink color scheme SM Chapter that has literal glitter sprinkled on them. You can color the army however you want.

Now, if you can square yourself with rarely winning, with most of the rules written in favor of the opposing army, having to pay more points for less models, then CSM is your army. CSM is for people that want to be challenged in every way, where even your "areas of advantage" can utterly fail you and you can and will end up losing 200+ point models to your own rules. You will be driven to your breaking point and beyond you will have to scheme and plot to figure out ways to do simple tasks, you will learn every single rule by heart so that you don't miss a single beat, because if you do you will lose, you will be forced to think about things that other players will never think about, because they don't need to. You will twist simple spells that have simple uses every way humanly possible in your mind to try and get a use out of them that others will never consider, you will take units and do things with them that no one ever considered, because you will have to. In short if you want easy mode, go with Vanilla marines, if you want hard mode, go with CSM.

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

I found that the key with CSM is synergy and teamwork and taking the initiative, its very easy to spend too much on one squad or monster lord, and very tempting. Cultists are almost a must have in every list I play, the tactical versitility that they enable, allow your key units to perform optimally. This is key! don't let your expensive units go to waste. Having a stationary 10 man squad just to fire a heavy weapon is too wasteful. Min-Max your special and heavy weapons, maximize each units specialty and take the fight your opponent and deny them any space and you will do well.

Okay first things first. Ignore stuff like this

 Pouncey wrote:
When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

I know people are in this hobby for all sorts of different reasons, BUT, I don't understand why you want people to ignore this opinion. Its an expensive hobby, so why not but the models you like the look of? When I play I want to win, but I'll never buy a piss ugly model (I'm looking at you heldrake) just so I can win a board game.

The rules may fluctuate like the warp, but at least you'll have some pretty awesome looking models.

Chaos is best. Ignore Imperial propaganda!

ToastedAndy
The Grand Warpsmith of the most Putrid Tide

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

morgoth wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

Negative dismissal, classic
Well actually.......... With csm I've placed second in one tournament, first in three, placed top three in the games workshop campaigns while I attended the store. I've played against all but the rarest fw lists. Brought gods to heel and enslaved whole generations. I am the alpha and omega, the end of man :p

Maybe, I know my army inside and out, maybe I've played enough games to tell the outcome of most conflicts and act accordingly.

morgoth wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

Not cool. I am sure he plays all kinds of things in that much time. Lets not go after his opponents when you dont know them.

 Toastedandy wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

Negative dismissal, classic
Well actually.......... With csm I've placed second in one tournament, first in three, placed top three in the games workshop campaigns while I attended the store. I've played against all but the rarest fw lists. Brought gods to heel and enslaved whole generations. I am the alpha and omega, the end of man :p

Maybe, I know my army inside and out, maybe I've played enough games to tell the outcome of most conflicts and act accordingly.

What tournaments? When were these tournaments? Provide links. Not mention in the course of a little more than a decade you were able to place top 3 in 4 tournaments? Lastly what are you running to place in these tournaments?

Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toastedandy wrote:
I know people are in this hobby for all sorts of different reasons, BUT, I don't understand why you want people to ignore this opinion. Its an expensive hobby, so why not but the models you like the look of? When I play I want to win, but I'll never buy a piss ugly model (I'm looking at you heldrake) just so I can win a board game.

The rules may fluctuate like the warp, but at least you'll have some pretty awesome looking models.

Chaos is best. Ignore Imperial propaganda!

ToastedAndy
The Grand Warpsmith of the most Putrid Tide

Did you even read the post?

Im saying he should figure out what matters the most to him and move forward from there. Picking something based on what other people deem the "most important factor" is stupid. Nothing stops him from kitbashing his own models so the look the way he wants. Picking the rules he likes so he can play the army the way he wants makes way more sense because he CAN CHANGE THEM he CAN'T CHANGE THE fething RULES.

Here is an example you want to buy a door, you can pick based on what it is made out of, or you can pick based on what color it is. Which criteria do you use to pick? You pick based on what you want the door to do NOT what it looks like because you can paint the damn door any color you want.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

Negative dismissal, classic
Well actually.......... With csm I've placed second in one tournament, first in three, placed top three in the games workshop campaigns while I attended the store. I've played against all but the rarest fw lists. Brought gods to heel and enslaved whole generations. I am the alpha and omega, the end of man :p

Maybe, I know my army inside and out, maybe I've played enough games to tell the outcome of most conflicts and act accordingly.

What tournaments? When were these tournaments? Provide links. Not mention in the course of a little more than a decade you were able to place top 3 in 4 tournaments? Lastly what are you running to place in these tournaments?

Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toastedandy wrote:
I know people are in this hobby for all sorts of different reasons, BUT, I don't understand why you want people to ignore this opinion. Its an expensive hobby, so why not but the models you like the look of? When I play I want to win, but I'll never buy a piss ugly model (I'm looking at you heldrake) just so I can win a board game.

The rules may fluctuate like the warp, but at least you'll have some pretty awesome looking models.

Chaos is best. Ignore Imperial propaganda!

ToastedAndy
The Grand Warpsmith of the most Putrid Tide

Did you even read the post?

Im saying he should figure out what matters the most to him and move forward from there. Picking something based on what other people deem the "most important factor" is stupid. Nothing stops him from kitbashing his own models so the look the way he wants. Picking the rules he likes so he can play the army the way he wants makes way more sense because he CAN CHANGE THEM he CAN'T CHANGE THE fething RULES.

Here is an example you want to buy a door, you can pick based on what it is made out of, or you can pick based on what color it is. Which criteria do you use to pick? You pick based on what you want the door to do NOT what it looks like because you can paint the damn door any color you want.

Okay....you might of taking my response personily judging from your emotional reply. I'm on my phone so illcbe brief.

Firstly assuming that not only am I bad t the game, but everyone I've played and beaten are terrible or let me win is typical of imperial dawgs


Tournaments were local events 12 people at the smallest, 20 ish at the largest. University things so online presences was limited to Facebook type things. U want lists??? Not till I can get to a pc

Your door comparison though, lol really?

You want to take another attempt at an applicable comparison? Or is that what your sticking too?

I

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay....you might have taken my response personally judging from your emotional reply. I'm on my phone so I'll be brief.

Firstly assuming that not only am I bad t the game, but everyone I've played and beaten are terrible or let me win is typical of imperial dawgs


Tournaments were local events 12 people at the smallest, 20 ish at the largest. University things so online presences was limited to Facebook type things. U want lists??? Not till I can get to a pc

Your door comparison though, lol really?

You want to take another attempt at an applicable comparison? Or is that what you're sticking too?

First do not attribute emotion to what I said. You read words so leave it at that, don't assume I am being emotional.

Apparently the door analogy was too complicated for you. So let me make it simpler.

You have a thing and that thing has two main properties. Property X and property Y now you can do anything you want to property X it is limited by only your imagination, literally. Property Y is finite though, is has a certain number of sets, and each set is different unto itself. So, if you want to make a decision, then you should base it off of Y not X, because you can change X as you see fit while Y once picked it set and you will be stuck with it.

Finally you don't need a computer to tell me what year these tournaments occurred. You also don't need a computer to tell me if you knew most of the people in the tournament.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay....you might have taken my response personally judging from your emotional reply. I'm on my phone so I'll be brief.

Firstly assuming that not only am I bad t the game, but everyone I've played and beaten are terrible or let me win is typical of imperial dawgs


Tournaments were local events 12 people at the smallest, 20 ish at the largest. University things so online presences was limited to Facebook type things. U want lists??? Not till I can get to a pc

Your door comparison though, lol really?

You want to take another attempt at an applicable comparison? Or is that what you're sticking too?

First do not attribute emotion to what I said. You read words so leave it at that, don't assume I am being emotional.

Apparently the door analogy was too complicated for you. So let me make it simpler.

You have a thing and that thing has two main properties. Property X and property Y now you can do anything you want to property X it is limited by only your imagination, literally. Property Y is finite though, is has a certain number of sets, and each set is different unto itself. So, if you want to make a decision, then you should base it off of Y not X, because you can change X as you see fit while Y once picked it set and you will be stuck with it.

Finally you don't need a computer to tell me what year these tournaments occurred. You also don't need a computer to tell me if you knew most of the people in the tournament.

Thinly veiled insults and swearing are strong indicators of an emotionally charged argument.

Also this is how you try to make something simple. Okay.

Addressing your comparrison; I like aesthetics of csm (x) but someone told me elder are stronger (y) so I should spend hundreds of money units on y, the stronger army, as I have no ability to change the rules but I can glue some spikes on my eldar so they look similar to csm, whom I like the look of more.

Amirite?

I don't share this opinion. K

I have my models on display as I like and m proud of them all. I don't give two f eths what the stats are like


Didn't see your edits don't know why you are so gob smacked that someone can win thingswith csm

At least two were 4th edition, none in 5th, and 2, arguably 3 tournaments in 6th. I live in a smallish country with a small player base so I know some don't know others and am freinds with few

 Toastedandy wrote:
Thinly veiled insults and swearing are strong indicators of an emotionally charged argument.

Strong indicators are not absolutes, again read my words even if my arguments were emotionally charged you have to refute my arguments not say, you're being emotional therefore your wrong.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Addressing your comparison; I like aesthetics of csm (x) but someone told me elder are stronger (y) so I should spend hundreds of money units on y, the stronger army, as I have no ability to change the rules but I can glue some spikes on my eldar so they look similar to csm, whom I like the look of more.

Amirite?

