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.

People that are actually good and bring good lists as opposed to the gak opponents you normally face?

 Jancoran wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Would you say you have an equal chance of winning with your chaos as you would with Eldar?

Using my lists? I suppose it depends on what the enemy is packing. What's opposing me in this scenario?

CSM

 jreilly89 wrote:

Jancoran posts a lot about his generalship and great wins with armies. Personally, I'd love to see how he ranks at things like Bay Area Open, Las Vegas Open, or even just being able to play him myself.

We can play on VASSAL. Already offered someone on here on another thread. He never got back to me. Shocking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Would you say you have an equal chance of winning with your chaos as you would with Eldar?

Using my lists? I suppose it depends on what the enemy is packing. What's opposing me in this scenario?

CSM

Too vague.

I will say this, I usually come in the top 3 and I play Daemons daemonkin and csm in all sorts of combination. Last time I went full daemonkin and tabled my first 2 opponents before turn 3 (who came in 3rd and 4th place) last game I played an eldar player spamming jetbikes and a seer council it was utter cheese and the game went in for ever as I picked off as many bikers as I could summoned tons of Daemons and just kept pouring attacks into the council, the game eventually ended with me taking home 2nd. I will say your list and how you play is extremely important, but it is a little sad when any one can just take eldar not play well at all and still beat everything sent at him. I'm not saying csm is totally without hope but we all know eldar have and probably always have unfair advantages, which is why for the most part people don't play friendly games with eldar players and they get a bit of eye rolling when either bragging about their rules....or even complaining about them.....I have herd first hand the eldar player who states that csm is in fact far to op (due to the fact he did not table me first turn)

 Jancoran wrote:
If it was all about the codex, would I be winning against other people who use better ones? I mean this big fish little pond stuff is cool and all, but even if the pond were miniscule, they're still using the same codex's you think are so much better.

I mean right?

So how is it about the codex then? How can it be? If i suck at this game, then it can't be the codex's because I'd lose a ton if it was. Simple.

On the other hand its rather arrogant if I say I won just because of my own ability. So of course I'm either arrogant for saying I'm good enough to win with a bad codex (even if its true someone would call me that) oooor the codex isn't bad and I'm not that good. Which one is it?

Well I think the fair minded person says its both. I'm not good enough to make a terribad codex good, am I? And a terribad codex hasnt been terribad enough to stop a decent "big fish in a little pond" like me.

Ergo... why the hyperbole hurts my head so much. Its a completely usable codex that you can compete with if you're decent, as I think I am. I havent beaten the world so lets say I can't. Whatevs. Point is, I can't be making this codex look this good when everyone else is using "better" ones. Small pond, big pond, whatever you think it is.

Obviously its not ALL about the codex. A good general with an optimal list from a bad codex can probably beat a bad general with a suboptimal list / terrible tactics with a good codex.
But if generalship is equal, you'd expect a general with a good codex to consistently (not 100% of the time, but more than 50%) beat a general with a worse codex... and a lot of the time, a mediocre general with a good codex could probably beat a good general with a bad codex.

CSM is widely regarded as one of the worst codexes, expecially compared to the '7.5' ed codexes like Eldar, Necrons, Space Marines or (new) Tau. So your stated success with them is surprising to many people. We'd expect that, unless you are possessing uncommonly brilliant generalship skills, larger events would see some players taking Chaos Space Marines and doing as well as you with them; and/or some of the players who do take CSM would be performing relatively well.
Because we don't see that, the conclusions are
- You're one of the most brilliant generals 40k has ever seen
- or other similarly good generals just take BETTER codices to increase their chances, and ALL the players who take CSM are bad generals
- or, all the players at your local events are terrible players that can't pilot even the most faceroll netlists to victory (eg you're the big fish / small pond)
- or, you're lying about your performance.

I'm hesitant to say you're lying... but on the other hand the list you posted isn't one that I'd consider very powerful at all. I'd consider most of the 'big bad' armies like Tau or Eldar of any variety to faceroll over your CSM list.
So option 3 looks more likely.

You said you beat a War Convocation list at your recent tournament. Do you have a battle report / pics / anything recorded? I'd really like to see how you managed to pilot your CSM list to victory against what is considered to be one of the more powerful lists in the game.

