Switch Theme:

Chaos Space Marines becoming Irrelevant?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Martel732 wrote:
Makumba wrote:
Aren't your marines just dieing and not runing , because they have ATKNF?


No, because they never get to test. They are gone.

1 MC shouldn't be putting out enough attacks to flat out kill a Tact Squad (MCs have fairly numbers of attacks generally speaking), how is this happening?
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




I was talking about shooting deaths. I didn't understand he was talking about melee with an MC. Yeah, ATSKNF just makes it a slow, painful death.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Martel732 wrote:
I was talking about shooting deaths. I didn't understand he was talking about melee with an MC. Yeah, ATSKNF just makes it a slow, painful death.

Then leadership is hardly the issue and buffing Ld fixes nothing.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 ClockworkZion wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I was talking about shooting deaths. I didn't understand he was talking about melee with an MC. Yeah, ATSKNF just makes it a slow, painful death.

Then leadership is hardly the issue and buffing Ld fixes nothing.


I agree, I was just throwing that out there as a way to SIMULATE ATSKNF, while tossing ATSKNF out of the game.
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Martel732 wrote:
 ClockworkZion wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I was talking about shooting deaths. I didn't understand he was talking about melee with an MC. Yeah, ATSKNF just makes it a slow, painful death.

Then leadership is hardly the issue and buffing Ld fixes nothing.


I agree, I was just throwing that out there as a way to SIMULATE ATSKNF, while tossing ATSKNF out of the game.

Ah. I see.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Unless ATSKNF has a way to shield me from ion accelerators, I really don't give a feth about it.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





I don't think nerfing loyalist marines is the answer. The only way to fix CSM in my eyes is to buff them.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




 Veteran of The Long War wrote:
I don't think nerfing loyalist marines is the answer. The only way to fix CSM in my eyes is to buff them.


Especially a nerf that doesn't even address why CSM and meqs are losing in general.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/21 20:09:54


 
   
Made in us
Archmagos Veneratus Extremis




On the Internet

Martel732 wrote:
 Veteran of The Long War wrote:
I don't think nerfing loyalist marines is the answer. The only way to fix CSM in my eyes is to buff them.


Especially a nerf that doesn't even address why CSM and meqs are losing in general.

Like I said I don't like ATSKNF as is because it's a badly designed, bloated rule, not because it makes Marines win more ofte n.

FMC shenanigans are a separate issue.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




Ah, okay. To me, I guess it just blends in with all the other crappy GW rules.
   
Made in es
Morphing Obliterator




Elsewhere

Warning: wall of text & random thoughts.

Martel732 wrote:

Especially a nerf that doesn't even address why CSM and meqs are losing in general.

Just to put things in perspective, I would like to give some sources about meq´s tournament results.

To begin with, the meta is currently dominated by Tau, Eldar and Space Marines, with Daemons and Inquisition creating a "first tier". This is from BOLS regarding Adepticon 2014 :
"The meta though, as predicted, was a bit stale. Over 50% of the armies there used Eldar, Tau or Space Marines in some fashion. And, Daemons were also a force, just as predicted. Lastly, as I called (to no one's surprise) Inquisition was everywhere. "
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-meta-watch-post-adepticon.html
Specifics can be discussed but currently Space Marines are a winning Codex: grav guns, bikes, centurions...

20% of all players used Space Marines as the main army, being the preferred army for the tournament, with Eldar & Tau being close. "there were as many Space Marine players as the 9 lowest armies combined".
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2014/04/40k-army-meta-q12-2014-edition.html
Only 3% of the players used CSM.

So I don´t think you can compare SM with CSM. The gap is really big.... or it isn´t? After all, both SM and CSM ended up in the top 16 players. Tyranids (new Codex already in use), Necrons, Orks, Sisters, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Grey Knights were missing, but both SM and CSM did well. So how it comes they feel so... irrelevant?

