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.

 StarTrotter wrote:

 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.

Sad but true. For cheaper *and* gives you a S10 large blast you can place anywhere.

I know everyone loves cultists, but if you're going against Sisters of Battle, it might be better to leave them at home. If there's one thing cultists don't like its flammers and sisters have a lot of flammers.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I know everyone loves cultists, but if you're going against Sisters of Battle, it might be better to leave them at home. If there's one thing cultists don't like its flammers and sisters have a lot of flammers.

Yes..... so many flamers. Mwahahahaha BURN HERETICS! Well, the thing is that cultists are still useful. You grab two units, keep them in reserve, squat them in your objectives and giggle. They are just 100 points anyways as the minimum price. Then shove the rest into basically anything else, although usually Fast and a bit into heavy. As per Sisters, whilst they might crush cultists that tried to get close, Riptides then come in and flame them apart (and it doesn't help that Sisters didn't really get AA besides the generic shield choice and allies)

 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.

Were they children or adults?

All adults in their 30s.

Well don't count me among them. I have, however, voluntarily played without ATSKNF and I never really missed. I think you are taking out your meq-rage on other meqs that end up dying just as badly as your meqs.

Martel732 wrote:
Well don't count me among them. I have, however, voluntarily played without ATSKNF and I never really missed. I think you are taking out your meq-rage on other meqs that end up dying just as badly as your meqs.

On the flipside your meta is such that there is almost no point int having it because you never really end up in a position to use it. Not everyone's metas are like that.

 herpguy wrote:
Um I would love that.

Trade you for the Juggerlord and double special weapons on troops?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well don't count me among them. I have, however, voluntarily played without ATSKNF and I never really missed. I think you are taking out your meq-rage on other meqs that end up dying just as badly as your meqs.

On the flipside your meta is such that there is almost no point int having it because you never really end up in a position to use it. Not everyone's metas are like that.

In lower firepower metas, CSM should be taking fewer casualties and therefore fewer LD tests as well. Everyone can recover down to 25% now anyway.

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Well don't count me among them. I have, however, voluntarily played without ATSKNF and I never really missed. I think you are taking out your meq-rage on other meqs that end up dying just as badly as your meqs.

On the flipside your meta is such that there is almost no point int having it because you never really end up in a position to use it. Not everyone's metas are like that.

In lower firepower metas, CSM should be taking fewer casualties and therefore fewer LD tests as well. Everyone can recover down to 25% now anyway.

Perhaps, but they still don't get the auto-recovery of ATSKNF or the protection from Sweeping Advances it provides.

I understand that. I just don't think those features are that important.

How exactly are CSMs taking fewer casualties than loyalists?

Anything that kills loyalists kills chaos space marines and sisters of battle just as well if not better.

 Kain wrote:
How exactly are CSMs taking fewer casualties than loyalists?

Anything that kills loyalists kills chaos space marines and sisters of battle just as well if not better.

Lower overall, not in comparison. Fewer casualties = fewer LD tests.

Martel732 wrote:

 Kain wrote:
How exactly are CSMs taking fewer casualties than loyalists?

Anything that kills loyalists kills chaos space marines and sisters of battle just as well if not better.

Lower overall, not in comparison. Fewer casualties = fewer LD tests.

And how are they not dying just as well?

There's a reason why most Chaos Space Marines just take Icon'd Noise marines, cultists, or Plague Marines.

Because basic chaos space marines die like punks and then run away to never be seen again or get slapped with horrify/terrify then run away to never be seen again.

 Kain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Kain wrote:
How exactly are CSMs taking fewer casualties than loyalists?

Anything that kills loyalists kills chaos space marines and sisters of battle just as well if not better.

Lower overall, not in comparison. Fewer casualties = fewer LD tests.

And how are they not dying just as well?

There's a reason why most Chaos Space Marines just take Icon'd Noise marines, cultists, or Plague Marines.

Because basic chaos space marines die like punks and then run away to never be seen again or get slapped with horrify/terrify then run away to never be seen again.

Someone was pointing out how in all metas meqs are not dying like they are in mine. That's fine, but if lists aren't fielding enough firepower to derpify meqs, then CSM should be relatively okay as well. I understand that the basic CSM guy is not as good.

Martel732 wrote:
I understand that. I just don't think those features are that important.

Which goes back to your bias in regards to your local meta. You don't find them important because you don't get a lot of use out of them and never see the benefits.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I understand that. I just don't think those features are that important.

Which goes back to your bias in regards to your local meta. You don't find them important because you don't get a lot of use out of them and never see the benefits.