It's quite possible that the guy playing CSM in this case is just -good-. No need to whip out the barrel of hyperbole and act all insulted because of it. That doesn't mean he's 'one of the best 40k generals ever seen', etc, etc. It could simply mean he's -good-.

That also doesn't mean the people he plays against 'suck'. And it doesn't mean he's 'lying' or stretching the truth.

Seriously - some players need to remove sticks from dark places and lighten up. There are going to be anomalies - that's just life. This guy could very well be one of them. If you want to be pessimistic and ignorantly assume cheating/lying/sucky opponents/etc, that's your choice, but the guy's opinion about the CSM book is no more - or less - valid than anyone else's. It's simply a subjective topic. Heck, maybe the CSM players in YOUR neck of the woods just plain suck?

And the Eldar-codex whining continues to be music to my ears. Stop whining long enough to refine your tactics, seek out advice, and practice. Every book has 'advantages'. Use yours. NO BOOK is unbeatable, plain and simple.

 Mort wrote:
If you want to be pessimistic and ignorantly assume cheating/lying/sucky opponents/etc, that's your choice, but the guy's opinion about the CSM book is no more - or less - valid than anyone else's. It's simply a subjective topic.

40K is a math-based game so that isn't really true. And for that matter, there is a reason why relying on anecdotes (unsubstantiated ones especially) to support your argument is considered a fallacy.

 Mort wrote:
It's quite possible that the guy playing CSM in this case is just -good-. No need to whip out the barrel of hyperbole and act all insulted because of it. That doesn't mean he's 'one of the best 40k generals ever seen', etc, etc. It could simply mean he's -good-.

That also doesn't mean the people he plays against 'suck'. And it doesn't mean he's 'lying' or stretching the truth.

Seriously - some players need to remove sticks from dark places and lighten up. There are going to be anomalies - that's just life. This guy could very well be one of them. If you want to be pessimistic and ignorantly assume cheating/lying/sucky opponents/etc, that's your choice, but the guy's opinion about the CSM book is no more - or less - valid than anyone else's. It's simply a subjective topic. Heck, maybe the CSM players in YOUR neck of the woods just plain suck?

And the Eldar-codex whining continues to be music to my ears. Stop whining long enough to refine your tactics, seek out advice, and practice. Every book has 'advantages'. Use yours. NO BOOK is unbeatable, plain and simple.

Opinions aren't granted diplomatic immunity just for being an opinion. When an opinion is not based in facts or at the least, contradicts what's viewed as common knowledge, some proof is required. Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

 Mort wrote:
It's quite possible that the guy playing CSM in this case is just -good-. No need to whip out the barrel of hyperbole and act all insulted because of it. That doesn't mean he's 'one of the best 40k generals ever seen', etc, etc. It could simply mean he's -good-.

That also doesn't mean the people he plays against 'suck'. And it doesn't mean he's 'lying' or stretching the truth.

Seriously - some players need to remove sticks from dark places and lighten up. There are going to be anomalies - that's just life. This guy could very well be one of them. If you want to be pessimistic and ignorantly assume cheating/lying/sucky opponents/etc, that's your choice, but the guy's opinion about the CSM book is no more - or less - valid than anyone else's. It's simply a subjective topic. Heck, maybe the CSM players in YOUR neck of the woods just plain suck?

I'm not talking about just my area though. Fairly consistently across all the reported tournaments around the world, CSM are seen in low numbers and have below-average performance.
Its definitely possible, even likely, that Jancoran is a good player; just what I'm hearing from him doesn't match up with my experience with/against CSM vs my experience with/against the armies he says he's defeated. So I'm asking: Jancoran, how did you beat that War Convocation list? In my experience, your nurgle raptors list doesn't seem to have the power/tools to take on a War Convocation in the hands of a decent general, so if you have any battle reports or whatever I'd like to see how that worked.

 Jancoran wrote:

Chaos can beat any army really. I'd say they cant deal w Knights very easily except thats not entirely true. the Eye of Night surely equalizes the scale some.

Saturation is a really strong suit for Chaos Marines. Small units with mighty abilities all buzzing in at one time and with little time for someone to respond. The enemy shoots what they can nd then gets blitzed.