I think the problem lays in the meq basic soldier. It seems that Space Marines are dominating the meta, and it seems that CSM are not that bad but, if you look at the winning lists, they are no longer a meq army.

Let´s have a look at some of the top 16 players & lists:
Spoiler:

If you look at Tim Gortham´s list, how many "meq" Space Marines do you find? Five! A single 5 men tactical squad. The rest are Centurions, Scouts and vehicles.(http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tim-Gorthams-Space-Marines-Space-Marines-Inquisition-2nd-Seed.pdf)

Tyler DeVries: zero meqs. Not even a single model: Centurions and Scouts. http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Tyler-DeVriess-Tau-Space-Marines-Inqusition-3rd-Seed.pdf

In CSM is even worse:
We find Robert Tilly's Chaos Space Marines: zero meqs: Cultists & Heldrake. And supporting Daemons. http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Robert-Tillys-Deamons-Chaos-Space-Marines-9th-Seed.pdf

Nick Nanavati´s CSM: zero meqs again. Cultists and Heldrake. And supporting Daemons. http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Nick-Nanavati-Deamons-Chaos-Space-Marines-11th-Seed.pdf

I would never play any of these lists. I understand that a competitive player should use the most powerful tools at his/her disposal, so kudos to them. But I would never play a SM or CSM list (I play both armies) without... well... Space Marines! What´s the point of it? I mean, sure it is nice to add some bikes or cultists to your Space Marine armies but... how it comes we see list after list without a single Space Marine (loyal or traitor) in a Space Marine army?

I think the reason people do not play CSM in competitions is because it is awfully boring at this point: there is a single list clearly better than the rest. Most units cannot compete with the Cultist&Heldrake, and basic Chaos Space Marines are particularly bad. And SM have lots of strong lists, but they share the same problem: Centurions, Scouts, Bikes... the basic meq is dead.

Chaos Space Marines are "irrelevant", just like Space Marines are "irrelevant", because there are many other units in their books that are not Space Marines and outperform them. If you play for fun, they still have a place though. But you are deliberately taking "weak" units. When you are list-building, it feels "wrong" to pick them.

Anyway, not all weak units are the same. The basic tactical marine can be "a joke" against a cut-throat list, but it is still far better than the csm equivalent: there is a single one point between them, and lots of Special Rules for that single point. I play both armies and I will be really happy if someone put the CSM at the level of SM: these "classic" brother vs brother fights are no longer fun. If the CSM player starts heldraking the SM player must leave behind many "weak" units, and if the CSM player uses a random / fluffy bunch of units, it is a one sided battle. And ATSKNF is partly the culprit of the power gap between the armies.

Sorry for the long post, just a probably wrong opinion from a not-competitive player. Centurions and Heldrakes are abominations to me.

‘Your warriors will stand down and withdraw, Curze. That is an order, not a request. (…) When this campaign is won, you and I will have words’
Rogal Dorn, just before taking the beating of his life.
from The Dark King, by Graham McNeill.
 
   
Made in au
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





Perth

BOTH the "CSM" lists supplied there was CSM as allies not as the primary army, so the reason they ONLY take cultists and a helldrake is thats all that fits into the FMC circus. hence the lack of MEQ in the lists.

So that makes it even worse for CSM really.. best use is allies as a drake can be handy..

SM are extremely prevelant, and ATSKNF is a BS load of bollox, shoot them up then they get a 9" more the next turn, because as a csm player its damn hard to wipe units right out, in close combat, if they lose they step out and shoot you before charging back in, so if they did lose, they get the same result as hit and run.

lets look at what happens in a CSM unit. your character assaults them, i HAVE to challenge with a sarg, you kill the sarg win combat and sweep the whole unit... LAME.

VOTLW is a terrible excuse for a rule. Forced challenges... is rubbish total rubbish

as to another comment on the above, there is 2 types of MEQ troop i might field, Plague or Noise marines... they can be decent, what you wont see is my unit of berzerkers, or my 3 units of Thousand sons on the table.