No. You buy the rules for Eldar and spend the majority of your money on whatever models suit your taste. Again keep in mind its not JUST about picking a stronger army. If you like CC over shooting you should take that into account.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I don't share this opinion. K

That's fine, but understand that what I was saying is that he should come to his own conclusion, not do what other people tell him to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I have my models on display as I like and m proud of them all. I don't give two feths what the stats are like

That's great, and that is exactly what I would expect some one that puts hobby over game to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Didn't see your edits don't know why you are so gob smacked that someone can win things with csm

I'm not "gob smacked"over you winning i'm just suspicious of how your winning, and I'll ask again what do you run to win your games?

 Toastedandy wrote:
At least two were 4th edition, none in 5th, and 2, arguably 3 tournaments in 6th. I live in a smallish country with a small player base so I know some don't know others and am friends with few

So 2 that happened 10 years ago, not relevant. Fine 3 tournaments, and of those opponents how many do you know for a fact had the same, or more experience playing their army then you had with yours?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Thinly veiled insults and swearing are strong indicators of an emotionally charged argument.

Strong indicators are not absolutes, again read my words even if my arguments were emotionally charged you have to refute my arguments not say, you're being emotional therefore your wrong.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Addressing your comparison; I like aesthetics of csm (x) but someone told me elder are stronger (y) so I should spend hundreds of money units on y, the stronger army, as I have no ability to change the rules but I can glue some spikes on my eldar so they look similar to csm, whom I like the look of more.

Amirite?

No. You buy the rules for Eldar and spend the majority of your money on whatever models suit your taste. Again keep in mind its not JUST about picking a stronger army. If you like CC over shooting you should take that into account.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I don't share this opinion. K

That's fine, but understand that what I was saying is that he should come to his own conclusion, not do what other people tell him to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I have my models on display as I like and m proud of them all. I don't give two feths what the stats are like

That's great, and that is exactly what I would expect some one that puts hobby over game to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Didn't see your edits don't know why you are so gob smacked that someone can win things with csm

I'm not "gob smacked"over you winning i'm just suspicious of how your winning, and I'll ask again what do you run to win your games?

 Toastedandy wrote:
At least two were 4th edition, none in 5th, and 2, arguably 3 tournaments in 6th. I live in a smallish country with a small player base so I know some don't know others and am friends with few

So 2 that happened 10 years ago, not relevant. Fine 3 tournaments, and of those opponents how many do you know for a fact had the same, or more experience playing their army then you had with yours?

Okay, your tone is very unappealing. You have the opinions that you are intitled to not only my addressing your every word, but also the time that it would take. I posted here to offer my opinion, and to add to a debate on the viability of running a csm army and actually win.

Being interrogated, belittling my experience and having you insinuate that I am a cheat isn't any interest to me. Be less rude if you want my lists pm me.......politely.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

 Toastedandy wrote:
You have the opinions that you are entitled to not only [am I] addressing your every word, but also the time that it would take.

Yes we are both entitled to our opinions. You're not I have to continuously ask for things and you keep giving me vague responses.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I posted here to offer my opinion, and to add to a debate on the viability of running a csm army and actually win.

And yet all you did was state that you have won lots of times, but have provided no evidence for how you have been winning, what you have won, or how you won, only THAT you have won.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Being interrogated, belittling my experience and having you insinuate that I am a cheat isn't any interest to me.

You made a claim that you win with CSM all the time. I'm allowed to ask questions and demand evidence before believing your claim. I didn't belittle your experience, I asked questions and demanded evidence, because that's what a skeptical person does when a person makes a claim.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Be less rude if you want my lists pm me.......politely.

Yes quite. How do I put this, you accused me of having an "unappealing tone" in written word, which is...a feat on my part, you also accused me of accusing you of "cheating" which I never said, you simply assumed I meant that when I said "suspicious", which was the wrong word to use, I should have used "skeptical", lastly you call me rude based on assumptions on your part. So you insult me because of assumptions you have made, and then demand that I be polite to you if I want the evidence that you should be willing to present so that I have a basis of whether or not your telling the truth? Yeah I'd rather not waste my time.

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

Not cool. I am sure he plays all kinds of things in that much time. Lets not go after his opponents when you dont know them.

It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

It's not Dark Eldar level of garbage, but the very best TAC CSM list is just meh when you have to compare it with what SM, Necron, Tau and Eldar can bring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

Just forget about it the both of you, this is leading to nowhere.

On topic though, Toasted, I think you will find that your experience with tournaments may reflect other tiny local tournaments but not truly competitive events with massive net listing and good representation of the stronger codexes.

There is nothing in codex CSM that can handle even a beginner Eldar player with a proper net list.

I mean... you could have 2x3 Heldrakes of course, but you'd probably be losing all your other games and it wouldn't be considered a TAC list anymore.

Also, good for you that you did beat people with CSM, it's a good thing to win when your army is not top tier.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

You think? But surely someone named thousand son sorcerer would know the power of words?

Tone, in written composition, is an attitude of a writer toward a subject or an audience. Tone is generally conveyed through the choice of words or the viewpoint of a writer on a particular subject. ... The tone can be formal, informal, serious, comic, sarcastic, sad, and cheerful or it may be any other existing attitudes.

http://writerswrite.co.za/155-words-to-describe-an-authors-tone

Just as a closing note: I never claimed I won all my games, I never claimed I won the Warhammer world Cup. I play games as a hobby, and for a long time, and as such, I win alot of my games. I offer a small bit of advise, as my phone is too small for my gorilla hands it was brief. The same reason I no longer attend GW, and rarely post on this forum are knee jerk reactors like you. Assumptions do make an ass out of you and me, but with the snide comments and thinly veiled insults its easy to see the tone you have apparently unknowingly written. My non addressing your posts is not from a lack of sources or links, but from a lack of interest in engaging someone in an emotionally charged argument, especially when they are on the offense.

Just forget about it the both of you, this is leading to nowhere.

Indeed.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

 Toastedandy wrote:
You have the opinions that you are entitled to not only [am I] addressing your every word, but also the time that it would take.

Yes we are both entitled to our opinions. You're not I have to continuously ask for things and you keep giving me vague responses.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I posted here to offer my opinion, and to add to a debate on the viability of running a csm army and actually win.

And yet all you did was state that you have won lots of times, but have provided no evidence for how you have been winning, what you have won, or how you won, only THAT you have won.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Being interrogated, belittling my experience and having you insinuate that I am a cheat isn't any interest to me.

You made a claim that you win with CSM all the time. I'm allowed to ask questions and demand evidence before believing your claim. I didn't belittle your experience, I asked questions and demanded evidence, because that's what a skeptical person does when a person makes a claim.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Be less rude if you want my lists pm me.......politely.

Yes quite. How do I put this, you accused me of having an "unappealing tone" in written word, which is...a feat on my part, you also accused me of accusing you of "cheating" which I never said, you simply assumed I meant that when I said "suspicious", which was the wrong word to use, I should have used "skeptical", lastly you call me rude based on assumptions on your part. So you insult me because of assumptions you have made, and then demand that I be polite to you if I want the evidence that you should be willing to present so that I have a basis of whether or not your telling the truth? Yeah I'd rather not waste my time.

Writing can have a tone mate, not literally but virtually, it's all over literature for ... well the entirety of the written word, now misinterpreted tone is very common and that may have happened here, but saying that the written language cannot have tone is just wrong.

On topic it looks like the be traitor legions book will a sort a lot of issues, but not the fundamental ones, like most things being over costed.

 Formosa wrote:

On topic it looks like the be traitor legions book will a sort a lot of issues, but not the fundamental ones, like most things being over costed.

Unless you're Death Guard or Iron Warriors.

For the tax of a Mark or VotLW - hoo boy.

Death Guard getting +1 T, FNP, Fearless and Relentless (but -1 I) and free VotLW is...wow. All I can say. Wow. Suddenly my overpointed Terminators seem crazily good.

Iron Warriors getting Stubborn across the board and 6+ FNP, as well as tank hunters on havocs is rather good too - Someone tries telepathy shenanigans and you just look at them, point to Stubborn USR and then flip the bird.

Not too sure how much value is in the other Legions abilities - armywide they're good but situational for the most part. Khorne is just....meh. It's basically Furious Charge, Rage etc for the cost but Assault in 7th feels like a penalty.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

On topic it looks like the be traitor legions book will a sort a lot of issues, but not the fundamental ones, like most things being over costed.

Unless you're Death Guard or Iron Warriors.

For the tax of a Mark or VotLW - hoo boy.

Death Guard getting +1 T, FNP, Fearless and Relentless (but -1 I) and free VotLW is...wow. All I can say. Wow. Suddenly my overpointed Terminators seem crazily good.

Iron Warriors getting Stubborn across the board and 6+ FNP, as well as tank hunters on havocs is rather good too - Someone tries telepathy shenanigans and you just look at them, point to Stubborn USR and then flip the bird.

Not too sure how much value is in the other Legions abilities - armywide they're good but situational for the most part. Khorne is just....meh. It's basically Furious Charge, Rage etc for the cost but Assault in 7th feels like a penalty.

As a deathguard and Iron Warriors fan ---- Hurray. I LOVE the alpha legion multi headed leader rule. So awesome


Dissappointed at the lack of new models, was hopping for a new codex, instead of another suppliment.

The supplement's great though. It's what all the csm fans have been asking for since the 4-th dex dropped. 3.5 is back. And better than ever!

World eaters seem to have taken a massive buff too, I'm quite happy

Even if not all the EC stuff may be costed well enough, just the idea of actually getting proper combat drugs and various other neat things is practically energizing.

Now if only sonic guns weren't so overcosted I could be truly happy, but hey it's still better then jack nothing.

It's a sign that GW finally realizes what Chaos wants, and it's actual progress! Now if they can fix Orks and maybe even bring back Da Klans in some form too. Along with old craftworld rules (Maybe not altoic ), but allowing for more customization within an army is always better then none.