Well, i agree here but the statement needs specification. Chaos can beat any army, although, don't expect it to be easy. CSM do still have units and combinations that are decent.

As mentioned above, the HQ section is quite potent. Lords and Sorcerrers are great. They're not as unkillable and as choppy as some of SM characters but they cost appropriatly and pull their weight. Nurgle dp with a relic Mace, Be'Lakor. Also, don't forget about named characters. Kharn, Huron and Ahriman all have a place. If you want an infiltration list, look at Huron or Ahriman - they can be a cornerstone of your list. Pair them up with Cypher and his band of merry infiltrating men and you've got a whole strategical approach.

Troops are not all that bad either. If you want cheapo stuff, cultists are the way to go. Csm in rhinos are still fine - albeit worse than sm in rhinos. But you can create stacks of death with your troops unlike SM. 20 CSM with MoS or MoK + Icon. Buff them, add in Cypher and they're troops that really do stuff unlike cultists. You can throw them out of a bunker, infiltrate them with Huron/Ahriman, outflank them with Huron/Ahriman/Lord with MoS/Cypher.
Cult troops are playable too. Especially noize and plague marines.

Spawns and bikes are still great. Heldrake's not bad - especially since you can easilly come across potent bike armies nowadays. Nurgle or Tzeench Obliterators are fine too.

Termies are decent(surprise!) cause they can take combi-weapons and come in squads of 3.

Preferred enemy chosen with plasma are fine too.

The problem with many of those being that things are highly situational, or only really function in very narrow ranges.

Lords have a lot of trouble matching up to their loyalist counterparts, particularly in survivability, and the being forced to challenge is a huge drawback.

Ahriman can give you infiltrating units, yes, but it's a random number of units, and he costs an absurd number of points and cannot make as effective use of his potential breadth of psychic powers as most similarly costed Psykers can (either because he's just not that much of a combat beast, doesn't have the right units to cast stuff on, is slow, etc). Huron works a whole lot better, but both of these characters also have problems fitting into many armies, with thematic issues many other armies don't have to deal with in the same ways.

With respect to most of the other units, it pretty much it all boils down to "like SM's...but worse". as Koooaei said.

Now, nobody is saying that CSM's can't possibly beat Eldar, however, assuming equally skilled commanders, the Eldar should win over the CSM's a dramatically larger proportion of the time. They can be simultaneously outshot, outfought, and outmanuevered. Dice luck and player mistakes can affect these things, but in general, if anyone's saying that there's anything remotely resembling an even playing field, or that anyone should expect to be able to consistently defeat an army like Eldar or Necrons without their opponent being dramatically inferior in skill and likely having major dice luck issues.

Trasvi wrote:


You said you beat a War Convocation list at your recent tournament. Do you have a battle report / pics / anything recorded? I'd really like to see how you managed to pilot your CSM list to victory against what is considered to be one of the more powerful lists in the game.

No no. There's three different pieces of this thread you're referring to. To be clear: the War Convocation comment was in response to an attack on my meta (weakest of the weak when it comes to arguments).

I told that person that insulted it (who I think was involved in another thread which gets even more confusing) that the armies I faced in the last tournament were: Imperial Fist w Centurion, War Convocation w/ Imperial Knight and Castigator + Khornate Daemonkin, to illustrate the point. That was a separate tournament. I went to two tournaments this weekend. That's creating some confusion here.

I went undefeated at both (first with Night Lords, then with Adepta Sororitas) at both stores. Adepta Sororitas, to be clear (also considered...apparently... to be a "weak" codex) took on those three monsters, in my second tournament. I listed these in response to THAT comment. Sorry if that was confusing.

I dont even think we talked about what I fought with the Night Lords actually. Lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Mort wrote:
If you want to be pessimistic and ignorantly assume cheating/lying/sucky opponents/etc, that's your choice, but the guy's opinion about the CSM book is no more - or less - valid than anyone else's. It's simply a subjective topic.

40K is a math-based game so that isn't really true. And for that matter, there is a reason why relying on anecdotes (unsubstantiated ones especially) to support your argument is considered a fallacy.