Csm need to be buffed up, i dont want OP, but better. Love my army, but i also know if i want to be competitive, Trip drakes, 4-6 nurgle oblits, and prolly a DP will be in the list. So ill happily take Mid tier, rather than down at the bottom of 6th ed books,

CSM 20,000 Pts
Daemons 4,000 (ish)
WoC over 10,000
6000+ Pts


 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

 Veteran of The Long War wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
Chaos Space Marines are fine. Im winning. I'm not feeling outclassed. I run just one Heldrake. I even use Mutilators.

Find the cheese is my advice, if you're struggling. =)

Pics or no proof.


My blog address is there if you need it. Even a video report up there I think.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/23 23:35:21


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in se
Ferocious Black Templar Castellan






Sweden

 ausYenLoWang wrote:

lets look at what happens in a CSM unit. your character assaults them, i HAVE to challenge with a sarg, you kill the sarg win combat and sweep the whole unit... LAME.


You have twice the number of attacks and can take double special weapons, what on earth are you doing to lose to Tactical Squads in CC as CSM?

For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back. 
   
Made in gb
Gavin Thorpe




Just making sure, CSM have the same number of attacks as a Tactical under 'normal' conditions. They have the option of swapping their Bolter for a CCW and hence gaining +1 Attack at the expense of shooting, or they can pay a small-but-not-negligible fee to have both at the same time.

They used to have +1 Attack over Loyalists, just as they also had +1Ld. Under the current rules they are simply Tacticals who lose Combat Squads, ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics for a 1pt discount, are forced to pay for a Veteran Sergeant, and then have different wargear options to choose from. As a basic package they are objectively inferior and it is only in the option selection that they start to gain some lead.

WarOne wrote:
At the very peak of his power, Mat Ward stood at the top echelons of the GW hierarchy, second only to Satan in terms of personal power within the company.
 
   
Made in us
Grisly Ghost Ark Driver





Some Tomb World in some galaxy by that one thing in that one place (or Minnesota for nosy people)

Mozzamanx wrote:
Just making sure, CSM have the same number of attacks as a Tactical under 'normal' conditions. They have the option of swapping their Bolter for a CCW and hence gaining +1 Attack at the expense of shooting, or they can pay a small-but-not-negligible fee to have both at the same time.

They used to have +1 Attack over Loyalists, just as they also had +1Ld. Under the current rules they are simply Tacticals who lose Combat Squads, ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics for a 1pt discount, are forced to pay for a Veteran Sergeant, and then have different wargear options to choose from. As a basic package they are objectively inferior and it is only in the option selection that they start to gain some lead.


Emphasis on start

"Put your 1st best against you opponents 2nd best, your 2nd best against their 3rd best, and your 3rd best against their 1st best"-Sun Tzu's Art of War

"If your not winning, try a bigger sword! Usually works..."

10k
2k
500 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





I know I'm new to all this 6th Ed stuff, but when I look at some of the lists posted earlier from BOLS, I ask myself "what the heck happened to 40K?" Allies upon allies, upon allies...all HQ, heavy Support and small. cheap Troop "fillers". Just looks and feels wrong IMHO. Not to mention that the units that are being used so much (Helldrake and Centurions etc) look like absolute poo.

Do people not running Tournaments with limitations? 1500pts, 1 FOC, 1/3 of points in Troops for example. Shake up this strange meta.
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




Mozzamanx wrote:
Just making sure, CSM have the same number of attacks as a Tactical under 'normal' conditions. They have the option of swapping their Bolter for a CCW and hence gaining +1 Attack at the expense of shooting, or they can pay a small-but-not-negligible fee to have both at the same time.