Even if not all the EC stuff may be costed well enough, just the idea of actually getting proper combat drugs and various other neat things is practically energizing.

Now if only sonic guns weren't so overcosted I could be truly happy, but hey it's still better then jack nothing.

It's a sign that GW finally realizes what Chaos wants, and it's actual progress! Now if they can fix Orks and maybe even bring back Da Klans in some form too. Along with old craftworld rules (Maybe not altoic ), but allowing for more customization within an army is always better then none.

Agreed! I pre-ordered both the Traitor Legions book and the Index Apocrypha. I've played since the final days of Rogue Trader and this is the first time in all those years that I've actually bothered to pre-order anything. For the Legion rules, I was really hoping for something more akin to Chapter tactics (where you don't have to take a specific formation to get the benefits), but I'm still really excited. I've always said my gripe with the main CSM book is with the flavor first and the power level second, and it looks like this new book will go a long way towards fixing the flavor at least. So I'll be running it even if it ends up not being all that strong.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

That Dakka Hyperbole machine, still running strong. Im just gonna stick my head back in this mess. Chaos isnt top tier, but with the new supplements you shouldnt be having many problems with coming up with a competitive list. The last "official" report iI have seen on "game balance" would be the ITC rankings. These rankings were placed BEFORE traitors hate. Those have CSM at the straight middle. Alot of factions place better, just as many place worse. Now that we have some supplemental love, thats going to hit even higher. I myself would say we are going to end up just south of the big 5. Which is a damn good place to be and better than CSM have had it as a faction since...well..3.5 or maybe the lash prince at its heyday (I was playing fantasy only back then, but even I knew about that d-bag lash prince and his vindicator patrol). And I am going to try and not ruffle feathers here but I still think a large part of the negativity of the faction is people being people. And we dont need a post to explain how that works. Does it suck that GW is taking its fan base to town with its 5 supplements = codex business stratagem? Or course. But that is a different rant for a different day,.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

If you claim success with a mediocre-to-bad army then one of the possible explanations is that your opponents are simply not very good players or field lists that are significantly less optimised than they could be. Either is a more likely answer than you sitting on secret understandings of how CSM work.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

If you claim success with a mediocre-to-bad army then one of the possible explanations is that your opponents are simply not very good players or field lists that are significantly less optimised than they could be. Either is a more likely answer than you sitting on secret understandings of how CSM work.

Lets get on common ground here. I think CSM are far above mediocre now but I dont have the ITC rankings to back that up. So lets all assume its a mediocre faction. Are you trying to say a mediocre list cannot win games? Im asking this as a honest to goodness question. Not having a poke at you or anything.

CSM have cheap assault from deep strike. That's pretty good.

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

It has an "okay" answer even against the second most powerful force, the Grav Spam White Scars Battle Company and its variants. It does struggle against the War Convocation because that much ranged AP 2 is going to hurt any kind of list but I mean... outside of that hard counter which i freely admit is very tough sledding, its not like the codex IN GENERAL struggles. the Bay Area open this year saw Chaos Space Marines take 25th place, which was great and i think he had 4 wins. Chuck Arnett who i have played a few times and DID play at the BAO made 66th (that's the top 3rd). There just werent that MANY of them which is why it kind of looks worse than it is. With enough chances, any faction will get to the upper levels of those rankings by weight of numbers. For a Chaos Marine to hit 25th with so few chances is pretty good, and that was BEFORE Traitors Hate.

Perspective is key,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

If you claim success with a mediocre-to-bad army then one of the possible explanations is that your opponents are simply not very good players or field lists that are significantly less optimised than they could be. Either is a more likely answer than you sitting on secret understandings of how CSM work.

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

However, CSM are objectively not as strong as Eldar or gladius marines. Taking the general out of the equation.

Martel732 wrote:
However, CSM are objectively not as strong as Eldar or gladius marines. Taking the general out of the equation.

I agree. Those two, along with War Convocations are the top three most powerful forces you might face. But in the case of the Gladius, it isnt the Gladius, its specifically the one Grav spam Battle Company build so one car argue that even the Space marine Codex isnt as "strong" as this indiviidual build would suggest.

So that is why its messy to try and make these generalizations. I played the Eldar bastard list of doom the other night for my friends benefit becasuse he needed to face it in orsder to prep for it at a tourney upcoming. it took him off the board in essentially 3 turns. One model lasted to turn f our. so Yeah, Eldar can lay the lumber big time. But its the gold standard anyways. Not unbeatable however. Chaos is one of the codex's thjat can do very well against it ironically.

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

Please list that army you think is both TAC and a reliable counter (at least 51% win) to a top Eldar list.
There's an army list forum for that, where I'm sure you'll see a lot of good feedback.

Call the topic something like "SMC 1850 competitve"

morgoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

Please list that army you think is both TAC and a reliable counter (at least 51% win) to a top Eldar list.
There's an army list forum for that, where I'm sure you'll see a lot of good feedback.

Call the topic something like "SMC 1850 competitve"

TAC is not really a classification in and of itself. Every list has a weakness. Well, most do. Those that dont are clearly problematic. Are we arguing that CSM is over powered? Im lost.

morgoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

Please list that army you think is both TAC and a reliable counter (at least 51% win) to a top Eldar list.
There's an army list forum for that, where I'm sure you'll see a lot of good feedback.

Call the topic something like "SMC 1850 competitve"

The raptor formation is a good counter to a specific eldar build. Not all eldar builds.

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

This thread seems hostile but i'll post something anyway. I'm happy that raptors will be troops in the nightlords rules, I can have 6 5 man squads of raptors and 3 heldrakes in a CAD army

As a marine player that can't do this, it helps that CSM can make many units of one model.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.

Table wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Table wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.

And given the composition, it's pretty much barely CSM .

Table wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.

If someone presented real stats about how CSM match up better than thought against top lists then that'd be pretty cool. Even if it isn't much better than is thought it would still be a solid look at how the game works, what CSM can do and how these two intersect. But if someone just claims that they're doing pretty alright, against the broad consensus of those who have dedicated serious time and analysis to tournament play, the most likely explanation is that they aren't playing in a hypercompetitive meta. That isn't a bad thing. It just means that their input on how the game works is neither here nor there on the topic of top-tier competitiveness.

We need more games played with Traitor's Hate to know.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Table wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.

They seem to place in the middle of the rankings. That was pre-traitors and legions. How they will place with the new suplements wont be known for a few more months. But my point is thus. You cannot attend every tournament. Unless you are reading the results for every ITC run event (which is fine) then its just that, your opinion and your experience. You cannot count that as absolute fact. In some forest, in some remote part of the world, a tree falls. So yes, and no. Its not hyperbole if you state that it is your personal experience but im not seeing alot of that lately and more of the hyperbole kind of hyperbole. The kind where people say something "sucks" and have no idea they are expressing opinion as fact.

This is all in reference to the original posters question. My opinion is that most of the "hate" comes from people who either wheel and deal in hyperbole or people who cant win games witht he said faction. I mean the question is loaded in and of itself. But all we can go on are ITC rankings and on that end while CSM players may not be sweeping tourneys, they are far from the bottom of the listings. Which leads to my point. People say "CSM sucks" because thats what they have heard repeated. It takes time for this sort of thing to both form and clear. I suspect in a few months the internet think tank will be singing a different tune. But I may be wrong.

Ill give a personal example. I recently finished painting up my chaos warband. A simple affair. A warband + raptor talon with some sorc spam. Run of the mill list. Nothing special stands out. In the five games ive played I have won 5. Sure, two were versus soft lists but one was a straight up net listed gladius , a necron decurion and an eldar jetbike spam list. (one wraith knight which i ended up never killing). If i went by the dakka arm chair hyperbole battalions estimations then there was no possible way I could have won three out of the five games I have played. And since it was not ranked ITC games I cannot "prove" my pudding. But it happened none the same. And I am a mediocre player, at best. If I can win games with a warband. Anyone can, given luck and table set up is on the level. I attribute my good start with my CSM to listening to players who have actually played the faction. Jancoran (spelling, sorry buddy) is one of them.

In the armchair game, every list is a hardcore scatter bike eldar list. 6's are always rolled. No one plays Maelstrom and you cant win unless you have a big 5 list. None of that is even close to reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

Table wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.

If someone presented real stats about how CSM match up better than thought against top lists then that'd be pretty cool. Even if it isn't much better than is thought it would still be a solid look at how the game works, what CSM can do and how these two intersect. But if someone just claims that they're doing pretty alright, against the broad consensus of those who have dedicated serious time and analysis to tournament play, the most likely explanation is that they aren't playing in a hypercompetitive meta. That isn't a bad thing. It just means that their input on how the game works is neither here nor there on the topic of top-tier competitiveness.

Ok, i understand your view point better. I think people are talking about different things at this point. I have little experience with a ITC setting. So I can only regurgitate what I have read. And from what Ive seen, CSM wasnt doing so bad, and with the new supplements its more than likely will be doing even better.

ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.

Rosebuddy wrote:


You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.

yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mondo80 wrote:
This thread seems hostile but i'll post something anyway. I'm happy that raptors will be troops in the nightlords rules, I can have 6 5 man squads of raptors and 3 heldrakes in a CAD army

Wowa. that would be killer. Where are these Night Lord rules you speak of!?!? this must be from the new thing coming out. If true, i would be ecstatic. I own...so...many...raptors...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
The supplement's great though. It's what all the csm fans have been asking for since the 4-th dex dropped. 3.5 is back. And better than ever!

super jazzed.

One can imagine eldar builds less susceptible to raptors, but those aren't the favored lists. WK still a problem too.

Table wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Table wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.