All the kill ratios in the world wont save you if theres nothing SIGNIFICANT to kill. Food for thought.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:

When an opinion is not based in facts or at the least, contradicts what's viewed as common knowledge, some proof is required. Otherwise it's just a lot of hot air.

If someone"knows" I'm wrong, that's great. I'm sure it will be some form of consolation at games end.

I don't know what it is about keyboards that emboldens people so much but my attempt was to answer the question: What are CSM good at? I found something they ARE good at. For those who find it useful, thats cool. Trying to state impirically that you "know" they can't compete? Well I think I'll just apologize to everyone for accidentally winning then,

An update would be very nice (I've repeatedly said so). I wont be complaining when it comes. I'll be as happy as the next guy because there's definitely things i would change for sure. I'm just sort of wanting the massive hyperbole to come down to a dull roar. I was hoping some success stories might help. It didn't.

Isn't that always the way?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem with many of those being that things are highly situational, or only really function in very narrow ranges.

Lords have a lot of trouble matching up to their loyalist counterparts, particularly in survivability, and the being forced to challenge is a huge drawback.
With respect to most of the other units, it pretty much it all boils down to "like SM's...but worse". as Koooaei said.

Now, nobody is saying that CSM's can't possibly beat Eldar, however, assuming equally skilled commanders, the Eldar should win over the CSM's a dramatically larger proportion of the time. They can be simultaneously outshot, outfought, and outmanuevered. Dice luck and player mistakes can affect these things, but in general, if anyone's saying that there's anything remotely resembling an even playing field, or that anyone should expect to be able to consistently defeat an army like Eldar or Necrons without their opponent being dramatically inferior in skill and likely having major dice luck issues.

This part always confuses me. If CSM were as powerful as SM, Necrons, Eldar, and Tau then wouldn't the pages and pages of complaints read "Help! My BA can't do anything against Necrons, Eldar, CSM, and SM"?

It amazes me how people keep complaining how CSM is inferior to SM all the time. Well, Duh. Unless your copy of the CSM codex has a 7.5 edition marker, or decurion style army compositions, of course its going to be worse off. Its like owning a 10 year old car and continually complaining that it doesn't have a rear view camera or parallel park assist.

You want to have and even game playing CSM?, then play against and on an even playing field to start with. SW, DE, Sisters, Nids, Guard, GK, Orks, BA, and all of those other books or things that don't have a 7.5 ed marker on them.

The problem there is that CSM has always been worse the SM books ever since 3.5, even when they were out in similar timeframes. In 6th for example: a black Templar list in land raider crusaders beat the tar out of a berzerkers list 99.99% of the time, simply because the former was statistically better. For today's meta though? Most every army beats chaos. The only armies that don't are orks BAs and sisters, everyone else has a unfair advantage that should have been solved ages ago. This changes with forgeworld, but at that point play a Legion army

Tzeentch autocannon havocs on skypad aren't bad.

 Jancoran wrote:
All the kill ratios in the world wont save you if theres nothing SIGNIFICANT to kill. Food for thought.

That isn't food for thought as, continuing the pattern, your statement is a non-sequitur that doesn't address what I said at all.

Either that or I'm not being clear when I say that 40K is a math-based game.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
All the kill ratios in the world wont save you if theres nothing SIGNIFICANT to kill. Food for thought.

That isn't food for thought as, continuing the pattern, your statement is a non-sequitur that doesn't address what I said at all.

Either that or I'm not being clear when I say that 40K is a math-based game.

Your calculations requires one thing: a target. And that can be denied to you. Thats important information for any General. So not a non sequiter.

It's food for thought. Running the numbers is fine and you're not even wrong as far as it goes. If a unit is fully in the open so that you will waste no damage output... and there's no cover... at perfectly good range... and you roll on the "good" side of average (which you wont 50% of the time) ... And if the enemy doesnt roll exceptionally... Yup. You're probably going to get your desired result. Lot of if's, but absolutely true given those if's.

Let's not forget the if's.

What might the canny opponent attempt to do? He attempts to invoke the maximum number of if's. I'd probably try not to be a target any more than is necessary untl I have you at a disadvantage or until there isn't enough time for the enemy damage output to alter the ultimate outcome? A late charge with a tough unit can mire a lot of enemy stuff in place long enough to protect the objective grabbing operations. =). As Darth Vader said: "Escape is not his plan". Sometimes a units death or stalemate does as much for you as anything shooting or otherwise engaged.