They used to have +1 Attack over Loyalists, just as they also had +1Ld. Under the current rules they are simply Tacticals who lose Combat Squads, ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics for a 1pt discount, are forced to pay for a Veteran Sergeant, and then have different wargear options to choose from. As a basic package they are objectively inferior and it is only in the option selection that they start to gain some lead.

I don't like chaos armies , because of their helldrakes , but I did use a lot of SW ally in my AM army . They cost a bit more then csm , but have the same two special weapons per 10 guys ,a powerax that can't be challanged , a totem which helped me ton of times and the have +1A more then csm. On top of that my SW get counter attack and ATKNF.
   
Made in dk
Screamin' Stormboy




bullyboy wrote:
I know I'm new to all this 6th Ed stuff, but when I look at some of the lists posted earlier from BOLS, I ask myself "what the heck happened to 40K?" Allies upon allies, upon allies...all HQ, heavy Support and small. cheap Troop "fillers". Just looks and feels wrong IMHO. Not to mention that the units that are being used so much (Helldrake and Centurions etc) look like absolute poo.

Do people not running Tournaments with limitations? 1500pts, 1 FOC, 1/3 of points in Troops for example. Shake up this strange meta.


Well, that was utterly predictable from the moment that the allies chart became known. The sheer amount of alliances are a WAAC players dream come true. And now that we're seeing allies-that-are-not-really-allies... Well... I might just be cynical, but I honestly feel that it's become very obvious indeed that Games Workshop cares more about selling new models than about writing codexes with both internal and external balance. Some units are clearly better than others (in some cases very much so) and sadly it seems as the basic Marine is one of the units that's gotten really seriously shafted. There's simply too much high strength / low AP weapons out there right now. The resilience that Marines pay so dearly for is barely there anymore.

Putting restrictions on the FOC might create an interesting tournament, but personally I'm against restrictions in general. Firstly, it shafts those armies that are designed to rely on non-troop choices and secondly, most restrictions are nothing more than an admission that the basic rules do not work and that others play in a way that you do not like.


As for the topic of Chaos, I consider the current codex to be a huge disappointment. Not only does it rely overly on a few gimmicky units, it also doesn't feel very chaotic. I just don't get the ancient-malicious-evil vibe from it. And don't get me started on the topic of the special rules... Stupid forced challenges... Mutter... Grumble...
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Jacksonville, FL

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
Hi everyone, greetings from a loyal CSM player. With the release of the AM codex, and all the things that have been occurring over the past year or so, it is beginning to seem that CSM is becoming more and more a bottom tier army. We don't have the abilities that many of the armies have. Our access to psycker with divination is extremely limited, the DPs are forced to take at least one warp charge from the codex powers (which are terrible, don't lie), and our psykers generally costs more than other armies'. As for shooting, I think CSM is mediocre, nothing really special, nothing really terrible. Just average. As for assault, we are way overcosted, in an edition that does not favor assaulting. With all the servo skulls, and the over costing/nerfing of our assault units (don't talk to me about possessed, they still suck), we have trouble getting into assault.

After a weekend of some pretty intense gaming, it is seeming that the only real ability we have is the ability to MSU, but we have to take drakes (which is a crutch). Even then though, MSU is done far better by other armies, such as AM.

Anyways, enough with the rant. What are everyone's general feelings about CSM? Where do you think it ranks as far as competitiveness? Do you think things will just get worse with future codexes?



Hmm...

I used Nurgle psychic powers on a Daemon Prince to make a mockery of Necron units before chewing them up in a game once. Not about to say those powers are useless.

I've out-shot a Tau army with my Iron Warriors, and he wasn't playing a weak, easy list.

I obliterated a Space Wolf army so bad with my Iron Warriors that I quit a campaign because I felt so bad about stomping the guy's army into uselessness (it was a campaign where you have to buy back units that are lost).

I don't even own a Heldrake. I don't have anything with a jump pack. Don't use Marks (except on the DP because I'm forced to), because IW don't use those. No Cultists. No dataslates.

