Like what can they beat? Hordes, deathstars, power armor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda wanna take a bunch of av 2+ not sure if I should

They have a strong HQ roster I guess.


Khorne and Nurgle Lords are good at CC but I assume SM probably have better. But we still can put up a good CC fight with a well geared Lord.

Sorcerers are cheap enough and have enough options to be flexible.

Belakor is fun in that he always gives you set powers, random is random and you cant plan for invisibility any other way.

Um, and...well...um..


Oh. And then the Heldrake is still good at wasting troop anything armor 3+ or worse. The turret nerf and the Vector change is fine, not great but whatever. Still a very nice unit.

Obliterators also look super cool (if you buy better than GW models)

They are really great at decorating and adding value to display cases. Oh, and justifying the purchase of dust removing tools and supplies. They are also great at being part of the first step in my "l2p" guide.

They're good at dying. Trouble is they cost too many points, so not enough of them show up to die. So they could even be doing that better.

They can go alright vs Marines on foot. Blastmasters and Helturkeys are nice and AP3. A Nurgle build tends to die slowly while putting out minimal damage, which is okay for Maelstrom if you can build enough of a lead. If you want Khorne you need to go to Daemonkin.

Thousand Sons Marines are probably the biggest laughing stock in the entire game at the moment.

Bikers with MoN are pretty decent, IMO. Toughness 6 and the mobility they provide is nothing to sneeze at. Take a couple squads of those with an accompanying Lord, a Sorcerer, a couple Hellturkeys, and hordes of cheap cultists and you'll do alright playing for objectives against opponents that don't bring lots of heavy vehicles.

marcman wrote:
Like what can they beat? Hordes, deathstars, power armor?

Other Chaos Marines... Maybe?

Otherwise, they're best at being everyone and their mother's favourite punching bag. Even Blood Angels mop the floor with us thanks to Drop Pods & Grav.

No cover save AP3. My Emperors Children army threw down four AP3 flamer templates. Two AP3 small blast templates. One AP3 large blast template.

As such I've not had any uphill battles with any army that doesn't have a 7th edition codex (or IK) simply because I could erase large portions of their army all in one go and those codexs haven't seen their boosted to 11 codex creep yet.

They look nice and are forgiving for new painters. They are also fairly good for conversions and freehanding.

It seems like only yesterday that I was talking about what I wanted to see in the 6th edition codex for CSM, but it was like five years ago in retrospect. Nothing has really changed since 4th edition. Really nothing has changed since 3.5

CSM are strong against your wallet. Thats basically it. Right now you're forced to take things from Forgeworld in order to be competitive in any nature, but that requires in and of itself, Lost and the Damned IA book, which goes for around $180 with Import charges on top of that.

We are getting a new Dex soon (Rumors apparently so take with salt) and although we are all hoping they become better, most of us are in agreement that the Dex will probably suck major donkey balls. Primarily because Chaos hasn't been "Competitive" outside of Daemons and pure luck of the "Roll on random Table gods".

If you ever want to collect them, well, don't. As a big fan of Chaos in general, it's a waste of time waiting around for models with good rules to come out from a Faction that has been "Ok" and "Bad" at a constant handicap from GW simply because they are the poster "Bad Guy" Faction and need to be used as a punching bag. Imo collect the models because some are "Cool" but don't play the army because they're crap right now.

Honestly? They have decent HQs. Wait....that's Daemonkin. So literally nothing.
They're terrible, and the amount of hate I have for GW for their treatment simply can't be given words.
Lords make a good line of comparison in that they should literally be CMs +1 due to being more experienced, generally better geared, and swelling with chaos juice, but they're weaker in every way.

Sorcerers with spell familiars.

Obliterator spam.

Scaring Marines with Heldrakes.

Conversions.

I play Iron Warriors pretty often. I do alright in games, but I'm also playing with other folks who play for fun, not throat slitting WAAC types or tournament lists. They can be fun so long as you go in looking to have fun and tell a story, not go for a perfectly balanced hardcore game.

Their characters are pretty poweful, and if you ally with Daemons you can do pretty well.

Losing. They are good at that.

marcman wrote:
Like what can they beat? Hordes, deathstars, power armor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda wanna take a bunch of av 2+ not sure if I should

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

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

Most of this is mentioned, but:
HQs and Psykers (Bel'akor, access to lvl3 Psykers, winged Nurgle DPs etc)
The Flying Decepticon
Fire Raptor
Nurge Bikers
Obliterators and Havocs
The sweetest APC in the game; the pimped out, havok launching, dirge casting, daemon possessed Rhino!

Cultists can be good, though they are essentially IG whose base cost is 10 points more with a worse armour save.

Some good things you can use competitively with CSM:

-Heldrakes ( take 2-3 )
-Legion Sicaran Battle Tank ( take 2-3 )
-Chaos Hellblade
-Nurgle Chaos Spawn + Nurgle Biker Lord with PF/LC
-Sorcerer with Burning Brand of Skalathrax
-Nurgle Daemon Prince with Burning Brand of Skalathrax or The Black Mace
-Be'lakor

The only half decent choice for Troops are Cultists as they are cheap, or Plague Marines in small amounts as they can actually get stuff done. Usually people go with the Cultists.

If you ally in Chaos Daemons or Renegades & Heretics you can get some really competitive stuff going, such as;

-Firing 120 small blasts a turn
-Having 100+ Fearless FNP Zombies swarming objectives, supported by other elements
-Guaranteed Invisibility or even 2 of said spell for your hard hitters

I've played a list with 3 Heldrakes and 3 Sicarians and a crapload of zombies occasionally, and rarely the opponents are prepared to deal with it. The list counters a few staples in the current meta, such as any form of powerarmour and it also hurts anything that relies on a jink save, Eldar Jetbikes for example.

There is also a super effective trick I have been using that basically gets the opponent with his pants down if he is not knowledgeable in FW releases. Take those 100-200 Plague Zombies in your army. Let your opponent place the first Maelstrom Objective ( if you play those, I always play hybrid scenarios ) - and place every objective near to the one he placed. You want to attempt all the objectives being on the same side of the table, it doesn't always succeed but get many as you can in there.

Now, you use Arkos the Faithless as your HQ and use his special ability ( autolose first turn, autowin choosing a side. ) Park 200 Feel No Pain Zombies ontop of the objectives that are nearby eachother, supported by Heldrakes/Sicarans or R&H artillery. Now take a photograph of your opponents expression.

Proceed to score any Capture Objective X available for the next 2-3 turns.

 Jancoran wrote:
Chaos can beat any army really.

Sigh....

Anyway, Back in the real world. Chaos are without a doubt the worst codex in the game at the moment from a competitive perspective (and even semi/light competitive down at your FLGS). If you like playing 40k with an army that rewards you for playing well, has interesting options, or even if you like to win games at least semi regularly...Don't play CSM.

The Codex literally can't put even a remotely competitive take all comers army on the table.

What are you looking to do marcman? Is this just a modelling project? Cause if your thinking of spending money on CSM or a terminator CSM army, I would strongly advise against that.

I'd say Blood Angels are worse off than CSM. Sisters of Battle aren't faring too well either.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
The Codex literally can't put even a remotely competitive take all comers army on the table.

Firstly, not true. Secondly, TAC is dead in competitive play, in the high end anyway.

 Runic wrote:
I'd say Blood Angels are worse off than CSM. Sisters of Battle aren't faring too well either.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
The Codex literally can't put even a remotely competitive take all comers army on the table.

Firstly, not true. Secondly, TAC is dead in competitive play, in the high end anyway.

As bad as Blood Angels are, they are not as bad as CSM. I forgot about Sisters, they can flip a coin for who's worse with CSM I guess.

Why don't you list out a competitive CSM List for us so? Also to me TAC is a list with the tools and options to deal with the multiple threats in the meta, (Knights, Invis , Multi wraithknights , warp spider spam etc) if it can't then it isn't a competitive list in my opinion. Not sure why you think tournament players don't build lists that can deal with multiple threats aka ''tac''.

Well, I play World Eaters in HH.
The models are really great:
Khorne Berzerkers can be mixed with Blood Warriors, Skullreapers can be taken as Rampagers
and everything is on 32mm bases.

SoB ain't bad, they are just monobuild. But Dominion bumrushing is viable.

As for CSM, they make great mascots, excelling at being pretty next to your computer.

 Runic wrote:
I'd say Blood Angels are worse off than CSM. Sisters of Battle aren't faring too well either.

It's hard to say who is worse, CSM or Blood angels. I want to say CSM, since pods at least allow blood angels to pop tanks and get a somewhat decent alpha strike.
CSM are just terrible in any phase of the game, and across all selections. We have a few options that get out of low power and move to competing with bottom of mid units (cultists, heldrake, plague marines, dropping termies with combi weapons) but its still worse than what every other marine codex can do.

Sisters actually aren't that bad. Probably solidly in the middle. They suffer from the tyranid problem though, where most of their dex isn't very good and enough units to make a list prop them up. I'd place them mid tier.

 Runic wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
The Codex literally can't put even a remotely competitive take all comers army on the table.

Firstly, not true. Secondly, TAC is dead in competitive play, in the high end anyway.

First, we'd like to see a decent list. Jancoran has been saying both CSM and IG are great armies, but has yet to list a single strength or good build they can pull off. You'll understand why everyone here is prone to disbelief.
For example, his IG blob was wiped out in 2 turns by bikers (who were about 140 less points) and was shot to death by basic marines in pods over 2 turns (again, about 100 less points). Something like ASM with flamers would have been even worse, or sternguard with special ammo.
The eye of night, for example, is going to cause 2 penetrating hits a turn (which they can then attempt to save) and requires a supplement. It hardly deals with knights, an army that currently walks over CSM.
Saturation is also not a strong point of CSM. They have no strong units to spam, so saturation isn't going to work.


Second, TAC is hardly dead at the high end competitive level.
While house rules are alive and well at the high end tournaments, if you browse through the 2015 ETC lists, you'll mainly see TAC lists (especially from the eldar and necron players, who can easily pull it off).
It's hard to call the ETC anything but high end competition.

Nothing. They can beat nothing.

Well Jancoran didn't respond to anybody on the ''tau treatment'' thread when he was challenged on the frankly bizarre things he says.

Not sure about Runic, since he just said in response to me ''no, you're wrong lol'' without any evidence to support this. I guess the mysteries of ''high end'' tournament 40k escape me.

40k really isn't rocket science or even close. You do have players like Josh Roberts in the Uk who come up with wonderful new horrors to inflict on the tournament scene, but in general 99% of this game is easy to work out yourself. Most innovation comes from trying to circle the meta, and even then it's usually utilizing tools that where already efficient/good just perhaps underused.

There is nothing competitive about CSM. There is no secret to uncover. It annoys me to see people come asking for advise to be told utter rubbish. Nothing wrong with saying ''My CSM army does okay in my local meta/playergroup, and I find myself winning games''. So long as you add the caveat for the person asking for advice ''that said when it comes to tournament play or even regular play CSM are incredibly disadvantaged and can really only win vs the better books if they agree to severely handicap themselves''.

Instead we get people saying CSM can beat any army.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
Not sure why you think tournament players don't build lists that can deal with multiple threats aka ''tac''.

Because if you follow the larger tournaments you'll notice it's the skewed lists that are winning in the top tables. You don't need TAC to do well in competitive 40K.

Most winning lists are also built for the sole purpose of capitalizing the chance to win within the tournaments ruleset, a good example being NOVA Open which was won by a COTGW + RW deathstar list, which is not a TAC list by any measure.

Posting a list is pointless as you'd counterargument to which setups such a list would lose until no end ( which actually has nothing to do with competitiveness, a competetive list doesn't need to be able to beat everything, that would be an undefeatable list instead. ) Seen this one before and I won't partake. You can make a competitive CSM list if you're allowed to use Forgeworld.

Other than that, you can keep believing what you want, it's not off anyone else. I'd advise you to take a look at the game on a competitive level a bit more, because if you think TAC is the way to go then there's probably some studying to be done. There are a few armies who can pull it off, but even they rely on something more than just being able to deal with "everything" - A Gladius Strike Force can have the weapons to take on everything, but a true deathstar will still walk over it if we talk actual fighting. However, the Gladius doesn't need it's combined arms to win ( with which again, it wouldn't against a deathstar, or say penta flyrants, or other examples which are numerous. ) The lists power isn't in its combined arms - it's in the MSU capability, boiling down to hundreds of free points worth of transports such as Drop Pods that become a chore to remove while the list scores points steadily.

In a meta where jetbike spam, decurions, flyrant spam, war convocation + flesh tearers, gladius strike forces, buffed to the max IG blobs, centurion and/or biker deathstars are prevalent, you cannot build a list that can take on all of them. Hence, TAC is dead in competitive 40K. I expect this factual example to be met with denial and not much more, and hence really have no more to say about it. It's not off anyone else if you want to keep believing something else.

I'm waiting for someone to try and claim that Thousand Sons are a top tier unit...

I'll admit that I'll occasionally use a basic squad of 5 + Rhino as a way to ferry Ahriman around and give him another WC, but the only reason they're really there is because;
a) I love the 1kSons.
b) I can never pass a 3+ save, but seemingly am able to pass a ridiculous number of invuln saves... Must be a Daemon player thing?!

All they do is taxi Ahriman around so he can either 3x Psy Shriek or if he lands it, 1x Shriek + 2x 'Winning' Flame from the top hatch.

Is this actually "competitive" though? Only Ahriman himself is, though he's still overcosted in general, and is forced to waste a power on the useless Lore of Tzeentch.
Overall it's a really, really expensive package that can definitely inflict some major damage, but is an absolute glass cannon. It won't hold a candle against any list put together using a 7.5 edition Decurion/Gladius styled build.

They're good at being durable on the table, but that's it. With the CSM codex, always go for Nurgle. Nurgle spam everything, litterally. Then allie them with Nurgle daemons. NURGLE.

 Runic wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
Not sure why you think tournament players don't build lists that can deal with multiple threats aka ''tac''.

Because if you follow the larger tournaments you'll notice it's the skewed lists that are winning in the top tables. You don't need TAC to do well in competitive 40K.

Most winning lists are also built for the sole purpose of capitalizing the chance to win within the tournaments ruleset, a good example being NOVA Open which was won by a COTGW + RW deathstar list, which is not a TAC list by any measure.

Posting a list is pointless as you'd counterargument to which setups such a list would lose until no end ( which actually has nothing to do with competitiveness, a competetive list doesn't need to be able to beat everything, that would be an undefeatable list instead. ) Seen this one before and I won't partake. You can make a competitive CSM list if you're allowed to use Forgeworld.

Other than that, you can keep believing what you want, it's not off anyone else. I'd advise you to take a look at the game on a competitive level a bit more, because if you think TAC is the way to go then there's probably some studying to be done. There are a few armies who can pull it off, but even they rely on something more than just being able to deal with "everything" - A Gladius Strike Force can have the weapons to take on everything, but a true deathstar will still walk over it if we talk actual fighting. However, the Gladius doesn't need it's combined arms to win ( with which again, it wouldn't against a deathstar, or say penta flyrants, or other examples which are numerous. ) The lists power isn't in its combined arms - it's in the MSU capability, boiling down to hundreds of free points worth of transports such as Drop Pods that become a chore to remove while the list scores points steadily.

In a meta where jetbike spam, decurions, flyrant spam, war convocation + flesh tearers, gladius strike forces, buffed to the max IG blobs, centurion and/or biker deathstars are prevalent, you cannot build a list that can take on all of them. Hence, TAC is dead in competitive 40K. I expect this factual example to be met with denial and not much more, and hence really have no more to say about it. It's not off anyone else if you want to keep believing something else.

Damn I was hoping you actually knew what you where talking about.

You can actually build lists to take on the meta's variety of things. Assuming your playing ''normal 40k'' not nova or a special comps pack you can build a tournament list that has the tools and options to deal with all the stuff you mentioned. In fact if it can't you probably wont be doing very well at the event to begin with. If your aiming for top 25% you need to be able to play into all of those and more (knights, wraithknights etc).

Not sure what army lists you play, but I assure you I could walk up to a tournament and if I saw ''jetbike spam, decurions, flyrant spam, war convocation + flesh tearers, gladius strike forces, buffed to the max IG blobs, centurion and/or biker deathstars'' I would be able to play vs them with my army without feeling like I auto lost.

Which comes back to why CSM are truly boned, they can not deal with a single one of the lists you mentioned. How can you say they can be competitive when you yourself can list eight+ common builds which they auto lose to?

They are a mixed bag, and currently a mid-tier army (in my opinion).

They are a typical T4 3+ army, wearing power armor, so they are a failry resilient army. They are supposed to have focus on winning challenges, outfighting enemy hq's and rolling on dark gifts table, but that never seems to work well.

Ok units:
Sorcerers,
obliterators,
Heldrakes
T5 nurglites (T6 bikes)
3+ chaos spawns seems to be something that is fairly cost effective?
Ahriman can be good if you do it right.
Noise Marines can be good.
The fire raptor, which is kick ass-ingly good!
Their Forgefiends with 8 str 8 shots are not bad either.

Apart from that they have veterans of the long war, and more flexibility in building their terminators, and the whole chaos gift thing. They are decent all rounders with both elite, and horde (cultist) starting at 50 pts.

Personally I like the formation that lets you deepstrike 3 helbrutes into combat as well. That _can_ snap your opponents backbone on good days.


The thing is that CSM, more than any other army (imo) benefits from taking doubles, so 2 heldrakes complements each others. 2 Forgefiends complement each others etc. Even the much reviled Defiler can work ok if you have 2 of them.

 Runic wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
Not sure why you think tournament players don't build lists that can deal with multiple threats aka ''tac''.

Because if you follow the larger tournaments you'll notice it's the skewed lists that are winning in the top tables. You don't need TAC to do well in competitive 40K.

Here is a link to the ETC lists from this year for one country
http://www.mariscal40k.es/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Italia.txt
You'll notice that a lot of the lists are indeed take all comers. I'll admit that not all of them are (or at least I don't see it, which is entirely possible) but the majority are, especially if you limit yourself to viewing the stronger dexes.

 Runic wrote:

Most winning lists are also built for the sole purpose of capitalizing the chance to win within the tournaments ruleset, a good example being NOVA Open which was won by a COTGW + RW deathstar list, which is not a TAC list by any measure.

True enough, in raw 40k TAC lists are bad. NOVA stops lords of war and gargants, but doesn't address the powers that make death stars so good (and LoW and GMCs are a good counter to deathstars), so I'm not surprised that death stars were taken. I looked at the lists and the only one I could find in the top 7 who didn't use a deathstar is #2. I'd imagine out of the 16 lists presented, 14 run deathstars, so there your point is well illustrated.
That doesn't change the fact that in what is becoming the standard tournament rules that reign in the most OP stuff, TAC lists still do well (again, see ETC).

 Runic wrote:

Posting a list is pointless as you'd counterargument to which setups such a list would lose until no end ( which actually has nothing to do with competitiveness, a competetive list doesn't need to be able to beat everything, that would be an undefeatable list instead. ) Seen this one before and I won't partake. You can make a competitive CSM list if you're allowed to use Forgeworld.

CSM do benefit quite a bit from forgeworld. People are still weird about forgeworld however, so its hard to use those units to justify a dex.
If you can post a list or unit that does well as CSM against standard builds (Bikes+Spiders, Wraiths in Decurion) nobody is going to tear it down. I don't use my CSM much anymore since most of my friends happen to play the better dexes and would have to seriously down grade against me to get a game in.
Jancaron got "torn down" simply because he insulted everyone else and posted what is, frankly, a bad build that loses to commonly taken units (Drop Pod Marines, 2 units of Scat bikes). It's honestly hard to come up with units that blob does well against.

 Runic wrote:

Other than that, you can keep believing what you want, it's not off anyone else. I'd advise you to take a look at the game on a competitive level a bit more, because if you think TAC is the way to go then there's probably some studying to be done. There are a few armies who can pull it off, but even they rely on something more than just being able to deal with "everything" - A Gladius Strike Force can have the weapons to take on everything, but a true deathstar will still walk over it if we talk actual fighting. However, the Gladius doesn't need it's combined arms to win ( with which again, it wouldn't against a deathstar, or say penta flyrants, or other examples which are numerous. ) The lists power isn't in its combined arms - it's in the MSU capability, boiling down to hundreds of free points worth of transports such as Drop Pods that become a chore to remove while the list scores points steadily.

Right, and that strategy of using transports does work well against a lot of lists (Deathstars have trouble against MSU, since they can't effectively earn their points back. Nothing new, Dark Elves were using it in WHFB when their army book was garbage).
By TAC, we don't mean can defeat every army in the game.
By TAC, we mean can play the game against all armies, assuming objectives and possibly ITC (might be wrong acronym) is in effect, since it's becoming fairly common.
Again, the ETC seemed to use TAC lists quite well. Probably the most common builds were wraiths + destroyers, and bikes + D-cannons, which are TAC lists.

