Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.