New IG might give me some trouble, but I think I can field enough lascannons to give them some trouble, and a couple of squads in Rhinos with meltaguns to run up close and melta tanks to death, then charge what's left.

Realms of Inisfail
http://www.realmsofinisfail.com 
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





f2k wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
I know I'm new to all this 6th Ed stuff, but when I look at some of the lists posted earlier from BOLS, I ask myself "what the heck happened to 40K?" Allies upon allies, upon allies...all HQ, heavy Support and small. cheap Troop "fillers". Just looks and feels wrong IMHO. Not to mention that the units that are being used so much (Helldrake and Centurions etc) look like absolute poo.

Do people not running Tournaments with limitations? 1500pts, 1 FOC, 1/3 of points in Troops for example. Shake up this strange meta.



Putting restrictions on the FOC might create an interesting tournament, but personally I'm against restrictions in general. Firstly, it shafts those armies that are designed to rely on non-troop choices and secondly, most restrictions are nothing more than an admission that the basic rules do not work and that others play in a way that you do not like.

.


I disagree with this. I've run many FOW tournaments and have often placed restrictions (thematic mostly). The results are usually much improved. Which armies rely on non-troop choices so much? Is there a force who's troop options are just awful, if everyone must take Troops?
And if we don't think the basic rules are broken, why are these conversations taking place?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 21:31:21


 
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

bullyboy wrote:
f2k wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
I know I'm new to all this 6th Ed stuff, but when I look at some of the lists posted earlier from BOLS, I ask myself "what the heck happened to 40K?" Allies upon allies, upon allies...all HQ, heavy Support and small. cheap Troop "fillers". Just looks and feels wrong IMHO. Not to mention that the units that are being used so much (Helldrake and Centurions etc) look like absolute poo.

Do people not running Tournaments with limitations? 1500pts, 1 FOC, 1/3 of points in Troops for example. Shake up this strange meta.



Putting restrictions on the FOC might create an interesting tournament, but personally I'm against restrictions in general. Firstly, it shafts those armies that are designed to rely on non-troop choices and secondly, most restrictions are nothing more than an admission that the basic rules do not work and that others play in a way that you do not like.

.


I disagree with this. I've run many FOW tournaments and have often placed restrictions (thematic mostly). The results are usually much improved. Which armies rely on non-troop choices so much? Is there a force who's troop options are just awful, if everyone must take Troops?
And if we don't think the basic rules are broken, why are these conversations taking place?


I'd be interested to see how Tank regiments work in there. It might make them too strong or the sheer number of troops might beat them. Only real hole I can see is Eldar Waveserpent spam is still a breeze in there and kroot are still very efficient.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
 ausYenLoWang wrote:

lets look at what happens in a CSM unit. your character assaults them, i HAVE to challenge with a sarg, you kill the sarg win combat and sweep the whole unit... LAME.


You have twice the number of attacks and can take double special weapons, what on earth are you doing to lose to Tactical Squads in CC as CSM?


I'll agree it isn't as big of a thing when it is just is CSM versus tacticals in CC. Seriously, between the two, the one that gets the assault will probably win. The only two things that slightly screw CSM over in this scenario is that the declared challenge can lead to losing a leadership level for the unit easily and the fact that And they Shall Know no Fear provides a way to get out of an assault scot free, no sweeping allowed. So slight edge to SM tacticals in terms of simple CC but not by much. As per ranged. CSM win solely because it's better to have one extra SW than it is to have an extra bolter (the standard non vet sergeant). That said, SM don't have to worry about leadership when the unit starts to die in droves and drop by 25% or to it. Really though, I'd rather SM be able to take a SW or HW in a unit of 10 than it is right now. That said, tacticals are still superior to CSM simply because of the amount of bonus rules they get for 1 point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mozzamanx wrote:
Just making sure, CSM have the same number of attacks as a Tactical under 'normal' conditions. They have the option of swapping their Bolter for a CCW and hence gaining +1 Attack at the expense of shooting, or they can pay a small-but-not-negligible fee to have both at the same time.