Consider the effect of if's on your math. They matter. That's all I'm saying.

 Jancoran wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
All the kill ratios in the world wont save you if theres nothing SIGNIFICANT to kill. Food for thought.

That isn't food for thought as, continuing the pattern, your statement is a non-sequitur that doesn't address what I said at all.

Either that or I'm not being clear when I say that 40K is a math-based game.

Your calculations requires one thing: a target. And that can be denied to you. Thats important information for any General. So not a non sequiter.

It's food for thought. Running the numbers is fine and you're not even wrong as far as it goes. If a unit is fully in the open so that you will waste no damage output... and there's no cover... at perfectly good range... and you roll on the "good" side of average (which you wont 50% of the time) ... And if the enemy doesnt roll exceptionally... Yup. You're probably going to get your desired result. Lot of if's, but absolutely true given those if's.

Let's not forget the if's.

What might the canny opponent attempt to do? He attempts to invoke the maximum number of if's. I'd probably try not to be a target any more than is necessary untl I have you at a disadvantage or until there isn't enough time for the enemy damage output to alter the ultimate outcome? A late charge with a tough unit can mire a lot of enemy stuff in place long enough to protect the objective grabbing operations. =). As Darth Vader said: "Escape is not his plan". Sometimes a units death or stalemate does as much for you as anything shooting or otherwise engaged.

Consider the effect of if's on your math. They matter. That's all I'm saying.

The calculations that were used to show that CSM are weaker than SM used the average results, not the "good" and "bad" rolls. That point was objectively wrong. Also the target is your army, especially any "tough unit" that you are lining up to charge the enemy.

A good general can protect their troops by increasing the number of "ifs", but a decent general will do everything in their power to decrease the number of "ifs". Removing saves by using low AP, removing cover by maneuvering around the blockage, dealing with invulnerable saves with high RoF. Being a good general can make up for some of the weaknesses in a codex, but if you face opponents with the same level of skill (not everyone is as nice as the people at your club) and a better codex, then you are again at a disadvantage.

In order to mire an enemy unit in combat, it will have to reach them first. Without good transports or the ability to charge immediately after deep strike, most units will be shot off of the board or left running in circles. Orks are at least able to get enough units on the table that they can lose piles with little effect to the game plan, but CSM are expensive enough that board saturation is a poor option.

Finally, trying to claim that probability is not important in any game which involves using dice or a RNG is just wrong on so many levels.

Mmm... i think you're missing a lot of opportunityies there.

In my last game on Saturday, i deployed only Raptors (one unit) and one Obliterator. They were very far away and behind stuff mostly. I popped out and hit him with the Eye of Night and a Lascannon. That got him moving. he didn't ant more lascannons to the face and the Eye of night really did some damage because the terrain had him a bit boxed in. In the end, i took away a lions share of his ability to hurt me for two full turns even though he did in fact have a lot of high str shooting (not very accurate BUUUUT a lot of it). So any hits were telling, Had to limit it, Did. i let him kinda start cornering me, and then jumped him.

Now meanwhile my other Raptors dropped in and made itself equally hard to get to, in all directions. and as he ws somewhat committed in his direction, he had choices to make.

so i REALLY didnt take damage for a fair amount fo the game and then when i finally jumped into him, it ws because I knew i now had few enough turns left and wanted to trap him. So I did.

He split some guys off to go after my units dropping in and that was fine. That cost him a turn and by the time he reached me here again, I had already outmaneuvered him. His army was superior in a lot of ways. i had almost nothing that could hurt him in melee except my two Chaos Lords because the Mutiltors were busy getting shot up before they could reach his stuff in melee. So that helped diffuse his effectiveness further. in the end, 10-6 Night Lords. he killed when he could hit. he killed a lot. Killed an entire Raptor Squad, my Biker lord, my Mutilators and two Oblits. He had my other Raptors down to two plus the Lord was wounded. So it was the timing and just not being a target that allowed me to win. I had more time to kill him than he had to kill me. His moves were to get free of the terrain i put between us nd my turn was shooting and charging. Perfect.