They seem to place in the middle of the rankings. That was pre-traitors and legions. How they will place with the new suplements wont be known for a few more months. But my point is thus. You cannot attend every tournament. Unless you are reading the results for every ITC run event (which is fine) then its just that, your opinion and your experience. You cannot count that as absolute fact. In some forest, in some remote part of the world, a tree falls. So yes, and no. Its not hyperbole if you state that it is your personal experience but im not seeing alot of that lately and more of the hyperbole kind of hyperbole. The kind where people say something "sucks" and have no idea they are expressing opinion as fact.

This is all in reference to the original posters question. My opinion is that most of the "hate" comes from people who either wheel and deal in hyperbole or people who cant win games witht he said faction. I mean the question is loaded in and of itself. But all we can go on are ITC rankings and on that end while CSM players may not be sweeping tourneys, they are far from the bottom of the listings. Which leads to my point. People say "CSM sucks" because thats what they have heard repeated. It takes time for this sort of thing to both form and clear. I suspect in a few months the internet think tank will be singing a different tune. But I may be wrong.

Ill give a personal example. I recently finished painting up my chaos warband. A simple affair. A warband + raptor talon with some sorc spam. Run of the mill list. Nothing special stands out. In the five games ive played I have won 5. Sure, two were versus soft lists but one was a straight up net listed gladius , a necron decurion and an eldar jetbike spam list. (one wraith knight which i ended up never killing). If i went by the dakka arm chair hyperbole battalions estimations then there was no possible way I could have won three out of the five games I have played. And since it was not ranked ITC games I cannot "prove" my pudding. But it happened none the same. And I am a mediocre player, at best. If I can win games with a warband. Anyone can, given luck and table set up is on the level. I attribute my good start with my CSM to listening to players who have actually played the faction. Jancoran (spelling, sorry buddy) is one of them.

In the armchair game, every list is a hardcore scatter bike eldar list. 6's are always rolled. No one plays Maelstrom and you cant win unless you have a big 5 list. None of that is even close to reality.

Grabbed a quick ITC event round up, of the TOP 16 listed (about 5-8 didn't have any lists up), only 2 were CSM-ish, 1 being Khorne Daemonkin, the other being FW Renegades and Heretics.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/09/12/tits-tournaments-nova-open-2016-top-16-lists/

I'll address your main point: "CSM sucks". Well they do. They need a total revamp of their book. They can do okay with multiple sourcebooks and lots of allies (FW books, Traitor's Hate, Belakor) to mitigate their weaknesses, but it's still a bad codex and they frequently lose to better stuff, I.E. Gladius, White Scar spam, Eldar, Tau, Daemons.

I really hope the new CSM stuff boosts them up because I'd love to see them winning tournaments ( I had a fledgling Nurgle CSM army before I shelved it for a full Nurgle Daemons army), but I don't see that happening without a total revamp of their codex.

 jreilly89 wrote:

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.

Indeed the RESULTS are not hyperbole. What the results are is misleading. Look at the NUMBER of actual times Chaos Space Marines compete in the events. They are eclipsed in a big way.

Sheer weight of numbers in attendees ensures that the more populous codex has a greater chance of making it to the top. this contributes. chaos Marines themselves are not THE strongest codex for sure and no one is arguing they are. I think the argument is that people underestimate the Codex to a much GREATER degree than it currently deserves. They do it so much that this gestalt sense that its true has developed. meanwhile people are having a grand old time playing them successfully.

The other thing that's misleading about that is that it is a CERTAIN type of build in the Space mariens and a cERTAIN type of build in the Eldar that tend to force an absolute A game out of the Chaos players. it isnt the codex in general. So i think that is the other kind of misnomer that we are a victim to here.

results are not to be ignored (as numerous people on Dakkadakka like to do for bizarelly self serving reasons) but they have to be looked at in context too. The Chaos Codex isn't going down in history as the best. it is however not necessary for a codex to BE the best in order to win. THAT would be false thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
One can imagine eldar builds less susceptible to raptors, but those aren't the favored lists. WK still a problem too.

To be fair, no one likes seeing the Wraith Knight and it might singlehandedly be THE reason for Grav Spam in lists. Lol.

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.

Indeed the RESULTS are not hyperbole. What the results are is misleading. Look at the NUMBER of actual times Chaos Space Marines compete in the events. They are eclipsed in a big way.

Sheer weight of numbers in attendees ensures that the more populous codex has a greater chance of making it to the top. this contributes. chaos Marines themselves are not THE strongest codex for sure and no one is arguing they are. I think the argument is that people underestimate the Codex to a much GREATER degree than it currently deserves. They do it so much that this gestalt sense that its true has developed. meanwhile people are having a grand old time playing them successfully.

The other thing that's misleading about that is that it is a CERTAIN type of build in the Space mariens and a cERTAIN type of build in the Eldar that tend to force an absolute A game out of the Chaos players. it isnt the codex in general. So i think that is the other kind of misnomer that we are a victim to here.

results are not to be ignored (as numerous people on Dakkadakka like to do for bizarelly self serving reasons) but they have to be looked at in context too. The Chaos Codex isn't going down in history as the best. it is however not necessary for a codex to BE the best in order to win. THAT would be false thinking.

So, the CSM codex doesn't get the most entrees in the tournament, therefore it doesn't place the highest. But it's still a good codex? Really, what are you trying to argue here? It's a pretty proven point that competitive players will go for the best army (proven by the uptick in Gladius' and Scatter bikes), therefore, CSM is automatically a worse codex because it's not getting a similar numbers of entries. Yeah, you can win games with them, but I think it's half-hearted to say you can win with CSM without the caveat that most of these wins come from FW, extra books, allies, etc.

I also think most people are interested in the likelihood of you winning. Yeah, you can win, but how often? Against what armies? At what competitive level? All things that need to be addresed.

P.S. Randomly CAPITALIZING WORDS doesn't help prove your POINT. It makes you look RUDE.

 Jancoran wrote:
Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

Asking questions when a person makes a claim is cowardice. That is...amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jancoran wrote:
Indeed the RESULTS are not hyperbole. What the results are is misleading. Look at the NUMBER of actual times Chaos Space Marines compete in the events. They are eclipsed in a big way.

So your argument is that because the people that are winning are not using CSM then you can't say CSM are bad because nobody uses them.


That's like saying the only reason Hi-Wheeler bikes don't win the Tour De France is because no one rides them. Maybe there is an underlying reason why people aren't entering with them...like there objectively worse.

 jreilly89 wrote:

1. So, the CSM codex doesn't get the most entrees in the tournament, therefore it doesn't place the highest. But it's still a good codex?

2. It's a pretty proven point that competitive players will go for the best army (proven by the uptick in Gladius' and Scatter bikes), therefore, CSM is automatically a worse codex

3. Yeah, you can win games with them, but I think it's half-hearted to say you can win with CSM without the caveat that most of these wins come from FW, extra books, allies, etc.

4. Yeah, you can win, but how often? Against what armies? At what competitive level? All things that need to be addresed.

5, P.S. Randomly CAPITALIZING WORDS doesn't help prove your POINT. It makes you look RUDE.

Dont mischaracterize what I said to suit your argument. What I said was in response to the assertion that the standings "proved" it must be bad. But they don't in and of themselves and I went on to explain the weight of numbers makes codex's more frequently played more likely to win. It's really simple math. More chances is more chances. Stretching what I said anywehrre beyond that is bad form.

Second, This is patently false. I am a competitive player. You know that. I do not play my Eldar hardly at all (did last night actually but not frequently) and I DO play Chaos and while I'm at it, Militarum Tempestus, Sisters of Battle and I think I even got points this year as orks. None of those was top tier. Your argument is instantly proven invalid by my own standing in the ITC and this. So please stop telling me how its proven that competitive players will go for the best army. When you're good, you don't have to.

Third, irrelevant. All armies come from all kinds of sources now. So I don't see that as relevant at all. But for the record, I play with no Forge World...ever.

4th: Thats easy. I have told you like a half dozen times. I am in the top 2% of players in the ITC. I am also in the Deffrollaz which is in the top 2% of clubs. So I dont know what your issue is, but I don't suffer from it.

5th I capitalize for emphasis. You can take it however you want. That's on you. There's no yelling here. Not from me anyways.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:



Asking questions when a person makes a claim is cowardice. That is...amazing.

If that were what I said it would be amazing. But you didnt ask an innocent question, did you? No. You made a passive aggressive assertion that it was probably his lack of opponent strength. its insulting, its unnecesaary and its very likely wrong. Weak sauce. Just advising you. If you have a point to make, that should be the last one you try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


That's like saying the only reason Hi-Wheeler bikes don't win the Tour De France is because no one rides them. Maybe there is an underlying reason why people aren't entering with them...like there objectively worse.

Totally unrelated. So. I don't think it was really worth saying. Butcha did.

You know what I'm not even going to try you clearly think that the claim that winning 80% of your games when you play a game where 50% of people that play the game play with armies that are objectively superior to the army your playing is perfectly.

as for the whole "totally unrelated" thing why aren't people bringing CSM to Tournaments was the point.

Well, we could say that Traitor legions buffed the tourney csm. Cause tourney csm is sorcabal + khornedogs. And sorcabal can now have free buffs. There are also different types of sorcabals now. Magnus can be interesting too.

The most important thing is that traitor legions buffed csm average fluffy builds significantly. So that they can now easilly compete with average fluffy builds from other codexes. What emp child player didn't want to bring his lovingly painted pink dudes en masse without feeling like shooting himself in the foot.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
You know what I'm not even going to try you clearly think that the claim that winning 80% of your games when you play a game where 50% of people that play the game play with armies that are objectively superior to the army your playing is perfectly.

as for the whole "totally unrelated" thing why aren't people bringing CSM to Tournaments was the point.

They aren't playing them because they don't have enough faith in themselves. Option two: they love their models and simply prefer another choice. The same reason we all play what we play.