They used to have +1 Attack over Loyalists, just as they also had +1Ld. Under the current rules they are simply Tacticals who lose Combat Squads, ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics for a 1pt discount, are forced to pay for a Veteran Sergeant, and then have different wargear options to choose from. As a basic package they are objectively inferior and it is only in the option selection that they start to gain some lead.
I think he was talking about getting the charge.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/24 21:55:03


2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




bullyboy wrote:
f2k wrote:
bullyboy wrote:
I know I'm new to all this 6th Ed stuff, but when I look at some of the lists posted earlier from BOLS, I ask myself "what the heck happened to 40K?" Allies upon allies, upon allies...all HQ, heavy Support and small. cheap Troop "fillers". Just looks and feels wrong IMHO. Not to mention that the units that are being used so much (Helldrake and Centurions etc) look like absolute poo.

Do people not running Tournaments with limitations? 1500pts, 1 FOC, 1/3 of points in Troops for example. Shake up this strange meta.



Putting restrictions on the FOC might create an interesting tournament, but personally I'm against restrictions in general. Firstly, it shafts those armies that are designed to rely on non-troop choices and secondly, most restrictions are nothing more than an admission that the basic rules do not work and that others play in a way that you do not like.

.


I disagree with this. I've run many FOW tournaments and have often placed restrictions (thematic mostly). The results are usually much improved. Which armies rely on non-troop choices so much? Is there a force who's troop options are just awful, if everyone must take Troops?
And if we don't think the basic rules are broken, why are these conversations taking place?


Tactical marines and scouts from C:SM are both pretty crappy. At least CSM gets sweet, sweet cultists.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/24 22:25:45


 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

bullyboy wrote:
I know I'm new to all this 6th Ed stuff, but when I look at some of the lists posted earlier from BOLS, I ask myself "what the heck happened to 40K?" Allies upon allies, upon allies...all HQ, heavy Support and small. cheap Troop "fillers". Just looks and feels wrong IMHO. Not to mention that the units that are being used so much (Helldrake and Centurions etc) look like absolute poo.

Do people not running Tournaments with limitations? 1500pts, 1 FOC, 1/3 of points in Troops for example. Shake up this strange meta.


Highlander Tournaments look bad a$$ for shaking it up. My own Ambassadorial Tournament (see 40Kambasadors.com for details, though its not currently updated yet) also does something about this. But the reality of 40K is that allies are usable to an extent, though at some point I feel that you must moderate yourself or it gets silly. theres a funny 40K force org tree floating around that shows HOW crazy the allies can be.

Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in us
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say




OK

The problem is that I have never personally met a SM player who realizes that C:CSM is utterly crappy. SM is the easy army to play and people who don't venture outside it don't realize how ATSKNF saves your rear. Today I had a completely WAAC SM player try telling me Huron causes 3 auto pens on buildings and he's completely broken? WTF? I've been told by somebody running a completely grey unpainted White Scars army that plague marines are stupidly good because they can have 2 special weapons and the black mace breaks the game. I even had a SM player with a gravstar + Tigurius tell me that spawn are overpowered. I've been told mark of nurgle breaks the game because apparently if gives +1T AND FnP.

Then there's the SM players who try to say that the 1 pt difference is justified, because apparently chapter tactics are "useless". When I try to explain that even the so-called "worst" chapter tactics would be a godsend to CSM players. An extra D6 pick the highest while running, RENDING in challenges, an extra D3 for sweeping advances? Um I would love that. The worst part is SM get those things for FREE and completely take it for granted. Let's not get started on the chapter tactic that lets you never be able to be locked in a combat you don't want to be in.

