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.
"[Some Daemon Princes are even older and more powerful than the Primarchs]. There are Daemon Princes who bartered their souls to Chaos long before humankind left Earth, brutal dictators and bloodthirsty warriors who gained power as mighty civilization rose and fell throughout Humanity's war-torn, tortured history."
So, am I to understand that Attila the Hun and Benito Mussolini are lurking in the Eye of Terror as daemon princes?
UltraTacSgt wrote: I think C:SM can definitely be competitive. As you mentioned, our strength doesn't lie in gimmicks and flashy units. We are solid and consistent. Some people find that boring, and that is cool, 40k has many flavors for armies to suit all styles. Me, I love the fact that C:SM don't have anything special or crazy going for them. If we win, it isn't because of special rules or some flavor of the month codex FAQ or something; it is because of good solid planning and tactics. Also, everybody gets to play against Marines from one codex or another so everyone knows how to handle Marines for the most part. To me this just ups the challenge level and adds to the enjoyment of winning because I know that the opponent isn't some noob who didn't know we had some special rule or ability.
Our opinions on how to run Codex Marines seem to be polar opposites. I don't believe in spam, I believe in a well rounded, flexible, and balanced force. There are definitely good specialist/spam lists available to us, sternguard drop pod armies for example, but I think the essence of Codex Marines is to use balance and tactics. The way Guilliman would have wanted.
My list utilizes only two Tactical squads mounted in rhinos, along with two Vindicators, two Dreads (one Rifleman, one either LC/ML or Ironclad), Two Typhoon Speeders, a Terminator Librarian with Tactical Terminators, and now a Stormraven with a scout squad in it. I also sometimes incorporate other units like Sternguard, Assault Marines, Devastators, and a Captain for my HQ. All my lists play to our main strength, which is balance, and every list is capable of closing to shoot close range or assault, or take and hold ground, or castle up and hold a line. I've played and beaten a number of different armies too from deepstikers to hordes to gunlines, from Grey Knights to Tyranids. I don't win every time, but nobody does. I can honestly say I win a lot more than I lose (12-2 in the last few weeks), and in my losses I rolled the dice terribly or my opponent made a math defying number of saves to even win a close victory.
If you plan your army well, you can adjust the same force to different strategies based on the opponent you are facing. I suggest taking units that have multiple uses and that compliment each others abilities, giving yourself a mix of long range heavy weapons, closer range heavy weapons, high strength low ap shooting, melee and counter charge ability, weight of fire ability, unit mobility, ability to weather damage, etc. Also, I don't believe in one trick ponies (units that are really only good at one thing or against one target) or in putting too many points into one unit. In my army, you can kill off any unit and not cripple me, as the rest of my force can adjust to cover the gap left by my lost units. Combine that with the ability to consistently inflict casualties on the enemy every turn and my Marines can be a tough opponent to deal with.
If you want to maximize your scoring potential then I think there are a few things you must do. Give your opponent other targets, if all you have are a ton of Tactical Marines then your opponent will have nothing better to shoot than your scoring troops; field other more pressing threats, like tanks, dreads, terminators, speeders, etc. Give your troops a transport, if you have other threats then your opponent will loathe to spend valuable firepower shooting a Rhino in cover to try and get at your troops, when/if you lose your transport, get your Marines into cover. Combat squad in objective games when you need more scoring units, sit five Tac Marines or scouts in cover and keep them out of LOS of your enemy if possible. Keep your troops cheap, and don't expect them to bring the bulk of your killing power, I have tried myself and faced armies that put a lot of points into heavy and special weapons for their Tac Marines and they rarely end up being more worth it than investing those points in other, more legitimate killers. I am not saying don't give weapons to your Tac Marines, but only give them weapons to suit the job you want them to do (I might give a lascannon to my combat squadding Tac Marines to sit the LC squad on a back objective and put the other half on a Quadgun with a flamer to hold the line), I think special weapons are worth buying but as far as heavy weapons I'll only give them a PC or LC if I have points to spare and nowhere else to spend them. Plan on your troops being support units for the rest of your force and use them as such, the hard truth is that other, non-troop units are where you will get your killing power from. Troops just need to survive and get a few kills here and there.
Anti Flier for C:SM isn't any different than for other armies. You either need large volumes of fire (you'll eventually get a 6) and/or lots of twin linked weapons, or you will need Skyfire/Interceptor units (fortifications w/ gun emplacements, Contemptor Dreads, or your own fliers), or you will need to just try your best to kill more enemies than your opponents flier can kill of your units and weather their fire. An Aegis Defense Line with your choice of gun emplacement can be pretty useful and cheap and gets you good 4+ cover and a quadgun/lascannon for a unit to shoot. I also used a Stormraven for the first time recently and it was amazing. I was pretty against using fliers but my mind is changed now.