 Runic wrote:

In a meta where jetbike spam, decurions, flyrant spam, war convocation + flesh tearers, gladius strike forces, buffed to the max IG blobs, centurion and/or biker deathstars are prevalent, you cannot build a list that can take on all of them. Hence, TAC is dead in competitive 40K. I expect this factual example to be met with denial and not much more, and hence really have no more to say about it. It's not off anyone else if you want to keep believing something else.

Objectives help with some of the deathstar problems, as do the ITC rules. Decurions, Jetbikes, and Flyrants (gladius too) for a lot of lists are real issues, since they can claim objectives and still do damage. These are more the lists I would be building to face, rather than death stars.
A lot of armies can go up against them and play (I disagree with the IG blob but in your examples alone we see 3 different armies being mentioned, plus DA and SW have good death stars/strategies, and Tau have new formations that seem fine).
Really, it seems like about 5-6 armies can field a decent TAC list assuming objectives and ITC rules, while the bottom 3 can not. That's all anyone is asserting.

The problem with CSM is that even in a halfway competitive meta, they fall short. Same problem with IG.
Look at the blob example. It didn't lose to the decurion or jetbike spam, it lost to 2 units of bikes or 3 drop pod marines. It's bad unless you go up against extremely casual lists.

I run a tzeentch list heavy with Oblitorators and it does fairly well.

I have a 270 sorcerer I use that has the scrolls of magnus and an unmarked ml3 one in terminator armour as a side kick.

Had a game on the weekend, 2v3 (me and orks @1500 each) vs (eldar, space wolves, and dark angels @1000 each), we nearly won the game, the space wolf player managed to get an enfeeble off on my command squad which was just enough to weaken them with firepower. They then proceeded to charge every one of their deathstars at my unit and died in melee except for the dark angels who took the anti Chaos melee hammer.

Needless to say that Sorc stood at the front and took 2 full rounds of their entire armies shooting and still killed many of their heroes.

Scrolls of magnus is the most under rated relic I think, it is completely random, but with a lucky roll on your initial powers it can add some great utility later on.

That same Sorc has also single handedly killed over 60% of the eldar guys remaining forces to win.

3++/4++ multi wound invisible endurance deathstar with possibly having life leech as well is quite nasty.

Draining your wallet. Chaos Knight is just an Imperial Knight kit with a separately purchased bit expansion. Same for Dreadclaw. Same for Chaos Warhound Titan. Our Rhinos and Predators just have more spikes than the Loyalist ones. Our marines used to be Space Marines with spikes glued on and a different color.

We're the faction that costs more than Space Marines to play yet doesn't even approach the same level of power.

Akiasura wrote:

 Runic wrote:
I'd say Blood Angels are worse off than CSM. Sisters of Battle aren't faring too well either.

It's hard to say who is worse, CSM or Blood angels. I want to say CSM, since pods at least allow blood angels to pop tanks and get a somewhat decent alpha strike.
CSM are just terrible in any phase of the game, and across all selections. We have a few options that get out of low power and move to competing with bottom of mid units (cultists, heldrake, plague marines, dropping termies with combi weapons) but its still worse than what every other marine codex can do.

Sisters actually aren't that bad. Probably solidly in the middle. They suffer from the tyranid problem though, where most of their dex isn't very good and enough units to make a list prop them up. I'd place them mid tier.

 Runic wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
The Codex literally can't put even a remotely competitive take all comers army on the table.

Firstly, not true. Secondly, TAC is dead in competitive play, in the high end anyway.

First, we'd like to see a decent list. Jancoran has been saying both CSM and IG are great armies, but has yet to list a single strength or good build they can pull off. You'll understand why everyone here is prone to disbelief.
For example, his IG blob was wiped out in 2 turns by bikers (who were about 140 less points) and was shot to death by basic marines in pods over 2 turns (again, about 100 less points). Something like ASM with flamers would have been even worse, or sternguard with special ammo.
The eye of night, for example, is going to cause 2 penetrating hits a turn (which they can then attempt to save) and requires a supplement. It hardly deals with knights, an army that currently walks over CSM.
Saturation is also not a strong point of CSM. They have no strong units to spam, so saturation isn't going to work.


Second, TAC is hardly dead at the high end competitive level.
While house rules are alive and well at the high end tournaments, if you browse through the 2015 ETC lists, you'll mainly see TAC lists (especially from the eldar and necron players, who can easily pull it off).
It's hard to call the ETC anything but high end competition.

Does that surprise you about Jancoran? He stopped responding to people in the FW thread too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The truth of the matter is that CSM's don't actually do anything well anymore. They didn't really when the book was released, and they've gotten significantly worse overtime. I put away my codex for good basically because of it.

I could possibly name the at least mediocre and above units on 1.5 hands. It's pretty pathetic.

They can run lots of big units of marines, or can run lots of small units of marines. I'm not sure if having a more extreme range of unit sizes than codex/loyalist marines is a good thing to be good at though.

You rarely see it being taken advantage of even in the most friendly of games.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:

Damn I was hoping you actually knew what you where talking about.

Haha. Let's see.

That army you speak of would only require; strong anti-air, anti-deathstar capability, anti-horde capability against something that is possibly fearless, has FNP & Hit & Run ( and now even Ignores Cover with Hunter's Eye ), something that can actually bring down the Decurion of Necrons, down 3-5 Superheavies ( IK ), weather the alpha strike of War Convocation + Skitarii or be able to function properly when coming out of reserves and lastly something that can beat the Gladius Strike Force MSU consisting partially of armour.

All that in one package. Must be quite the army, do link an example. Seeing as you think an army exists that can take on all that with a TAC approach I'd say you really shouldn't be talking about other peoples knowledge.

Akiasura has some decent pointers and his comment already displays there is truth to what I say. Paired tournaments are always different, the teams can choose good matchups. In other formats there is no such luxury.

And in those formats, TAC will on average get maimed by powerful skewed lists, and the skewed lists will get maimed by other skewed lists that counter them.

If you choose not to see this then I don't know, must be a unique meta somewhere you live.

You can't make anything top tier out of the CSM. You can however make a list that can compete with other competitive lists, even if it's an uphill battle. Lastly, your point about them not being able to handle anything of the examples is false. A list with 3 Sicarans and 3 Heldrakes, supported by Daemons or R&H can absolutely decimate a scatterbike spam off the table, and fast.

Ofcourse there is a chance you mean something different with the term "TAC" - perhaps elaborate what exactly you mean by the term personally. There is no army build in existence that can take on everything that currently dominates the competitive scene. One can only play around some of them, avoid others and play the mission, or take other alternative approaches. If that qualifies as being "TAC" then I guess you can call every army in existence "TAC."

wonderful, a thread that expresses my thoughts and feeling on my favorite army.

210 Cultists+Typhus
'Nuff Said

 Runic wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:

Damn I was hoping you actually knew what you where talking about.

Haha. Let's see.

That army you speak of would only require; strong anti-air, anti-deathstar capability, anti-horde capability against something that is possibly fearless, has FNP & Hit & Run ( and now even Ignores Cover with Hunter's Eye ), something that can actually bring down the Decurion of Necrons, down 3-5 Superheavies ( IK ), weather the alpha strike of War Convocation + Skitarii or be able to function properly when coming out of reserves and lastly something that can beat the Gladius Strike Force MSU consisting partially of armour.

All that in one package. Must be quite the army, do link an example. Seeing as you think an army exists that can take on all that with a TAC approach I'd say you really shouldn't be talking about other peoples knowledge.

Impossible to bring a TAC army okay....., well lets just go off the top of my head. tweak the numbers slightly as I don't have my Eldar codex with me. 1850 tac's for the curent meta:

2x farseers on jetbikes one with stone
7-8 D Cannon platforms (3 units)
Cullexus assasin in a bunker with trapdoor.
as many units of scat bikes as possible (think you can get 6 units of 5/6)

there you go , wow I must be magic.

There are plenty of top lists that can tick almost all the meta boxes...that's why they are top lists to begin with.

It might be a bit of a tangent but as a painter and modeller first and player very much second CSM are great for converting, modelling and building varied and interesting sets of figures. There is a huge variety that you can put into one army. There are so many potential warbands, colour schemes, mutations, etc. When you start digging through your bits box to make start building new units you can absolutely go to town on them. No other army comes close for those options imho. You can mix in standard imperial bits, nid bits, fantasy bits, throw bits of blightkings onto raptors, etc, etc. Because it's chaos this looks good, not bizarre. You can build up a stunning variety of unique models that look wonderful on the table. Won't win many games mind! But as a modeller that is why I have a CSM army. Wish I had time to do them justice.

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:


Impossible to bring a TAC army okay.....

Don't know who said that bringing a TAC army is impossible, certainly not me;

 Runic wrote:
There are a few armies who can pull it off

-

I'm still interested in hearing your definition of TAC. Scatbikes can be countered ( in ETC they were mostly pit up against flyrant spam if a team had such a list available ) so in the end it's a skewed list which will get crushed by another skewed list, but which can in turn dominate many others. Basically exactly what I said earlier.

Maybe saying TAC is dead is an overstatement. But in high end competitive 40K it is a priviledge of a few armies at best. If you take into consideration all the armies in the game most of them can't conjure up such a list.

 Runic wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:


Impossible to bring a TAC army okay.....

Don't know who said that bringing a TAC army is impossible, certainly not me;

 Runic wrote:
There are a few armies who can pull it off

-

I'm still interested in hearing your definition of TAC. Scatbikes can be countered ( in ETC they were mostly pit up against flyrant spam if a team had such a list available ) so in the end it's a skewed list which will get crushed by another skewed list, but which can in turn dominate many others. Basically exactly what I said earlier.

Maybe saying TAC is dead is an overstatement. But in high end competitive 40K it is a priviledge of a few armies at best. If you take into consideration all the armies in the game most of them can't conjure up such a list.

Runic, agreed. The upper dexes can bring TAC lists, especially in the ITC format.
Actually the list he posted is similar to what is commonly seen in the ETC with only minor changes being needed.

CSM are good at 6th edition 40k. That's what they were made for. They can counter any 6th edition list by running at them and beating them down in CC.

In 7th they run at you and die.

''All that in one package. Must be quite the army, do link an example. Seeing as you think an army exists that can take on all that with a TAC approach I'd say you really shouldn't be talking about other peoples knowledge. '' - Runic 2015

I gave you my example above. Which dealt with everything you asked.

Not sure why you are bringing up the ETC which is a team based tournament using pairings , has nothing to do with what I was talking about /shrug.

Now you decide to change your position.... this is a total waste of time.

Enjoy your competitive CSM wins in your FLGS I guess?

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:
''All that in one package. Must be quite the army, do link an example. Seeing as you think an army exists that can take on all that with a TAC approach I'd say you really shouldn't be talking about other peoples knowledge. '' - Runic 2015

I gave you my example above. Which dealt with everything you asked.

Not sure why you are bringing up the ETC which is a team based tournament using pairings , has nothing to do with what I was talking about /shrug.

Now you decide to change your position.... this is a total waste of time.

Enjoy your competitive CSM wins in your FLGS I guess?

You gave an example army that gets demolished by flyrant spam ( as evidenced by the ETC pairings ) as a TAC list. So, you gave no fitting example. If you're only talking in a team competition context then it's indeed pointless.

You might also want to consider changing your tone, that arrogance simply humours me.

The Helcult is an amazingly useful formation and doesn't get mentioned as often as it should. Rules overview: 1 Helbrute and 2 units of cultists. The cultists gain fearless as long as the Helbrute is alive. They gain Zealot if it is destroyed. The Helbrute gains rage, but, more importantly, it can claim a 3+ cover save from cultists. If it passes a save, it kills a cultist.

I usually run it with two 20-25 man squads of cultists with no upgrades. They are a very effective tool in establishing board control, bubble wrapping more important units, swamping dangerous enemy units or monstrous creatures, camping objectives, distract your opponent, etc. I almost always give the Helbrute a plasma cannon - it usually makes up its points this way. It also soaks up enemy fire with the 3+ cover save. In a competitive environment, I have combined the formation with Necrons and using the swaths of cultists to disrupt my opponents' movement and insulate more important units. Last local tournament I finished 2nd without using a decurion.

Helcult is decent, I usually do 2x min cultists with a lascannon on the brute but I always found that a raider was more worthwhile for nearly the same points.

Honestly the only way I have been able to play chaos marines effectively is by using houseruled and FW. I run a mix of all chaos gods, and only daemonkin seem able to hold themselves up without relying on Belakor and added psyker summoners to screen opponents. One houserule that is often accepted here is allowing any chaos dreadnaught to be used in the hellcut/etc formations. Using 40+ plague zombie cultists to shield my contemptor with butcher cannons works rather well against most armies, as does my apostle of Tzeentch w/sorcerer spamming boon of mutation inside a cultist tarpit...really I should be playing renegades and heretics with all my cultists xD

Look here I was criticized as making cheesey lists with CSM at my flgs. How the hell am I supposed to win if I dont min max CSM? I take troop taxes and spam fast and heavy slots. That is all i can do with CSM as other armies get free points or op formation rules.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
The Helcult is an amazingly useful formation and doesn't get mentioned as often as it should. Rules overview: 1 Helbrute and 2 units of cultists. The cultists gain fearless as long as the Helbrute is alive. They gain Zealot if it is destroyed. The Helbrute gains rage, but, more importantly, it can claim a 3+ cover save from cultists. If it passes a save, it kills a cultist.

I usually run it with two 20-25 man squads of cultists with no upgrades. They are a very effective tool in establishing board control, bubble wrapping more important units, swamping dangerous enemy units or monstrous creatures, camping objectives, distract your opponent, etc. I almost always give the Helbrute a plasma cannon - it usually makes up its points this way. It also soaks up enemy fire with the 3+ cover save. In a competitive environment, I have combined the formation with Necrons and using the swaths of cultists to disrupt my opponents' movement and insulate more important units. Last local tournament I finished 2nd without using a decurion.

The helcult is actually pretty good. My friend uses it and it's pretty solid.

I've heard they throw great parties

 thegreatchimp wrote:
I've heard they throw great parties

Our cheese is bitter though, but at least our whine is endless!

 Runic wrote:

 Shade of Asuryan wrote:


Impossible to bring a TAC army okay.....

Don't know who said that bringing a TAC army is impossible, certainly not me;

 Runic wrote:
There are a few armies who can pull it off

-

I'm still interested in hearing your definition of TAC. Scatbikes can be countered ( in ETC they were mostly pit up against flyrant spam if a team had such a list available ) so in the end it's a skewed list which will get crushed by another skewed list, but which can in turn dominate many others. Basically exactly what I said earlier.

Maybe saying TAC is dead is an overstatement. But in high end competitive 40K it is a priviledge of a few armies at best. If you take into consideration all the armies in the game most of them can't conjure up such a list.

Lists that are 'top tier' are there because they are TAC lists. Thats a tautology.
Yes, 40k is a game of Rock-Scissors-Paper and you can construct a counter to any other list if you really want to. But the top lists either dominate or hold their own against 99% of non-tailored lists.

Eg, Scatterbike spam works because it has masses of mid strength long range firepower that can put the hurt on anything less than AV13 / T10. D-Weapons destroy anything that S6 can't handle. Its fast and maneuverable so it gets easy points on Maelstrom.
Flyer spam is tough for *anyone*, because it relies upon target saturation to survive the game. That being said, jetbike spam Eldar deal with it better than most - masses of fast S6 shooting with relatively easy access to twin-linked means they can get behind the Nid flyers and force them to jink.

ETC pairings really skews the game and can make powerful armies seem even more powerful. Sometimes you see a overpowered list on the other team (5 WK lol) and just throw the game, putting your worst list against their best so your other lists have a better chance of survival.

 Filch wrote:
Look here I was criticized as making cheesey lists with CSM at my flgs. How the hell am I supposed to win if I dont min max CSM? I take troop taxes and spam fast and heavy slots. That is all i can do with CSM as other armies get free points or op formation rules.

Min max it, take one look at their Imperial Knight and tell them to feth themselves. That's my answer. Chaos Marines are great but anyone who complains about min maxing a Chaos army just hates losing.

Not really a tournament goer myself, but at a tournament, you don't need to be able to defeat every other list present. You only need to be able to do well against most of the lists you are drawn against (depending on scoring systems). This makes me wonder, is it really worth making the concessions against the lists you are most likely to face (FOTM) just to improve your chances against the lists that might be present, but not even close to the same number? Is TAC a winning strategy?

Besides which, the most prestigious awards are Best Sportsman, followed by Best Army, both of which CSM have a very good shot at winning. In my opinion Best General is nothing but a nod to the fact that warhammer is nominally a competitive game as well as a creative/social hobby. Well that's my opinion as a non-tournament goer!

I think the word "All comers" is too vague for a true answer.

Basically, I build all armies to be able ot handle the worst examples of the codex's I'm familiar with. So for example, if you do not bring enough firepower to kill a Wraith Knight your chances are sharply reduced of winning it all. If that's within your lists ability, you move to the next checkbox. And the ORDER of he checkbox's is really a reflection of the most compeittive things you are seeing because by extension, that should prepare you for other things. Not a perfect mesh but certainly good enough for Generalship to play its role.

I myself now have a Adepta Sororits list that barring horrible dice, will AVERAGE be able to kill a Wraithknight and a half in turn one. So once I have that ability I move on to the next thing on the list until I'm out of points.

Knowing whats out there is a big part of being smart about the build. And that takes time and practice. So to be a "tournament level" player (also a terrible term but I couldn't think of a better one on the fly) you can't just be good at deploying and planning. You need to KNOW the enemies well!

I suppose, sticking to your example, you also need to consider the missions and scoring systems of the events you attend. Obviously some times you don't need to have enough firepower to kill a Wraith Knight, just enough manpower to survive a Wraith Knight's firepower.

Knowing yoru enemies... very Art of Warhammer advice there Jancoran!

I got criticized for bringing an invisible bikerstar, and the guy i played against brought a transcendant ctan from the apocalypse book. chaos space marines are really good at beating your opponent, their spikes can be used to impale your opponent. or they can be used as inspiration to invest in the greek economy

We see units in competitive play that can TAC because competitive play itself is TAC. But this means a ton of units are unwanted in lists, not necessarily because they're awful but because they have too narrow a role. Unless that role is destroying super heavies, flyers, or troops in cover, it's probably unneeded for your TAC list.

Wraithknights can kill just about anything, as can Wraithguard. Scatbikes are spammed because they glance fast moving things to death and can stay out of range of the slower stuff while having sufficiently high strength weapons to handle almost all opposition and crush hordes or high save models with volume of fire. Flyrants soar through the skies shooting tanks in the rear or hitting infantry with the same high volume while being hard to hit themselves. Plague Marines are the only CSM worth taking because T5 counters more things than AP3, Ignores Cover, or Extra Charge Attacks. Be'lakor is used commonly because his Invisibility is guaranteed and a great counter to all types of shooting/assault lists. Heck, 2++ saves are popular because they counter all types of attacks except volume. Fire Raptors obliterate flyers AND ground units, Grav cannons work against armored warriors AND vehicles, mid to high strength Rending troops cause AP2 AND make penetrating easier, Imperial Knights are sturdy AND lethal both in shooting AND assault, the tournament scene in general favors anything that is versatile and can Take On All Comers.

Which leaves specialized units out in the cold when a more GENERAL USE ONE can accomplish the same task. CSM Is basically full of those, a virtual Swiss army knife of utility that desperately needs to "KNOW the enemy".

There are a ton of CD/CSM armies in tournaments. The CSM side is usually Be'lakor, Heldrake, 10x Cultists but that's still top table material.

No comments on the relative value of the codex but the above is true. Meanwhile KDK might open up some new synergies as Daemon ICs can be attached. Just food for thought.

Yoyoyo wrote:
There are a ton of CD/CSM armies in tournaments. The CSM side is usually Be'lakor, Heldrake, 10x Cultists but that's still top table material.

No comments on the relative value of the codex but the above is true. Meanwhile KDK might open up some new synergies as Daemon ICs can be attached. Just food for thought.

Also food for thought, Choking on badly cooked fish can kill you, Tau or not.

There are perhaps 3-4 units within the CSM Dex that are constantly used, not because they're viable, but because they are simply the best in slot.

Heldrakes for instance, aren't that great anymore. People shouted doom and gloom over them being marine killers but nothing ever stopped Marines from bringing Div on Libs and gaining invulnsaves. People only shout D&G when things don't go their way, but every codex to date in one way shape or form has an answer to something another codex might have (Stave for Chaos)

Obliterators, Nurgle Bikers, Heldrakes and Artifacts (Not even the units carrying them) are pretty much all we have going for us. That isn't much to say about a dex that by all rights should be cheaper all around in terms of PPM...