But those are the most potent Xeno lists. When ATSKNF becomes relevant again, meqs are at least living long enough to do something. Like maybe assault, where CSM gets some advantages back. Maybe. I'm not saying loyalists aren't better. I just don't think ATSKNF is a big part of that.

How good can it be when there exists conditions where they almost never matter? Serpent shield -> always matters. Hell, even prescience -> always matters. ATSKNF -> ????

Martel732 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I understand that. I just don't think those features are that important.

Which goes back to your bias in regards to your local meta. You don't find them important because you don't get a lot of use out of them and never see the benefits.

But those are the most potent Xeno lists. When ATSKNF becomes relevant again, meqs are at least living long enough to do something. Like maybe assault, where CSM gets some advantages back. Maybe. I'm not saying loyalists aren't better. I just don't think ATSKNF is a big part of that.

How good can it be when there exists conditions where they almost never matter? Serpent shield -> always matters. Hell, even prescience -> always matters. ATSKNF -> ????

Serpent Shields > Only matter when people either A) actually play Eldar in your area or B) spam Wave Serpents out the Ying-Yang. Likewise for psykers who can Prescience (which aren't THAT many (though now IG can take six of them in a single FOC slot so that might change), they only matter if they're actually brought. I don't see much of that locally, and I'm willing to bet there are others in the same boat.

No, no. I meant WHEN they are brought. I was just trying to point out mechanics that weren't nearly as if-come-maybe as ATSKNF.

I have found atsknf to be very useful for grav cav when I fight them with my daemons. As a matter if fact I think atsknf is extremely useful for grav cav since they will try to get into cc then hit and run away and if they are losing and getting swept that isn't happening. Also since grav cav have relatively low numbers per squad so will have to test alot.

Yeah, I've only played a couple of games with grav cents. And I don't play White Scars. For them, it's probably better.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 herpguy wrote:
Um I would love that.

Trade you for the Juggerlord and double special weapons on troops?

I would trade the juggerlord that is in no competitive lists for the ability to give EW AND a 3++ for 50 pts that is in EVERY competitive SM list. You can also have the double special weapons, I don't think those have even crossed the mind of a competitive player for a very long time.

 herpguy wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 herpguy wrote:
Um I would love that.

Trade you for the Juggerlord and double special weapons on troops?

I would trade the juggerlord that is in no competitive lists for the ability to give EW AND a 3++ for 50 pts that is in EVERY competitive SM list. You can also have the double special weapons, I don't think those have even crossed the mind of a competitive player for a very long time.

Seconded this trade!

Does this mean you guys are going to arrange a game where these alterations have been made to your codexs?

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I've only played a couple of games with grav cents. And I don't play White Scars. For them, it's probably better.

You don't use bikes and cents ? May I ask what kind of a space marine army do you play ?

Here are the MAIN reasons I think that the CSM codex is the worst, or close to the worst, codex of 6th edition so far:

1) It's a copy paste job. The codex looked rushed and the model release paired with the codex is good evidence of that fact. The fluff entries for most of the units are direct copies of the 5th edition CSM codex with a word swapped for a synonym here and there. It was done like a 3rd grader cribbing wikipedia with a thesaurus. The fluff for CSM is some of the richest in the 40k universe but they put no effort into it.
2) It's an up-the-middle list. There is no infiltrate. There is no scout. There is no outflank. There is no way to safely or reliably deep strike. It is an assault army with no dirty tricks to avoid getting shot to pieces. Low model count and you have to walk up the board. There is no strategy to this army.
3) Weak characters. It appears as though the powers of chaos have weakened and crippled their champions. There is absolutely no reason to be afraid of the HQ section of the CSM codex or any of the character models in the codex.
4) Champion of Chaos. This is the single most crippling rule in the whole codex. You HAVE to put the killiest model in your squad up against their garbage sergeant, turning the 3-4 wounds you could have put on the squad to win combat into only 1. It's not even up to you. What's worse is that if they have tooled their sergeant for close combat at all, you have a pretty good chance of losing your champion. The reward for winning is a roll on the Gifts table where most of the results are irrelevant and the rules for the best reward is so poorly written that you're likely to just have your champ insta-die due to a technicality.
4) Psychic powers. Cult Disciplines are terrible and forced on you if you take a mark. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think CSM are the only ones without access to Divination in the game (which is the best discipline by far). This is also a disappointing fluff fail as Tzeench doesn't have access to Divination. Dark Angels do, but the Thousand Sons don't?
5) The army list doesn't fit the fluff. We have all been clamoring for Traitor Legion lists at least since 3rd edition. We got dino-bots. Who is the person at GW that decided that dinosaur robots were in and traitor legions were out? I'd like their letter of resignation on my desk by the end of the week.