Lots of people went to the Bay Area Open including me, and lots of them took what they thought were "killer lists" from their respective codex's. everyone went with either an army they loved and could play very well or they took the killer list they read about somewhere. But either way, despite all those people, who wins it? NOT Eldar. Eldar did well, of course they did. There were a lot of them. Chaos Daemons did well and Daemon players were abundant. But note that Skitarii came in second and wasn't so abundant but there were a few in there. Anyone shocked to know what that list was? Not really. Though it was so converted that he had to provide pictures and such just so people could comprehend what they were looking at. QUITE a stunning army.

But there was only one guy who had what it took to go 6-0 against a huge field. One. And he took, of all things, Dark Angels. There were few Skitarii guys but yet one took second... Both of which flies in the face of the theory that competitive sorts "always" play the top tier stuff and the top tier stuff "always" wins.

Being number one doesn't make your codex number one. Does it? Because if it was true, We'd be hailing Dark Angels right now. We aren't. For good reason. People who are already good enough to win without a power codex are simply hedging their bets (I get it), but its still a bet as the BAO showed, and it wasn't rewarded in a ton of cases. An Eldar player placed 167th. Lowest Chaos Space Marine? 105.

So the same applies to Chaos Marines. They aren't the apex predators. One does not need the top predator to win the Bay Area Open nor to do better than Eldar apparently. One just needs enough of a list to execute a well laid out plan against a progressively tougher and tougher group of hombres up the ladder. It's no picnic. I've only done the BAO once and yeah. You go there the first time to gain perspective. Lol. I got injured before my 4th game so I basically didn't get to compete much the second half but it showed me some serious lists and serious generals and I learned from all of them as i limped around the table.

So if our lowest Chaos Marine player was 62 places higher than the lowest Eldar player are we to understand that Chaos Space Marines are the next coming? Nope. No more than we can trust that Dark Angels won and are the automatic win button. A good plan, a good General and a really good list are whats needed.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Well, we could say that Traitor legions buffed the tourney csm. Cause tourney csm is sorcabal + khornedogs. And sorcabal can now have free buffs. There are also different types of sorcabals now. Magnus can be interesting too.

The most important thing is that traitor legions buffed csm average fluffy builds significantly. So that they can now easilly compete with average fluffy builds from other codexes. What emp child player didn't want to bring his lovingly painted pink dudes en masse without feeling like shooting himself in the foot.

I fought that Dawgstar list, played by Chuck Arnett at the BAO. It brought home the need for Advanced Targeting Systems big time. Lol. Chuck Arnett and I have beaten each other once. We owe each other a rubber match...

And here's a pic of that army, THAT DAY!



And for fun, my 5th Opponent at BAO. Cool color.


Here's my second opponent. Tough list.



I injured myself right before playing this guy. ugh. Game four. Made for a looooooong second day but as you can see i saw a lot of cool armies.


Oh and of course this fun one. I didn't get a pic of his ork army but it was cool. This however was taken after my fully charged up StormSurge got hit by his one hull point Stompa... and he exploded me with FOUR six's on the D chart. We HAD to get a pic of that. I did end up tabling him but it was still a fun moment for both of us and thus the pic:

 Jancoran wrote:

btw, we still haven't played vs sob in vassal. Time's running out, man. The longer you wait the more powerful i grow. Wanted to just bring traitor's hate warband + termicides but will be bringing new night lords + world eaters now, see!

I expected a message back from you. We were going to do it 10 am Our time I think, last Saturday the 3rd?

 Jancoran wrote:
I expected a message back from you. We were going to do it 10 am Our time I think, last Saturday the 3rd?

I think i did pm on saturday - check the mail box. Can do it this saturday.

 koooaei wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
I expected a message back from you. We were going to do it 10 am Our time I think, last Saturday the 3rd?

I think i did pm on saturday - check the mail box. Can do it this saturday.

It says it was sent at 6:02 PM. so... Maybe we got our time zones messed up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
hmm...let me test a theory. Send me a PM RIGHT NOW and let me see what time stamp it puts on there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
okay so you are 8 hours AHEAD of me. So this seems like it should have worked.

Anywho... whatevs. we can shoot for this Saturday if you'd like. In the meantime take a look at my pretty pictures. But 11AM this Saturday should work. We need to make a connection via skype. which means I have to install it and try to remember my login crap. Lol. I'll do that with you via PM.

 Jancoran wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:


You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.

yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!

That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.

morgoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:


You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.

yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!

That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.

Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.

If I can get some more time I fully plan to join in ITC tournaments with my CSM.

Also, is BAO ITC? Im seeing two storm surges in some armies and I thought ITC was one Lord of War per list unless its knights? Im could be very wrong.

Table wrote:


Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.

If I can get some more time I fully plan to join in ITC tournaments with my CSM.

Also, is BAO ITC? Im seeing two storm surges in some armies and I thought ITC was one Lord of War per list unless its knights? Im could be very wrong.

I think the only thing we've argued against is that anyone at all would be able to maintain a 80% win average with CSM against comparable opponents who do use good lists from good codexes.

This is a dice game and there is no such thing as a guaranteed loss, beyond the hyperbole what we are discussing is averages, which don't look too good for SMC in general.

 Jancoran wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

1. So, the CSM codex doesn't get the most entrees in the tournament, therefore it doesn't place the highest. But it's still a good codex?

2. It's a pretty proven point that competitive players will go for the best army (proven by the uptick in Gladius' and Scatter bikes), therefore, CSM is automatically a worse codex

3. Yeah, you can win games with them, but I think it's half-hearted to say you can win with CSM without the caveat that most of these wins come from FW, extra books, allies, etc.

4. Yeah, you can win, but how often? Against what armies? At what competitive level? All things that need to be addresed.

5, P.S. Randomly CAPITALIZING WORDS doesn't help prove your POINT. It makes you look RUDE.

Dont mischaracterize what I said to suit your argument. What I said was in response to the assertion that the standings "proved" it must be bad. But they don't in and of themselves and I went on to explain the weight of numbers makes codex's more frequently played more likely to win. It's really simple math. More chances is more chances. Stretching what I said anywehrre beyond that is bad form.

No, the standings literally do prove the codex is bad. That's the whole point of standings. It's really simple math; the more players of a certain army = generally the stronger the codex. It's why you never see fluffy Dark Angels winning ITC tournaments, it's only ever Ravenwing spam.

Second, This is patently false. I am a competitive player. You know that. I do not play my Eldar hardly at all (did last night actually but not frequently) and I DO play Chaos and while I'm at it, Militarum Tempestus, Sisters of Battle and I think I even got points this year as orks. None of those was top tier. Your argument is instantly proven invalid by my own standing in the ITC and this. So please stop telling me how its proven that competitive players will go for the best army. When you're good, you don't have to.

You're only one player and you don't make up the whole ITC. What do the other players of the "Deff Rollas" play? $5 there's a top tier codex among them. Competitive players go for the best army, it's why Gladius, Tzeentch Daemons, and Ravenwing are so popular. We can amend that to "Not all competitive players" or "Most competitive players".

Third, irrelevant. All armies come from all kinds of sources now. So I don't see that as relevant at all. But for the record, I play with no Forge World...ever.

Congrats? You're now at an even worse standing with CSM. Do CSM need FW to win? No, but it helps.

4th: Thats easy. I have told you like a half dozen times. I am in the top 2% of players in the ITC. I am also in the Deffrollaz which is in the top 2% of clubs. So I dont know what your issue is, but I don't suffer from it.

5th I capitalize for emphasis. You can take it however you want. That's on you. There's no yelling here. Not from me anyways.

I'm out, man. I provided literal factual evidence (not anecdotes) and you can't see reason that CSM are not that good of an army. I'm done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.

No one's saying CSM can't win, they're saying "Hey, you're going to have a rough time. The odds are not in your favor."

Legions buffed csm fluffy lists quite well. So, i think that an average csm list can now compete with other average lists and even have an upper hand sometimes.

 koooaei wrote:
Legions buffed csm fluffy lists quite well. So, i think that an average csm list can now compete with other average lists and even have an upper hand sometimes.

I'm hesitant, but I expect to see a lot of Thousand Sons in the ITC top now. 1K Sons got some massive buffs.

morgoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:


You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.

yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!

That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.

I dont know what you mean by team games.

Teams are gaming clubs in ITC context. That does not imply group games. Lol. Just that our group is distinguished as an entity and rated on its performance in a similar way as individual accomplishments. And actually you can see the club people belong to in the standings too. I'm up there, along with Chancy Ricky and Oseas Aduna. Chancy has a GT that was supposed to be in his score but it got separated out on acccident so they need to fix that. once they do he will jet even further up. But as of now it shows as two scores. Hope they fix that soon.

I also dont know what you mean by list tailoring. My Night Lords have been pretty much unchanged other than the new Formation, but the new formation barely changed what was in my list. basically just ended up having to split the Night lords into three units instead of two. otherwise, same list.

So No list tailoring going on here. But let me say this: if you are not ACCOUNTING for Eldar in your list construction, you aren't going to do well. You are best served by being open to the possibility of fighting one in every tournament you attend. It's likely to come up, I promise.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Table wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:


You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.

yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!

That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.

Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.

If I can get some more time I fully plan to join in ITC tournaments with my CSM.

Also, is BAO ITC? Im seeing two storm surges in some armies and I thought ITC was one Lord of War per list unless its knights? Im could be very wrong.

BAO is ITC. ITC allows 0-1 unit, essentially. the stormsurge is a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

No, the standings literally do prove the codex is bad. That's the whole point of standings. It's really simple math; the more players of a certain army = generally the stronger the codex. It's why you never see fluffy Dark Angels winning ITC tournaments, it's only ever Ravenwing spam."