As for Daemons, so far from what we have ALL seen in the tournament scenes, the Daemon Players are running WC / Daemon Factory with multiple levels of resummons. Most Daemon players are aware that the only way they can compete is by summoning and maintaining board control through objectives. By utilizing Pink Horrors and hoping for Possession or Hounds/Seekers they manage to eek out a top 10 in Tournament scenes. Are their lists good? Certainly not frightening.. They're durable and not by the model, Daemon collectors like myself have to invest in extra models due to GWs "Maelefic Summoning" which effectively means I need to bring almost double my Troops, Fast Attack and HQs. Which I have to buy first. If anything, Daemons are a shot straight from the "Pay to win" section of GWs sick and twisted inner workings of how to screw players over just a little more. We have to bring more models to the field just to be adequate and the only way to do that is to run a certain list type dedicated to making full use of it.

Chaos as a Faction are garbage, if you play competitively against them and lose, as Necrons, Eldar, Tau, SMs, you are doing something horribly wrong.

What do you want me to say man? Everything is pay to win. How many Tau GMCs do you think sold this past month?

If you want to get off that track you need to talk with your friends and limit the GW-driven arms race.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Our cheese is bitter though, but at least our whine is endless!

Bahaha! Good one!

nareik wrote:

Knowing yoru enemies... very Art of Warhammer advice there Jancoran!

Mine tends to be heavy influenced by that. Lol.

As for the point you made its a good one. I recently played my Night Lords Vs.a list with dual Land Raiders and 9 Dreadnoughts (Iron Hands type thing). I killed precisely ONE Tactical Marine and managed to tie it (and would have won had i gotten one hull point off that Land Raider but it just would not give it up).

Let that sink in. I should have WON a game in which i killed one Tactical Marine in a game I ws completely overmatched in!

So like i say, Generalship has to play its role and knowing my enemy well in that instance was why I was able to compete even given the dire mismatch.

But that being said "All comers" has so many connotations that its kind of vague as to what that even means anymore.

marcman wrote:
Like what can they beat? Hordes, deathstars, power armor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda wanna take a bunch of av 2+ not sure if I should

they have some of the best CC in the game,

abaddon is one of the best CC hq's in the game due to the sheer amount of nonsense you can unleash through him as a vessel for your magic. and then you need to look at the rest of the list:

maulerfiends
zerkers
plague marines while not good at CC on the surface are incredibly good cc damage sponges
spawn
mutilators
warp talons (some very excellent flanking cc units)
raptors
hellbrutes can be good in cc
and the cultists while nothing exceptionally awesome are cheap and can crush most basic infantry under sheer weight of attacks, not to mention they can become plague zombies for some really resilient cc

they also have some of the best HQ's in the game in terms of raw statlines

 ionusx wrote:

marcman wrote:
Like what can they beat? Hordes, deathstars, power armor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda wanna take a bunch of av 2+ not sure if I should

they have some of the best CC in the game,

No, the best melee in the game are things like TWC and wraiths. Fast, durable units that sport a ton of quality attacks.
CSM have nothing like that.

 ionusx wrote:

abaddon is one of the best CC hq's in the game due to the sheer amount of nonsense you can unleash through him as a vessel for your magic. and then you need to look at the rest of the list:

Abaddon stacks up well (though I think a kitted out SM leader doesn't have bad odds).
The problem is he's tough to deliver without investing in a landraider, and landraiders aren't good (plus we have the worse variant).

 ionusx wrote:

maulerfiends
zerkers

Maulerfiends aren't bad, as they are incredibly quick. They aren't hard to tie up for several turns with a decent sized squad though, since they don't get many attacks. They suffer from similar issues that dreads do. They are also very fragile given their price and role.
Zerkers are overpriced garbage that can't reach assault unless you take a landraider. They then become way overpriced compared to other units that do CC better.

 ionusx wrote:

plague marines while not good at CC on the surface are incredibly good cc damage sponges
spawn
mutilators
warp talons (some very excellent flanking cc units)

Plague marines can absorb hits and do damage. Spawn are good too. Both units suffer from the fact that high S (or D) weapons don't care as much about their toughness anymore, but they are still not bad. Not amazing melee units though.
Warp talons are arguably one of the worst units in the entire game, and I'm surprised anyone thinks otherwise.

 ionusx wrote:

raptors
hellbrutes can be good in cc
and the cultists while nothing exceptionally awesome are cheap and can crush most basic infantry under sheer weight of attacks, not to mention they can become plague zombies for some really resilient cc

Raptors aren't bad, though they get overshadowed by the bikes who are superior in nearly every way.
Hellbrutes suffer from the problems are dreads do, they can get bogged down easily.
I've never used cultists in CC, but they are just over priced guardsmen. Guardsmen aren't great in cc.

 ionusx wrote:

they also have some of the best HQ's in the game in terms of raw statlines

Compare us directly to a SM biker lord kitted out.
We are flat out inferior.

 ionusx wrote:
they have some of the best CC in the game

CSM have indeed a lot of competent CC units, the issue tends to be bringing them to CC. In the end the only way to guarantee assaults is to stuff something into a Land Raider, and that means such a points sink that such unit will be very unlikely to kill enough things to recover their cost.

they also have some of the best HQ's in the game in terms of raw statlines

I guess you mean the Daemon Princes? They're not that great nowadays, and only a very few select builds are actually somewhat competitive.

"Mortal" CSM HQ are nothing impressive. Chaos Lords are hardly melee powerhouses nowadays, even properly geared and marked. All in all, there's a reason the Champions of Chaos special rule tends to be less than beneficial most of the time.

Why not just put Abaddon in a unit of bikes or spawn? Could such a retinue be used to form a conga line in front of him and drag him into combat?

Its something I plan to attempt when I finish my Black Crusade army.

Side note; if Abaddon accompanies a unit carrying Frag Grenades, does he get the benefit of them when charging through cover?

^ no he does not

and im extremely surprised to the point to where i almost got a heart attack to find out that someone likes warp talons, they are the worst units in the codex, they make me laugh when i read their stats for their points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ionusx wrote:

marcman wrote:
Like what can they beat? Hordes, deathstars, power armor?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kinda wanna take a bunch of av 2+ not sure if I should

they have some of the best CC in the game,

abaddon is one of the best CC hq's in the game due to the sheer amount of nonsense you can unleash through him as a vessel for your magic. and then you need to look at the rest of the list:

maulerfiends
zerkers
plague marines while not good at CC on the surface are incredibly good cc damage sponges
spawn
mutilators
warp talons (some very excellent flanking cc units)
raptors
hellbrutes can be good in cc
and the cultists while nothing exceptionally awesome are cheap and can crush most basic infantry under sheer weight of attacks, not to mention they can become plague zombies for some really resilient cc

they also have some of the best HQ's in the game in terms of raw statlines

no not at all...

Yah, warptalons are the worst, IIRC they are literally the only daemon unit that falls back... They have lots and I mean LOTS of cons, but the lack of fearless just leaves me speechless.

Regarding the rest of the codex CSM don't excel at anything really, anything that they can do some other army can do it better, most of the time their loyalist counterparts.

An all nurgle army might be good at surviving against low str armies, tau and eldar armies thou will just kill them as easily as they do any other army.

They aren't Fearless? I thought that was one of the only good qualities they had.

But yes, mathematically they perform worse than Raptors against anything not MEQ outside of cover. Even then, the difference is so negligible that Raptors are the way to go, who are in turn not good because they compete in the same slot as Bikers, Spawn, and Heldrakes.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They aren't Fearless? I thought that was one of the only good qualities they had.

But yes, mathematically they perform worse than Raptors against anything not MEQ outside of cover. Even then, the difference is so negligible that Raptors are the way to go, who are in turn not good because they compete in the same slot as Bikers, Spawn, and Heldrakes.

And that is on melee, if you factor the bolt pistols and option for 2 special weapons, they are a million times better.

The daemon rule doesn't provide fearless.

It's why VoTL is needed on Obliterators, if one dies they might peg it.

I knew Obliterators weren't Fearless; I just genuinely thought Warp Talons had it.

Possessed always have that going for them I guess...

 welshhoppo wrote:
The daemon rule doesn't provide fearless.

It's why VoTL is needed on Obliterators, if one dies they might peg it.

I just take three units of one. It works.

 Jancoran wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The daemon rule doesn't provide fearless.

It's why VoTL is needed on Obliterators, if one dies they might peg it.

I just take three units of one. It works.

But then you can't take fire raptors. Which is not so good.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The daemon rule doesn't provide fearless.

It's why VoTL is needed on Obliterators, if one dies they might peg it.

I just take three units of one. It works.

But then you can't take fire raptors. Which is not so good.

Multiple detachments? I wouldnt take a Fire Raptor anyways because its forge world but multiple detachments would be the simple answer for that yeah?

 Jancoran wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
The daemon rule doesn't provide fearless.

It's why VoTL is needed on Obliterators, if one dies they might peg it.

I just take three units of one. It works.

But then you can't take fire raptors. Which is not so good.

Multiple detachments? I wouldnt take a Fire Raptor anyways because its forge world but multiple detachments would be the simple answer for that yeah?

I suppose so. At least cultists are cheap.


Actually, one thing CSM is good at, it getting nice things from forge world. Whatever the loyalists have, we have too. Plus daemon related nonsense. Bring on the Brass Scorpions!

 welshhoppo wrote:

I suppose so. At least cultists are cheap.
Actually, one thing CSM is good at, it getting nice things from forge world. Whatever the loyalists have, we have too. Plus daemon related nonsense. Bring on the Brass Scorpions!

Daemon related nonsense is cool. Wish they hd more of it like in the old days. I loved summoning them to my banner and charging!

Sigh, I remember when you could run up with a rhino. Then sacrifice a champion to get a bloodthrister.

Or have a daemon price ignore both armour and invulnerable saves. Those were the days, back when spiky bikes gave you an additional attack......

The Greater Brass Scorpion is trash honestly. It's weak as spaghetti against anything its own size and costs and arm and a leg. Fielding a Kytan is way cheaper and doesn't suck monstrous gak. The GBS is only good at massive disruption, and if your opponent isn't running WKs or Imperial Knights. Still highly susceptible to melta, mediocre firepower, terrible rear armor, trust me (As an owner of one) its not good.

Pretty centerpiece though. Definitely a conversation starter

The scorpion isn't for fighting its own size, it's for clearing through waves of infantry. It has a large ignores cover blast, gets additional stomps, has great front armor, a ridiculous charge range, and no D weapons. Plus when it explodes, it blows up super strength on anything but a 1.

You can get stuff for clearing infantry elsewhere though, and for cheaper. The Kytan can do the same on top of being better against large targets.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You can get stuff for clearing infantry elsewhere though, and for cheaper. The Kytan can do the same on top of being better against large targets.

I disagree with the idea that the Kytan can be an effective troop murderer, at least compared to the Brass Scorpion. The efficiency of the troop slaughter on the latter is just that much higher. It's even a waste of points to use a D weapon to murder 1 wound models, especially as the Kytan does not have the Lord of Skulls upgrade when it comes to more weapon attacks. Kytan is the best for killing other knights or super heavies, a blob of cultists or gaunts would give him a bad time.

If you take the Scorpion as your anti-infantry unit you can devote the entire remainder of your army to fighting off against super heavies and vehicles. It's the same concept as using the Kytan against the reverse. Yes, Chaos factions are flooded already with anti-infantry devices, but there's plenty of anti-vehicle ones we can take in the same IA13 as the scorpion. No doubt if you take the Scorpion it is not for facing the big threats, it's for rushing to your enemy's side of the field turn 1 and blasting/exploding in his face to annihilate all of the threatening infantry so the rest of your tank army can deal with what's left.

I have found that CSM are good at screwing over the meta. I've seen grav spam marine lists flail at heavy nurgle Spawn lists. I've seen Eldar Jetbike spam lists run out of room vs. 3 heldrake CSM lists. I've seen Tau overwatch whimper in the face of a dirge caster and I've seen SW/DA Deathstars bounce off easy invisibility from rerolling Sorcerers.

CSM won't steamroll over 7 opponents in a row, but they are not impotent to today's competitive game.

 Lord Yayula wrote:
Yah, warptalons are the worst, IIRC they are literally the only daemon unit that falls back... They have lots and I mean LOTS of cons, but the lack of fearless just leaves me speechless.

Regarding the rest of the codex CSM don't excel at anything really, anything that they can do some other army can do it better, most of the time their loyalist counterparts.

An all nurgle army might be good at surviving against low str armies, tau and eldar armies thou will just kill them as easily as they do any other army.

I've found Talons to be decently useful allied into a Codex: Daemons army. At least there they get all the basic daemonic supports through Malefic/Divination and upgrades like the Grimoire & Warpstorm table.
For added fun, give the Lv3 Sorc Santic powers for even more shenanigans, especially with Sanctuary & Hammerhand, while Cleansing Flame is ace for dealing with FMC heavy forces.
Heck, you could even grab your allies through the Crimson Slaughter codex and take Possessed as Troops to keep everything 100% daemonic!

I would never take them into a serious super competitive game or event. However, I've enjoyed what they can bring to my otherwise assault lacking Tzeentch Daemons when going up against most other types of non-optimised lists.

The successful chaos lists rely (unsurprisingly, I guess) on stuff that's unique to chaos armies - cheap, high mastery level telepaths (sorcerers and be'lakor), cheap cultist troops with or without a helcult formation, and daemon engines (especially maulerfiends or heldrakes).

The chaos knight is good too - yes, its almost identical to the basic imperial knight, but the foe-reaper chainsword and options of Daemon Knight Of and the Dirge Caster are enough to shunt it into a much more serious bracket.

It's the basic chaos marine that's a let-down; you only save one point compared to a generic space marine, and that costs you And They Shall Know No Fear and Chapter Tactics - and that's before you get to other 'free' stuff granted by formations (like drop pods, tactical doctrines, etc), not to mention the fact that a lot of players still think tactical marines are underpowered compared to bikers.

Chaos Marine Bikers are good, but if I wanted a biker army I'd probably play daemonkin - the Mark Of Khorne supports the shock-style combat and the Gorepack is easily the best thing daemonkin get access to.

40K is essentially two games. Games played with codexs Necron and newer (including IK), or any codex older than Necrons.

I'll happily pit my single codex Emperors Children army against any army made from same era codexs. Pretty sure I'll have a good chance of winning too given how well I know my army.

The problem simply grows exponentially when you start adding in Decurion bonuses and other freebies that the newest formations have been handing out like free candy.

As such its no wonder that codexs like Chaos, BA, Sisters, GK, Guard seem underpowered when looked at against Eldar, SM, and Necrons. Its just not a fair comparison anymore.

DarthDiggler wrote:
I have found that CSM are good at screwing over the meta. I've seen grav spam marine lists flail at heavy nurgle Spawn lists. I've seen Eldar Jetbike spam lists run out of room vs. 3 heldrake CSM lists. I've seen Tau overwatch whimper in the face of a dirge caster and I've seen SW/DA Deathstars bounce off easy invisibility from rerolling Sorcerers.

CSM won't steamroll over 7 opponents in a row, but they are not impotent to today's competitive game.

I think you discovered the secret formula for GW rules updates. If CSM can beat it then it needs to be stronger, and if CSM is winning using a particular tactic then that tactic must be overpowered. Watch as 8th edition is going to nerf the ability to mix bikes/cavalry and beasts together.

 Arkaine wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I have found that CSM are good at screwing over the meta. I've seen grav spam marine lists flail at heavy nurgle Spawn lists. I've seen Eldar Jetbike spam lists run out of room vs. 3 heldrake CSM lists. I've seen Tau overwatch whimper in the face of a dirge caster and I've seen SW/DA Deathstars bounce off easy invisibility from rerolling Sorcerers.

CSM won't steamroll over 7 opponents in a row, but they are not impotent to today's competitive game.

I think you discovered the secret formula for GW rules updates. If CSM can beat it then it needs to be stronger, and if CSM is winning using a particular tactic then that tactic must be overpowered. Watch as 8th edition is going to nerf the ability to mix bikes/cavalry and beasts together.

To put it in a less skeptical tone... I'd say there is something appropriate about Chaos being a meta disruptive element.

The biggest problem Chaos has is that despite having strong melee choices, the vast majority of those units aren't strong enough to compensate for being gun down over the many turns it takes to get into that assault. You end up having to take a FW unit to have the mobility you need.

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I have found that CSM are good at screwing over the meta. I've seen grav spam marine lists flail at heavy nurgle Spawn lists. I've seen Eldar Jetbike spam lists run out of room vs. 3 heldrake CSM lists. I've seen Tau overwatch whimper in the face of a dirge caster and I've seen SW/DA Deathstars bounce off easy invisibility from rerolling Sorcerers.

CSM won't steamroll over 7 opponents in a row, but they are not impotent to today's competitive game.

I think you discovered the secret formula for GW rules updates. If CSM can beat it then it needs to be stronger, and if CSM is winning using a particular tactic then that tactic must be overpowered. Watch as 8th edition is going to nerf the ability to mix bikes/cavalry and beasts together.

To put it in a less skeptical tone... I'd say there is something appropriate about Chaos being a meta disruptive element.

The biggest problem Chaos has is that despite having strong melee choices, the vast majority of those units aren't strong enough to compensate for being gun down over the many turns it takes to get into that assault. You end up having to take a FW unit to have the mobility you need.

Well I have both mobiliy, saturation and toughnss with my Night Lords. Its been a good combination for me. Dirge Casters are really worthwhile also.

 Jancoran wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I have found that CSM are good at screwing over the meta. I've seen grav spam marine lists flail at heavy nurgle Spawn lists. I've seen Eldar Jetbike spam lists run out of room vs. 3 heldrake CSM lists. I've seen Tau overwatch whimper in the face of a dirge caster and I've seen SW/DA Deathstars bounce off easy invisibility from rerolling Sorcerers.

CSM won't steamroll over 7 opponents in a row, but they are not impotent to today's competitive game.

I think you discovered the secret formula for GW rules updates. If CSM can beat it then it needs to be stronger, and if CSM is winning using a particular tactic then that tactic must be overpowered. Watch as 8th edition is going to nerf the ability to mix bikes/cavalry and beasts together.

To put it in a less skeptical tone... I'd say there is something appropriate about Chaos being a meta disruptive element.

The biggest problem Chaos has is that despite having strong melee choices, the vast majority of those units aren't strong enough to compensate for being gun down over the many turns it takes to get into that assault. You end up having to take a FW unit to have the mobility you need.

Well I have both mobiliy, saturation and toughnss with my Night Lords. Its been a good combination for me. Dirge Casters are really worthwhile also.

If dirge casters were 9" range, I'd agree, but 6" is too short.
On top of that, Rhinos are too fragile and Land raiders are too costly.

You have the plague zombies, yes slow but with feel no pain and on mass, will not be easy to move off a contested objective or as a uindead tar pit.

Take a few turns to shift 20-30 with fearless, few no pain etc. Not fastest or most powerful but there going to take some bigger guns to remove

 jhe90 wrote:
You have the plague zombies, yes slow but with feel no pain and on mass, will not be easy to move off a contested objective or as a uindead tar pit.

Take a few turns to shift 20-30 with fearless, few no pain etc. Not fastest or most powerful but there going to take some bigger guns to remove

Not really. Scat bikes remove them without trying.
The plague zombies fall over against the better codexes. Most of them have stuff that is at a decent strength or does a lot of wounds.

They were lot better when PG spam was the best build around.

Plague zombies are one our better troop choice but that's not to say they are good. Compared to our other choices they're a resilient and cheap. Cheaper than CSM squads more survivable than normal cultists.

I've seen Maulerfiend spam work pretty well.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Plague zombies are one our better troop choice but that's not to say they are good. Compared to our other choices they're a resilient and cheap. Cheaper than CSM squads more survivable than normal cultists.

I've seen Maulerfiend spam work pretty well.

Maulerfiends are certainly not terrible in an armor spam list. Rhinos with plague marines, MoN bikers, MoN Spawn, MoN DP, Fiends for anti-tank can do some damage. Those are probably our best options if I'm making a competitive CSM list (straight from the dex, otherwise I include demons and Belakor). Throw in some sorcerers for some pysker buffs and it's not bad (wish we could get divination though...kinda weird that we can't). It goes up well against casual lists from the better dexes, and does well against the rest since it ignores small arms fire pretty well.
The problem is that maulerfiends have to get close to do their job, and they aren't quite as survivable as they need to be. They can be bogged down in blobs too, and cost too much (they really need to destroy two tanks to be valuable). If we shaved 40-60 points off of the maulerfiend with upgrades, he'd be a lot better and see use. Forgefiend needs even more points shaved off, since it needs 3-4 rounds to earn it's points back.