Anyhow, the failure of the CSM codex is that it was IMMEDIATELY disappointing in terms of both the fluff and the functionality in the game. It's weak in shooting. It's strong in assault but there is no inbuilt delivery method and the list contains a fatal flaw that blunts any successful push. And it continues to disappoint with the lacklustre supplements and dataslates. It's the failure that keeps on failing. At this point, even if they did bring out decent Traitor Legion supplements that brought fluff and strategy options to the CSM codex, they would still be hobbled by Champion of Chaos and the weak characters.

I just don't know what to say. It's so odd to hear people bagging on the codex.

It doesn't have to be a top tier codex for a good general to win with it.

Everyone seems to want an auto win button and we get these threads about how a codex sucks even though there are people out here verifiably and consistently winning. Why argue with success. Figure out what they're doing RIGHT and emulate it. Or better yet, make your own.

It takes PRACTICE to win. I understand people who dont get to play often jumping off the cliff at every disappointment but I wish those people would admit their lack of perspective.

Some of us don't want auto win buttons. The only thing that comes close is the drake and only against meq. Outside of that it goes to pot .
He csm codex competitively is dead in the water, taken as allies for a drake and DP and nothing more.
Casually it can do ok but you get spat on for taking drakes and if you don't.... Then you struggle...

 Warmaster Phthisis wrote:
Here are the MAIN reasons I think that the CSM codex is the worst, or close to the worst, codex of 6th edition so far:

1) It's a copy paste job. The codex looked rushed and the model release paired with the codex is good evidence of that fact. The fluff entries for most of the units are direct copies of the 5th edition CSM codex with a word swapped for a synonym here and there. It was done like a 3rd grader cribbing wikipedia with a thesaurus. The fluff for CSM is some of the richest in the 40k universe but they put no effort into it.
2) It's an up-the-middle list. There is no infiltrate. There is no scout. There is no outflank. There is no way to safely or reliably deep strike. It is an assault army with no dirty tricks to avoid getting shot to pieces. Low model count and you have to walk up the board. There is no strategy to this army.
3) Weak characters. It appears as though the powers of chaos have weakened and crippled their champions. There is absolutely no reason to be afraid of the HQ section of the CSM codex or any of the character models in the codex.
4) Champion of Chaos. This is the single most crippling rule in the whole codex. You HAVE to put the killiest model in your squad up against their garbage sergeant, turning the 3-4 wounds you could have put on the squad to win combat into only 1. It's not even up to you. What's worse is that if they have tooled their sergeant for close combat at all, you have a pretty good chance of losing your champion. The reward for winning is a roll on the Gifts table where most of the results are irrelevant and the rules for the best reward is so poorly written that you're likely to just have your champ insta-die due to a technicality.
4) Psychic powers. Cult Disciplines are terrible and forced on you if you take a mark. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think CSM are the only ones without access to Divination in the game (which is the best discipline by far). This is also a disappointing fluff fail as Tzeench doesn't have access to Divination. Dark Angels do, but the Thousand Sons don't?
5) The army list doesn't fit the fluff. We have all been clamoring for Traitor Legion lists at least since 3rd edition. We got dino-bots. Who is the person at GW that decided that dinosaur robots were in and traitor legions were out? I'd like their letter of resignation on my desk by the end of the week.

Anyhow, the failure of the CSM codex is that it was IMMEDIATELY disappointing in terms of both the fluff and the functionality in the game. It's weak in shooting. It's strong in assault but there is no inbuilt delivery method and the list contains a fatal flaw that blunts any successful push. And it continues to disappoint with the lacklustre supplements and dataslates. It's the failure that keeps on failing. At this point, even if they did bring out decent Traitor Legion supplements that brought fluff and strategy options to the CSM codex, they would still be hobbled by Champion of Chaos and the weak characters.

Tyranids don't have divinitation.

Neither do the Orks.

Heck, neither have any BRB powers at all.

Necrons, Tau, DEldar, Black Templars, and SoBs don't have any psykers period, but other than the Necrons all can ally some in and benefit from their buffs.

Otherwise it's mostly accurate.

Makumba wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yeah, I've only played a couple of games with grav cents. And I don't play White Scars. For them, it's probably better.

You don't use bikes and cents ? May I ask what kind of a space marine army do you play ?

I use one cobbled out of BA. And I don't think BA are getting cents, so I didn't buy any.