Sorry for writing a small novel here, but I feel pretty strongly that C:SM are a good army and simply overlooked and underrated by most players. You seem to like C:SM for the right reasons so don't get discouraged. We aren't Marines in easy-mode like other codex's (*cough* Space Wolves *cough*) but we can bring the pain just like any Marine army, you just have to use your head.
I think Hitler would match Nurgle the most actually. Nurgle isn;t the god of disease, he's the god of morbidity and despair. If you've read up on Hitler you'd know he was always wracked with depression and self-doubt despite his stubborn/unrealistic expectations of his followers. By the end it became so bad he was uncontrollably shaking.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 16:42:36
Stalin and Hitler both loved red, kinda like Khorne
Dark Mechanicus and Renegade Iron Hand Dakka Blog
My Dark Mechanicus P&M Blog. Mostly Modeling as I paint very slowly. Lots of kitbashed conversions of marines and a few guard to make up a renegade Iron Hand chapter and Dark Mechanicus Allies. Bionics++
Harriticus wrote: I think Hitler would match Nurgle the most actually. Nurgle isn;t the god of disease, he's the god of morbidity and despair. If you've read up on Hitler you'd know he was always wracked with depression and self-doubt despite his stubborn/unrealistic expectations of his followers. By the end it became so bad he was uncontrollably shaking.
I read in one of those Bathroom Reader compilations that this was because his incompetent personal phsycian was inadvertently poisoning him with a treatment for farting that contained, among other things, rat poison.
That being said, Genghis Khan, maybe. (There was a thread over a year ago called 'Is Doombreed Hitler?' where someone postulated that Temujin was Doombreed, rather than Uraka, incidentally...) I think Hitler and Mussolini, personally, are far too ludicrous to work in a 40k setting, especially as daemon princes. My personal take on it is that the ruinous powers want people who aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, not snivelling bureacratic weasels.
The few daemon princes who have their origin in pre-Imperial Terra are left vague for a reason, though. Doombreed and Uraka could be multiple people throughout history. Many folks feel they 'know' which historical personage the daemon princes are supposed to be, which is fine too. Much like the missing Legions, you're supposed to fill that data in yourself, since it's far more satisfying for you on a personal level that way. (There's probably several folks out there who would never be satisfied if Games Workshop officially said that Doombreed was anyone other than Hitler. There are other folks who would never be satisfied if they DID say that.)
Personally, I think it's far more fitting if Doombreed and Uraka are people we've never heard of. Both of them are servants of Khorne, and I think it fits the setting better (and is far more fitting from a literary perspective) if both of them are long forgotten, their names erased in the bloodshed that followed their reign. In the same way as no one (including themselves) bothered to remember their victims, there is no one left to spare a thought for them.
I'd only known about Doombreed and I sorta assumed they said that to leave it unclear so players could make Doombreed into whatever historical figure they liked. Since GW likes to set the foundations and let players make up their own details. But WOW I didn't know they were that explicit with Uraka.
Dictators would never make a daemon prince of khorne. Other than as a soldier in ww1 I don't think hitler ever killed anybody, nor did Stalin, Mussolini or most others. They just ordered others to do it. Khorne likes violent death and slaughter which most dictators lack the stomach for in person, the real aspect of their evil is the things they make others do, the monster they bring out in others. I can't see Khorne elevating someone who didn't do the deed in person.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/01 07:49:28
Here we go. Had to look a couple of things up before I could provide some specifics. There's a lot more details on Uraka, that's true, but keep in mind that those could apply to many warlords throughout history. Genghis Khan is certainly a possibility, but those details could also apply to Batu Khan, Oz Beg Khan, Alexander the Great, Hernán Cortés, Po-cha-na-quar-hip (or Buffalo Hump), Iron Jacket, Quanah Parker, Khalid ibn al-Walid, or any of a host of other warriors.
Horse warriors and conquerors born on horseback are found throughout the world and history. I could easily see Uraka being someone from the Assyrian, Parthian, Kamboja, Avar, Comanche, Kipchak, Don Cossack, (and of course Mongol) cultures. Each of these groups has a history of military conquest from horseback. With all conquest comes brutality, but many of these conquerors and cultures have some particularly nasty reputations. (Of course, they're all nasty if you're the guy getting conquered!)
In any event, I think that Genghis Khan might very well be a famous horse-born warlord, but he's hardly the only one in our history worth considering. Of course, that's just my opinion, and I could always be wrong.
(And I totally agree, Trog!)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/01 08:14:52