A centstar or firedragon in Ws with scat bike back up can go up against anything the CSM dex has and will dominate it without suffering too many casualties. We really need better long range anti-tank and more offensive punch to be useful. Our output outside of CC is really bad, and we lack methods to deliver to CC. Put fiends up against equivalent points in warriors or wraiths and they don't do well.

We can agree to disagree about the zombies. I don't like Typhus, and a unit without any offensive output that dies to the more common weapons in my meta (Str 6+, or Wraiths) just isn't impressive to me. The fact they are slow on top of it just seals their shelf fate.

I wouldn't mind CSM being a more barbariac SM force, with less special weapons and more unique demon guns with mutations making us tough, fast, or deadly as hell. Right now we are just directly inferior.

Plague Zombies were actually okay until the Necron and Eldar codices hit, what with their Ignore Cover Tomb Blades and new Flayed Ones, and troops being able to just have S6 weapons at three feet away.

DaPino wrote:

If dirge casters were 9" range, I'd agree, but 6" is too short.
On top of that, Rhinos are too fragile and Land raiders are too costly.

Fragile is relative. Its only in round 1 that enemies have the luxury (if they even do) of concentrating real fire on Rhinos. they become decidedly less appetizing targets in round 2 (because, again, that is when the Night Lords totally saturate the field with threats).

So I don't worry about that too much. The Dirge Caster isnt THE strategy. It is just nice to have and when its there, and thats pretty frequent, its extremely nice.

 Jancoran wrote:

DaPino wrote:

If dirge casters were 9" range, I'd agree, but 6" is too short.
On top of that, Rhinos are too fragile and Land raiders are too costly.

Fragile is relative. Its only in round 1 that enemies have the luxury (if they even do) of concentrating real fire on Rhinos. they become decidedly less appetizing targets in round 2 (because, again, that is when the Night Lords totally saturate the field with threats).

So I don't worry about that too much. The Dirge Caster isnt THE strategy. It is just nice to have and when its there, and thats pretty frequent, its extremely nice.

Which units do you run in these lists? Every unit I seem to field with my Night Lords just gets obliterated against the new tau, eldar, necron and SM armies. Against other armies I do get into combat and then the game depends on the combat outcome, some times win some times lose.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

DaPino wrote:

If dirge casters were 9" range, I'd agree, but 6" is too short.
On top of that, Rhinos are too fragile and Land raiders are too costly.

Fragile is relative. Its only in round 1 that enemies have the luxury (if they even do) of concentrating real fire on Rhinos. they become decidedly less appetizing targets in round 2 (because, again, that is when the Night Lords totally saturate the field with threats).

So I don't worry about that too much. The Dirge Caster isnt THE strategy. It is just nice to have and when its there, and thats pretty frequent, its extremely nice.

Which units do you run in these lists? Every unit I seem to field with my Night Lords just gets obliterated against the new tau, eldar, necron and SM armies. Against other armies I do get into combat and then the game depends on the combat outcome, some times win some times lose.

Well Im definitely not offering up a "win all the time" promise here. No army can have that so you will suffer defeats no matter what you do.

But here is the Night Lords list I have been slowly marinating into form. this is the final form as it stands now and its pretty optimized for what it attempts to do.

Essentially the Rhinos hve Dirge Casters to stop s much overwatch as they can from things like Dark Angels and Tau Empire. They provide cover if destroyed or immolbilized. i try to jet them up to the 30 inch mark ASAP.

The Raptors bounce behind them, moving and runing to keep up with the Rhinos in round one. Both units are fearless (I learned over the course of time not to leave this to chance) with their respective Chaos Lords. Thoe lords are more than fast enough to keep up obviously.

The other units are MEANT to deep strike, raining in from all angles and making escape impossible, forming my box of doom, so to speak. I have on occassion deployed the Obliterators but the range on MOST of their weapons isn't excellent so I definitely lean more often to deep striking them into position.

The Chaos Marines will often be deployed in reserve to wait for objectives til after the enemy has been tenderized. On occassion i will actually mount them in the rhinos. Objective placement largely determines that for me.

So that is the basic setup.

The Chaos Lord has the Eye of Night. If the enemy has his armor close together, he will pay dearly. Large blast on BS 5. Does D3 penetrating hits (ignores cover) against the targets hit by it. It's a nice way to start the festivities. He also carries the Hand of Darkness. It replaces his attacks with one attack, but that one attack is Instant Death, Armoudbane, fleshbane, STR 8, AP 1 and is generally really really unpleasant. He can frustrate you at times. I had the chance to ill BOTH Dreadknights in a list the other day and he flubbed both rolls over two different combat phases and eventually bit it. I still won 20-5 but that was a bitter pill! Still, most of the time he's hitting on 3's so it works more often than it doesn't.

The second Chaos Lord is just happy to be here. i would generally want him to be my warlord since the other one is bound to be in danger. it's his middle name.

Heldrakes are great against Hive Tyrants (and the like) with their extra cool Vector Strikes and obviously the flamer needs no introduction. With the saturation level generally good, the Heldrake enjoys a bit more of a lifespan than they typically will. It has won some games for me with its ability to hover. that plays pretty big in a list like this where so much of your list is upfield that the backfield Chaos Marines need a little help sometimes on objectives when they come in.

Anywho Night Lords isn't one of the most powerful builds in 40K, but it does work. Its main struggle comes against AV 14, ince it isnt a melta fest like so may lists. It has some but its not prolific so we do al or most of our damage in the close combat phase. That actually works just fine. But its worth noting that a unit of 3 Space Marine Dreadnoughts is going to challenge us. I fought a guy with 9, plus two land Raiders and it was tough to get close (so i didnt). I ended the game killing one tactical marine (which sent his unit flying off the board to be fair from my Mutilator) but that was it. Yet i still tied the game and should have won (Needed just one hull point off the Land Raider, nd couldnt get it despite never losing my Obliterators). A little bad luck and a lot of good planning put me in good position even in that matchup.

So speed and maneuverability are the keys for this force. It can scatter from threats it needs to get more time against and it can bull rush those it can handle. it traps the enemy "over yonder" and doesnt let them out of our box, which makes objectives happen.


Night Lords Total Roster Cost: 1996

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

80pts 4 Chaos Space Marines [Black Legion] (Veterans of the Long War)
1 Aspiring Champion (Veterans of the Long War)
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

130pts 1 Chaos Lord (Nurgle, Jump Pack, Sigil of Corruption, Powerfist+ Combi Melta)

285pts 1 Chaos Lord (HQ) [Black Legion], 160 pts (Mark of Nurgle + Blight Grenades+ Melta Bombs + Sigil of Corruption + Combi-Meltagun+ Veterans of the Long War) + Chaos Bike + 1 The Eye of Night + The Hand of Darkness

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

170pts 1 Heldrake

 Arkaine wrote:
The scorpion isn't for fighting its own size, it's for clearing through waves of infantry. It has a large ignores cover blast, gets additional stomps, has great front armor, a ridiculous charge range, and no D weapons. Plus when it explodes, it blows up super strength on anything but a 1.

Thats exactly why it's garbage. If i wanted an Ignores cover massive blast, I'd take my Typhon, which is less than 1/2 the price and 14av all around. It's immune to stomps and the Thunderblitz rules are nicer anyways. As Ive said, I own one, it's trash and it has no real use in anything when models 1/2 it's price do its job better and more effectively.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Plague zombies are one our better troop choice but that's not to say they are good. Compared to our other choices they're a resilient and cheap. Cheaper than CSM squads more survivable than normal cultists.

I've seen Maulerfiend spam work pretty well.

If Plague Zombies were worked without Typhus, simply by being MoN they would be infinitely better. MoZ on them could make them Brotherhood of Psykers so long as the Champion is alive, Slaanesh could give them Rending, Khorne can just stay the same as his marks are terrible anyways.

I Have 6 Maulerfiends, they are fantastic, but fall short in every which way when attempting to do their jobs at killing Vehicles such as Knights. It still plagues my mind as to why our Daemonically Possessed vehicles who's sole existence is to Main and Slaughter has a terrible WS of 3 and Initiative of 3. You'd think the Dark Mechanicum would piece together something empowered with godly prowess with something that oculd go toe to toe with a Dreadnaught and not possibly freaking die before it even gets to strike.

@Jancoran

How does this list fare against blast plate gun armies? Like lets say I have a group of Medusa earthershaker cannons, a few autocannons rapiers, and a horse of platoon militia in front of them. The big gap I see herebis that 3/4ths of your army can't survive high Str blasts, especially artilary builds. Amusingly enough an iron warriors list with renegade allies would be your absolute bane xD

A dirge caster on a rhino is an excellent idea, until your opponent learns about the dirge caster, shoots at your rhino with any multi-shot S7 weapon and your rhino dies or gets inmobilized in turn 1 or 2 (33% chance once a penetrating hit is scored, as crew shaken for transports hits them equally hard if you want to carry the embarked unit to CC range).

It's true that three rhinos have more choices of reaching the enemy lines than less rhinos, but still, at 2000 points, most shooty lists will have enough firepower to wreck them before they get anywhere close to their units.

Dirge Casters aren't exactly necessary. Overwatch isn't as dangerous as it is made out to be, but at least it's worth it on the Chaos Knight.

My brother tends to use a good number of cultists and daemon engines-ie Defilers,Maulers and Dreadnoughts. They work pretty well.
Hell, his Defiler is ridiculously accurate with the battle cannon lately.

autumnlotus wrote:
@Jancoran

How does this list fare against blast plate gun armies? Like lets say I have a group of Medusa earthershaker cannons, a few autocannons rapiers, and a horse of platoon militia in front of them. The big gap I see herebis that 3/4ths of your army can't survive high Str blasts, especially artilary builds. Amusingly enough an iron warriors list with renegade allies would be your absolute bane xD

It was iron hands that gave me the most trouble with all their dreads.

As for blasts: I have played against those. If I am going first, I can put a pretty serious hurt on their vehicles and I spread out pretty much IN a circle when i see that kind of thing. Im tough 5 on most things so there's that.

The first round you just have to weather it if its a really shooty army. Shooty armies with blasts do scatter 67% of the time (to varying degrees) and a circular deployment does mitigate a LOT of damage. Once I'm in melee, such a dedicated shooting army is probably toast. In round 2 I have dropped in a whole bunch of new threats and all of them are low cost high return against an army like what you're describing. I can afford the enemy to expend a bunch of stuff to kill a Mutilator. they cant afford to have the mutilator live or it will kill their tanks. So the Raptors actually get a repreive... or the Obliterators do. Or the Mutilators do... Someone does in rouns two! The big thing is to box in the enemy and keep em there. Objectives are the thing to always focus on. numbers of casualties hardly matter. This army takes the positional dominance game as its primiary goal instead of outright killing everything (though it DOES do damage if you miss too often in that pivotal round one)

I cannot foresee all the terrain and scenarioes. I typically choose to be on the side that allows me terrain to run TO instead of terrain to deploy IN. thart makes more sense for my army. As my army cares little about cover saves, it is okay to give that to the enemy. All I want is them in a box.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Korinov wrote:
A dirge caster on a rhino is an excellent idea, until your opponent learns about the dirge caster, shoots at your rhino with any multi-shot S7 weapon ....

You say that... While the 28 Raptors are ready to strike in round two potentially... So i mean yeah its a good theory and the Rhinos get killed sometimes (though i frequently do get one in). Thats really okay. Its not like the whole strategy hinges on Dirge Casters.

Also I mentioned that I don't often mount the rhinos. So... I mean.. I did say that.

@Jancoran:

The trouble I see with this tactic of yours is assuming that hour men can whether the storm, which most of your troops just can't. True ordinance blasts arent always reliable, but unless you have your units very much spread out (which presents its own issues) I wonder how many units are left standing for a charge. In a pure kill off/Purge the alien game I can see most of your raptors being dead (indirect fire to ignore cover from rhinos) with the rhinos popping first turn easy. Obliterators and helldrakes would be the only challenge, challenge being just winning against snap shot/ cover saves really.

I ask because these lists I'm mentioning are the other half of TO play when you move past super heavies and deathstars annnd summon spam, and is very common for non-marine players.personally I play maelstrom objective games so murder is second priority to my word Bearers xD

autumnlotus wrote:
@Jancoran:

The trouble I see with this tactic of yours is assuming that hour men can whether the storm, which most of your troops just can't. True ordinance blasts arent always reliable, but unless you have your units very much spread out (which presents its own issues) I wonder how many units are left standing for a charge. In a pure kill off/Purge the alien game I can see most of your raptors being dead (indirect fire to ignore cover from rhinos) with the rhinos popping first turn easy. Obliterators and helldrakes would be the only challenge, challenge being just winning against snap shot/ cover saves really.

I ask because these lists I'm mentioning are the other half of TO play when you move past super heavies and deathstars annnd summon spam, and is very common for non-marine players.personally I play maelstrom objective games so murder is second priority to my word Bearers xD

I mean... You're ALWAYS running the risk at ALL times of things getting shot. Thats not a difference between this list and any other. It s not easier for anyone to land shots and they are only hitting 2 at a time mostly with the large blast. Spreading out is less of a problem when you want to do the following:

A: Get at least one model into base with the enemy. I only need one. the rest can come along at their own pace.

B. I dont want to break the enemy on the charge, lower numbers engaging initially isnt AAAAALWAYS downside.

B. not die.

The unit is fearless. So we have time to work the problem. Remember: its job is positional dominnce not just shredding things. So while spreading out might cost me a Hammer of Wrath here and there, i can afford that. Can't afford getting caught in the open too frequently. So...

Also you can worry yourself to death over what might happen but in the end s long as you're paying attention, you should get there turn two and your box should hold for long enough. And depending on the foe, being tied up can be absolutely horrible for them. Others think they are doing good things by mulching me but they arent really counting the turns as they go by...

 GoliothOnline wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Plague zombies are one our better troop choice but that's not to say they are good. Compared to our other choices they're a resilient and cheap. Cheaper than CSM squads more survivable than normal cultists.

I've seen Maulerfiend spam work pretty well.

If Plague Zombies were worked without Typhus, simply by being MoN they would be infinitely better. MoZ on them could make them Brotherhood of Psykers so long as the Champion is alive, Slaanesh could give them Rending, Khorne can just stay the same as his marks are terrible anyways.

I Have 6 Maulerfiends, they are fantastic, but fall short in every which way when attempting to do their jobs at killing Vehicles such as Knights. It still plagues my mind as to why our Daemonically Possessed vehicles who's sole existence is to Main and Slaughter has a terrible WS of 3 and Initiative of 3. You'd think the Dark Mechanicum would piece together something empowered with godly prowess with something that oculd go toe to toe with a Dreadnaught and not possibly freaking die before it even gets to strike.

Plague zombies are Nurgle as much as plague marines or plaguebearers... so it seems like a strange desire to make them able to be marked by other gods. While I realize not everyone wants to play Typhus, he's one of the best characters in the game. In an Apocalypse 40k-30k mash up I've seen him kill a Primarch while his zombies bogged down Lysander... then he went and killed Lysander. Fair bit of luck involved but he's definitely a strong character choice. I do agree that Plague Zombies should be a separate choice independent of him. What you're talking about with the Plague Zombie could be better served just by having some more types of god-specific cultists, but that really what Forge World's Chaos Renegade list is for.

Maulerfiends are really intended for taking out non-assault units using cover. Against dedicated close combat units it suffers from being a vehicle. More than Tau suits, they beg to be Monstrous Creatures more than vehicles. Hellbrutes and Defiler are machines with grafted pilots, a marine and daemon respectively. The Maulerfiend and Forgefiend however are daemons of living metal. That said, I agree they're WS and Int. are disappointing... they need someway to up their game, even if it costs more points. I wish you could mark them or give them something akin to the FW mechanicums paragon of metal rules that they can give their Automata.

Even against non-assault dedicated units, the Maulerfiend isn't very good. I've lost numerous maulerfiends to tactical squads due to them striking first and hitting on 3's with their krak grenades. Even against infantry that can't kill it in assault like guardsmen, it still faces the problem of having a low number of base attacks and hitting most enemies on a 4.

The only things the maulerfiend is truly good at killing is buildings, non-walker vehicles and strength 6 MC's.

It's true value I've found is in basically just being a distraction carnifex. It has a 12'' move and strength 10 attacks, which is scary enough that my opponents feel compelled to pour unnecessary amounts of firepower into killing it.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Even against non-assault dedicated units, the Maulerfiend isn't very good. I've lost numerous maulerfiends to tactical squads due to them striking first and hitting on 3's with their krak grenades. Even against infantry that can't kill it in assault like guardsmen, it still faces the problem of having a low number of base attacks and hitting most enemies on a 4.

The only things the maulerfiend is truly good at killing is buildings, non-walker vehicles and strength 6 MC's.

It's true value I've found is in basically just being a distraction carnifex. It has a 12'' move and strength 10 attacks, which is scary enough that my opponents feel compelled to pour unnecessary amounts of firepower into killing it.

This^

Maulerfiends although I love their looks, and own so many, aren't good against much else but used as distraction and for cracking open Bastions. Aside from that Ive thrown 2-3 at Knights while comboing Lashers and Magma Cutters, they work well when you reduce a Knights attack to 1, but otherwise it's not worth attempting. It's all or nothing for them, and unfortunately "All" usually means you've spent more points trying to make them useful, rather than making a better list.

A note about plague zombies: why not just bring Necrosis from FW? He's cheaper then Typhus, and unlocks zombies and also adds furious charge to their profile. I usually take him plus another sorcerer and spam zombies and spam summon Nurgle daemons. Is it competitive? No not really, but its amusing as heck

...plus the Renegade zombies can spawn more zombies

CSM exist to make Loyalist look good.

 Filch wrote:
CSM exist to make Loyalist look good.

Now now.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Filch wrote:
CSM exist to make Loyalist look good.

Now now.

It's the truth though. The faction's primary purpose is to lose to space marines. And they do it well.

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Filch wrote:
CSM exist to make Loyalist look good.

Now now.

It's the truth though. The faction's primary purpose is to lose to space marines. And they do it well.

Well I hope you are learning from the losses so that it ceases to be true for you. I personally can say that my list evolved far more in response to Eldar than Space Marines nd by solving the one problem, i solved the other.

I hope your games go better!

autumnlotus wrote:
A note about plague zombies: why not just bring Necrosis from FW? He's cheaper then Typhus, and unlocks zombies and also adds furious charge to their profile. I usually take him plus another sorcerer and spam zombies and spam summon Nurgle daemons. Is it competitive? No not really, but its amusing as heck

Necrosius is amazing, and yes he does unlock Plague Zombies, also has an amazing ability "Wasting Disease" but again, FW. He is slightly outdated, Editing my post because I thought he was in IA13 Lost and Damned but apparently I am either far too sleepy to find it, or hes in one of the other IA books.

 GoliothOnline wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
A note about plague zombies: why not just bring Necrosis from FW? He's cheaper then Typhus, and unlocks zombies and also adds furious charge to their profile. I usually take him plus another sorcerer and spam zombies and spam summon Nurgle daemons. Is it competitive? No not really, but its amusing as heck

Necrosius is amazing, and yes he does unlock Plague Zombies, also has an amazing ability "Wasting Disease" but again, FW. He is slightly outdated, Editing my post because I thought he was in IA13 Lost and Damned but apparently I am either far too sleepy to find it, or hes in one of the other IA books.

He's in the new Seige of Vraks I think, so are all the special characters, like Zhufor.


It's a shame that zombies need a Typhus tax, he's okay, but he's slow as sludge and will die to the first stomp that hits him. And extremely expensive.

Unlike Necrosius, he unlocks Plague Marines too though. On top of being a whole lot more durable.

I guess it depends how much you want Plague Marines. They're better than the Vanilla Marines, so there's that.

Jancoran wrote:

Night Lords Total Roster Cost: 1996

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

80pts 4 Chaos Space Marines [Black Legion] (Veterans of the Long War)
1 Aspiring Champion (Veterans of the Long War)
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

130pts 1 Chaos Lord (Nurgle, Jump Pack, Sigil of Corruption, Powerfist+ Combi Melta)

285pts 1 Chaos Lord (HQ) [Black Legion], 160 pts (Mark of Nurgle + Blight Grenades+ Melta Bombs + Sigil of Corruption + Combi-Meltagun+ Veterans of the Long War) + Chaos Bike + 1 The Eye of Night + The Hand of Darkness

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

170pts 1 Heldrake

It's worth noting that this IS NOT a Night Lords list. This is a Nurgle list. Both of your lords are marked as Nurgle as are your Raptors. Which isn't very fluffy.

This partially explains Jancoran's story about his amazing win with just one kill. He's running a durable Nurgle list that's min maxed, not fluffy.

The only way to viably play any Chaos Marines nowadays is to take as much Nurgle as possible, AND, to go for extreme min/max MSU styled builds.

Outside of Deathguard, anything even remotely fluffy gets curb stomped.