SM players who only play SM really can't get how bad the CSM codex is.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/04/25 00:25:42




Argel Tal and Cyrene: Still a better love story than Twilight 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




ATSKNF actually does very little in practice. I am having squads slaughtered wholesale, no morale checks taken.

In the world of IG, Tau, Eldar, and Daemons, the only thing really separating CSM and C:SM is the gravstar.

I know CSM is bad; but C:SM is also bad without a gravstar. That's how much Xeno firepower has raised the bar. Yes, in heads up, C:SM has an advantage, but without gravstar firepower, you will likely get to use your CSM CC tech against marines because they can't burn down your whole list like the Xenos can.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/25 00:39:45


 
   
Made in us
Member of a Lodge? I Can't Say




OK

Sure, there are many games where I'm sure ATSKNF doesn't have much of an effect. The thing is, you don't need to worry about your squads being deleted because they whiffed in a combat they usually win. You don't need to worry about your centurions even running forever because a few died.
You can plan on your excellent leadership not failing you. A CSM always has to worry about that variable.

SM can BUILD a character that can beat anybody and anything in the SM codex short of Abaddon and can give Abaddon himself a very good run for his money.

SM have: Unkillable chapter masters, white scars bikes, centurions, Tigurius, thunderfire cannons, and stormtalons all as very competitive units. I'm being pretty conservative there and not even listing all the borderline things. They are not limited to just gravstars to save the day.



Argel Tal and Cyrene: Still a better love story than Twilight 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




So it looks like this. CSM and SM are meq and both get destroyed as whole squads. if somehow some SM or CSM dudes survive , the SM have atknf and never run and always regroup , while csm run like hell. So ATKNF in a situation you claimed to be truth , still makes sm better then csm .
   
Made in us
Tzeentch Aspiring Sorcerer Riding a Disc




The darkness between the stars

 herpguy wrote:
Sure, there are many games where I'm sure ATSKNF doesn't have much of an effect. The thing is, you don't need to worry about your squads being deleted because they whiffed in a combat they usually win. You don't need to worry about your centurions even running forever because a few died.
You can plan on your excellent leadership not failing you. A CSM always has to worry about that variable.

SM can BUILD a character that can beat anybody and anything in the SM codex short of Abaddon and can give Abaddon himself a very good run for his money.

SM have: Unkillable chapter masters, white scars bikes, centurions, Tigurius, thunderfire cannons, and stormtalons all as very competitive units. I'm being pretty conservative there and not even listing all the borderline things. They are not limited to just gravstars to save the day.


With a supplement SM can build a character that smashes Abaddon usually actually.

2375
/ 1690
WIP (1875)
1300
760
WIP (350)
WIP (150) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 herpguy wrote:
The problem is that I have never personally met a SM player who realizes that C:CSM is utterly crappy. SM is the easy army to play and people who don't venture outside it don't realize how ATSKNF saves your rear. Today I had a completely WAAC SM player try telling me Huron causes 3 auto pens on buildings and he's completely broken? WTF? I've been told by somebody running a completely grey unpainted White Scars army that plague marines are stupidly good because they can have 2 special weapons and the black mace breaks the game. I even had a SM player with a gravstar + Tigurius tell me that spawn are overpowered. I've been told mark of nurgle breaks the game because apparently if gives +1T AND FnP.

Then there's the SM players who try to say that the 1 pt difference is justified, because apparently chapter tactics are "useless". When I try to explain that even the so-called "worst" chapter tactics would be a godsend to CSM players. An extra D6 pick the highest while running, RENDING in challenges, an extra D3 for sweeping advances? Um I would love that. The worst part is SM get those things for FREE and completely take it for granted. Let's not get started on the chapter tactic that lets you never be able to be locked in a combat you don't want to be in.

SM players who only play SM really can't get how bad the CSM codex is.


To be fair, I've only played SM this edition and I agree the current CSM codex isn't that great (I even posted as much earlier in the thread)

But I also remember earlier editions which gives me a frame of reference
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: