I am not a chaos player, but I understand some of the gripes that people have with their books and many of them are warranted especially the fluff related ones. However, if someone showed up with a fandex I probably wouldn't play against them. On every 40k forum there are a bunch of people complaining that rule X is broken or unit X is useless so more true and others not. Then they proceed to list way to fix things which is usually just a 100 page thread of moronic ideas that make things so OP it is ridiculous.

Every codex has its faults and dumb choices. Some are more broken than others. The chaos book has several theme lists specifically that just don't work. However, there are supplements and forge world (especially if the rumor of the new lost and damage IA book coming out is true).

In addition, you got some serious buffs in the new book as well that will make a lot of tactics more viable. A lot of things have changed the way you play now, which will bring back the for fun pick up game. You have been kind of screwed, but resorting to basically a cheat book to buff yourself really in not the answer.

 StarTrotter wrote:
Actually the Maelstrom Missions arguably hurt us. We aren't a mobile army for the most part. It's a massive buff to mobile armies particularly Eldar and even SM.

Challenges overall got a little buff. Then again if the enemy wins in challenges well we get hurt more. That and the DP got a huge nerf really.

For the most part, we should have the advantage in close combat. I would claim we're strong than Nids, Blood Angels, and Orks. Maybe Space Wolves can match us. Daemons can beat us, but they have to land their precious FMCs first, and that's when we shoot them to death. I am not concerned about close combat. Take your juggerlord and there is not much that can stop us. The challenge rules buff us.

Also I would disagree. The codex is oriented towards the midfield game. That's pretty good for Maelstorm. We also have many forms of deepstriking units (even daemon allies if need be), and we can have strong backfield tarpits if need be. I think we will find this is a buff.

Everything scores but so does everything the enemy does and objective secured means no more contestation.

This isn't a direct buff, but rather an opener to more ways to think about winning games than just out muscling your opponent. We can focus on aggressive, mobile units that will crush troops, or we can make strong troop blobs/other forms of bricks that can hold objectives like a dog on a bone. Chaos is actually sort of flexible in its options. I would claim the biggest downfall is expense when make specific units.

I really dunno about the vehicle durability. For starters, all vehicles got buffed. Secondly, it still doesn't solve the main problem. Glanced to death.

True, but we have certain abilities that can give us an edge. While Belakor swoops forward, you can keep your vehicles within 6" of him, pop smoke, and get shrouding for a 3+ cover save. We also have daemon vehicles that are stronger than the average vehicle. I would say Maulerfiends are our best unit in this department.

Multiple Detatchements, meh, our only real nasty HQs are Typhus (more for zombies), Nurgle bikers, Juggerlords, and maybe a summoning DP with the flamer of doom (since black mace got nerfed)

Nurgle bikerlords, Slaneesh and Khorne Calvary Lords, Kharn in a landraider delivering max Fck, DPs are still reasonable, the new and improved sorcerers.

We have much to work with.

Not all fandexes are "cheat books" though. It would at least be nice to have the player point out whats different from the standard codex, but I do understand where you're coming from.
As for CSM getting buffs, most other armies got the same buffs. Their vehicles got the same toughness boost, and their characters get the same changes for challenges. I agree it does change things, but so far I can't see much (barring spell familiars and the psychic phase) where chaos wins out.

How many points is a sorc with Familiar? Seems like that would be a primo force multiplier

Spell Familiar is 15 points. A sorcerer is 60 points.
So total is 75 points.

125 if you want ML3.

 erick99 wrote:
Not all fandexes are "cheat books" though. It would at least be nice to have the player point out whats different from the standard codex, but I do understand where you're coming from.
As for CSM getting buffs, most other armies got the same buffs. Their vehicles got the same toughness boost, and their characters get the same changes for challenges. I agree it does change things, but so far I can't see much (barring spell familiars and the psychic phase) where chaos wins out.

It is a cheat book in the sense that any changes alter things in so many ways it is impossible to determine if its more balanced. And while it may achieve one balance against a certain army, it may skew it greatly against others.

You are right to say people got the same buffs, however theys still effect each army differently. A big chaos complaint has always been access to good transports and drop pods. The rhino will now last much longer and is more likely to be glanced to death than die. This means your army of CC warriors can now get out and hide behind he cover generated by the wreck verse just sitting in the exploded hole. It also means they are more likely to be closer to their objective. There is also the land raider, which people point to as always being inferior to the loyalist version. However, only two armies have them and they just became seriously awesome. And while losing POTMS stinks, you can save 10 points and get your harder hitting assault units in place. There is also a dataslate that lets your deep strike the hellbrute in, making that unit viable as well.

The list can go on as well. Daemonology access with DP means you can actually get those spells off. It isn't just summoning daemons either. In addition, you can used cursed earth to buff things like forge/maulerfiends, warp talons, mutiliators/obliterators, or defilers. Any one of those with a +4 invul, potentially +3 if you use the MOT would be really scary. And as CSM, you can get a lot of psykers easily to get those spells of when you need it. Diviniation is still the best tree, but not really by that much any more. Telepathy is actually number 2 if not number 1.

Again, I am not saying it isn't up hill for you guys. But there are some great buffs there that are army exclusive to you. It do feel for you on the inability to field some theme lists, but a lot of books have that problem. And while taking three helldrakes is a bit lame (they are still really awesome), it is better than bringing in a book I have never seen before that I know some guys made up regardless of how good their intentions are.

You have several options:

1) stop playing CSM and buy another army. CSM isn't designed to be competitive, seriously. If you want to be competitive buy Eldar, AM, or Daemons. The units in the CSM books cost more than their equivalents in other books and they often get less in return. MEQs are absolutely terrible, for example. Also, the psychic powers are some of dumbest I have ever seen. Go get another army, play it for a couple of years until GW decides they want to sell models from another codex, at such time your new army will be irrelevant like CSM is now, and you can buy another army. If you do this for 10 years or so, chances are GW will rotate back to CSM, and it will be a good army again.

2) deal. Play CSM, have headaches every time you try to build a list, have people turn a cold shoulder to your complaints about a crappy codex, and get your ass handed to you at every competition you go to. Also, take anti-boredom medication, as the repetitive use of sorcerers, cultists, obliterators and heldrakes will get old over the course of the next 2-3 years.

3) Stop playing 40k. GW has no interest in making balanced games, and there will be no fix to the problems with balance until they do. Agreements only go so far, and they won't fix competitive play. You also can't fix overcosted units. Pick up a game that is more balanced, likely has cheaper models, and is likely run by a company that cares about what customers wants, as opposed to nerdly fluff and stock market rates.

nedTCM wrote:

 erick99 wrote:
Not all fandexes are "cheat books" though. It would at least be nice to have the player point out whats different from the standard codex, but I do understand where you're coming from.
As for CSM getting buffs, most other armies got the same buffs. Their vehicles got the same toughness boost, and their characters get the same changes for challenges. I agree it does change things, but so far I can't see much (barring spell familiars and the psychic phase) where chaos wins out.

It is a cheat book in the sense that any changes alter things in so many ways it is impossible to determine if its more balanced. And while it may achieve one balance against a certain army, it may skew it greatly against others.

You are right to say people got the same buffs, however theys still effect each army differently. A big chaos complaint has always been access to good transports and drop pods. The rhino will now last much longer and is more likely to be glanced to death than die. This means your army of CC warriors can now get out and hide behind he cover generated by the wreck verse just sitting in the exploded hole. It also means they are more likely to be closer to their objective. There is also the land raider, which people point to as always being inferior to the loyalist version. However, only two armies have them and they just became seriously awesome. And while losing POTMS stinks, you can save 10 points and get your harder hitting assault units in place. There is also a dataslate that lets your deep strike the hellbrute in, making that unit viable as well.

The list can go on as well. Daemonology access with DP means you can actually get those spells off. It isn't just summoning daemons either. In addition, you can used cursed earth to buff things like forge/maulerfiends, warp talons, mutiliators/obliterators, or defilers. Any one of those with a +4 invul, potentially +3 if you use the MOT would be really scary. And as CSM, you can get a lot of psykers easily to get those spells of when you need it. Diviniation is still the best tree, but not really by that much any more. Telepathy is actually number 2 if not number 1.

Again, I am not saying it isn't up hill for you guys. But there are some great buffs there that are army exclusive to you. It do feel for you on the inability to field some theme lists, but a lot of books have that problem. And while taking three helldrakes is a bit lame (they are still really awesome), it is better than bringing in a book I have never seen before that I know some guys made up regardless of how good their intentions are.

Not quite. The rhino is still fragile to no end. The biggest problem has always been glancing. Exploding rhinos was more of a nail in the coffin. The main way of destroying vehicles was to glance things to death which is still likely to be a prime tactics. As per Land Raiders which, as mentioned, is always inferior with 10 points meaning little to nothing. As per the brute, it's still not quite viable. A fun option I must cuncur though. As per your claims, don't forget the Imperium can also nerf your magic and the Mark of Tzeentch is still a terrible pick all around. Along with that, a CSM really can't get a lot of psykers. HQs are the only real place to put them. We have to wait to see the changes though with the only clear plusses being our undivided and DP psykers and MAYBE our walkers.

 TheRedWingArmada wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
This is a thread about plastic miniatures; specifically of the spikey power armoured variety.

Amazingly, not a thread about bigotry, racism, or anything remotely similar.

I pointed out the comical absurdity that a poster equating the woes of CSM players to being bigots.

It should have ended there.

Minimizing a position is the first step to discrediting without analysis.

Says the guy who used the word "Fanboy" to describe everyone who plays C:SM. It's not like we've mentioned that Chapter Tactics isn't all it's made out to be several times in this very thread or anything...

 StarTrotter wrote:

Not quite. The rhino is still fragile to no end. The biggest problem has always been glancing. Exploding rhinos was more of a nail in the coffin. The main way of destroying vehicles was to glance things to death which is still likely to be a prime tactics. As per Land Raiders which, as mentioned, is always inferior with 10 points meaning little to nothing. As per the brute, it's still not quite viable. A fun option I must cuncur though. As per your claims, don't forget the Imperium can also nerf your magic and the Mark of Tzeentch is still a terrible pick all around. Along with that, a CSM really can't get a lot of psykers. HQs are the only real place to put them. We have to wait to see the changes though with the only clear plusses being our undivided and DP psykers and MAYBE our walkers.

The rhino is the same for loyalists and is now slightly more durable and less likely to explode. It is still cheap as hell and now can give some more utility to units that before were harder to use. Same things with the land raider. It is inferior, but it is still a land raider and it can still load up units that other books cannot. It isn't easy to glance to death a land raider unless you contribute a lot of resources to it. Heavy weapons like lascannons shooting land raiders are not shooting other softer targets. In the same vein a dreadnought/hellbrute dropped in the right spot at the right time is can be next to impossible to deal with. It is a game changer if you time it right. It can also blow up in your face. Now they are more durable, which is a even better.

Anyone can nerf your powers, but you can over load spells with more dice. And all your psykers have high enough leadership to avoid potential problems with perils chart. The two games I have played so far have seen around 10-15 dice per side. And stopping a power blessing or a conjuration happened only once and took all the dice available. With the changes to the FOC chart, you can now take multiple detachments meaning you can have access to way more psykers than before. You can have two detachments of the same army with 2 sorcerors ML 2 and a prince ML 3. Easily giving you access to tons of powers at the price of including four troop units.

My point is the changes effects everything differently. A lot of options that could not be used at all before now can to be reconsidered. Some will still suck and some will only be elevated to fun category. Others will be good. All of which is better than using an unsanctioned fandex.

But overload what? At best you can get, with no FOC shenanigans, 9+d6 dice and if you overload you are just begging for perils which almost always will at least wound your 2W model. Besides, I don't really want to just spam sorcerers like a mad nutter. As per rhinos, the thing is the buff is so significant that... who cares? And as per the raider, I can agree it MIGHT have a use now where it's more worth fielding though but that's the same for SM in general (and better for 'em)

Now that we have unbound. I was considering and army made up entirely of Khorne Berzerkers in Land Raiders, led by Kharn the Betrayer. Fluffy, will take out big targets with lascannons, then wreck face in close combat. Yes you will have a small army due to the cost of land raiders, but I reckon they'd do well.

Perhaps use a Sorc or possibly even two, instead of spamming them?

125 for ML3 with free rerolls means you're getting far more powers off with fewer perils than a ML3 Farseer.

Psykers aren't just Demo Factory or bust. A Sorc turning a unit invisible? Yes please. And much more likely than a Librarian doing it.

You aren't listening to my point at all.

I said there are changes and they effect your book in different ways. A land raider is not automatically better in the SM book, because you can use units that the SM can't use. It getting a buff effects both your armies differently. If you are so set on your believe that certain units are useless then of course you will never see anything good come out of them. In the same vein, I just pointed out hose it is possible to buff your Daemon prince to a +4 Invul out of the box and with iron arm the potential for T8 which would make him near invincible. Will that happen all the time no, because that would be broken. If you so scared you might lose a wound using a psyker of course it is not a buff to you. Those aren't FOC shenanigans for psykers any more, they are the way the game is designed now. In addition, if you don't want to play a certain way you don't have to, but it is a buff to certain things exists.

Bharring wrote:
Perhaps use a Sorc or possibly even two, instead of spamming them?

125 for ML3 with free rerolls means you're getting far more powers off with fewer perils than a ML3 Farseer.

Psykers aren't just Demo Factory or bust. A Sorc turning a unit invisible? Yes please. And much more likely than a Librarian doing it.

Frankly, I'm really done with CSM at this point . I hopped in here more because I still like them but I'm a Tzeentch player second and KSons player first. I don't want to play Nurgle ever and I don't quite have the number of Slaaneshi themed units, Khornate units, or even artillery themed units to really hop over to them. Also, at this point I'm largely more focused on my traitor guard . In all reality, I get what you are saying that variabilities are quite possible but I'm also rather cynical. The DP example requires several charges, more than it used to and can't assault the turn it drops from flying. I'm just being cynical that the changes will make a big difference. The best I see is our psykers going to a whole new level with telepathy abuse but that's more undivided than anything. That, and I absolutely hate unbound and the new FoC shenanigans.

Oh and don't think anybody mentioned this. Nurgle DP with the Mark of Skal' seems to have gotten a buff with being difficult to shoot out of the sky. Fly him around and either kit him with some summoning spells and watch as you are not only summoning units but also causing some nasty burns or just forget the spells and become the heldrake.

 StarTrotter wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Perhaps use a Sorc or possibly even two, instead of spamming them?

125 for ML3 with free rerolls means you're getting far more powers off with fewer perils than a ML3 Farseer.

Psykers aren't just Demo Factory or bust. A Sorc turning a unit invisible? Yes please. And much more likely than a Librarian doing it.

Frankly, I'm really done with CSM at this point . I hopped in here more because I still like them but I'm a Tzeentch player second and KSons player first. I don't want to play Nurgle ever and I don't quite have the number of Slaaneshi themed units, Khornate units, or even artillery themed units to really hop over to them. Also, at this point I'm largely more focused on my traitor guard . In all reality, I get what you are saying that variabilities are quite possible but I'm also rather cynical. The DP example requires several charges, more than it used to and can't assault the turn it drops from flying. I'm just being cynical that the changes will make a big difference. The best I see is our psykers going to a whole new level with telepathy abuse but that's more undivided than anything. That, and I absolutely hate unbound and the new FoC shenanigans.

Oh and don't think anybody mentioned this. Nurgle DP with the Mark of Skal' seems to have gotten a buff with being difficult to shoot out of the sky. Fly him around and either kit him with some summoning spells and watch as you are not only summoning units but also causing some nasty burns.

Great. I'm glad I'm not the only one.

crimson_caesar wrote:

 StarTrotter wrote:
Actually the Maelstrom Missions arguably hurt us. We aren't a mobile army for the most part. It's a massive buff to mobile armies particularly Eldar and even SM.

Challenges overall got a little buff. Then again if the enemy wins in challenges well we get hurt more. That and the DP got a huge nerf really.

For the most part, we should have the advantage in close combat. I would claim we're strong than Nids, Blood Angels, and Orks. Maybe Space Wolves can match us. Daemons can beat us, but they have to land their precious FMCs first, and that's when we shoot them to death. I am not concerned about close combat. Take your juggerlord and there is not much that can stop us. The challenge rules buff us.

Also I would disagree. The codex is oriented towards the midfield game. That's pretty good for Maelstorm. We also have many forms of deepstriking units (even daemon allies if need be), and we can have strong backfield tarpits if need be. I think we will find this is a buff.

Everything scores but so does everything the enemy does and objective secured means no more contestation.

This isn't a direct buff, but rather an opener to more ways to think about winning games than just out muscling your opponent. We can focus on aggressive, mobile units that will crush troops, or we can make strong troop blobs/other forms of bricks that can hold objectives like a dog on a bone. Chaos is actually sort of flexible in its options. I would claim the biggest downfall is expense when make specific units.

I really dunno about the vehicle durability. For starters, all vehicles got buffed. Secondly, it still doesn't solve the main problem. Glanced to death.

True, but we have certain abilities that can give us an edge. While Belakor swoops forward, you can keep your vehicles within 6" of him, pop smoke, and get shrouding for a 3+ cover save. We also have daemon vehicles that are stronger than the average vehicle. I would say Maulerfiends are our best unit in this department.

Multiple Detatchements, meh, our only real nasty HQs are Typhus (more for zombies), Nurgle bikers, Juggerlords, and maybe a summoning DP with the flamer of doom (since black mace got nerfed)

Nurgle bikerlords, Slaneesh and Khorne Calvary Lords, Kharn in a landraider delivering max Fck, DPs are still reasonable, the new and improved sorcerers.

We have much to work with.

1)how do CSM have the advantage in CC? we have decent CC HQ's, our DP got nerfed, we are worse off then nids, their ability to have LOTS of MC, or just plain swarm us under with swings with termigants etc... a juggerlord is your best example of unstopable? as long as he has a khorne units to soak wounds yeah? and WHAT am i putting MOK on? that wouldnt be immediatley better with MON? our troops are expensive (base CSM) rubbish in CC (cultists) or plain waaaay more expensive than other codexs (elites as troops) compare the cost of boys, IG, termigants, etc and then you will see just how the elite side of our troops will hurt us, pt for pt in cc... need to have the HQ carry that combat.
as to many forms of deepstriking units, what are you using there? mutliators (nope) warptalons (nope) terminators (unlikely) oblits..... daemon allies dont help you if you run pure CSM codex. and if your taking daemons, its not going to be so you can deepstrike some plague bearers on your opponents end of the table.

2) your second point i agree with, our troops if we can stash our cheap blobs away we can be ok, aside from that, you need something survivable, and the top/better codicies eg tau, eldar, ig ( my top 3 really for wound output) will have you rolling so many dice (im looking at say Wave Serpents and wyverns) as 2 examples that not even PM are going to be standing up to it for long.

3) now your saying we can use belakor, under the new invis rules he doesnt provide a shrouded 6" bubble, just makes 1 unit hard to hit ( new rule you may have missed that). now while ill admit i like maulerfiends, my fav CC dread type thing i have seen, the problem is, sure they are harder to explode, they will just get glanced to death.

4) ok the HQ's, nurgle biker lord (good) slaneesh cav lord i dont think i have ever seen one. and i mean ever. khorne jugger lord is good but needing khorne escorts is his downfall. Kharn in a landraider? how do you points that into a list, beserkers are TERRIBLY priced, and that chain axe is just a plain waste. lack of POTMS on our LR makes them very hard to use, rushing forwards means all the points you pay for those guns cant shoot, and if you dont rush forwards then its not delivering its payload...

yes we have some things to work with BUT not as much as you would seem, infact id LOVE to see your idea of an 1850 TAC list.

in my opinion nurlge biker lord will still be really good. DP's will be more likely to have the BB now 3 powers and a SF. Sorcs will be more prevalent, ML 3 SF and trying to get invis.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
You have several options:

3) Stop playing 40k. GW has no interest in making balanced games, and there will be no fix to the problems with balance until they do. Agreements only go so far, and they won't fix competitive play. You also can't fix overcosted units. Pick up a game that is more balanced, likely has cheaper models, and is likely run by a company that cares about what customers wants, as opposed to nerdly fluff and stock market rates.

YUP! I chose option 3 and am LOVING it. It's such a nice change to play a balanced game made by a company that listens to feed back. Call me a rage quitter or whiner, whatever, I'm having a better time playing a better designed game.
I'm still not going to sell my beloved Word Bearer army yet, but they have been shelved.

So the comedy sideshow aside....

It's easy to say just quit GW, but very few people have lore with such potential as GW's has, in spite of how much fail they've put forth over the years.

 Melissia wrote:
So the comedy sideshow aside....

It's easy to say just quit GW, but very few people have lore with such potential as GW's has, in spite of how much fail they've put forth over the years.

Indeed it is. That and it's still the most popular wargame out there. As per myself nothing like building a guard force, Lost and the Damned army, and a few orks here and there from old bits

It was pretty easy just doing it too. Kinda liberating.

 Melissia wrote:
So the comedy sideshow aside....

It's easy to say just quit GW, but very few people have lore with such potential as GW's has, in spite of how much fail they've put forth over the years.

I think everyone who has owned a nerfed/crappy codex, and who also has any desire to be competitive, has a rather simple time doing it. You simply realize that you could spend your hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on another game. One that won't make you miserable, where douche baggery is put in check by the game makers (i.e. balance), and where you can expect that your investment will not depreciate over time (at least as not as fast and as randomly as with GW). The decision was rather easy. You simply say, "I am not going to spend any more money on this game." If that is too hard, you say, "I am not going to spend any money on this game for 90 days." Trust me, once you do it, it's liberating. Btw, you don't have to quit the game, just quit buying stuff.

You bring up good points! Here's my response.

1)how do CSM have the advantage in CC? we have decent CC HQ's, our DP got nerfed, we are worse off then nids, their ability to have LOTS of MC, or just plain swarm us under with swings with termigants etc... a juggerlord is your best example of unstopable? as long as he has a khorne units to soak wounds yeah? and WHAT am i putting MOK on? that wouldnt be immediatley better with MON? our troops are expensive (base CSM) rubbish in CC (cultists) or plain waaaay more expensive than other codexs (elites as troops) compare the cost of boys, IG, termigants, etc and then you will see just how the elite side of our troops will hurt us, pt for pt in cc... need to have the HQ carry that combat.
as to many forms of deepstriking units, what are you using there? mutliators (nope) warptalons (nope) terminators (unlikely) oblits..... daemon allies dont help you if you run pure CSM codex. and if your taking daemons, its not going to be so you can deepstrike some plague bearers on your opponents end of the table.

Couple things here.
Against Nids, they have to land, and if they don't, then they're probably too slow or not super CC kitted out. We have plenty of very killy units. Kharn has 7 Str 7 AP 2 attacks on the charge and hits on 2s. Juggerlords would be ok with bikers. My personal favorite are our new super sorcerers. Make one all biomancy and you just need to land a single hit on an MC with your force weapon. Poof! I like giving a sorc the horns of slaughter to give him +1 strength and +2 attacks (+1 hammer of wrath), on the charge. Force ftw.

Deepstriking: Well since everything scores, I would choose Obliterators or some inexpensive daemon unit from CD. Oblits could roast whoever is on the desired objective with whatever gun they need. If you don't mind running daemons and are using a battleforged army, then plaguebearers are perfect for games like Maelstorm or general last minute objective grabbing. Terminators are ok, but Oblits are flexible. I probably would go with Oblits as they carry over to kill point games better, and generally outperform Termies.

2) your second point i agree with, our troops if we can stash our cheap blobs away we can be ok, aside from that, you need something survivable, and the top/better codicies eg tau, eldar, ig ( my top 3 really for wound output) will have you rolling so many dice (im looking at say Wave Serpents and wyverns) as 2 examples that not even PM are going to be standing up to it for long.

I agree. I kind of have a strategy in mind here with Maulerfiends and Spell 4 of Telepathy, shrouding. Essentially put a bunch of spawn/any vehicle with smoke launchers in front of 3 maulerfiends. Have Belakor in the middle and within 6" of as much of your army as possible on turn 1. Have everything move up as far as possible. Pop smoke (if applicable) and cast Shrouding to give everything 3+ cover. Against serpent shields, you do have to use your invul (if you have one). Sure you'll lose some rhinos, but if they lose their shields, your Maulerfiends will tear them apart the next turn. I have a theory that beating Eldar will involve aggression in stead of trying to outshoot them.

3) now your saying we can use belakor, under the new invis rules he doesnt provide a shrouded 6" bubble, just makes 1 unit hard to hit ( new rule you may have missed that). now while ill admit i like maulerfiends, my fav CC dread type thing i have seen, the problem is, sure they are harder to explode, they will just get glanced to death.

Invisibility does this, yes. Shrouding does the 6" bubble baby. Unless they got rid of it? Wat.

More on my previously mentioned strat:
With Maulerfiends, 2 Twin-linked Shuriken cannons + a Twin-Linked Scatter laser will cause an average of 1-2 glances (yay armor 12). With a power armor level cover save, that's not too much of a problem. Against the Serpent shields though, you'll have to use your lovely 5+ invulnerable save. If your opponent gets the max roll for number of shots AND hits all of them, you might get 2, maybe 3 glances/pens. At this point, there's a reasonable chance your invul saves you and forces another wave serpent to waste its excess shots at the almost dead fiend. Not too shabby. The best part is their shields are down, so your army can go wreck face with some sweet pens.

4) ok the HQ's, nurgle biker lord (good) slaneesh cav lord i dont think i have ever seen one. and i mean ever. khorne jugger lord is good but needing khorne escorts is his downfall. Kharn in a landraider? how do you points that into a list, beserkers are TERRIBLY priced, and that chain axe is just a plain waste. lack of POTMS on our LR makes them very hard to use, rushing forwards means all the points you pay for those guns cant shoot, and if you dont rush forwards then its not delivering its payload...

Land Raiders in my experience only don't shoot during one turn if you're playing Dawn of War table edges, and that's the first turn where you rush up your unit. In the rest of the turns, it just moves 6 and fires. It's really not that much of a waste.

With the juggerlord, bikers would be good, but I still think Spawn are king. Pretty cheap with lots of wounds for look out sirs. If a MC flaps its wings down to face him, I'd direct all my shooting at it. That should kill it, and I can spend most of my shooting component of my army doing this because my lord is face fcking his back line and troops. Even if he reaches me, without smash attacks, the lord has a decent chance at winning. I've used him a lot and seen it happen quite a bit.

yes we have some things to work with BUT not as much as you would seem, infact id LOVE to see your idea of an 1850 TAC list.

in my opinion nurlge biker lord will still be really good. DP's will be more likely to have the BB now 3 powers and a SF. Sorcs will be more prevalent, ML 3 SF and trying to get invis.

I think you know what I like best. Sorcerers, Juggerlords, Maulerfiends, Spawn, Belakor, Bikers, Oblits. I think it would be a sound army. Summoning seems overrated to me. Against flying units, I tend to think ignoring them might be the best way as chaos. If they're vehicles, vector strike em with whatever. If they're FMCs, kill them last.

ok i missed the new shrouding power... thats my bad i thought you were refering to the old invis one.

the catch with moving a LR is sure we get one weapon at full BS the rest are snaps and yeah we get re rolls. but your paying a lot of points for the weapons platform its on.

units i think will be beastial. ML3 DP taking 1 tz power and then rolling on maelific. give him a SF and let him re roll summonings.
unmarked level 3 sorcerers. will be a good unit to take, and that you can take 2 + 2 units of cultists for 350 pts and will give you 6 power dice and all those ablative wounds for them.
oblits as always great and now that you can spread your army over 2 or 3 FoC with the battleforged rules means you can take them as singles instead of units.
Heldrakes wont be making much of an appearance anymore.

allies, im still rather fond of the notion of taking IG. with primaris psyker, infantry as part of a platoon and a unit of wyverns. more shooty than cultist, adds cheap power dice, and those artiliry for shooting their troops off objectives.

things we need to remember with nids though is 1) a HT without wings will still be in combat VERY fast, in a unit of warriors with a venom thrope etc.. can be nasty. if flying he will be shooting lots of stuff fast.

the problem i see is going to be the simple one. shooting is still king. CC isnt the best way to do things, and if we can get there we have ways to do lots of damage... buuuut getting there, sure if your playing short ways over the table your good turn 2 or so. but long ways.. you got 3 turn of moving to get tehre :(

I dont mean to be off topic but does anyone have a link to the FAQ for chaos marines and/or where i can find them in the future

 Alienoid wrote:
I dont mean to be off topic but does anyone have a link to the FAQ for chaos marines and/or where i can find them in the future

http://www.blacklibrary.com/faqs-and-errata.html Don't ask why it's on Black Library but here it is! As you can tell, Abaddon got in trouble with his parents

crimson_caesar wrote:
But many of ours have 5++s and IWND. For 125 Points, a Maulerfiend seems like a steal.

It is. I have the model but if you play a couple of them together they can wreck an opponents line. One of my buddies plays them with Mutilators. He can at times cause real problems for the best of armies. Mark of Tzneech makes getting a wound in on the Muties a bit tougher and the maulerfiend are in your line turn two and they are killing stuff.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
I think everyone who has owned a nerfed/crappy codex, and who also has any desire to be competitive, has a rather simple time doing it.

Nope. Those other games don't have the lore that GW's stuff has.

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
I think everyone who has owned a nerfed/crappy codex, and who also has any desire to be competitive, has a rather simple time doing it.

Nope. Those other games don't have the lore that GW's stuff has.

Interesting point. That being said, do people that follow the lore find this edition to be a little outside of the lore? Eldar summoning Slaanesh Daemons? Daemons being able to ally with Grey Knights? Tyranids being able to ally with anyone? Blood Angels being able to ally with CSM, including with Abaddon?

Lore is cool, but only when it is consistent. Lore went out the door when GW needed to make money. Remember that.

 kronk wrote:
<--- Chaos player.

<--- Enjoys the Chaos codex.

<---- Also enjoys bourbon, so clearly has good taste.

<---Enjoys both of the Chaos rule books he uses.

<--- Enjoys them so much that he will bet anything that 10 times out of 10 Archaon, Valkia, Vilich, Festus, and Sigvald can beat the gak out of Abaddon, Kharn, Arhiman, Typhus, and Lucius.

Funny, I played Iron Warriors since 3ed.... best one was 3.5 and now, with HH, I can do again my 3.5 army in 30k.... I only have foot soldiers and tanks. All other editions, updates and faqs change nothing for me, even in a competitive way.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
I think everyone who has owned a nerfed/crappy codex, and who also has any desire to be competitive, has a rather simple time doing it.

Nope. Those other games don't have the lore that GW's stuff has.

Interesting point. That being said, do people that follow the lore find this edition to be a little outside of the lore? Eldar summoning Slaanesh Daemons? Daemons being able to ally with Grey Knights? Tyranids being able to ally with anyone? Blood Angels being able to ally with CSM, including with Abaddon?

Lore is cool, but only when it is consistent. Lore went out the door when GW needed to make money. Remember that.

Gameplay isn't lore. Also, for a lot of people, lore is the only reason they play to begin with.

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
I think everyone who has owned a nerfed/crappy codex, and who also has any desire to be competitive, has a rather simple time doing it.

Nope. Those other games don't have the lore that GW's stuff has.

Interesting point. That being said, do people that follow the lore find this edition to be a little outside of the lore? Eldar summoning Slaanesh Daemons? Daemons being able to ally with Grey Knights? Tyranids being able to ally with anyone? Blood Angels being able to ally with CSM, including with Abaddon?

Lore is cool, but only when it is consistent. Lore went out the door when GW needed to make money. Remember that.

Gameplay isn't lore. Also, for a lot of people, lore is the only reason they play to begin with.

If gameplay isn't lore, then why play a game for the lore, especially when the lore doesn't match the gameplay? You make no sense.

I don't see why it doesn't make sense.

The gameplay and lore are certainly tied together (sometimes quite loosely), but that doesn't make them the same.

In the Starcraft series, it takes forever for a single marine to kill a single Zerg, even while in cutscenes, they klil them by the dozens quite quickly. Segregation of gameplay and story is not an unheard of concept.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:


If gameplay isn't lore, then why play a game for the lore, especially when the lore doesn't match the gameplay? You make no sense.

Assuming you read a bunch of books that you absolutely loved, and there was a game for it that deviated from the story for gameplay and balancing purposes, but yet still allowed you to play all your favourite characters and units in the game, would you not do so? And would it be really unjustified to express disappointments that the gameplay representation for your faction is at times grossly and unnecessarily different from the stories, and in a negative way?


Not everyone is all about strategic list building and balancing. I personally mostly am, but it's ridiculous to question someone else's reasoning for playing the game as if telling them not to is the only alternative, rather than taking the good with the bad and playing it anyway all the while encouraging and suggesting positive change.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:


If gameplay isn't lore, then why play a game for the lore, especially when the lore doesn't match the gameplay? You make no sense.

Assuming you read a bunch of books that you absolutely loved, and there was a game for it that deviated from the story for gameplay and balancing purposes, but yet still allowed you to play all your favourite characters and units in the game, would you not do so? And would it be really unjustified to express disappointments that the gameplay representation for your faction is at times grossly and unnecessarily different from the stories, and in a negative way?


Not everyone is all about strategic list building and balancing. I personally mostly am, but it's ridiculous to question someone else's reasoning for playing the game as if telling them not to is the only alternative as opposed to taking the good with the bad while encouraging and suggesting positive change.

^ this is what we like to call a strawman. In reality, she/he said that lore is not a part of gameplay. I argued in relation to that assumption. Your argument incorrectly characterizes my argument as being about someone who believes the lore is somehow connected. If you want to address the argument that lore is not connected to gameplay, at all, please do it. Don't misstate an argument, in a weaker way, and then proceed to trash it.

I didn't say "lore is not a part of gameplay" (you did, not I). I said gameplay isn't lore.

I then clarified my statement, saying "The gameplay and lore are certainly tied together (sometimes quite loosely), but that doesn't make them the same."

No, the statement made was that lore isn't gameplay. This doesn't mean they share nothing and are completely different, it means that they are not exactly the same as shouldn't be classified as such, as was done when you said the LORE was currently lax because of GAMEPLAY elements.

She never once said that lore is not part of the gameplay. It is you who has misunderstood, and this is coming from someone who just reported Melissia for her antics earlier on in this thread. Whether or not I dislike her, you are definitely off the mark here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There, she beat me to it ^ it's ironic now because that "strawman" rant now only applies to your own post.

What are we supposed to as Chaos players?

Well, I for one am going to continue spamming Thousand Sons to represent my Sorceresses-binding-horrors-into-suits-of-power-armour. Don't see how an expanded psychic presence in the game and a minor nerf to one of our daemon engines is going to change that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
No, the statement made was that lore isn't gameplay. This doesn't mean they share nothing and are completely different, it means that they are not exactly the same as shouldn't be classified as such, as was done when you said the LORE was currently lax because of GAMEPLAY elements.

She never once said that lore is not part of the gameplay. It is you who has misunderstood, and this is coming from someone who just reported Melissia for her antics earlier on in this thread. Whether or not I dislike her, you are definitely off the mark here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There, she beat me to it ^ it's ironic now because that "strawman" rant now only applies to your own post.

I see no difference, in the context of this conversation, between "lore is not a part of gameplay" and "gameplay isn't lore." You have to read the entire thread, which apparently you haven't. Nice try. Troll elsewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
What are we supposed to as Chaos players?

Well, I for one am going to continue spamming Thousand Sons to represent my Sorceresses-binding-horrors-into-suits-of-power-armour. Don't see how an expanded psychic presence in the game and a minor nerf to one of our daemon engines is going to change that.

Read the thread. In short, you can either: 1) quite playing CSM and play a different army; 2) keep playing CSM, and suck; or 3) quit playing 40k and play a game where balance is important.

We can do without all the accusations and name calling.

I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

 reds8n wrote:
We can do without all the accusations and name calling.

I see no name calling. To what are you referring?

 Ashiraya wrote:
I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

People really love to exaggerate how bad things are, competitively. There's a power gap, but the possibility of winning with the right tactics is always there, for every codex...

 Melissia wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

People really love to exaggerate how bad things are, competitively. There's a power gap, but the possibility of winning with the right tactics is always there, for every codex...

Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

You have failed to see the distinction but it isn't less grounds for complaints that the army is Inaccurately represented in it's it's codex options from a lore perspective, just because there is outlandish elements of gameplay added with 7th. There is not enough correlation there to question someone's reason for playing the game and using it as logic that there argument is nonsensical. Which it wasn't.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I play CSM and I don't suck. :|

People really love to exaggerate how bad things are, competitively. There's a power gap, but the possibility of winning with the right tactics is always there, for every codex...

Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

I'll be blunt.

IDGAF about tournaments.

I don't see how they are mandatory to 'not suck'

The Chaos codex is non-ideally written and leaves a lot to be asked.

It is not the end of the world. It does not make me suck for using it.

... So annoying that people can't focus on the subject being discussed by expressing one's own point of view and instead talk about how people's logic are failing or arguments are invalid... The subject at hand are sometimes only mentioned in a single post and then it's about undermining people's intelligence and arguments.

I can see that when some are talking about making a good list and they jump straight into supplements and mix Marks and units whatever they like without explaining, they certainly aren't guided by lore, but some of us are and we have of course accepted the fact the lore and background aren't reflected 100 % in any game - I thought that this was common knowledge...

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

Define "major tournament".

I recall one of the LVO top 8 spots being CSM/Daemons, but you'd probably claim that wasn't "pure". Only half of the spots included Eldar (two "pure", two Eldar/Dark Eldar). Two of the spots included CSMs (CSM/Daemons and Necrons/Black Legion). Only one spot included Space Marines (Space Marines/Red Hunters), and only one included Necrons (Necrons/Black Legion, as above). None included Tau, Orks, or Sisters.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

We are supposed to stop with the accusations, and name calling. Please stop.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Nuln_Oil wrote:
Lol. C'mon man. Name one major tournament, in the last year, where a pure CSM Army, or even an army where CSM was the primary, placed in the top 3.

Define "major tournament".

I recall one of the LVO top 8 spots being CSM/Daemons, but you'd probably claim that wasn't "pure". Only half of the spots included Eldar. Two of the spots included CSMs. Only one spot included Space Marines, and only one included Necrons. None included Tau, Orks, or Sisters.

That was a primary, but it was not top 4.

Irrelevant.

 Nuln_Oil wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

We are supposed to stop with the accusations, and name calling. Please stop.

Wow.

Yeah, Serious provocative posting there lol. All good, ignore button has a purpose.


Anyway back on topic, can we all agree that IW is the one legion that is actually fairly well represented in the codex? You have all the options for a very fluffy Iron Warriors composition (even if it isn't A-tier ). Fair to say?

Nah, IW could use basilisks and other artillery as well as more expanded LATD. Just cultists is not really enough.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

You have failed to see the distinction but it isn't less grounds for complaints that the army is Inaccurately represented in it's it's codex options from a lore perspective, just because there is outlandish elements of gameplay added with 7th. There is not enough correlation there to question someone's reason for playing the game and using it as logic that there argument is nonsensical. Which it wasn't.

I don't know, man. Seems like you were a little harsh. The guy was only pointing out that when you say gameplay and lore are not the same, that lore and gameplay are not connected. Just tone it down a bit, no reason to get upset.

They are better off than some Legions but there is still a fair bit that is missing, and a lot that could be done better.

The Warsmith is supposed to be in command of Grand Companies, each of which is Chapter-sized and so you'd expect him to be roughly equivalent with a Chapter Master. Instead, we get a WS4, W2, A2 model who operates as a glorified Techmarine. This is assuming that the Warpsmith is an attempt at the Warsmith, because otherwise we get nothing at all to represent one beyond a Lord without notable armour or tech-abilities.

Similarly, the closest the book offers to artillery is a 200pt AV12 Battlecannon. There is nothing to represent siege guns, no emplaced weaponry or artillery units, and the 2 pieces of ordnance the book possesses are both Imperial weapons.
Your Legionnaires have nothing to distinguish themselves as siege veterans and by the rules, are as proficient at taking down walls as the Dark Angels are. It seems minor but we have special considerations given to the Fists but the Warriors get a 'paint it and deal' attitude.

They are better, but it's still far from the ideal and there is no real reason for that to be missing out. It probably comes across as petty jealousy for all the not-CSM players but it is tiring to be the 'evil twin' of the most pampered, most extensive faction who gets special treatment to represent every single subfaction. Meanwhile we sit with just as many subfactions but are expected to make do with a single list, a lack of special rules to distinguish them and absolutely no incentive not to run with the standard Nurgle + Cultists because there is no reward for playing otherwise.

For reference, why not use Sentinels as a counts-as? You get your siege specialists right there and you get the firepower to storm a breach. You get Thunderfires and AM Battle Brothers, so the Thudds and Medusae come out to play. Whirlwinds and Deathstorms, indentured Conscripts and if you really miss them, ally the Maulerfiends and Forgefiends back in.
What does the standard Chaos Space Marine actually offer you as an Iron Warrior, and why can you not replace him with the Tactical of choice if all the theme is coming from the units that aren't in Power Armour?

I think this thread has gone way off of the OP's initial argument. That our army does not have enough rules to give it the character and unique flavour that we had in previous editions. What was originally supposed to be wish listing on what we would like changed to bring us back to the army we loved, has turned into a thread of people ripping into each other's opinions and tangents about bigotry.

Lost in the vortex were some good points though, so in summary.

Chaos players- Lament the loss of flavour, whether it is the lack of representation of LATD or Legions.

Lack of options to differentiate us from our loyalist counterparts without just remaining C:SM-

To improve the codex we would like:
More Legion Specific Veteran upgrades
More dark tech, daemonic weaponry.
Daemon engines that feel more like Chaos and not just big robots (more aesthetic than a rules gripe)
Better Allies rules to represent our allegiance to Traitor Guard/Newly turned loyal Marines
Greater variety of Troops delivery systems (drop pods or something similar for the love of the gods!)
Codex LATD so we have another fluffy army to ally with.

There, no need to debate who's codex is worse, a lot of us are suffering right now (in the plastic soldier suffering way, not the dying of hunger way) but let's admit what this was. A chance to vent some frustration and day dream of something better. The venting is turning into unrelated arguments so I think this list nicely sums up what people felt we lost and what some people suggested would remedy it.

cuddle_nuts wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Again you are mistaken, as I have indeed read the entirety of this thread and you have no reason to say otherwise. On top of that, our conversation is relative to everything posted in the quote wall just above the part where you, quite trollingly, suggested people shouldn't be playing the game if they dislike the massive separation between gameplay and lore. Yep, that's what trolling ACTUALLY is, a post contributing nothing to any point of view, likely to generate arguments and flames. I see that you don't like it when logic proves you wrong, but just resorting to accusing people of trolling for doing so is a pretty blatant and sore fallback.

You have failed to see the distinction but it isn't less grounds for complaints that the army is Inaccurately represented in it's it's codex options from a lore perspective, just because there is outlandish elements of gameplay added with 7th. There is not enough correlation there to question someone's reason for playing the game and using it as logic that there argument is nonsensical. Which it wasn't.

I don't know, man. Seems like you were a little harsh. The guy was only pointing out that when you say gameplay and lore are not the same, that lore and gameplay are not connected. Just tone it down a bit, no reason to get upset.

Is this satire?

Just because lore and gameplay aren't the same doesn't mean they aren't connected at all lol that was my point

He also was name calling for no reason other than someone disagreeing with his provocative posts, and managed to attract the attention of a moderator, before I had even made that post. How was my response at all harsh to that?

Why is this still being debated, let the mods sort it out, he's done now so what's it matter.


Again, back on topic:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Nah, IW could use basilisks and other artillery as well as more expanded LATD. Just cultists is not really enough.

Sure but by this standard Space Wolves should have Leman Russ, and Orks should have everything since they can loot it, etc. there's a lot of other better examples too. You have a LOT of options for fluffy IW. The same cannot be said about say TSons

Well yes, true, but adding something like Traitor Guardsmen and Basilisks to the Codex is only 2 units but would add a lot thematically.

Has anyone tried running an unmarked army?

 Ashiraya wrote:
Well yes, true, but adding something like Traitor Guardsmen and Basilisks to the Codex is only 2 units but would add a lot thematically.

Wouldn't be necessary if IG were battle brothers with CSM. *grumbles*

 Yonan wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Well yes, true, but adding something like Traitor Guardsmen and Basilisks to the Codex is only 2 units but would add a lot thematically.

Wouldn't be necessary if IG were battle brothers with CSM. *grumbles*

Indeed... It would solve so many problems.

For some reason the mental image of a vast, swirling sea of IW traitor IG charging forth with Iron Warrior Astartes champions spread out in the horde, sticking up like pointy rocks in the ocean, pleases me.

While I agree with that, I think every codex can always be improved and I'd rather focus on the things that do work than the things that don't. IW doesn't have every option available in the fluff, however, it has many many options and looking at the CSM dex from the perspective of building IW, it works. I think a lot of the chapters aligned to a chaos god need a bit more flavour other than just random marks. Daemons codex works quite well, I think CSM dex could take a few pointers from it.

What do Iron Warriors offer though? The core part of an Iron Warriors army, should be the Iron Warriors. It should be all about the dudes in Power Armour, tearing down walls and slagging tanks. Instead we have the situation where the Marines are garden ornaments to sit pretty while the real IW units like Obliterators and Maulerfiends actually get the job done.

When we read Storm of Iron or Siege of Castellax, it isn't a story about a single Lord leading his merry band of Daemon Engines into the fray. It's about the Legion, it's about the Bolters and Chainaxes, and right now these are represented by a Tactical Marine without ATSKNF but is a point cheaper.
Nothing about the Legionaries says Iron Warriors, nothing represents an affinity for sieges, and all of the actual flavour comes from its fringe units.

People don't choose Iron Warriors for the Heavy Support slot, they play them for chevrons and bringing down citadels.

Agreed. When it comes down to it, the reason the IW is the absolute masters of siegecraft is not their artillery, not their commanders, not their swarms of meat shields. No, it is the Iron Warriors themselves. Few warriors are better to have in a siege assault.

I picked them for the Hazard Stripes

I do like my options as IW though.

If you like the options then you don't have a problem and all is right in your world. I mean that sincerely; if you can pick the army up and have a good time using it, then the book is at least partially successful and I wish you worlds of success.

However I am not in a similar position and it does not sound like I am alone. I don't want to play Chaos Marines as they are because it plays upon rotted, boring foundations that amount to bog-standard Tacticals with half the options stripped out, and then returning you the option to buy some stat increases back. Nothing about the unit says Legionary, nothing makes them scary or interesting or inventive, and they seem like a 'tax' that must be paid to unlock the units with flavour.
It seems that the Chaos Marines are an afterthought and a background piece, to bring the spotlight onto 'real' Chaos units like Daemon Engines and Possessed. The execution is obviously a bit sketchier, but I get a distinct feeling of the creators not caring about the fundamentals and expecting people to latch onto iconic units rather than the foundations.

I like this thread because it has helped me identify exactly what my problem with the current book is, and I think it's because I find the Power Armoured elements to be the iconic image of what Chaos means to me. That's not to say that I want spiky Loyalists, but rather that I want an army of fallen angels, using tech-heresy and ancient patterns of wargear and doctrines, to topple the empire they helped build. I don't want to need daemonic elements to pull the foundations forward. I want an army built of Legionaries to be a competitive, viable option and with enough thought and flavour invested into these options to make the army pop.

I like Possessed, I like Khorne and 'Fiends, I like Warp Talons and I like Obliterators. But I feel that these should be flavour pieces used to augment a core of rock-solid, bitter traitors rather than the selling points of the army. I don't want the Legionaries to be an afterthought among a circus of daemons and robots.

Mozzamanx wrote:

The Warsmith is supposed to be in command of Grand Companies, each of which is Chapter-sized and so you'd expect him to be roughly equivalent with a Chapter Master. Instead, we get a WS4, W2, A2 model who operates as a glorified Techmarine. This is assuming that the Warpsmith is an attempt at the Warsmith, because otherwise we get nothing at all to represent one beyond a Lord without notable armour or tech-abilities.,

Just a note here. The "Warpsmith" is basically a Chaos Techmarine. A WARsmith (no "P") is just the IW name for a Chaos Lord. Two different things entirely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mozzamanx wrote:
However I am not in a similar position and it does not sound like I am alone. I don't want to play Chaos Marines as they are because it plays upon rotted, boring foundations that amount to bog-standard Tacticals with half the options stripped out, and then returning you the option to buy some stat increases back. Nothing about the unit says Legionary, nothing makes them scary or interesting or inventive, and they seem like a 'tax' that must be paid to unlock the units with flavour.
It seems that the Chaos Marines are an afterthought and a background piece, to bring the spotlight onto 'real' Chaos units like Daemon Engines and Possessed. The execution is obviously a bit sketchier, but I get a distinct feeling of the creators not caring about the fundamentals and expecting people to latch onto iconic units rather than the foundations.

I wonder if that's the point. In the RT-era days that's basically what you had. a Chaos Warband was a bunch of mutants, daemons and the only models IIRC were for the cults ("Chaos Renegades") and I think there was a Black Legion RT-era list but no figures that I recall were ever done specifically for them. It was only in 2nd edition that they actually branched out the idea of having CSM being an army representing the Traitor Legions.

I agree 100% as well, being a Chaos player in 2nd and 3rd edition. The only reason I chose Chaos was because of the "evil Space Marine" archaic/corrupted flavor.

Personally what I think would be neat if Chaos had a lot more flexibility, to represent the Legions having more freedom. So while you can't do something as crazy as in 30k with a squad of 20 guys all with special weapons, maybe reduce the points of the regular CSM to say 10 but give them extra options. Like allow all of them to take jump packs, or upgrade a unit with some Possessed-like abilities (say only one ability, even if random); this basically removes Raptors but you keep Warp Talons (with improvements) as daemonically altered troops. Basically each kind of troop should have a regular and flexible version, and then a specialized version that's even more corrupted, mutated and daemonically altered. The basic concept would be that the player has to make a choice if they want slightly weaker units that offer more flexibility, or smaller more specialized units that are focused and stronger at a specific thing. Look at the flexibility of the HH Legions, and apply some of that to the baseline Chaos forces and then sprinkle in the daemon stuff for extra options for the crowd that wants to really have a band of daemonic mutant renegades.

Throw in more special weapons taken from the Heresy books (Volkite springs to mind), and put say an emphasis on versatility. So you have a less regimented force than Loyalist Marines with more individual flexibility that should counter-balanced the inherent tactical flexibility that Loyal Marines have (e.g. Combat Squads).

For example in RT here was a Black Legion "Tactical Squad":

0-10 Tactical Squads at 270 points Per Squad
10 Marines: 1x Missile Launcher, 1x Flamer

Up to D4-2 chaos Attributes for free

Could substitute flamer with other weapon
Could substitute missile launcher with other weapon
Could equip sergeant with extra weapon
Could equip all squads with jump packs, chainswords, melta-bombs, other RT-era grenades

The BL "Devastator" Squads had 2x ML and 2x Heavy Bolters and could upgrade those, while the assault squads have it looks like 2x Bolt Pistols and could be upgraded with Jump Packs and the like.

 Melissia wrote:
Irrelevant.

Internets won!

Seriously, you argued that people wouldn't want to quit 40k/CSM because:lore, then he said the gameplay didn't really reflect the lore, then you said you can still win because: tactics, then he pointed out that there's no pure CSM builds winning (the Daemons/CSM build was a FMC build with nothing but a bare bones sorcerer, cultists, and a heldrake), then.... IRRELEVANT! Brilliant.

If you're going to be that dismissive, then why even click on the thread?

 slowthar wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Irrelevant.

Internets won!

Seriously, you argued that people wouldn't want to quit 40k/CSM because:lore, then he said the gameplay didn't really reflect the lore, then you said you can still win because: tactics, then he pointed out that there's no pure CSM builds winning (the Daemons/CSM build was a FMC build with nothing but a bare bones sorcerer, cultists, and a heldrake), then.... IRRELEVANT! Brilliant.

If you're going to be that dismissive, then why even click on the thread?

Top 8 postings are Irrelevant clearly. Especially when the army is primarily from a different faction.

 slowthar wrote:
Seriously, you argued that people wouldn't want to quit 40k/CSM because:lore, then he said the gameplay didn't really reflect the lore, then you said you can still win because: tactics

No. I argued that the problems are exaggerated.

 slowthar wrote:
then he pointed out that there's no pure CSM builds winning (the Daemons/CSM build was a FMC build with nothing but a bare bones sorcerer, cultists, and a heldrake), then.... IRRELEVANT! Brilliant.

Are you stupid enough to claim that any army that isn't Eldar won't win?

Chaos Marines featured in two out of the top eight armies. Only Eldar featured more often. If Chaos Marines can't win because they aren't featured enough in the top eight armies, then that means that only Eldar can win, because no one but them was featured more than Chaos Marines in the top eight armies.

Thus, it's a bit irrelevant that they are only a minor feature. Tournament results are always skewed and weird, as are competitive players' views on balance.

Consistent high level tournament placing are the only real non-subjective measure we have. They may not be definitive but they are certainly more relevant than anything else that we have to go on.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Consistent high level tournament placing are the only real non-subjective measure we have.

No they aren't.

As in, they aren't non-subjective.

Too small a sample size, and they choose their armies for reasons other than competitiveness.

And for the record, slowthar, I wasnt' the one that brought them up.

Mozzamanx wrote:

However I am not in a similar position and it does not sound like I am alone. I don't want to play Chaos Marines as they are because it plays upon rotted, boring foundations that amount to bog-standard Tacticals with half the options stripped out, and then returning you the option to buy some stat increases back. Nothing about the unit says Legionary, nothing makes them scary or interesting or inventive, and they seem like a 'tax' that must be paid to unlock the units with flavour.
It seems that the Chaos Marines are an afterthought and a background piece, to bring the spotlight onto 'real' Chaos units like Daemon Engines and Possessed. The execution is obviously a bit sketchier, but I get a distinct feeling of the creators not caring about the fundamentals and expecting people to latch onto iconic units rather than the foundations.

I like this thread because it has helped me identify exactly what my problem with the current book is, and I think it's because I find the Power Armoured elements to be the iconic image of what Chaos means to me. That's not to say that I want spiky Loyalists, but rather that I want an army of fallen angels, using tech-heresy and ancient patterns of wargear and doctrines, to topple the empire they helped build. I don't want to need daemonic elements to pull the foundations forward. I want an army built of Legionaries to be a competitive, viable option and with enough thought and flavour invested into these options to make the army pop.

I like Possessed, I like Khorne and 'Fiends, I like Warp Talons and I like Obliterators. But I feel that these should be flavour pieces used to augment a core of rock-solid, bitter traitors rather than the selling points of the army. I don't want the Legionaries to be an afterthought among a circus of daemons and robots.

And that's why I am currently thinking about fielding my Alpha Legionaires as a C:SM army. A much broader choice of armour, my Havocs would get plasma cannons and ride razorbacks, power armour would be fun and the whole demonic aspect can go to the warp as far as I am concerned. Really, if you aren't fielding one of the demon-infested legions, you have a pretty hard time to make your army fluffy. That's a problem not only for Iron Warriors, but also for Alphas, Night Lords and, to some degree, Thousand Sons.

I think there may be some intent, as the whole heresy aspect is covered by FW and the fallen, demon-ridden CSM of the 41st millenium are the focus of GW. So, play a 30k list I guess?

 Kosake wrote:


And that's why I am currently thinking about fielding my Alpha Legionaires as a C:SM army. A much broader choice of armour, my Havocs would get plasma cannons and ride razorbacks, power armour would be fun and the whole demonic aspect can go to the warp as far as I am concerned.

And I would whole-heartily recommend you to do so. This mentality does not exist because the Chaos codex is weak or lacks bite, it exists because if you are starting an army under the assumption that Chaotic elements are not wanted then the book has nothing to offer you, because all that is left are bog Marine statlines with none of the special rules attached. The Marines are supposed to be front and centre as indicated by the name. But the reality of the book is that they range between a necessary tax (Marines) to gimmicky-spam units that just happen to be more efficient than other choices (Bikes, Chosen). The remainder are rarely seen because they don't fill an important role, nor are they creative or fun enough to be justified.
We are left with the obligatory HQ, Cultists and then working units, not because they are fluffy but because there is no place for the defining units. I want Marines to take the centre-stage as they did in 3.5 rather than be the supporting characters to hardcore Chaos units. I want to build an army of mortals, of Heresy-veterans and Heresy-equipment, with mortal-crewed guns and mortal-crewed tanks, beating the enemy up with old-school Bolters and hate. But under the current book it's not viable because there is an assumption that your army begins and ends with Cult units, Daemon allies and Belakor.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Read Storm of Iron for info on how the current Iron Warriors do things. They are very much chaos worshippers they just don't devote themselves to a single patron. Heck, their warsmith turned into a daemon prince and they are very much into daemon engines.

I remember in 4th edition (or 3.5?), the Iron Warriors list dropped a lot of the Daemon units (like Raptors and Possessed), but Daemon Engines were fine, and you could run a Daemon Prince because it was just a Lord who had X number of mutations added on. The problem is, if you go by that prior restriction of no marks (because they don't worship a single god), you can't take a DP now, because they must be marked. I believe Storm of Iron was written at the same time as the 3.5 book was still relevant.

Too many alerts.