And that's entirely understandable. He's been running around claiming his generalship with his Night Lords army has been stomping all over. Til now he's not posted a list. I'm only pointing out, yes Nurgle lists are tough, durable lists but his list is certainly not a Night Lords army nor is it fluffy Nurgle as he makes no attempts at adhering to lore in any manner.

It does shed light on his style and is not a bad template for anyone unused to running Chaos.

Experiment 626 wrote:
The only way to viably play any Chaos Marines nowadays is to take as much Nurgle as possible, AND, to go for extreme min/max MSU styled builds.

Outside of Deathguard, anything even remotely fluffy gets curb stomped.

I though Death Guard fluffy was massed infantry assaults with an emphasis on attrition, so not MSUs but huge squads and very few vehicles and bikes. Which means that there is no fluffy playstyle.

It's totally understandable why he wins with that list because Raptors are easily our best units for close combat focused armies, which Chaos is in its entirety... every army can outshoot us except for Orks. Even Tyranids have more dakka.

I'm guessing he takes the Chaos Space Marines as a 75 pt tax to access Rhinos, which used with Dirge Casters and zooming across the board will ensure the Raptors aren't overwatched.

What I can't for the life of me figure out is why there are Mutilators in this list...

 Arkaine wrote:
It's totally understandable why he wins with that list because Raptors are easily our best units for close combat focused armies, which Chaos is in its entirety... every army can outshoot us except for Orks. Even Tyranids have more dakka.

I challenge that, orks have some decent firepower. Being able to take squads with cheap assault 2 weapons as basic infantry is nice while mek gunz, blitza bommers, and SAG big meks allow us to lay down high strength blasts and lootas, flashgitz, warbikes, and dakkajets have high ROF decent strength shots. I would say that orks out-dakka CSM.

 the Signless wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:
The only way to viably play any Chaos Marines nowadays is to take as much Nurgle as possible, AND, to go for extreme min/max MSU styled builds.

Outside of Deathguard, anything even remotely fluffy gets curb stomped.

I though Death Guard fluffy was massed infantry assaults with an emphasis on attrition, so not MSUs but huge squads and very few vehicles and bikes. Which means that there is no fluffy playstyle.

Well if we look at the 30k death guard, you see that Morty was very big on TAC. That's why his marines had bolters bolt pistols and close combat weapons, so they were always prepared.

If it was fluffy, you'd have ten man squads with las plas and rhinos, so it is doable, just very expensive.

 purplkrush wrote:
And that's entirely understandable. He's been running around claiming his generalship with his Night Lords army has been stomping all over. Til now he's not posted a list. I'm only pointing out, yes Nurgle lists are tough, durable lists but his list is certainly not a Night Lords army nor is it fluffy Nurgle as he makes no attempts at adhering to lore in any manner.

It does shed light on his style and is not a bad template for anyone unused to running Chaos.

What is a Night Lord list?

To me it is striking with overwhelming force in melee. Using morale penalties or other 'disruption' effects.

He has two large units of raptors (but not at the expense of everything else), lead by chaos lords. He has a bunch of fast moving or deep striking troops (many of which cause fear). He has dirge casters. His army actually shapes up pretty well to what I'd expect a Night Lord army to be (instead of using the blood angel / raven guard codex and spamming MSU jump assaults).

The only 'concession' is that he is using a lot of Nurgle, but I see no reason why a Night Lord warband can't be blessed by one of the Gods. In the 2nd Ed codex there is a short story of a Khorne affiliated warband assaulting an imperial garrison, do examples exist in the fluff. Nurgle makes sense to me as it is associated with death and despair, which Night Lords famously seek to spread during war.

The great thing about the 40k legion warbands is they are so open to interpretation. The above list might not fit your interpretation of Night Lords, which is fair enough, but for me it isn't actually such a departure.

It's worth noting my black crusade army actually contains some Nurgle marked Night Lord Mutilators! Not actually played a game with it yet. Still have my Black Legion chosen to finish and Abaddon to paint!

 Arkaine wrote:
What I can't for the life of me figure out is why there are Mutilators in this list...

Best I can figure from the way it was described, they're a Distraction Carnifex of sorts, soaking up hits from the real targets if they're shot at, trudging along to wreck vehicles in the backline if ignored. Same durability and wounds as two min Termicide squads, for less points. Yeah, those points saved mean you can't shoot at the enemy and have S&P, but if you're just looking to have durable distractions that can potentially do some rough damage, it could be worth it. I get it. Yeah, they're a sub-par unit, but what in the codex isn't anymore (ah, tongue in cheek)?

That's what it seemed like to me, at least.

nareik wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:
And that's entirely understandable. He's been running around claiming his generalship with his Night Lords army has been stomping all over. Til now he's not posted a list. I'm only pointing out, yes Nurgle lists are tough, durable lists but his list is certainly not a Night Lords army nor is it fluffy Nurgle as he makes no attempts at adhering to lore in any manner.

It does shed light on his style and is not a bad template for anyone unused to running Chaos.

What is a Night Lord list?

To me it is striking with overwhelming force in melee. Using morale penalties or other 'disruption' effects.

He has two large units of raptors (but not at the expense of everything else), lead by chaos lords. He has a bunch of fast moving or deep striking troops (many of which cause fear). He has dirge casters. His army actually shapes up pretty well to what I'd expect a Night Lord army to be (instead of using the blood angel / raven guard codex and spamming MSU jump assaults).

The only 'concession' is that he is using a lot of Nurgle, but I see no reason why a Night Lord warband can't be blessed by one of the Gods. In the 2nd Ed codex there is a short story of a Khorne affiliated warband assaulting an imperial garrison, do examples exist in the fluff. Nurgle makes sense to me as it is associated with death and despair, which Night Lords famously seek to spread during war.

The great thing about the 40k legion warbands is they are so open to interpretation. The above list might not fit your interpretation of Night Lords, which is fair enough, but for me it isn't actually such a departure.

It's worth noting my black crusade army actually contains some Nurgle marked Night Lord Mutilators! Not actually played a game with it yet. Still have my Black Legion chosen to finish and Abaddon to paint!

The Night Lords do not worship the Gods. For them, Chaos was/is simply a means to power.

Maybe waaaaaaaay back in the days of 1st/2nd edition, but once GW really fleshed out all the original Legions with the Index Astartes, it was made very clear that Night Lords do not worship Chaos as a pantheon of Gods.
Even their long lost 'Legion rules' from the 3.5 codex outright forbid any marks beyond that of Chaos Undivided.

^^ This. The Legions don't worship. That's why they're listed seperately. Night Lords favor FAST attacks; bikes and Raptors and mechanization. Mutilator and Oblits aren't really their forte. Nurgle, like all the Chaos gods has a sacred number and their troops should be fielded in such representation. Overall it's just not a list for either. But hey, Jaco ran has been vocal about why he puts his lists together the way he does. There's nothing wrong with this list. It's just neither a Night Lords list nor a Nurgle list but it's much more Nurgle.

 purplkrush wrote:
^^ This. The Legions don't worship. That's why they're listed seperately. Night Lords favor FAST attacks; bikes and Raptors and mechanization. Mutilator and Oblits aren't really their forte. Nurgle, like all the Chaos gods has a sacred number and their troops should be fielded in such representation. Overall it's just not a list for either. But hey, Jaco ran has been vocal about why he puts his lists together the way he does. There's nothing wrong with this list. It's just neither a Night Lords list nor a Nurgle list but it's much more Nurgle.

I think that's the point of contention people have.
If you're going to throw what a great general you are in people's faces and claim you can get inferior lists to work, people are going to be filled with scorn when your list is revealed to pretty much be what they were saying is good in the first place.
Example, saying you are running night lords when you have Oblits, Mutilators, and nurgle for days. It's more deathguard than Night Lords at this point, though I could see Word Bearers with a focus on nurgle as well. Iron warriors could work if the nurgle mark is viewed as cybernetics. But its not really night lords outside of a paint job and 2 units of raptors.

Saying your IG blob is amazing and can't be beat, but bringing an Eldar Netlist to an actual tournament.

Only Night Lords is merely the name attributed to his army, not his claim to fame. The point attributed throughout the threads on this forum to his army was that he can successfully field a winning CSM list. With such a claim, a lot of Nurgle was expected.

Experiment 626 wrote:

nareik wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:
And that's entirely understandable. He's been running around claiming his generalship with his Night Lords army has been stomping all over. Til now he's not posted a list. I'm only pointing out, yes Nurgle lists are tough, durable lists but his list is certainly not a Night Lords army nor is it fluffy Nurgle as he makes no attempts at adhering to lore in any manner.

It does shed light on his style and is not a bad template for anyone unused to running Chaos.

What is a Night Lord list?

To me it is striking with overwhelming force in melee. Using morale penalties or other 'disruption' effects.

He has two large units of raptors (but not at the expense of everything else), lead by chaos lords. He has a bunch of fast moving or deep striking troops (many of which cause fear). He has dirge casters. His army actually shapes up pretty well to what I'd expect a Night Lord army to be (instead of using the blood angel / raven guard codex and spamming MSU jump assaults).

The only 'concession' is that he is using a lot of Nurgle, but I see no reason why a Night Lord warband can't be blessed by one of the Gods. In the 2nd Ed codex there is a short story of a Khorne affiliated warband assaulting an imperial garrison, do examples exist in the fluff. Nurgle makes sense to me as it is associated with death and despair, which Night Lords famously seek to spread during war.

The great thing about the 40k legion warbands is they are so open to interpretation. The above list might not fit your interpretation of Night Lords, which is fair enough, but for me it isn't actually such a departure.

It's worth noting my black crusade army actually contains some Nurgle marked Night Lord Mutilators! Not actually played a game with it yet. Still have my Black Legion chosen to finish and Abaddon to paint!

The Night Lords do not worship the Gods. For them, Chaos was/is simply a means to power.

Maybe waaaaaaaay back in the days of 1st/2nd edition, but once GW really fleshed out all the original Legions with the Index Astartes, it was made very clear that Night Lords do not worship Chaos as a pantheon of Gods.
Even their long lost 'Legion rules' from the 3.5 codex outright forbid any marks beyond that of Chaos Undivided.

Yes, some legions don't worship gods as a whole but there are factions within legions that do. The current codex gives room for this; saying MOST Night Lords look down on the fervent... meaning some don't and could even be marked by gods (willingly or not).

I even gave an example (okay, an old example) that proves there are Night Lords that are God Affiliated (one even sacrificed himself to summon a Greater Daemon of Khorne, which means there are essentially canon Night Lord KDK out there.

There are no solid 'rules' on what a Night Lord list must/can't include, and the guidelines are very faint.

Fear causing marines, overloaded with equipment, dedicated to accumulating weapons and causing mayhem, striking from no where (even called 'mutilators') scream Night Lords to me.

It's still a junk list either way. You can easily lose the Raptors for Bikers and lose most of the useless equipment on the Lord that's almost 300 points, AND lose the Mutilators because they distract NOBODY that's actually good at the game.

Hell, he didn't even bother taking Huron to profit off the fact he can infiltrate the Raptors to make sure a charge happens ASAP.

 Arkaine wrote:
Only Night Lords is merely the name attributed to his army, not his claim to fame. The point attributed throughout the threads on this forum to his army was that he can successfully field a winning CSM list. With such a claim, a lot of Nurgle was expected.

No, his original claim was that he runs a fluffy night lords list successfully in a competitive format.
This is anything but a fluffy night lords list. It has more HS than FA, and nurgle-spam doesn't fit night lords fluff. Neither do Mutilators or Oblits.

His other claim was the IG blob can't be killed, even in competitive formats.
When asked what he runs in a competitive format, he delivers an eldar net list. How does that not destroy any credibility he had?

Certainly for dying.
Get a Primarch and play HH.

 purplkrush wrote:

Jancoran wrote:

Night Lords Total Roster Cost: 1996

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

80pts 4 Chaos Space Marines [Black Legion] (Veterans of the Long War)
1 Aspiring Champion (Veterans of the Long War)
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

130pts 1 Chaos Lord (Nurgle, Jump Pack, Sigil of Corruption, Powerfist+ Combi Melta)

285pts 1 Chaos Lord (HQ) [Black Legion], 160 pts (Mark of Nurgle + Blight Grenades+ Melta Bombs + Sigil of Corruption + Combi-Meltagun+ Veterans of the Long War) + Chaos Bike + 1 The Eye of Night + The Hand of Darkness

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

170pts 1 Heldrake

It's worth noting that this IS NOT a Night Lords list. This is a Nurgle list. Both of your lords are marked as Nurgle as are your Raptors. Which isn't very fluffy.

This partially explains Jancoran's story about his amazing win with just one kill. He's running a durable Nurgle list that's min maxed, not fluffy.

Odd thing to say. Your opinion of its fluff value is based on...what? Is this not Raptors led by Raptors and Bike commanders, everything mobile in a Rhino or Deep Striking? Bringing death from the skies. So I'm unclear on where it falls short?

Anywho, doesn't matter. Side note:

The Night Lords flew into the night sky this evening and took all three wins at the tournament.. They acquitted themselves well, playing the mnissions perfectly and bringing fear to those who need its chilling grip on their hearts!

Night Lords are cool.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:


His other claim was the IG blob can't be killed, even in competitive formats.
When asked what he runs in a competitive format, he delivers an eldar net list. How does that not destroy any credibility he had?

Non-sequiter. That I play TWO effective forces does nothing but add to my credibility. As you can see, i am aware of what a good list looks like. I use good lists. I also use lists that are good that you don't think are good. The difference of opinion has nothing to do with my credibility. It has to do with the limitations of your personal experience on the matter compared to mine.

Does one take the wisdom of a man who has actually done a thing or do we take the advice of a man who never will?

Sorry if that's too zen for Dakkadakka proceedings but you have got to consider the possibility that I might actually enjoy success with the unit for a defensible reason. Further consider that I have no actual reward waiting for me if you believe me nor punishment if you dont. So why would I suggest such a "radical thing" without good reason? It's kind of silly to think I would absorb time on the subject if there was nothing positive there. Bury the skeptic and look at it from a new point of view perhaps.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:
It's totally understandable why he wins with that list because Raptors are easily our best units for close combat focused armies, which Chaos is in its entirety... every army can outshoot us except for Orks. Even Tyranids have more dakka.

I'm guessing he takes the Chaos Space Marines as a 75 pt tax to access Rhinos, which used with Dirge Casters and zooming across the board will ensure the Raptors aren't overwatched.

What I can't for the life of me figure out is why there are Mutilators in this list...

Mutilators are in the list because they are absolutely excellent for target saturation. The Mutilators are Elites. Obliterators are heavy support. Therefore you can maximize the number of units dropping in and around the enemy all at once using them in those slots. The Mutilaotors are scary for any vehicle to face and no normal unit wants to tangle with one. They often last two combat phases which is the perfect amount of time to then either die or break free so the Night Lords can shoot and gank the trapped unit again.

Mutilators morph into some useful things also. I once concussed a WraithKnight with dual Power Mauls, which allowed the Character to get his attacks in first the next round, and thus the mighty fell. The Mutilator couldn't have finished the Wraith KNight, butthe Hand of Darkness could finish the job if the KNight was just weakened enough (down to three wounds or less)

Anywho, Mutilators do work. Really pleased with how they go about their business.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
It's still a junk list either way. You can easily lose the Raptors for Bikers and lose most of the useless equipment on the Lord that's almost 300 points, AND lose the Mutilators because they distract NOBODY that's actually good at the game.

Hell, he didn't even bother taking Huron to profit off the fact he can infiltrate the Raptors to make sure a charge happens ASAP.

If you infiltrate, you cant charge. So... Cool? Perhaps. But not practical in a lot of situations. Outflanking does make more sense of using the utility.

My Night Lords did win all their games today as I said.

I actually get where some people are coming from a little. The Night Lords and their lack of piety in Evil Gawds were a big attraction I had with them when I first started playing them. Their Mercenary existence is also appealing from a story telling standpoint.

But it does indeed say that you should make no mistake: Night Lords ARE Chaos Space Marines. They must Challenge whenever possible, and they do gain Daemonic Boons for success! So like it or not their leaders are certainly hearing the call and the leaders are unlikely to be alone in that. The taint is everywhere in the Eye of Terror.
But I agree that it is a rare Night Lords contingent who breaks down to receive the full blessings of Papa Nurgle. Rare perhaps. Never done? Unlikely.

I would never call that a Night Lords list.

 Jancoran wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Akiasura wrote:


His other claim was the IG blob can't be killed, even in competitive formats.
When asked what he runs in a competitive format, he delivers an eldar net list. How does that not destroy any credibility he had?

Non-sequiter. That I play TWO effective forces does nothing but add to my credibility. As you can see, i am aware of what a good list looks like. I use good lists. I also use lists that are good that you don't think are good. The difference of opinion has nothing to do with my credibility. It has to do with the limitations of your personal experience on the matter compared to mine.

It has everything to do with your credibility.
If everyone is saying that you can take the "night lords" list and IG blob list and only win in a casual environment, and you are claiming that is not the case, we would expect you to take those lists to a competitive scene and do well.
Instead, you take an eldar net list, after claiming that using a similar list against your blob is "list tailoring".
My personal experience is a mostly competitive meta (we house rule somethings out) with people who have played since 2-3rd edition. Yours is a guy who charges a damaged wraithknight into this blob, and another guy who can't figure out how to deploy drop pods against a blob.
These things all damage your credibility, since your entire argument is based on your credibility and nothing else.

 Jancoran wrote:

Does one take the wisdom of a man who has actually done a thing or do we take the advice of a man who never will?

This, for the record, is similar to the anti-vaccine argument. Personal experiences don't matter a whit when something can be calculated with math. It would take overwhelming evidence to suggest otherwise, not 1 person going "I've done it, BELIEVE IT!".
Regardless, you have yet to "actually done a thing". Your blob and night lords list has yet to be seen going against a competitive list, as far as we can tell. Every list you've put them up against was terrible or the players made huge mistakes, suggesting they are inexperienced.
So when you do a thing, maybe I'll believe you.

 Jancoran wrote:

Sorry if that's too zen for Dakkadakka proceedings but you have got to consider the possibility that I might actually enjoy success with the unit for a defensible reason. Further consider that I have no actual reward waiting for me if you believe me nor punishment if you dont. So why would I suggest such a "radical thing" without good reason? It's kind of silly to think I would absorb time on the subject if there was nothing positive there. Bury the skeptic and look at it from a new point of view perhaps.

People suggest radical things without reward all the time. Average people don't believe in climate change or think vaccines cause autism quite often, even in a college setting (I get asked questions about this a lot, as I live in a red state). They don't directly benefit from it, and yet they still believe it very strongly and try to convince others, including myself.

Usually when people say "ignore the math and just believe", they are very wrong, IME.
Oddly enough, in my experience, it involves quantum mechanics being used to describe mediation or something similar.
So this is a nice change of pace, but a dish I've had before.

I have a CSM list which does well in competitive environments. It is Adepticon legal and being from the Chicagoland are that is all we really care about.

HQ - Lord, MOK, Axe of fury, juggernaut, aura of dark glory
Tr - 10 cultists, auto guns, shotgun
Tr - 10 CSM, 2 meltaguns, combi-melta, melta bomb, rhino, havoc launcher
Tr - 10 CSM, 2 plasmaguns, combi-plasma, meltabomb, rhino, havoc launcher
Fa - 5 Nurgle Spawn
Fa - 5 Khorne Spawn
Fa - Heldrake
HV - Sicaran, heavy bolters, perdifus rift anomaly
HV - Vindicator Laser Destroyer
LOW - Typhon, ceramite, dirge caster

This is from memory but I know it is close. The Typhon isn't allowed in ITC events, but it is allowed at Adepticon and that's what we play here. This list does very well against DA bike lists. Last tourney I played a kid with a Knight in a Tau army. I Held more objectives at the end of the game and won as all he had left was the knight. Next played Tim Gorham and a Gladius with librarian conclave + centstar. Tim won the Torrent of Fire Invitational in 2014. This was relic primary and 4 objectives secondary. The Spawn did some real damage as he was grav cannon heavy. My shooty units took out his transports and the spawn assaulted the marines inside. On turn 4 the librarians failed to cast invisibility and the Typhon neutered the centstar. Win for me. Final game was against a grav heavy mechanicus list with a DA bike star with librarian conclave. I killed all the grav cannons from the mechanicus with the Typhon and then spawn assaults to clean up. The Bikes killed all the spawn, but he never failed invisibility so I all I could do was try to thunder blitz his bikes. He had no weapons to really hurt the Typhon and I spread out in the corners to claim objectives and win.

I know the list could be dialed up by reducing the CSM, but I like fluff. I would like a 2nd heldrake to hunt MSU (spawn are great at hunting MSU on their own) and exchange the Juggernaut Lord for 2 bike sorcerers, but I'm ok with how it is right now.