So NOT being a target is absolutely an important consideration.

And...no one..actually said.. probablity wasn't important. Stop pretending I say one thing so you can then attack me as if I HAD said it. I didn't. i told you... that you invoke the maximum number of if's.

Jancoran, you've already stated in another thread that people in your meta are somehow unable to deal with your "unstoppable" IG blobs, despite virtually the whole forum pointing out tons of units and combinations that would routinely wipe the floor with any IG blob. At this point, attempting to convince anyone that your meta is anything close to "competitive" is going to be a futile effort.

The fact that your meta (iirc, mostly as a result of your views and opinions) bans anything Forge World because "FW is pay to win" doesn't do any favours towards changing that.

"I win games" and "I win tournaments" is only anecdotical evidence. Specially when they seem to be local tournaments, and mostly attended by players of your meta. Go to a major tournament with your unstoppable IG blob or your Night Lords with Nurgle Oblits (lol) and achieve something, then perhaps we'll be more inclined to give two cents about your anecdotical evidence.

 Jancoran wrote:
Mmm... i think you're missing a lot of opportunityies there.

In my last game on Saturday, i deployed only Raptors (one unit) and one Obliterator. They were very far away and behind stuff mostly. I popped out and hit him with the Eye of Night and a Lascannon. That got him moving. he didn't ant more lascannons to the face and the Eye of night really did some damage because the terrain had him a bit boxed in.

A few things here, to give you an idea of what everyone is thinking when they see this.

1) Why did your opponent bunch up his tanks ? Out of the three lists I see you mentioning, only 1 should have enough tanks that they can even be bunched up. If the opponent has the eye of night, you just...move out of the way. How much terrain is on the board that he can't spread out given a big deployment zone? It's not hard to spread out enough where it won't tag more than 2 tanks at the most, and avoiding such weapons isn't hard (it's why LRBTs aren't good).

2) You had...1 lascannon on the field? The eye of night is a one use only weapon, so all you had was a single lascannon, and that got him moving? ....Why? Your long range firepower is awful (granted, demons want to get close).
If facing imperial fists, why didn't his drop pod marines light up the the lord containing squad with several PG's? Why didn't his centstar teleport next to you and kill you (with that many grav weapons, and prescience, they'd do it too)? If facing the knights, why didn't they reach you (you can't shoot then move, so some people must have been in LoS, and you can't kill a titan with eye of knight and a lascannon).

 Jancoran wrote:

In the end, i took away a lions share of his ability to hurt me for two full turns even though he did in fact have a lot of high str shooting (not very accurate BUUUUT a lot of it). So any hits were telling, Had to limit it, Did. i let him kinda start cornering me, and then jumped him.

How did you take away the lion's share? The most damage the eye of night can do is d3 penetrating hits, which combined with the shield many of them get (the titan/knights), shouldn't kill anything. Same with the single lascannon hit. SM lists don't rely on tanks at all for damage. Daemons also don't rely on tanks outside of the 1.

 Jancoran wrote:

Now meanwhile my other Raptors dropped in and made itself equally hard to get to, in all directions. and as he ws somewhat committed in his direction, he had choices to make.

How much LoS blocking terrain does your meta have? The raptors have to assault to be effective, and the knights are very fast if you mean the second list. Any list outranges the raptors, especially if they were dropped in out of LoS.
The first list has units that can teleport. How did you avoid being reached? Daemons yeah, if no dogs were in the area sure, but then the raptors are outside of the effective range as well.

 Jancoran wrote:

so i REALLY didnt take damage for a fair amount fo the game and then when i finally jumped into him, it ws because I knew i now had few enough turns left and wanted to trap him. So I did.

He split some guys off to go after my units dropping in and that was fine. That cost him a turn and by the time he reached me here again, I had already outmaneuvered him. His army was superior in a lot of ways. i had almost nothing that could hurt him in melee except my two Chaos Lords because the Mutiltors were busy getting shot up before they could reach his stuff in melee. So that helped diffuse his effectiveness further. in the end, 10-6 Night Lords. he killed when he could hit. he killed a lot. Killed an entire Raptor Squad, my Biker lord, my Mutilators and two Oblits. He had my other Raptors down to two plus the Lord was wounded. So it was the timing and just not being a target that allowed me to win. I had more time to kill him than he had to kill me. His moves were to get free of the terrain i put between us nd my turn was shooting and charging. Perfect.