Lol. so...Dark Angels are not allowed to call their wins wins now if they use Ravenwing? Eh...Sorry. Not buying. And "fluffy" Dark Angels lists is irrelevant. Dark Angels as a Codex are good enough to WIN a 200 man tournament. digest that. understand it. its demonstrable fact. So no.




Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jreilly89 wrote:

What do the other players of the "Deff Rollas" play? $5 there's a top tier codex among them. Competitive players go for the best army, it's why Gladius, Tzeentch Daemons, and Ravenwing are so popular. We can amend that to "Not all competitive players" or "Most competitive players".

Sure it's not a big secret.

I played orks, Militarum Tempestus, Sisters of Battle and Tau Empire this season in actual ITC events. The store lost our results for a tournament in which i played Necrons so that one never showed up in my stats, sadly. but I did do it once. I played the Scarab swarm. Fun.

Chancy played Space Wolves and GeneStealer Cult this season and is our highest ranked player (but he knows who the boss is, hehehe. Love you Chancy ).

Oseas played Orks. He did very well. He also has an event that is detached from him so his standing is actually much higher. ITC has to fix both Chancy and Oseas's score. That reminds me...

Other members who played less, but in significant events: Matt Stephens played DeathWatch (he's the top player for Deathwatch currently), Space Marines (non battle Company) at BAO and Astra Militarum. He, like me, wasn't very focused on one faction standing. Our other notable member Don Sartain played Necrons in three ITC events (and scored VERY well in all of them as you can see) and also as a Space Marine once I think. Dan who plays with us is the only guy who plays a battle Company, but its not the typical one. He also doesnt typically give his email address correctly (on purpose) because he doesn't want people having it or something. meh. whatevs. Not a hyper competitive dude but very active in our group.

Some of our newer members or ones who didn't attend as much as them, play Grey Knights, Blood Angels, UltraMarines and Matt Demartino took Skitarii to one and one it. Glen played Imperial Knights+Inquisition at BAO. Nathan plays Necrons and is a more recent addition to the team..

I am sure I am missing a few. but among those who are in our club, that's more or less what we play in actual ITC games.

Most of us play other armies, obviously. I frequently play ringer armies against my friends to allow them to practrice for tournaments. They often use me as a "barometer" for their list.

Regular opponents include the TZC and MUGU crews and of course the clubs we travel to like BCoast and some others. You can see where their members are listed. Joshua Death actually played at two of our tournaments which was cool. Both at the Guardian Cup and at the March Madness GT. So i got to meet him and his dog.

Anywho, no Eldar as you will note used in ITC matches, only one Skitarii in one match and then... on to the other armies. I think you underestimate what good players will play. I really do. Open your mind to more possibilities. i play these Chaos mariens against a ver ytough group of generals and you can ask them whether they find me an adequate representative of the dark powers.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Legions buffed csm fluffy lists quite well. So, i think that an average csm list can now compete with other average lists and even have an upper hand sometimes.

I'm hesitant, but I expect to see a lot of Thousand Sons in the ITC top now. 1K Sons got some massive buffs.

1k sons look like the weakest of the bunch to me, tbh. But maybe there are some combinations i'm missing. It's the daemon part of Tzeench that got significantly better. As for the marine part...well, maybe the flavor of sorcs and the tzeench sorcabal. Magnus for sure. But the basic 1k sons, tacticals and their new termies are still not worth it. The formation that makes them more durable writes the list for you and you end up with a tough-ish force with very weak offence other than potential psy trickery. But if you want psy, why don't you just spam cheaper psychers with even more cheap and now unkillable from afar warp batteries. Cause 1k psychers are fun and all but they come at such a price that you don't get enough warpcharges to fully utilise them.

Well, that's just my first expression anywayz. Compared to free fearless, relentless and fnp that nurglits gain or khornates who get free furious charge, fearless and 2d6 scout move that's not a scout move and you can still charge 1-st turn after it, the 1k son's +1 inv after a blessing is not so impressive on the regular dudes.

It sems like all upside though. Even if it is more expensive options, its more expensive but very awesome options. I mean AP 3 is always impressive and as a Militarum Tempestus player, i would kill to have AP 3 weapons that actually damage people. Lol. Warpfire is a thing too, and very useful against all kinds of things.

I think some creative sorts are going to have a ball with this. My friend Rory in Portland is already geared up and bought a BUNCH of Thousand Sons just for the occasion. Dunno how it will do but I'm excited to find out!

From what i can tell with my limited experience with 1k sons, their strength is not in their shooting but in their force axe sorc with 4++ and fearless. But once again, it's probably just me. Every time i try flash gits, they end up doing more damage on the charge rather than with all their shooting across the game. Even my ig are melee-oriented. And sm always end up charging something instead of shooting their bolters. Last time i played sob vs csm, i shot every single bolter at csm and scorred 0 kills. Next turn i shot a few bolt pistols and charged chosen and bikers and ended up wiping them eventually.

Aha, got a gun! Me gona smash ye with it now!

 koooaei wrote:
From what i can tell with my limited experience with 1k sons, their strength is not in their shooting but in their force axe sorc with 4++ and fearless. But once again, it's probably just me. Every time i try flash gits, they end up doing more damage on the charge rather than with all their shooting across the game. Even my ig are melee-oriented. And sm always end up charging something instead of shooting their bolters. Last time i played sob vs csm, i shot every single bolter at csm and scorred 0 kills. Next turn i shot a few bolt pistols and charged chosen and bikers and ended up wiping them eventually.

Aha, got a gun! Me gona smash ye with it now!

well the thing I used to make Thousand Sons work which was a long time ago (See this article http://40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com/2013/02/40k-chaos-space-marines-cult-of-tzeentch.html ) was to remember to take units to stop other units from locking up my shooting units.

So I used inexpensive things like Rhinos or other mean in order to obstruct incoming enemy fire or incoming enemy assaults. When you could make it happen, it was wonderful. enemy armies melted. One extra round of firing by units like that is a big deal and quieting them is a key goal obviously but they are tough enough that enemies who CAN always try to wrap you up in a big hug. Makes sense. Especially with fearless, fast moving hugs.

The fun part was figuring out how to ebb and flow to keep the bolters and such firing while still taking objectives. People can talk all day about how they will just "stay out of range" but when it comes to objective based missions, not so easy to do.

I really hope I get to see such a force soon. I know at least one guy whose got the models and is raring to go. Maybe I'll give him a call...

 koooaei wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Legions buffed csm fluffy lists quite well. So, i think that an average csm list can now compete with other average lists and even have an upper hand sometimes.

I'm hesitant, but I expect to see a lot of Thousand Sons in the ITC top now. 1K Sons got some massive buffs.

1k sons look like the weakest of the bunch to me, tbh. But maybe there are some combinations i'm missing. It's the daemon part of Tzeench that got significantly better. As for the marine part...well, maybe the flavor of sorcs and the tzeench sorcabal. Magnus for sure. But the basic 1k sons, tacticals and their new termies are still not worth it. The formation that makes them more durable writes the list for you and you end up with a tough-ish force with very weak offence other than potential psy trickery. But if you want psy, why don't you just spam cheaper psychers with even more cheap and now unkillable from afar warp batteries. Cause 1k psychers are fun and all but they come at such a price that you don't get enough warpcharges to fully utilise them.

Well, that's just my first expression anywayz. Compared to free fearless, relentless and fnp that nurglits gain or khornates who get free furious charge, fearless and 2d6 scout move that's not a scout move and you can still charge 1-st turn after it, the 1k son's +1 inv after a blessing is not so impressive on the regular dudes.

I wouldn't say weakest of the bunch (looks at Word Bearers) but they certainly rely heavily on their cult units... and it's not like Rubrics got an upgrade besides a heavy weapon (that requires a 10-strong squad to use) and an overpriced downgrade for their boltguns (seriously why would anyone pay that much for AP4 flamers that replace your AP3 boltgun on a SnP model? Just why...).

Open topped Transports?

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

I wouldn't say weakest of the bunch (looks at Word Bearers)

Yeah, they're a bit head-scratching. But on the other hand, you could take a word bearer host of fearless cultists, a few ml2 sorcabals that get free votlw and summon daemons on 3+. Get some tzeench batteries in the background and you end up with a fearless tide of cultists with sorcs creating a couple daemon squads every turn. Sure, they'll peril but nothing prohibiting you from casting on different sorcs to keep them alive. Can get the +d6 warpcharge artifact which is neat at start. Well, there are some options. Not as good as other legions but probably on par with 1k sons at very least.

 koooaei wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

I wouldn't say weakest of the bunch (looks at Word Bearers)

Yeah, they're a bit head-scratching. But on the other hand, you could take a word bearer host of fearless cultists, a few ml2 sorcabals that get free votlw and summon daemons on 3+. Get some tzeench batteries in the background and you end up with a fearless tide of cultists with sorcs creating a couple daemon squads every turn. Sure, they'll peril but nothing prohibiting you from casting on different sorcs to keep them alive. Can get the +d6 warpcharge artifact which is neat at start. Well, there are some options. Not as good as other legions but probably on par with 1k sons at very least.

One solution is to take a tank or even a rhino and put the Death of Kasyr Lutien legacy of ruin on it. That will give you re-rolls on malific daemonology equal to its hull points. And its super cheap as well.

Oh, we don't use forgeworld here unless it's a full fw army like renegades. So i'm no expert on fw stuff. But if you do use it, yep - that's a good option.

Forge World = boo. WEven though my Adepta Sororitas would be benefitted probably if they added the Repressor to the Codex proper. This would please me.

 Jancoran wrote:
Forge World = boo. WEven though my Adepta Sororitas would be benefitted probably if they added the Repressor to the Codex proper. This would please me.