I think your list just shows how the CSM codex is limited. Everything we need is in the FW book but not everywhere will let you use it.

Anyone not letting you use forgeworld is a dumblefuck.


CSM really needs forgeworld because they outright SUCK.

Forgeworld chaos is just. better.
Not OP by any stretch, but viable at the least. half the CSM codex is not, the things that are mostly are barely so.


I love the CSM, but its a failure of a codex and requires a DA level overhaul, at the very least.

 Arkaine wrote:
Only Night Lords is merely the name attributed to his army, not his claim to fame. The point attributed throughout the threads on this forum to his army was that he can successfully field a winning CSM list. With such a claim, a lot of Nurgle was expected.

Hrm, when one talks about "winning with a Night Lords list", that usually carries some fairly strong preconceptions for most people about how the army is built and plays. Producing a min-max'd MSU nurgle army with a bunch of S&P units doesn't really fit that, it's not really what anyone (except Jancoran apparently) would consider "Night Lords" army list.

Nobody would ever look at that army list and think "oh yeah, that's probably a Night Lords army".

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Only Night Lords is merely the name attributed to his army, not his claim to fame. The point attributed throughout the threads on this forum to his army was that he can successfully field a winning CSM list. With such a claim, a lot of Nurgle was expected.

Hrm, when one talks about "winning with a Night Lords list", that usually carries some fairly strong preconceptions for most people about how the army is built and plays. Producing a min-max'd MSU nurgle army doesn't really fit that, it's not really what anyone (except Jancoran apparently) would consider "Night Lords" army list.

Nobody would ever look at that army list and think "oh yeah, that's probably a Night Lords army".

This goes back to why I stopped playing Chaos, even back when I still played 40k.
I loved the fluff behind the legions, but the codexes didn't really allow the flavor of the legions and didn't feel like the fluff on the table top. I had a full khorne army, but they just sucked so bad unless I gave everything MON.
Competitiveness aside, the codex is a failure at representing the fluff... the only real reason to play CSM.

Indeed, and GW seems to have consistently gone out of its way to ensure that for some reason.

I mean, they would have a license to print money with a re-done 3.5E book, or Legion supplements, or even just Legion "chapter tactics".

But they hamfist in a copy-pasted WHFB mechanic instead (that doesn't work in 40k really), and then give us a Black Legion supplement (when the core book already is pretty much "Codex: Black Legion") and a random renegade faction nobody cared about and that nobody ever even bothers with except to get access to one school of psychic powers.

Hey there, don't hate on Crimson slaughter ;p it works well for red corsairs and word Bearers at least. The latter what I use. Just take a ML3 sorcerer with Prophet of the voices and spell familiar and spam malefic demonology, bringing some improved possessed for meat shields and take cultists as troop taxes to bring whatever cult troop you may need. I personally like to add in a Hellblades, one or two chaos contemptors, and if I feel bored bring in a daemon lord.

Saying all this though: 30k does chaos marines a lot better, to the point that for any game past 1500 points I will take my word Bearer legionaries by default

autumnlotus wrote:
Hey there, don't hate on Crimson slaughter ;p it works well for red corsairs and word Bearers at least. The latter what I use. Just take a ML3 sorcerer with Prophet of the voices and spell familiar and spam malefic demonology, bringing some improved possessed for meat shields and take cultists as troop taxes to bring whatever cult troop you may need. I personally like to add in a Hellblades, one or two chaos contemptors, and if I feel bored bring in a daemon lord.

Saying all this though: 30k does chaos marines a lot better, to the point that for any game past 1500 points I will take my word Bearer legionaries by default

We don't hate it because of the rules. We hate it because we were begging for a good legion book and got a book about a faction that never existed until the 6th edition csm was released. Even forgeworld got it better by releasing a book about the Purge.....

Crimson Slaughter just underscore the CSM deficiencies. It's a book about chaos "drop pod" specialists who can't use drop pods in the game.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Anyone not letting you use forgeworld is a dumblefuck.


CSM really needs forgeworld because they outright SUCK.

Forgeworld chaos is just. better.
Not OP by any stretch, but viable at the least. half the CSM codex is not, the things that are mostly are barely so.


I love the CSM, but its a failure of a codex and requires a DA level overhaul, at the very least.

It's an important part of the conversation you have to have with your community. Sometimes it's "no" because the event organizer doesn't want to make things confusing for younger participators who are still learning rules... Sometimes it's because the guy you were planning to play against would just rather you didn't because of their sentiment that day. No doesn't always mean "I don't want you too" it can just be "I don't feel like it" in the same way they don't want to play against "Dark Eldar again". A lot of people at my game store have and use FW but they don't always want it in a game... And the majority of players at my store play chaos marines too, so it isn't anyone trying to eek out advantages.

I don't think chaos needs FW anymore than loyalists need the battle brothers rule. Space marines do well because they can easily ally with whatever they need. Chaos has limited allies compared to loyalists.

I think taking units from FW is no different than DA taking Space Wolf allies or a Gladius taking an assassin. It's units from multiple books just like chaos taking units from imperial armor 13.

I have rarely ever seen a top level SM army not take advantage of cherry picking the best units from multiple sources. Chaos just lacks the multiple sources part of the equation.

More to the point, Chaos taking FW units isn't really even taking units from multiple books in the way DA's taking SW's allies is. The FW units are intended to be additions to the CSM book, not units from another army that were never designed or intended to be part of one army but are allowed to be via the allies rules.

FW really isn't really this super special thing people need to have unique conversations with their communities over, at least not any moreso than anything else else in the game, especially supplements, dataslates, etc that nobody else seems to see a need for special conversations about. Treating it that way is an artificial remnant of many editions past.

DarthDiggler wrote:
I don't think chaos needs FW anymore than loyalists need the battle brothers rule. Space marines do well because they can easily ally with whatever they need. Chaos has limited allies compared to loyalists.

I think taking units from FW is no different than DA taking Space Wolf allies or a Gladius taking an assassin. It's units from multiple books just like chaos taking units from imperial armor 13.

I have rarely ever seen a top level SM army not take advantage of cherry picking the best units from multiple sources. Chaos just lacks the multiple sources part of the equation.

While thats a part of the problem, the base SM codex outperforms the CSM codex in nearly every way.
Cents are better than oblits/mutalitors
Sm bikers are better than ours
ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics are free and often comparable to most of the marks (with only nurgle being worth it).
SM HQ units are superior to CSM ones in nearly every case.
SM have access to better disciplines.
SM have better elite infantry (Sternguard are better than every elite unit in the CSM dex).
SM infantry is comparable to CSM infantry (fearless, but no extra CCW weapon, but chapter tactics).
Scouts are an effective backline objective holder.
Thunderfire cannons are really solid.
Landspeeders are good for quickly engaging an enemy.
Drop pods. CSM would move up considerably in power with drop pods with launchers.
Better landraiders

For CSM
Termies are better (though all termies are bad, imo)
Plague marines
Nurgle bikers are tougher if no HQ is taken with SM bikers (though nobody does this, IMO).
Heldrake is still solid.
Cultists are cheap backfield objective holders, though they offer little offensively.
I...honestly can't think of another.

 Vaktathi wrote:
More to the point, Chaos taking FW units isn't really even taking units from multiple books in the way DA's taking SW's allies is. The FW units are intended to be additions to the CSM book, not units from another army that were never designed or intended to be part of one army but are allowed to be via the allies rules.

FW really isn't really this super special thing people need to have unique conversations with their communities over, at least not any moreso than anything else else in the game, especially supplements, dataslates, etc that nobody else seems to see a need for special conversations about. Treating it that way is an artificial remnant of many editions past.

Other than the few truly unique Chaos models from those books, what isn't simply a clone of the Imperium version? We have a Typhon, they have a Typhon. We have Sicarans, they have Sicarans. We have Fire Raptors, they have Fire Raptors. We have Thunderhawks, they have Thunderhawks. We have Fellblades, they have Baneblades. We have Chaos Knight, they have Imperial Knight. We share Warhound Titans, Reaver Titans, Warlord Titans, and more. The models deemed necessary for CSM to be competitive are simply the reason SM is already competitive. We may as well be battle brothers with Space Marines.

Yet the things that truly stand out... the Kytan Daemon Engine, the Greater Brass Scorpion, the Daemon Lords, the Blood Slaughterers, rarely used if ever and less effective than some cloned piece of Space Marine technology. The only clone pieces that are unique enough to call Chaos are the Hell Blade, Hell Talon, and Dreadclaw. All still surpassed by the machines of the loyalists. Let's face it... the FW units that make CSM a better list are a slap in the face to the army itself. We can't be competitive without borrowing from a competitive faction.

Akiasura wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I don't think chaos needs FW anymore than loyalists need the battle brothers rule. Space marines do well because they can easily ally with whatever they need. Chaos has limited allies compared to loyalists.

I think taking units from FW is no different than DA taking Space Wolf allies or a Gladius taking an assassin. It's units from multiple books just like chaos taking units from imperial armor 13.

I have rarely ever seen a top level SM army not take advantage of cherry picking the best units from multiple sources. Chaos just lacks the multiple sources part of the equation.

While thats a part of the problem, the base SM codex outperforms the CSM codex in nearly every way.
Cents are better than oblits/mutalitors
Sm bikers are better than ours
ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics are free and often comparable to most of the marks (with only nurgle being worth it).
SM HQ units are superior to CSM ones in nearly every case.
SM have access to better disciplines.
SM have better elite infantry (Sternguard are better than every elite unit in the CSM dex).
SM infantry is comparable to CSM infantry (fearless, but no extra CCW weapon, but chapter tactics).
Scouts are an effective backline objective holder.
Thunderfire cannons are really solid.
Landspeeders are good for quickly engaging an enemy.
Drop pods. CSM would move up considerably in power with drop pods with launchers.
Better landraiders

For CSM
Termies are better (though all termies are bad, imo)
Plague marines
Nurgle bikers are tougher if no HQ is taken with SM bikers (though nobody does this, IMO).
Heldrake is still solid.
Cultists are cheap backfield objective holders, though they offer little offensively.
I...honestly can't think of another.

I would add to the chaos side two very important units. Spawn which absolutely wreck grav weapon toting units, like most Centurions. Spawn also have the speed and toughness to mow through MSU troops and light vehicles all in a 15 wound toughness 6 package.

To keep the spawn alive I would also add to your list Sorcerers who are superior to Librarians. Sorcerers can be level 3 psykers who reroll their dice to cast powers.

Yes I agree Space Marines have more toys than loyalists (my Crimson Fists collection is larger than my Chaos army collection), but chaos still has some very effective unique units.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Arkaine wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
More to the point, Chaos taking FW units isn't really even taking units from multiple books in the way DA's taking SW's allies is. The FW units are intended to be additions to the CSM book, not units from another army that were never designed or intended to be part of one army but are allowed to be via the allies rules.

FW really isn't really this super special thing people need to have unique conversations with their communities over, at least not any moreso than anything else else in the game, especially supplements, dataslates, etc that nobody else seems to see a need for special conversations about. Treating it that way is an artificial remnant of many editions past.

Other than the few truly unique Chaos models from those books, what isn't simply a clone of the Imperium version? We have a Typhon, they have a Typhon. We have Sicarans, they have Sicarans. We have Fire Raptors, they have Fire Raptors. We have Thunderhawks, they have Thunderhawks. We have Fellblades, they have Baneblades. We have Chaos Knight, they have Imperial Knight. We share Warhound Titans, Reaver Titans, Warlord Titans, and more. The models deemed necessary for CSM to be competitive are simply the reason SM is already competitive. We may as well be battle brothers with Space Marines.

Yet the things that truly stand out... the Kytan Daemon Engine, the Greater Brass Scorpion, the Daemon Lords, the Blood Slaughterers, rarely used if ever and less effective than some cloned piece of Space Marine technology. The only clone pieces that are unique enough to call Chaos are the Hell Blade, Hell Talon, and Dreadclaw. All still surpassed by the machines of the loyalists. Let's face it... the FW units that make CSM a better list are a slap in the face to the army itself. We can't be competitive without borrowing from a competitive faction.

I like to think, as far as FW units go, that the loyalists are 'borrowing' from the CSM faction, but that just lets me sleep at night.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

DarthDiggler wrote:
I don't think chaos needs FW anymore than loyalists need the battle brothers rule. Space marines do well because they can easily ally with whatever they need. Chaos has limited allies compared to loyalists.

I think taking units from FW is no different than DA taking Space Wolf allies or a Gladius taking an assassin. It's units from multiple books just like chaos taking units from imperial armor 13.

I have rarely ever seen a top level SM army not take advantage of cherry picking the best units from multiple sources. Chaos just lacks the multiple sources part of the equation.

While thats a part of the problem, the base SM codex outperforms the CSM codex in nearly every way.
Cents are better than oblits/mutalitors
Sm bikers are better than ours
ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics are free and often comparable to most of the marks (with only nurgle being worth it).
SM HQ units are superior to CSM ones in nearly every case.
SM have access to better disciplines.
SM have better elite infantry (Sternguard are better than every elite unit in the CSM dex).
SM infantry is comparable to CSM infantry (fearless, but no extra CCW weapon, but chapter tactics).
Scouts are an effective backline objective holder.
Thunderfire cannons are really solid.
Landspeeders are good for quickly engaging an enemy.
Drop pods. CSM would move up considerably in power with drop pods with launchers.
Better landraiders

For CSM
Termies are better (though all termies are bad, imo)
Plague marines
Nurgle bikers are tougher if no HQ is taken with SM bikers (though nobody does this, IMO).
Heldrake is still solid.
Cultists are cheap backfield objective holders, though they offer little offensively.
I...honestly can't think of another.

I would add to the chaos side two very important units. Spawn which absolutely wreck grav weapon toting units, like most Centurions. Spawn also have the speed and toughness to mow through MSU troops and light vehicles all in a 15 wound toughness 6 package.

Spawn, I wouldn't say, wreck Centurions. It's still a T5 unit with 2 wounds and a 2+ save. They need to cause 12 wounds just to kill one, and often cent stars can teleport. Their one melee attack isn't great, but the librarian helps. There are also stern guard and various other units that can remove Spawn.
I did forget spawn. They are pretty good. But nowhere near cents in usefulness.

DarthDiggler wrote:

To keep the spawn alive I would also add to your list Sorcerers who are superior to Librarians. Sorcerers can be level 3 psykers who reroll their dice to cast powers.

I disagree.
Sorcerors are better at casting spells, but librarians have access to the best spells. Diviniation on cents cause devastation to most units in the game. a 4++, or any of the other powers are all good.
The special character caster is also amazing, and is commonly seen. Our special character caster is basically a gun.

DarthDiggler wrote:

Yes I agree Space Marines have more toys than loyalists (my Crimson Fists collection is larger than my Chaos army collection), but chaos still has some very effective unique units.

Chaos has some units that are strong defensively, but not many that put out pain without being fragile.
SM have many units that, with the addition of an HQ, can be very good both defensively and offensively. Way more than CSM.
CSM have MoN Bikers, Spawn, Heldrakes. Helbrutes in formation can be good. Maulerfiends are not terrible. Sorcerors would be better if they had a unit they wanted to be in more.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Only Night Lords is merely the name attributed to his army, not his claim to fame. The point attributed throughout the threads on this forum to his army was that he can successfully field a winning CSM list. With such a claim, a lot of Nurgle was expected.

Hrm, when one talks about "winning with a Night Lords list", that usually carries some fairly strong preconceptions for most people about how the army is built and plays. Producing a min-max'd MSU nurgle army with a bunch of S&P units doesn't really fit that, it's not really what anyone (except Jancoran apparently) would consider "Night Lords" army list.

Nobody would ever look at that army list and think "oh yeah, that's probably a Night Lords army".

Not true, his list isn't far from what I'd expect from Nightlords.

Uses overwhelming force to win combats.

Plenty of Fear causers.

Other 'psychological' effects (dirge casters).

Ability to strike from 'nowhere' (jump, deep strike).

Even mutilators I think can fit the Night Lord theme (deep strike, fear, melee focused, obsessed with personal power, use chaos as a tool to master for their own gain instead of a religion (they eat weapon spirits)). I've never seen any fluff that states "mutilators are known to be used by xx force", but that doesn't imply they can't be justified in any army!

I do well with tzeentch oblits and 2 sorcs for buffs.

2+/4++ and endurance works really well. Sometimes I can get invisibility as well which makes the unit extremely durable.

Spawn are decent but compared to the necron equiv unit of wraiths they really aren't that impressive for their points.

The dirge caster is great but could be better.

The havoc launcher makes Chaos rhinos decent and is an auto include for back field marine units. Throw on the soul blaze upgrade and it can really cripple small weaker units.

 Korinov wrote:
I would never call that a Night Lords list.

Oh well. In the end, how it fights is the issue anyways. So you can CALL it whatever you prefer. 3-0. As good as it gets I guess. Fun weekend. I also won my second tournament this weekend (Adepta Sororitas). So a great weekend.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nareik wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Only Night Lords is merely the name attributed to his army, not his claim to fame. The point attributed throughout the threads on this forum to his army was that he can successfully field a winning CSM list. With such a claim, a lot of Nurgle was expected.

Hrm, when one talks about "winning with a Night Lords list", that usually carries some fairly strong preconceptions for most people about how the army is built and plays. Producing a min-max'd MSU nurgle army with a bunch of S&P units doesn't really fit that, it's not really what anyone (except Jancoran apparently) would consider "Night Lords" army list.

Nobody would ever look at that army list and think "oh yeah, that's probably a Night Lords army".

Not true, his list isn't far from what I'd expect from Nightlords.

Uses overwhelming force to win combats.

Plenty of Fear causers.

Other 'psychological' effects (dirge casters).

Ability to strike from 'nowhere' (jump, deep strike).

Even mutilators I think can fit the Night Lord theme (deep strike, fear, melee focused, obsessed with personal power, use chaos as a tool to master for their own gain instead of a religion (they eat weapon spirits)). I've never seen any fluff that states "mutilators are known to be used by xx force", but that doesn't imply they can't be justified in any army!

He just wants a piece of straw to grasp on to. He thinks that by debunking that an army of 4 Fast attack and three single model heavies is somehow not a "night lord" army somehow magically turns actualized wins into some kind of theoretical loss.

Which is absurd. It is absolutely the definition of a Night Lord list. The only thing about it thats different is that they are tougher. If someone wants to hinge their criticism on the fact that they are TOUGH Night Lords, well... what can ya'do.

A "fluffy" Night Lords army cannot take any mark except for the Mark of Chaos Undivided. (which sadly no longer exists as an actual mark)

The one and only time we had actual Legion rules, during the WD Index Astartes & 3.5 codex days, it was crystal clear. Sure, because there's no longer any hard and fast specific rules anymore, you can claim 'well, these guys are a rare warband of Night Lords', but it doesn't change anything.
Night Lords never worship Chaos and should never be marked.

It's really no different than things like Black Templar players allying in "Black Templar Librarians" or a White Scars player using Dreadnoughts.

That list may be painted up as a Night Lords army, but it's not a true "lore adherent" Night Lords army, and it shouldn't be claimed as one. Accept the fact that it's a non-fluffy Nurgle'fied Night Lords army.

 purplkrush wrote:

Jancoran wrote:

Spoiler:

Night Lords Total Roster Cost: 1996

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

80pts 4 Chaos Space Marines [Black Legion] (Veterans of the Long War)
1 Aspiring Champion (Veterans of the Long War)
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

130pts 1 Chaos Lord (Nurgle, Jump Pack, Sigil of Corruption, Powerfist+ Combi Melta)

285pts 1 Chaos Lord (HQ) [Black Legion], 160 pts (Mark of Nurgle + Blight Grenades+ Melta Bombs + Sigil of Corruption + Combi-Meltagun+ Veterans of the Long War) + Chaos Bike + 1 The Eye of Night + The Hand of Darkness

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

170pts 1 Heldrake

It's worth noting that this IS NOT a Night Lords list. This is a Nurgle list. Both of your lords are marked as Nurgle as are your Raptors. Which isn't very fluffy.

This partially explains Jancoran's story about his amazing win with just one kill. He's running a durable Nurgle list that's min maxed, not fluffy.

Since 5th edition trying to run a fluffy NL list is impossible. I gave it a try for a few games after they took away the legion rules, tried to keep everything unmarked but it proved to be a terrible idea. CSM have been pretty bad for quite a while now and refusing to use the only thing that tries to give you any advantage over the loyalist is tactical suicide.

That being said in the latest novels it is clear that many Night Lords have fallen to the blessings of the dark gods... so it isn't really that far from the fluff. On the game side I really don't think this is a durable list, sure MoN helps a lot but it is expensive as hell. I used to run my raptors with MoN as well since they were the stellar units on my Night Lords lists, however T5 isn't worth it anymore, many armies have ways to deal with T5 just as well as T4, Tau/Eldar weaponry have high STR which S5+, SM have gravs who doesn't care about T, IG got lots of plates S6-8, DE got poison, GK got medium/high str shots with their psycannons and they got hammerhand which makes T5 irrelevant, pretty much the only armies that care about the upgrade from T4 to T5 are CSM, Orks and Nyds.

The list does have target saturation, however half of it depends on reserve rolls so it will work some times, and won't work some other. With all that DS i'd pay the fortification that allows you to re-roll the reserves. The decked out lord is pretty expensive as well, 285... that is bordering on the nurgle DP cost which is probably as good if not even better.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:

Jancoran wrote:

Spoiler:

Night Lords Total Roster Cost: 1996

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

76pts 1 Obliterator (Mark of Nurgle)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

75pts 4 Chaos Space Marines
1 Aspiring Champion
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

80pts 4 Chaos Space Marines [Black Legion] (Veterans of the Long War)
1 Aspiring Champion (Veterans of the Long War)
40pts 1 Chaos Rhino (Dirge Caster)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

61pts 1 Mutilator, (Mark of Nurgle)

130pts 1 Chaos Lord (Nurgle, Jump Pack, Sigil of Corruption, Powerfist+ Combi Melta)

285pts 1 Chaos Lord (HQ) [Black Legion], 160 pts (Mark of Nurgle + Blight Grenades+ Melta Bombs + Sigil of Corruption + Combi-Meltagun+ Veterans of the Long War) + Chaos Bike + 1 The Eye of Night + The Hand of Darkness

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

330pts 13 Raptors (Mark of Nurgle) + Meltagun x2
1 Raptor Champion (Melta Bombs + Mark of Nurgle + Power Axe x1)

170pts 1 Heldrake

It's worth noting that this IS NOT a Night Lords list. This is a Nurgle list. Both of your lords are marked as Nurgle as are your Raptors. Which isn't very fluffy.

This partially explains Jancoran's story about his amazing win with just one kill. He's running a durable Nurgle list that's min maxed, not fluffy.

Since 5th edition trying to run a fluffy NL list is impossible. I gave it a try for a few games after they took away the legion rules, tried to keep everything unmarked but it proved to be a terrible idea. CSM have been pretty bad for quite a while now and refusing to use the only thing that tries to give you any advantage over the loyalist is tactical suicide.

That being said in the latest novels it is clear that many Night Lords have fallen to the blessings of the dark gods... so it isn't really that far from the fluff. On the game side I really don't think this is a durable list, sure MoN helps a lot but it is expensive as hell. I used to run my raptors with MoN as well since they were the stellar units on my Night Lords lists, however T5 isn't worth it anymore, many armies have ways to deal with T5 just as well as T4, Tau/Eldar weaponry have high STR which S5+, SM have gravs who doesn't care about T, IG got lots of plates S6-8, DE got poison, GK got medium/high str shots with their psycannons and they got hammerhand which makes T5 irrelevant, pretty much the only armies that care about the upgrade from T4 to T5 are CSM, Orks and Nyds.

The list does have target saturation, however half of it depends on reserve rolls so it will work some times, and won't work some other. With all that DS i'd pay the fortification that allows you to re-roll the reserves. The decked out lord is pretty expensive as well, 285... that is bordering on the nurgle DP cost which is probably as good if not even better.

Honestly, I've always felt and personally accepted that if you're going to play from a "fluff first" perspective, then you're making a willing choice to put winning as a secondary objective.

While not ideal in any way, if I was going to play what one would call a "fluffy Night Lords army", then I'd do it with extreme MSU Marines in Rhinos + MSU Termies and only take the Raptors/Bikes in larger squads. Marks would still be a huge no-no.
It would still be somewhat decent in non-competitive play, but I wouldn't be deluding myself into thinking that I should be excepting a Night Lords theme to being anything close to Tournament capable.

Yes, Chaos Marines are currently the most massively shafted army;
- We can't viably play our Legions, as GW refuses to give us anything resembling Legion Tactics or similar.
- We can't viably play Renegade Chapters, because GW refuses to give us viable options such as limited access to newer wargear.
- We do individualised Warbands rather terribly, again due to bland rules and a massively restrictive armoury.

We're really just in an awful place right now, both rules AND model wise. Until we get some love from GW instead of the eternal middle finger, we've got two options:
1. Admit that you want to win 50% or more of your games with Chaos Marines, and thus play your Night Lords/IW's/WE's/Red Corsairs as multi-coloured Nurgle Marines with perhaps a sprinkling of Noise Marines, AoBF Jugger Lord or whatever floats your boat.
Just don't claim that your army is full-on "Fluffy", because right now we simply can't be fluffy AND competitive at the same time. (except for Nurgle players!)

2. Admit that fluff is more important than winning, and just accept that our fluffy lists are going to lead to us getting killed, but looking good while being steamrolled by anything even remotely competitive.

There's simply no happy middle ground for us atm.

So the problem, in essence, that chaos has is simply this:

Nurgle works because of toughness but not when used in the manner described in the fluff.

Khorne works just fine but fluff generally prefers larger units which is not the current meta. They also get hurt by ranged armies which generally have more bodies to throw more dakka. This doesn't even touch on the ridiculously small quantity of "terrain" that most 40k throws down.

Seriously, I hate fighting over cornfields and debris. Doesn't anyone fight over something worth fething holding?

Tzeentch is ridiculously overpriced. It's completely ineffective for something that should be the other side of the Necron coin.

Slaneesh, very much like Tzeentch, is also comically underpowered for being the other side of the ELDAR COIN. Of their 2 special weapons only one is paticularly worthwhile.

ALL LEGIONS lack their special rules. Not to harp it but 3.5 made clear how each Legion functioned and had special rules to complement their specialization in warfare.

So, when someone says something like:

[i/]"There are no solid 'rules' on what a Night Lord list must/can't include, and the guidelines are very faint."[i]

or:

[i/]"Odd thing to say. Your opinion of its fluff value is based on...what? Is this not Raptors led by Raptors and Bike commanders, everything mobile in a Rhino or Deep Striking? Bringing death from the skies. So I'm unclear on where it falls short?"[i]

it becomes fairly obvious that either they have no clue what they're talking about (quote a) or are riding technicalities and ignoring obvious facts to shoehorn in their version of things (option b).

Experiment 626 wrote:
A "fluffy" Night Lords army cannot take any mark except for the Mark of Chaos Undivided. (which sadly no longer exists as an actual mark)

The one and only time we had actual Legion rules, during the WD Index Astartes & 3.5 codex days, it was crystal clear. Sure, because there's no longer any hard and fast specific rules anymore, you can claim 'well, these guys are a rare warband of Night Lords', but it doesn't change anything.
Night Lords never worship Chaos and should never be marked.

It's really no different than things like Black Templar players allying in "Black Templar Librarians" or a White Scars player using Dreadnoughts.

That list may be painted up as a Night Lords army, but it's not a true "lore adherent" Night Lords army, and it shouldn't be claimed as one. Accept the fact that it's a non-fluffy Nurgle'fied Night Lords army.

Sure. If you ignroe the way they fight and want to ignore that the Chaos Undivided thing isnt an option, sure. But I don't care what you CALL it. It's a Night Lords list in every important functional way. If you want to call it the "Nurgly Nurgles of Nurgoliciousness" Im cool with that too. Whatevs. The thread is about CSM. So now that I have done it and it has done well, some of you can try it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Yayula wrote:


That being said in the latest novels it is clear that many Night Lords have fallen to the blessings of the dark gods... so it isn't really that far from the fluff. On the game side I really don't think this is a durable list, sure MoN helps a lot but it is expensive as hell. I used to run my raptors with MoN as well since they were the stellar units on my Night Lords lists, however T5 isn't worth it anymore, many armies have ways to deal with T5 just as well as T4, Tau/Eldar weaponry have high STR which S5+, SM have gravs who doesn't care about T, IG got lots of plates S6-8, DE got poison, GK got medium/high str shots with their psycannons and they got hammerhand which makes T5 irrelevant, pretty much the only armies that care about the upgrade from T4 to T5 are CSM, Orks and Nyds.

The list does have target saturation, however half of it depends on reserve rolls so it will work some times, and won't work some other. With all that DS i'd pay the fortification that allows you to re-roll the reserves. The decked out lord is pretty expensive as well, 285... that is bordering on the nurgle DP cost which is probably as good if not even better.

I don't worry much about reserves but the Fortification has always been on my list of maybe-includes for the obvious reason that there are times you want ot be able to keep them off the board. My last game for example I wanted to hold them off another turn because of the mission parameters. Its a valid thought for sure.

As for the T5: gold. Sure there's always "something" that can wound them on a 3, but i mean... then they have to use THOSE weapons on my Raptors! How annoying for the enemy. And they still have to kill enough which isn't so easy to do with Power Armor, cover and so on. They'll kill some, and no one will mourn them.

My biggest downside comes against dread/high AP spam. big units of those are a challenge for sure. I faced an ork who used a crazy number of robots in his list and had to play the reserve game and sucker him in so that I could defeat him. The Eye of Night was exceptinally helpful. =) One false move....and...FIRE! Lol. Killakan parts everywhere. That helped. A lot.

 purplkrush wrote:
Khorne works just fine but fluff generally prefers larger units which is not the current meta. They also get hurt by ranged armies which generally have more bodies to throw more dakka. This doesn't even touch on the ridiculously small quantity of "terrain" that most 40k throws down.

Khorne has been nerfed since 3rd because it used to be a strong close combat army. Chaos isn't allowed to be strong. Heldrake neck breaks and all. What Khorne used to be is +1 attack regardless, +1 Strength and +1 Initiative on the charge, the ability to have Feel No Pain on all your guys, and insane charge distances. That's no longer Khorne. They split Khorne into himself and Slaanesh.

I think the main contention here is what defines "fluffy" to both sides. Personally when I think night lords I think straight raptors, even so far as to go Unbound to have just raptors and raptor lords in crimsom slaughter for buffs to fear effects. Is that objectively correct? Or powerful? No to either, but its still valuable as an opinion. The Nurgle focus is sorta icky to me, but in the wake of no undivided mark nor legion rules its all you can get without playing with legion rules or using C:SM

 Jancoran wrote:

Sure. If you ignroe the way they fight and want to ignore that the Chaos Undivided thing isnt an option, sure. But I don't care what you CALL it. It's a Night Lords list in every important functional way. If you want to call it the "Nurgly Nurgles of Nurgoliciousness" Im cool with that too. Whatevs. The thread is about CSM. So now that I have done it and it has done well, some of you can try it

Some people want their army more representative than this. Most longterm CSM players lament the loss of rules that represented the legions because they aren't a fan of the sort of jumbled together army that performs well enough. They want form and function and they don't want to have to assert models that aren't modeled with nurgly marks have nurgle marks.

I don't think we can use 3rd edition list composition rules to dictate what is a fluffy force. For starters there would be no such thing as knights nor allies and many unbound lists would be considered unfluffy by that metric.

Second to that, I don't think it is necessary for every person's list to represent a prototypical force... If for no other reason that the only armies people would be able to play are imperial guard / orks as any other army (like space marines, let alone night lords, or even, Emperor forbid, nurgle night lords) is too rare.

I also feel it is rather arbitrary to say 3rd ed is fair game for defining what is possible in Chaos (of which all things are possible ), whereas 2nd ed is defunct and doesn't count.

Experiment 626 wrote:
While not ideal in any way, if I was going to play what one would call a "fluffy Night Lords army", then I'd do it with extreme MSU Marines in Rhinos + MSU Termies and only take the Raptors/Bikes in larger squads. Marks would still be a huge no-no.
It would still be somewhat decent in non-competitive play, but I wouldn't be deluding myself into thinking that I should be excepting a Night Lords theme to being anything close to Tournament capable.

Interestingly we also disagree here on what makes a fluffy Night Lord list.

To me Night Lords are about striking with overwhelming force and brutality, so basing the army around MSU would be wrong (I'd see that as a more Alpha Legion thing). I'd probably also throw icons into the foot sloggers as they effectively lower the leadership of enemies they've beaten in combat, which plays to the Night Lord terror warfare aspect.

I suppose this brings us onto an on topic point; Chaos forces are loosely, or even conflictingly, defined. This gives lots of room for interpretation/imagination/innovation as well as for discussion on 'what is fluffy' for the traitor forces.

Except the Night Lords don like chaos, don't worship chaos, and don't even live in the Eye of Terror. Their gene seed is also surprisingly pure.

PS Yes, there were 3.5 era rules for Night Lords, but those rules have contradictions with both previous and later fluff.

So I maintain, fluffwise, there are no solid rules on what Night Lord warbands can look like, the closest we have is generalisations (most look down on the fervent. They live for murder and the accumulation of material wealth. In combat they use shock tactics. Basically they tend to be space pirate mutilators).

PPS It is very rude to state people don't know what they are talking about, purplkrush. On an unrelated note, the first square brackets aren't meant to have the slash, that goes in front of the 'i' in the second set. That will make your italics work properly (if that was what you were hoping to achieve).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the Night Lords don like chaos, don't worship chaos, and don't even live in the Eye of Terror. Their gene seed is also surprisingly pure.

You are turning generalisations into a rule.

Some Night Lords embrace chaos, it is a common theme of conflict between themselves in any story they feature in (some think chaos should be viewed with suspicion, others embrace it fully).

Plus plenty of Night Lords do hide out in the Eye of Terror.

I'm not sure why so many people try to put across the idea that Night Lords aren't chaos space marines, when they were murderous, evil butchers that fed chaos (even if they did not worship) before the HH even started.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the Night Lords don like chaos, don't worship chaos, and don't even live in the Eye of Terror. Their gene seed is also surprisingly pure.

They do mutate however (the exalted) or ascend to daemonhood (Acerbus) or even if they don't worship them they do get consumed by the dark gods (Uzas being blessed by khorne)

nareik wrote:
I don't think we can use 3rd edition list composition rules to dictate what is a fluffy force. For starters there would be no such thing as knights nor allies and many unbound lists would be considered unfluffy by that metric.

Second to that, I don't think it is necessary for every person's list to represent a prototypical force... If for no other reason that the only armies people would be able to play are imperial guard / orks as any other army (like space marines, let alone night lords, or even, Emperor forbid, nurgle night lords) is too rare.

I also feel it is rather arbitrary to say 3rd ed is fair game for defining what is possible in Chaos (of which all things are possible ), whereas 2nd ed is defunct and doesn't count.

Chaos players only use the 3.5 edition reference, simply because that was the one and only time GW actually gave us a measure of really characterful rules to help define the Legions and allow for much more customisation. It wasn't perfect by any means, as a number of the choices made no real sense. (ie: why couldn't World Eaters for example have Havocs limited to say special weapons only?)

But in essence, Chaos Marines were the real pioneers of Legion/Chapter Tactics/Doctrines/etc... Unfortunately, we're the only army alongside Guard now that have had all their flavour ripped away from them.

 Arkaine wrote:

 purplkrush wrote:
Khorne works just fine but fluff generally prefers larger units which is not the current meta. They also get hurt by ranged armies which generally have more bodies to throw more dakka. This doesn't even touch on the ridiculously small quantity of "terrain" that most 40k throws down.

Khorne has been nerfed since 3rd because it used to be a strong close combat army. Chaos isn't allowed to be strong. Heldrake neck breaks and all. What Khorne used to be is +1 attack regardless, +1 Strength and +1 Initiative on the charge, the ability to have Feel No Pain on all your guys, and insane charge distances. That's no longer Khorne. They split Khorne into himself and Slaanesh.

He had a blood thirster with a D Weapons, a Castigator, Khorne dogs, a Juggy Lord and a Heldrake. So basically the best units they have. Couple cultist units because he had to. A soulgrinder for Anti-air and because: Soul Grinders. Pretty good. Strange combination but the Castigator is so ridiculously good that I'd certainly take it if i could stomach forge world.

I agree 3.5 wasn't perfect. There were lots of arbitrary limits that pushed legions to be caricatures of themselves.

It was a great codex for generic chaos armies though. The legion stuff felt like a bolted on afterthought to me.

What were the 3.5 rules for Night Lords? I can't remember them so well, were they a chapter approved thing, not 3.5 proper?

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Sure. If you ignroe the way they fight and want to ignore that the Chaos Undivided thing isnt an option, sure. But I don't care what you CALL it. It's a Night Lords list in every important functional way. If you want to call it the "Nurgly Nurgles of Nurgoliciousness" Im cool with that too. Whatevs. The thread is about CSM. So now that I have done it and it has done well, some of you can try it

Some people want their army more representative than this. Most longterm CSM players lament the loss of rules that represented the legions because they aren't a fan of the sort of jumbled together army that performs well enough. They want form and function and they don't want to have to assert models that aren't modeled with nurgly marks have nurgle marks.

I get it. I dont think it speaks to the actual codex strength. that just speaks to more fluffy players playing Chaos and i'm all for it.

nareik wrote:
I agree 3.5 wasn't perfect. There were lots of arbitrary limits that pushed legions to be caricatures of themselves.

It was a great codex for generic chaos armies though. The legion stuff felt like a bolted on afterthought to me.

What were the 3.5 rules for Night Lords? I can't remember them so well, were they a chapter approved thing, not 3.5 proper?

They traded 2 heavy slots for 1 extra fast and they all had night vision. And removed the 0-1 on raptors iirc.

 Jancoran wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Sure. If you ignroe the way they fight and want to ignore that the Chaos Undivided thing isnt an option, sure. But I don't care what you CALL it. It's a Night Lords list in every important functional way. If you want to call it the "Nurgly Nurgles of Nurgoliciousness" Im cool with that too. Whatevs. The thread is about CSM. So now that I have done it and it has done well, some of you can try it

Some people want their army more representative than this. Most longterm CSM players lament the loss of rules that represented the legions because they aren't a fan of the sort of jumbled together army that performs well enough. They want form and function and they don't want to have to assert models that aren't modeled with nurgly marks have nurgle marks.

I get it. I dont think it speaks to the actual codex strength. that just speaks to more fluffy players playing Chaos and i'm all for it.

The people who want something fluffy and representative they want a codex that allow these pre-established sub-factions to shine, even if its in a niche sort of way. Personally I think it'll be moot as GW will inevitably say "feel free to use 30k legions in games of 40k"... and when someone says they want to play Night Lords, GW will simply point to those 30k rules.

GW has been trying to move away from Chaos Marines as Legionaries and thats fine IF they give us a more cohesive version of what Chaos Marines should be. Crimson Slaughter is the perfect example of GW's failure; their fiction makes them out as pirates that are boarding action and drop pod specialists... There is nothing in their rules that represents that. No drop pods, no boarding shields... nothing that suggests they do anything differently to actually make them specialists at those things. The same is true of the main Codex too. GW doesn't seem to want us to think of CSM as legionaries but that means they are still using legionary weapons and seem to have forgotten all the different loyalist toys. They want it both ways and give us neither. So we're left in the weird ambiguous place where we should be able to do things with the Codex but can't.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

nareik wrote:
I agree 3.5 wasn't perfect. There were lots of arbitrary limits that pushed legions to be caricatures of themselves.

It was a great codex for generic chaos armies though. The legion stuff felt like a bolted on afterthought to me.

What were the 3.5 rules for Night Lords? I can't remember them so well, were they a chapter approved thing, not 3.5 proper?

They traded 2 heavy slots for 1 extra fast and they all had night vision. And removed the 0-1 on raptors iirc.

Their rules were:
- Only 'Daemonic' units allowed were Chaos Furies, Possessed and Daemon Prince(s)

- Only allowed was Chaos Undivided. Vehicles likewise could not be dedicated to any Chaos God.

- All Night Lords had Night Vision vet skill, plus access to their own unique Stealth Adept skill. (which also didn't 'use up' a vet skill slot)

- Could trade 2 Heavy Support for +1 Fast Attack choice.

- 0-1 limit on Raptors removed.

Stealth Adept skill was simply +1 to their cover save *if* the unit was in cover already. Bike, Steed, Daemonic Stature or Termie armoured models couldn't make use of the skill however.

You are turning generalisations into a rule.

Some Night Lords embrace chaos, it is a common theme of conflict between themselves in any story they feature in (some think chaos should be viewed with suspicion, others embrace it fully).

Plus plenty of Night Lords do hide out in the Eye of Terror.

I'm not sure why so many people try to put across the idea that Night Lords aren't chaos space marines, when they were murderous, evil butchers that fed chaos (even if they did not worship) before the HH even started.

Because you don't have to worship someone to supply it. The Night Lords hate chaos as much as they hate themselves.

And we can only go on what we have to go on. The most recent piece of crunch we have on the night lords is the 3.5. And no, whilst generalisations do not count for everyone. You look at the space marine book to get ideas on ultramarines, so you look at the most recent one to get ideas on the night lords.