It honestly sounds like the enemy made some horrible mistakes. All of the armies listed are either faster than yours, or have a lot more firepower after the first turn. Bunching up knowing you had the eye of night, being afraid of a single lascannon, not wiping out the enemy leader turn 1 when it was the only thing on the table...

 Jancoran wrote:

So NOT being a target is absolutely an important consideration.

And...no one..actually said.. probablity wasn't important. Stop pretending I say one thing so you can then attack me as if I HAD said it. I didn't. i told you... that you invoke the maximum number of if's.

No, but when we ran the calculations against your blob we allowed the max number of ifs in your favor.
1) You get all your powers off (even though I showed this is actually hard for you, especially if you are up against an army with a lot of deny the witch dice, since you want to cast about 4 WC per turn).
2) You can be in cover, but with a 4++ save it doesn't matter
3) We are not including the ID that happens when a Str 6 weapon hits the guard.
4) You are not running but still moving quite quickly and will be in combat by turn 3-4.
5) In CC every prayer goes off, all the correct units reach combat (despite daisy chaining)

Your unit still lost.

You want us to assume that you can hide this massive blob that really wants to see melee for 3-4 turns against faster, longer range weapons. That just seems unlikely.

I think it's absurd we have spent 5 pages discussing one person's experience which is counter to the statistical data we have seen from major tournaments.

Can we please get back on topic about what Chaos actually does well and forget this one list that people keep talking about (which imo wouldn't even stand against my Chaos list for long)?

What they do good? Well I do like how useful chaos spawn are as cannon fodder, especially as a chariot for a mounted lord to unleash the MURDER sword on an important character. Plague zombies are also useful as objective holders. Dark apostles, despite the inflated cost, are severely good at making sure my actual combat HQs get good mutations. Once had a Nurgle lord with FNP, Eternal Warrior, 4 more wounds then standard, and fleshbane on the blade of the relentless...so yeah, I was able to switch from killing dark eldar sargents to soloing tyranid monsters with sheer diseased willpower

CSM do Nurgle bike/oblit spam well, KDK in some respects, IA13 and Seige of Vraks well. Notice, other than Nurgle builds, I omit the vanilla codex?

#closethread.

Nurgle Raptors still lose 6 models per turn - regardless of cover - to scatterbike fire. And while doing so, the Scatterbikes also move back faster than the Raptors move forward, and the Scatterbikes are about the same price as marked Raptors.

Of course, if we had used Night Lord Raptors instead, they would've lost 9 models per turn. Effectively, they delete your Raptors turn 1, for the same points.

But don't worry guys, CSM are clearly just fine.

Looking at Jancoran's list, I expect him to be tabled around turn 3 (because some things will survive longer due to bad luck on the Eldar player's part) if it's not in reserve. If some things are in reserve, that just means he will be tabled the turn his things get in, instead.

Grav destroys you. Decurion destroys you. Eldar destroys you. SoB meltabumrush destroys you. Orks destroy you. Hell, a proper IG list is more likely to beat you than not, and that is fething depressing.

I am considering taking Jancoran up on his VASSAL challenge, although until I ceased to play 40k I played CSM so it's the only current codex I have, which makes it kind of futile.

Maybe we can see if I can beat him with the 6th ed Eldar codex? I have never played my eldar in actual practice, but Wave Serpents are really just point and click.

Take him up on the challenge, I'd like to see how it plays out.

Let's not pretend that terrain, objectives and mission parameters are irrelevant though...

If I had more then my phone right now I would take up the offer as well. Sadly fighting him would require no formations and no FW, seeing as how he thinks they ruin the game for some reason and would use that as an excuse to why he lost. Oh well, if anything occurs there please post it here so it can be analysed and used as reference to what could be improved on his list's unit choices

Hey I always win basket ball when I refuse you the right to touch the ball with all of your fingers

CSM, are like Rudy. Always wanting to try but failing until people decide the only way to play with them, or against them, is to handicap yourself to their level.

Don't worry guys! His list tables ba without trying hard. Doesn't that make it good?