Ill never understand the pushback on forgeworld. Most of their stuff is far more balanced than GW proper and the stuff that isnt is clearly listed as such. Im just glad ITC accepts it ( to my knowledge) because it does wonders for a CSM force and fills in a bunch of gaps in the codex besides having slick models. I can understand a legit beef with fielding titans in a non-apoc game. That is about the only negative is see with FW. Well that and the price. Having access to forge world for chaos also helps greatly against eldar lists. With the right legacy and few sicarans you can make them bleed. Not to mention that armoured ceramite goes a LONG way into buffing vehicles to keep them inline with MCs. Melta can go diaf, pun intended.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 koooaei wrote:
Oh, we don't use forgeworld here unless it's a full fw army like renegades. So i'm no expert on fw stuff. But if you do use it, yep - that's a good option.

That is to bad. It really gives you some nice options.

The pushback might be hangover from 5th ed, where forgeworld was a "win" button.

Martel732 wrote:
The pushback might be hangover from 5th ed, where forgeworld was a "win" button.

Yep, I was playing fantasy 7th edition when 5th 40k was in play. My friend ran a lash prince list and he was doing very well with it. But thats about it for my exp with 5th. In the end, FW is legal with RAW. But I would not push it if someone was adamant about not playing it. Well, unless they were plopping down a few knigths,storm surges ect. Then its all fair. Thats my take anyhow.

fw is getting bad rep cause noone's running fw for fluff. You only see fw for codex+1 units. That's why we generally don't like fw inclusions. Whole fw armies are fine though.

Martel732 wrote:
The pushback might be hangover from 5th ed, where forgeworld was a "win" button.

Surely you haven't faced a Mourngul or Magma Dragon in Age of Sigmar. A single Mourngul has a good chance of rolling up an entire army and finishing up with full health.

I don't play AoS.

 koooaei wrote:
fw is getting bad rep cause noone's running fw for fluff. You only see fw for codex+1 units. That's why we generally don't like fw inclusions. Whole fw armies are fine though.

You mean the codex units are the FW units -1.

Table wrote:

Ill never understand the pushback on forgeworld. Most of their stuff is far more balanced than GW proper
.

hehehe. That would be where we might differ a bit.

 Jancoran wrote:

Table wrote:

Ill never understand the pushback on forgeworld. Most of their stuff is far more balanced than GW proper
.

hehehe. That would be where we might differ a bit.

I should add a caveat to my statement. I think MOST of IA 13 is more balanced than some of GW more problematic publications. I have little to no experience with FW outside of IA 13. So yea, I guess that invalidates my statements on the subject .

 Jancoran wrote:

Table wrote:

Ill never understand the pushback on forgeworld. Most of their stuff is far more balanced than GW proper
.

hehehe. That would be where we might differ a bit.

Is there anything in FW more unfair than a scatterbike?

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Table wrote:

Ill never understand the pushback on forgeworld. Most of their stuff is far more balanced than GW proper
.

hehehe. That would be where we might differ a bit.

Is there anything in FW more unfair than a scatterbike?

Yes. Thats not really the point.

That's EXACTLY the point. Regular 40K has WK, Riptide, scatterbike, and TWC. What exactly is FW offering up that's so much worse? Hornets?

 Jancoran wrote:


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.

Then provide extensive information of how incredibly good the opponents are and how super-tweaked their lists are and how they are consistently beaten with a list assumed to be significantly weaker. Don't blubber about how scared I am for using the bare minimum of good methodology when a claim doesn't match the consensus.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.

Then provide extensive information of how incredibly good the opponents are and how super-tweaked their lists are and how they are consistently beaten with a list assumed to be significantly weaker. Don't blubber about how scared I am for using the bare minimum of good methodology when a claim doesn't match the consensus.

Why would I want to do that?

More importantly, where do you get off attacking opponents you dont know. you don't know him from Adam. i don't know him from Adam. why would we ever jump to the need to attack his opponents. What about yours? You're the one attacking him. Does he now need to be where I'm at to tell you his results? To "prove" them to you? No. He does not.

I understand why you think the Chaos Codex is lesser than others. In fact we agree. The codex doesn'ty rol a die, doesnt negotiate terrain nor use to to good advantage. The Codex does not make decisions on target priority. the codex does not control random game length. the Codex does not inflict psychological wounds with telling blows at critical moments and the Codex does not inform one when one is making a bad decision or when one does not see the trap, or when ones timing is impeccable in stratifying ones waves.

There are a dozen more relevant things Codex's dont do. A better general playing a better codex can still lose and thats because a
better" general just means they tend to make less mistakes. Tend. that also is no guarantee. I lost to a general who was 0-12 against me at a GT recently. 0-12. I had the "better codex" (Tau Empire vs. Orks). History suggested that i might be the "Better General" which I won't claim. But he won. I didn't tell him it didnt happen right afterwards now did I? No. But that's kind of what you're doing now. Denying what happened simply because in your opinion it "shouldn't". well should is a lonely land, my friend and nobody lives in it. People just pass through it once in a while.

You'te just being way too harsh towards this guy and projecting it at me becasue I'm defending him.

"The codex doesn'ty rol a die, doesnt negotiate terrain nor use to to good advantage. The Codex does not make decisions on target priority. the codex does not control random game length. the Codex does not inflict psychological wounds with telling blows at critical moments and the Codex does not inform one when one is making a bad decision or when one does not see the trap, or when ones timing is impeccable in stratifying ones waves. "

Unfortunately, the codex can possibly make this stuff mostly irrelevant. Example BA vs Tau. There's no amount of decision making that the BA player can make that doesn't play right into the Tau's hands. Tau player has to employ limited decision making when engaging BA: "LOL interceptor and you're all dead! I win by tabling. I don't even have to move!".

Martel732 wrote:
"
Unfortunately, the codex can possibly make this stuff mostly irrelevant. Example BA vs Tau. There's no amount of decision making that the BA player can make that doesn't play right into the Tau's hands. Tau player has to employ limited decision making when engaging BA: "LOL interceptor and you're all dead! I win by tabling. I don't even have to move!".

Yur bitterness towards your much loved Blood Angels is well documented and apparently unchanged by the very cool options you recently got.

i will be very interested to see how Blood Angels do in the 6th Elvensword Ambassadorial GT I am running on January 28th and 29th. in that tournament (link below) only one ambassador from each faction squares off against the other 15 codex's. They made the final four last year or the year before. this year should prove interesting with all their new stuff.

But we're here to talk about Chaos correct? Not Tau vs. Blood Angels.

It is fun to speculate how Chaos Mariens will do though...

Same principle. Although chaos now has infinitely more useful tools than ba, so the parallels aren't as easy to draw.

I'd almost go as far to say chaos is a "have" codex at this point. They're certainly far better than ork/tyranid/de/ba/ig. Otherwise known as the axis of suck.

 Jancoran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"
Unfortunately, the codex can possibly make this stuff mostly irrelevant. Example BA vs Tau. There's no amount of decision making that the BA player can make that doesn't play right into the Tau's hands. Tau player has to employ limited decision making when engaging BA: "LOL interceptor and you're all dead! I win by tabling. I don't even have to move!".

Yur bitterness towards your much loved Blood Angels is well documented and apparently unchanged by the very cool options you recently got.

i will be very interested to see how Blood Angels do in the 6th Elvensword Ambassadorial GT I am running on January 28th and 29th. in that tournament (link below) only one ambassador from each faction squares off against the other 15 codex's. They made the final four last year or the year before. this year should prove interesting with all their new stuff.

But we're here to talk about Chaos correct? Not Tau vs. Blood Angels.

It is fun to speculate how Chaos Mariens will do though...

Were they straight CAD Blood Angels last year? ...from what I can gather from the tournament rules, if a CAD is required than none of the new BA Angel's Blade "gladius" stuff, except for possibly some one-off Formations can even be used.

Though your event being 2000 points fairs FAR better for Blood Angels than 1850, or especially 1650 which is the new trending tournament size.

Martel732 wrote:
Same principle. Although chaos now has infinitely more useful tools than ba, so the parallels aren't as easy to draw.

I'd almost go as far to say chaos is a "have" codex at this point. They're certainly far better than ork/tyranid/de/ba/ig. Otherwise known as the axis of suck.

Oh dear. and of course...I play all those forces except Tyranids. Hehehe. Le sigh.

But hearing you place Chaos above those others has to be a good sign right?

Assault from deep strike with reasonably costed units is really good. Assault from ds with ba gak units is worthless.

I thought you didn't play ba, either.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"
Unfortunately, the codex can possibly make this stuff mostly irrelevant. Example BA vs Tau. There's no amount of decision making that the BA player can make that doesn't play right into the Tau's hands. Tau player has to employ limited decision making when engaging BA: "LOL interceptor and you're all dead! I win by tabling. I don't even have to move!".

Yur bitterness towards your much loved Blood Angels is well documented and apparently unchanged by the very cool options you recently got.

i will be very interested to see how Blood Angels do in the 6th Elvensword Ambassadorial GT I am running on January 28th and 29th. in that tournament (link below) only one ambassador from each faction squares off against the other 15 codex's. They made the final four last year or the year before. this year should prove interesting with all their new stuff.

But we're here to talk about Chaos correct? Not Tau vs. Blood Angels.

It is fun to speculate how Chaos Mariens will do though...

Were they straight CAD Blood Angels last year? ...from what I can gather from the tournament rules, if a CAD is required than none of the new BA Angel's Blade "gladius" stuff, except for possibly some one-off Formations can even be used.

Though your event being 2000 points fairs FAR better for Blood Angels than 1850, or especially 1650 which is the new trending tournament size.

Never seen a 1650 tournament...and i attend a ton.

As for the rules, no. they did not play just a CAD as i recall. Actually...their list is on the website. You can look at it... hang on.

Okay so they were in the final four in Bracket 2 last year. They played the following list. Adepta Sororitas went to the finals, beating Blood angels for the shot at the crown.

Josh Sands Blood Angels

Formation: Angel's Fury Spearhead Force (34#, 1155 pts)

230pts 1 Stormraven Gunship (Hurricane Bolters)

200pts 1 Stormraven Gunship

200pts 1 Stormraven Gunship

9 Tactical Squad, 146 pts = 9 * 14 (base cost 14) + Meltagun 10 + Heavy Flamer 10
1 Sergeant, 29 pts = (base cost 14 + Melta Bombs 5 + Combi-Meltagun x1 10)

9 Tactical Squad, 146 pts = 9 * 14 (base cost 14) + Meltagun 10 + Heavy Flamer 10
1 Sergeant, 29 pts = (base cost 14 + Melta Bombs 5 + Combi-Meltagun x1 10)

9 Tactical Squad, 146 pts = 9 * 14 (base cost 14) + Meltagun 10 + Heavy Flamer 10
1 Sergeant, 29 pts = (base cost 14 + Melta Bombs 5 + Combi-Meltagun x1 10)

: Combined Arms Detachment (Primary Detachment) (18#, 845 pts)

175pts 1 Mephiston

185pts 1 Librarian Dreadnought (Meltagun + Increase Mastery Level x1)

4 Scout Squad, 52 pts = 4 * 13 (base cost 11 + Camo Cloaks 2)
1 Sergeant, 13 pts = (base cost 11) + Camo Cloaks 2

4 Scout Squad, 52 pts = 4 * 13 (base cost 11 + Camo Cloaks 2)
1 Sergeant, 13 pts = (base cost 11) + Camo Cloaks 2

4 Terminator Assault Squad, 175 pts = 4 * 40 (base cost 40) + Thunder Hammer & Storm
Shield x3 15
1 Terminator Sergeant, 45 pts = (base cost 40) + Thunder Hammer & Storm Shield 5

1 Furioso Dreadnought, 135 pts = (base cost 125 + 2x Blood Talons 10)

Maybe i need to go to more tournaments, because that list really sucks.

 Jancoran wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.

Then provide extensive information of how incredibly good the opponents are and how super-tweaked their lists are and how they are consistently beaten with a list assumed to be significantly weaker. Don't blubber about how scared I am for using the bare minimum of good methodology when a claim doesn't match the consensus.

Why would I want to do that?

More importantly, where do you get off attacking opponents you dont know. you don't know him from Adam. i don't know him from Adam. why would we ever jump to the need to attack his opponents. What about yours? You're the one attacking him. Does he now need to be where I'm at to tell you his results? To "prove" them to you? No. He does not.

I understand why you think the Chaos Codex is lesser than others. In fact we agree. The codex doesn'ty rol a die, doesnt negotiate terrain nor use to to good advantage. The Codex does not make decisions on target priority. the codex does not control random game length. the Codex does not inflict psychological wounds with telling blows at critical moments and the Codex does not inform one when one is making a bad decision or when one does not see the trap, or when ones timing is impeccable in stratifying ones waves.

There are a dozen more relevant things Codex's dont do. A better general playing a better codex can still lose and thats because a
better" general just means they tend to make less mistakes. Tend. that also is no guarantee. I lost to a general who was 0-12 against me at a GT recently. 0-12. I had the "better codex" (Tau Empire vs. Orks). History suggested that i might be the "Better General" which I won't claim. But he won. I didn't tell him it didnt happen right afterwards now did I? No. But that's kind of what you're doing now. Denying what happened simply because in your opinion it "shouldn't". well should is a lonely land, my friend and nobody lives in it. People just pass through it once in a while.

You'te just being way too harsh towards this guy and projecting it at me becasue I'm defending him.

This argument has happened a hundred times before, in a hundred other threads, and no one ever wins.

It's absolutely true that the CSM Codex leaves a lot to be desired. The problems with the book are the reason competitive players rarely choose to build CSM armies. It's also absolutely true that a great 40k player can beat a merely good 40k player using any army. There are a lot of ways to exploit the rules when you have really mastered them.

But it gets to me when someone tries to use tournament results as a way to prove anything beyond these points. It's dishonest, and all the logical squirming in the world is not going to change the reality that there is no analytic basis for justifying statements about the relative worth of a Codex based on tournament outcomes. At best, tournaments are a measure of popularity, similar to a fashion show, and there are some good reasons to ignore them entirely.

- The number of people who participate in tournaments is a tiny fraction of the actual number of 40k players worldwide. The sample size is too small to draw conclusions and the relative skill of players has a big impact on the outcomes.

- Similarly, the number of "official" tournament games that happen every year is too low to reveal anything but anecdotal evidence about the relative strength of any Codex. This is not a series of hundreds of thousands of trials, this is a competition where a

- The TAC lists players use in tournaments generally do not do well against lists that are built specifically to beat them. There is usually a hard counter to winning lists that can be exploited by a player with the proper models and know wotz.

- TAC lists often don't reflect the decisions players make operating in their local meta, where they typically face a much smaller variety of opponents. If anything, these lists should be considered the norm, since they better represent the experience of the average player.

- It's very hard to replicate the success of a tournament winning TAC list unless you take the time to actually learn how to win with it. There are no easy buttons in 40k.

All that said, this debate is useless. People hate CSM because they have had a CSM army and the rules suck, or because they are crazy competitive and see the rules as lesser. Other people fall between one of these two extremes, but they probably would not say they hate the Codex. They just see all the stupid arguing and try to figure out why people feel the need to talk trash about it.

For the record, in 6th edition, I played CSMs with the Black Legion supplement, which was supposed to really suck. Many of my opponents had net-optimized Tau and Eldar lists they copied off tournament winners. I won most of those games because I have been playing 40k longer than many of my opponents have been alive, but also because they were so obsessed with winning they did not take the time to learn to run their armies. They knew one or two tricks I could counter, usually with the placement of terrain, but never really seemed to know how to deal with my jump pack CL or plasma Chosen.

The absolute best player I know, the guy who used to win 95%+ of his games, had an army with Typhus, 120 plague zombies and 3 Heldrakes. He basically let people shoot up his squads until the Heldrakes came on and burned everything up. He would win because his CSMs held a couple objectives while his opponents roasted.

In 5th edition, the winning-est list I had was a Chaos Lord, 2 small CSM squads, and 30 Chaos Spawn. It was undefeated in 12 games before I got bored with the spam. I probably could have brought it to a tournament and placed in the top 10, it didn't seem like anyone knew how to deal with a large army of mindless creatures that cover the board and always go after the closest opponent. We used to say there's no USR for adding feet to table edges, and it was true. Whatever they didn't kill they routed and pushed off the table.

Don't tell me the outcomes of tournaments makes any of these experiences mean anything less.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe i need to go to more tournaments, .

You should. Its fun.

 Pouncey wrote:
I haven't played 40k recently or kept up on most developments, but I will say this with absolute certainty from my 15 years of off-and-on 40k gaming and also my 15,000 hours in World of Warcraft.

When it comes to selecting your army that you will invest your time into, do not concern yourself whatsoever with how powerful an army is. Select the army you like the most, by the criteria you use to determine your personal preferences. This can be the looks of the models, the background lore of the faction, literally anything whatsoever that you consider most important for your army to have, except how powerful it is.

The reason I and most other veteran gamers will urge you to ignore how powerful an army is, is because an army's power ranking is a temporary situation. Due to the ongoing updates to the game's rules, just because an army is powerful today, is no guarantee it will be powerful in the next update. And similarly, just because an army is weak today, is no guarantee it will be weak the next time the rules change. Buffs and nerfs come and go, but the aesthetics and the lore are fairly solid things that are unlikely to change. And, perhaps most importantly, the constantly shifting power rankings mean that if you always want to play the most powerful army, you will be buying a new army very frequently, which is a crazy-expensive thing to do in 40k.

So the simple answer is to play the army you like best, and do not concern yourself with how powerful it is. Frankly, as a newbie you are still learning the rules and will likely lose a lot of games regardless of how powerful your army is. Personally, I started playing 40k in 2001, and did not win a single game I ever played for my first three years.

This. This. This. This.

Martel732 wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Table wrote:

Ill never understand the pushback on forgeworld. Most of their stuff is far more balanced than GW proper
.

hehehe. That would be where we might differ a bit.

Is there anything in FW more unfair than a scatterbike?

On the chaos side of things? If you bring in apoc units to non apoc games that can get stupid fast. But outside of a warhound titan you can not really do that. You could argue the Greater Brass Scorpion is to good for its 700 point cost, and it would be if it did not have a AV 10 rear. Eldar players may throw fits over Sicarins mulching scatbikes and some could say rapier batteries are to good for the points. But none of it outside the Apoc stuff is as unreasonablle as storm surges and wraith Knights. FW tends to cost a lot of points but it fills a REALLY large gap in the CSM codex. Simply put our demon engines are not enough to warrant the loss of so much tank tech. IA 13 fixs that. It also gives us super expensive drop pods, which should have been in our main codex in the first place. I honestly feel IA 13 should never be refused to a CSM player. But thats me and I am a bit biased.

As far as what FW impact on ITC is, I thinknk Jan and a few others know far better than I.

Edit : In the end of it all, most FW stuff is 40k legal as much as anyhting GW proper. The only time you could refuse a FW model, RAW is if it does not carry a imperial sanction or has experimental rules. Other than that its releases have as much validity as say, scatter bikes. Altho if a tournament or a player group hax house ruled against FW then its best to let it slide. Maybe calmly argue in favor of overturning such a house rule. But in the end its better to play a fun game than to argue with people. But as far as GW is concerned FW is 100% legal as long as it is in a IA book or has a approved stamp.