 Jancoran wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

Sure. If you ignroe the way they fight and want to ignore that the Chaos Undivided thing isnt an option, sure. But I don't care what you CALL it. It's a Night Lords list in every important functional way. If you want to call it the "Nurgly Nurgles of Nurgoliciousness" Im cool with that too. Whatevs. The thread is about CSM. So now that I have done it and it has done well, some of you can try it

Some people want their army more representative than this. Most longterm CSM players lament the loss of rules that represented the legions because they aren't a fan of the sort of jumbled together army that performs well enough. They want form and function and they don't want to have to assert models that aren't modeled with nurgly marks have nurgle marks.

I get it. I dont think it speaks to the actual codex strength. that just speaks to more fluffy players playing Chaos and i'm all for it.

I don't know about that. I think it speaks to chaos players realizing that their builds are ultimately limited against the meta right now and so look for silver linings. Some go to Forgeworld. Some play fluff, not looking for competition. Some resort to non fluff justification for their armies. Some quit playing and instead just model. That's where I'm at at the moment. Chaos is the best army in terms of a modelers dream. We can do somewhat straight up loyalists with few modifications, we can do the spikes and nurgle stuff straight out of the box, we can do most of the cool stuff of daemons if we want, or we can do whatever the hell we want and call it a result of a he warp. What is chaos good at? Modeling opportunity. We have the ability to create the most glorious looking armies or the most decrepit. We can use most of the fantasy line and it works just fine. We can paint them pink or paint it black. We are artists. We do what we want.

So to sum up, chaos is where you want to be if playing a game of dice and winning is not your end all and be all. It's the hobbyists darkest dreams come true.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

nareik wrote:
I agree 3.5 wasn't perfect. There were lots of arbitrary limits that pushed legions to be caricatures of themselves.

It was a great codex for generic chaos armies though. The legion stuff felt like a bolted on afterthought to me.

What were the 3.5 rules for Night Lords? I can't remember them so well, were they a chapter approved thing, not 3.5 proper?

They traded 2 heavy slots for 1 extra fast and they all had night vision. And removed the 0-1 on raptors iirc.

Not quite. The Night Lords were allowed 4 Fast Attack but only 2 Heavy Support.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:

nareik wrote:
I agree 3.5 wasn't perfect. There were lots of arbitrary limits that pushed legions to be caricatures of themselves.

It was a great codex for generic chaos armies though. The legion stuff felt like a bolted on afterthought to me.

What were the 3.5 rules for Night Lords? I can't remember them so well, were they a chapter approved thing, not 3.5 proper?

They traded 2 heavy slots for 1 extra fast and they all had night vision. And removed the 0-1 on raptors iirc.

Not quite. The Night Lords were allowed 4 Fast Attack but only 2 Heavy Support.

Experiment626 already posted the complete rules, you were allowed only 1 Heavy, which was ok since Oblies were pretty tough back then and you were restricted to 0-1 so, no need for more slots. Also they had the special stealth but it came with a cost, can't remember if it was 2 pts/model or something like that. The night vision was free thou

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:

nareik wrote:
I agree 3.5 wasn't perfect. There were lots of arbitrary limits that pushed legions to be caricatures of themselves.

It was a great codex for generic chaos armies though. The legion stuff felt like a bolted on afterthought to me.

What were the 3.5 rules for Night Lords? I can't remember them so well, were they a chapter approved thing, not 3.5 proper?

They traded 2 heavy slots for 1 extra fast and they all had night vision. And removed the 0-1 on raptors iirc.

Not quite. The Night Lords were allowed 4 Fast Attack but only 2 Heavy Support.

Experiment626 already posted the complete rules, you were allowed only 1 Heavy, which was ok since Oblies were pretty tough back then and you were restricted to 0-1 so, no need for more slots. Also they had the special stealth but it came with a cost, can't remember if it was 2 pts/model or something like that. The night vision was free thou

Oblits were actually a 0-1 Elites option.
The swap to the Heavy Support section happened when GW royally ****ed us over and then danced across the tattered remains of our mutilated carcass in the 4ht edition middle finger age codex.

Stealth Adept was 5pts for HQ's & 1pt/model for Aspiring Champions/Squad Chumps.


***Edit: just to give everyone an idea of how bad & stagnant Chaos have become; Oblits have barely changed in over 14 Years!
They've gained the ability to take Marks of Chaos, a Heavy flamer, Assault cannon & Plasma cannon as possible body weapons, while losing the Frag Missile launcher weapon, Heavy bolter & Autocannon weapons. Other than that? Same pts cost. Same T4/W2/2+/5++ profile. Same lame-arsed restrictions that prevent firing the same weapon in consecutive turns.

Heck, they used to be able to each morph a different weapon within the same squad! Now? Nope, how dare you be allowed to play with that kind of adaptability/synergies, you foul, no good Chaos losers!

Consider that a gravcannon Centurion is less that a melta bomb more than a freaking MoN Oblit - THAT'S the kind of "left in ancient gaming history" Chaos Marines currently suffer from.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:


I don't know about that. I think it speaks to chaos players realizing that their builds are ultimately limited against the meta right now and so look for silver linings. Some go to Forgeworld. Some play fluff, not looking for competition. Some resort to non fluff justification for their armies. Some quit playing and instead just model. That's where I'm at at the moment. Chaos is the best army in terms of a modelers dream. We can do somewhat straight up loyalists with few modifications, we can do the spikes and nurgle stuff straight out of the box, we can do most of the cool stuff of daemons if we want, or we can do whatever the hell we want and call it a result of a he warp. What is chaos good at? Modeling opportunity. We have the ability to create the most glorious looking armies or the most decrepit. We can use most of the fantasy line and it works just fine. We can paint them pink or paint it black. We are artists. We do what we want.

So to sum up, chaos is where you want to be if playing a game of dice and winning is not your end all and be all. It's the hobbyists darkest dreams come true.

Chaos is good for modeling if you're into that. But ui think the point being made was that WANTING it to be fluffy is not a codex consideration its a personal one. The codex itself can produce a usable, and winning Night Lords flavored army. And thats all that it has to do to be competitive. If they stopped calling it Chaos and just renamed everuything to the "Codex: XYZ" would you then care whether i got Nurgle on me or not? No. You'd just say that the codes allows a really tough jump trooper if you're inclined to use it.

So The Chaos Codex is a prime example of where peoples WISHES aren't fulfilled so they start calling it names instead of trying to find out how to use what it IS NOW. Nostalgia? I get it. And lets face it: Raptors are kinda expensive for Assault Marines that get Fear. On the other hand: do I care as long as it BOTH works AND looks awesome? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Lord Yayula wrote:

nareik wrote:
I agree 3.5 wasn't perfect. There were lots of arbitrary limits that pushed legions to be caricatures of themselves.

It was a great codex for generic chaos armies though. The legion stuff felt like a bolted on afterthought to me.

What were the 3.5 rules for Night Lords? I can't remember them so well, were they a chapter approved thing, not 3.5 proper?

They traded 2 heavy slots for 1 extra fast and they all had night vision. And removed the 0-1 on raptors iirc.

Not quite. The Night Lords were allowed 4 Fast Attack but only 2 Heavy Support.

Experiment626 already posted the complete rules, you were allowed only 1 Heavy, which was ok since Oblies were pretty tough back then and you were restricted to 0-1 so, no need for more slots. Also they had the special stealth but it came with a cost, can't remember if it was 2 pts/model or something like that. The night vision was free thou

Kay in any event, they also, if you read the books, didnt use Defilers (Im told) but then that was not in the actual codex. So theres all kinds of fluff cross over and other stuff you could get tangled up in.

Does the Chaos Codex work? Yeah. It does. So you gotta' play a little better to use them. Thats okay. Tau know what thats like because they had to do it for like 15 years. Lol.

Not sure what rock you hid under, but Tau were solid in late 3rd, and their 4th edition book was ruthless during the 'Fish of Fury' hay days of 4th.
5th edition's core rules broke Tau, and then GW ignored them for an entire edition, because they had to let Imperials have a dominating edition of the game.

Tau have not suffered in any way like Chaos, Guard or Tyranid players have with their rules... Hell, even Dark Angels have suffered more than Tau have. The only real problem for Sisters players is that it's damn near impossible to actually buy their models!

I think its ok for the fiction and rules to evolve. Maybe at the beginning of the M40 Night Lords didn't do all those things but its easy enough to believe that given enough time, maybe corruption, or in fighting has driven them to.

From a rules side I think the Chaos Codex is a bit on the edge of working. The majority of the time it has combinations to do well enough. I think its more that you feel its age with a lack of formations that makes it lack a truly competitive edge against the armies that have had more recent revisions. It gets very challenging when you bring a Chaos army (which aren't very point efficient) and you go up against a marine army with the spamy number of tactical squads and transports of their main formation.

In a casual environment sure. But player skill and codex strength are two separate aspects of power for an army. No matter what you do to a chaos marine army, by itself it still has a low floor and low ceiling for optimization. If you make the best list ever, and play masterfully, an eldar list will still do better assuming an opponent with equal skill. That's the problem here: there shouldn't be tiers of usability to armies. If I liked blood angels I shouldn't be punished for not playing with the space marine prime book. If I like X unit, I shouldn't statistically be worse off if I didn't instead take Y unit which is strictly superior.

The problem here is that there is little reason to play chaos for a lot of fans now. The Lore is stagnate, or in some cases disgusting. Remember Draigo curbstomping a daemon Primarch? Or how word Bearers were retconned in how they worship chaos? How about this the models are horrendous compared to most other ranges, with the only good ones lately (DV chosen) were never fleshed out and were monopose snapfit. And mechanically we are the worst marine army period, even with FW options unless you just take chaos superheavies as an army.

As an example I recently touched the space marine book, and converted over my usual army of marines to it and took a boring random chapter so I wasn't being pampered (took mantis warriors). You know what I found? Units didn't die as much, had better options, and vehicles actually had support with my land raider being used as a crusader to transport sternguard which actually did better then my plague marines supported by Biomancy sorcerer. I had fun, and wasn't tabled by my friends Necrons like my chaos marines ALWAYS were

Experiment 626 wrote:
Not sure what rock you hid under, but Tau were solid in late 3rd, and their 4th edition book was ruthless during the 'Fish of Fury' hay days of 4th.
5th edition's core rules broke Tau, and then GW ignored them for an entire edition, because they had to let Imperials have a dominating edition of the game.

Tau have not suffered in any way like Chaos, Guard or Tyranid players have with their rules... Hell, even Dark Angels have suffered more than Tau have. The only real problem for Sisters players is that it's damn near impossible to actually buy their models!

What Rock did I hid under?

Well Tau empire was my first army. I won a whole grip of tournaments and Best gebnerals with them from 4th Edition onward (I was brand new at the tail end of 3rd) so I'm aware that they can totally play. I am also aware that if i had gone to a place like Dakkadakka in any era before 6th, you'd find 100 people a day telling you they are low tier and "outdated". Which deterred me not at all. So i wasnt under a rock. I was playing and winning with Tau Empire. But thats what you would have heard on a hundred forums or what have you.

That said, I had to get very good at the game to do what i did. And Tau Empire weren't powning anyone's GT's back in the day. Lets not even kid ourselves about that. EVERYONE seemingly TRIED Tau empire and then sold their stuff in 4th because of the locking units into combat thing. I know cause I was the one buying them. In 5th their codex was aged by then and overtaken by many new codex's, culminating in the "Matt Ward Incident". It wasn't til their 6th edition codex came along that Tau empire was a respected member of the "updated" community. Only it was tainted by the Taudar thing, which 6th Edition unwisely allowed. =)

So no rock. No rock at all. I'm just telling you that Tau empire had to fight a little harder and a lot smarter to win against the continual onslaught of codex's. Chaos Marine players who subscribe to the the thought that their codex "sucks" may have more of their emotions wrapped up into that declaration?

I mean I'm not here to tell you this codex is "just so great". Just saying you can go win a tournament with it.

 Jancoran wrote:

So no rock. No rock at all. I'm just telling you that Tau empire had to fight a little harder and a lot smarter to win against the continual onslaught of codex's. Chaos Marine players who subscribe to the the thought that their codex "sucks" may have more of their emotions wrapped up into that declaration?

I mean I'm not here to tell you this codex is "just so great". Just saying you can go win a tournament with it.

It's kind of concieted of you to assume you know better about a book then anyone else isn't it? Obviously people are invested, but that doesn't cloud actual facts that have been ignored or belittled for several threads.your opinion has value, but not more then anyone else's on here

autumnlotus wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

So no rock. No rock at all. I'm just telling you that Tau empire had to fight a little harder and a lot smarter to win against the continual onslaught of codex's. Chaos Marine players who subscribe to the the thought that their codex "sucks" may have more of their emotions wrapped up into that declaration?

I mean I'm not here to tell you this codex is "just so great". Just saying you can go win a tournament with it.

It's kind of concieted of you to assume you know better about a book then anyone else isn't it? Obviously people are invested, but that doesn't cloud actual facts that have been ignored or belittled for several threads.your opinion has value, but not more then anyone else's on here

No. I am just certain of my ability to win with it. And therefore see no reason to doubt. i am expressing an opinion of confidence. Others are expressing an opinion of doubt. We don't agree. That is no conceit. that's point of view.

Funny how I know a Chaos player who consistently doesn't lose.

He plays Black Legion/Emperor's Children.

He instagibbed a WK with a Chaos Knight and wiped out a squad of Terminators with a defiler. Plasma Oblits are not terrible.

 Jancoran wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

So no rock. No rock at all. I'm just telling you that Tau empire had to fight a little harder and a lot smarter to win against the continual onslaught of codex's. Chaos Marine players who subscribe to the the thought that their codex "sucks" may have more of their emotions wrapped up into that declaration?

I mean I'm not here to tell you this codex is "just so great". Just saying you can go win a tournament with it.

It's kind of concieted of you to assume you know better about a book then anyone else isn't it? Obviously people are invested, but that doesn't cloud actual facts that have been ignored or belittled for several threads.your opinion has value, but not more then anyone else's on here

No. I am just certain of my ability to win with it. And therefore see no reason to doubt. i am expressing an opinion of confidence. Others are expressing an opinion of doubt. We don't agree. That is no conceit. that's point of view.

You are also remarking on how others are only feeling different from you by implying a lack of intelligence and inability to play the game

Not intelligence. Willingness. Possibly ability. But mostly just willingness. How many "i just shelved mine when x codex came out" posts have I read? A lot. How many "My old list cant compete" posts? How many "Chaos doesnt have the formations to compete" posts when you can and will win without them? A lot. If you are winning, which of those resonates? None. Because despite all those posts, people ARE winning. Ask how. Dont ask "if" is my point of view. I want to hear more good ideas and less gloom

They CAN'T compete. That's why you don't see them at any of the big tournaments except as allies for Belakor or something.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They CAN'T compete. That's why you don't see them at any of the big tournaments except as allies for Belakor or something.

I'm still waiting on this mythical way to make Thousand Sons, or even just Tzeentch Marines in general, not completely suck.

The only things I've actually found "useful" in terms of Tzeentchian units, is to take small squads of Possessed/Warp Talons as allies to a full on Daemon army. Makes my Tzeentch Daemons happy, (gaining killy assault things), but it doesn't magically make my Chaos Marines suddenly viable. (just proves that those units are currently in the wrong gakking codex!)

But then I guess my answer is to stop playing Tzeentch and instead play Tzeenurgle, because... "Reasons."

You evidently just don't have the will to make them good. If you will it, they won't suck. My will says my wife gets all my models, what a waste of a will.

nareik wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
Only Night Lords is merely the name attributed to his army, not his claim to fame. The point attributed throughout the threads on this forum to his army was that he can successfully field a winning CSM list. With such a claim, a lot of Nurgle was expected.

Hrm, when one talks about "winning with a Night Lords list", that usually carries some fairly strong preconceptions for most people about how the army is built and plays. Producing a min-max'd MSU nurgle army with a bunch of S&P units doesn't really fit that, it's not really what anyone (except Jancoran apparently) would consider "Night Lords" army list.

Nobody would ever look at that army list and think "oh yeah, that's probably a Night Lords army".

Not true, his list isn't far from what I'd expect from Nightlords.

Uses overwhelming force to win combats.

Plenty of Fear causers.

Other 'psychological' effects (dirge casters).

Ability to strike from 'nowhere' (jump, deep strike).

Even mutilators I think can fit the Night Lord theme (deep strike, fear, melee focused, obsessed with personal power, use chaos as a tool to master for their own gain instead of a religion (they eat weapon spirits)). I've never seen any fluff that states "mutilators are known to be used by xx force", but that doesn't imply they can't be justified in any army!

Point 1 is obvious BS, every army uses that. It's not a distinct characteristic of the Night Lords.

2 and 3 are distinct chracteristics attributed to the Night Lords.

Point 4 is far too broad and would only be a distinct characteristic if an army DIDN'T use it.

Oblits and Mutilator actually belong to their own cult by fluff and are mercenaries for hire. They don't really fit the fluff of Night Lords but as mercenaries they don't have too.

I'm not against his list. I think it would be hella fun to play against and if we lived anywhere in driving distance I'd love a game. The technicalities are what define the Legions and the cults. The distinctions that define the color scheme you use, not the other way around. Is it an awesome individual warband blending two distinct fighting styles into something greater than the originals? Hell yes! Is it a Night Lords list? No. Night Lords don't swing so far to chaos that they'd have marks. Once your Lords and the vast majority of your warband is heavily enough influenced by a specific god so as to show significant signs of corruption, they're no long part of the group. Is it a Nurgle cult list? Kinda but not really. Nurgle cult doesn't flow with this style of tactics. Think of it this way: Nurgle is all about decay, any mechanization beyond the basics will break down too quickly to be cost effective in its maintenance (lookin at you Raptors).

Are these just my personal opinions regarding a game of plastic people? Yes. My personal bias plays into this as I began playing 3rd edition. To me the distinctions matter. HOWEVER, it's just a game, play it your way. Like I said, it's sounds like a fun list to go up against, but it ain't Night Lords.

The problem I have the the posted Night Lords list and actually many others that use unbound or the formations is that it can actually be what ever you want to call them. The posted list could easily be called a deathguard list given how much mark of Nurgle it had in it.

And that is the problem. With out a recognized set of allowances and limitations anything can be called anything and it pretty much destroys the identity of a true Death Guard or Nightlords list. And thats the problem wtih 40K at the moment is that there is no real army definitions anymore. Its getting much harder to have an army identity. Before 6th edition if someone said they were showing up with a Night Lords army, I pretty much had a good idea of what I was going to face. Now, hell it could be anything.

Some forces rely on attrition, others sabotage, others through range.

Overwhelming force in one sided combats is how GW describe Night Lords style of battle. It might sound stupid but that is how the fluff is described now.

Your welcome to take 3rd ed fluff in preference, but that doesn't discredit other perspectives.

Oh and interesting reminder that oblits were a 0-1 elite. I guess pretty much every chaos army under 7th ed is unfluffy by the all powerful 3rd ed metric .

Actually they are all just Iron Warriors / (insert favorite CSM faction here) hybrids. Iron Warriors had the restriction of the 0-1 oblits removed in 3.5

I think that most armies could benefit for more unit restirctions. There are some things that just get too powerful the more of them there are on the table. Its not good game design.

Also, on the note that oblits and mutilators are a cult...

I thought mutilators were completely different to obliterators on this?

Mutilators are simply melee terminators who have become way too obsessed with collecting weapons, so much so they fused with the weapons they collect and absorb their primitive weapon spirits, and can now manifest weapons at will (provided they didn't already manifest that weapon just a moment ago /sigh).

 Jancoran wrote:
Not intelligence. Willingness. Possibly ability. But mostly just willingness. How many "i just shelved mine when x codex came out" posts have I read? A lot. How many "My old list cant compete" posts? How many "Chaos doesnt have the formations to compete" posts when you can and will win without them? A lot. If you are winning, which of those resonates? None. Because despite all those posts, people ARE winning. Ask how. Dont ask "if" is my point of view. I want to hear more good ideas and less gloom

I've never given up on my CSM and still play at tournaments at my FLGS now and then, and get wins against the most powerful armies, but 100% of the time it is due to luck (great rolls, getting invisibility, getting cards on the maelstrom of war missions that I can complete by sitting there with my cultists) or because my opponent didn't pay attention to the objectives. That has nothing to do with how powerful the army is, in most of these wins I've ended about to be erased from the table, which is luck again since the game ends 1 turn before the enemy can finally destroy my army.

Winning a game doesn't change the fact that if being at equal power level a victory wouldn't have to depend entirely on luck or playing against people with a lot less experience on the game.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the Night Lords don like chaos, don't worship chaos, and don't even live in the Eye of Terror. Their gene seed is also surprisingly pure.

Then why not play Raven Guard?

 Selym wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the Night Lords don like chaos, don't worship chaos, and don't even live in the Eye of Terror. Their gene seed is also surprisingly pure.

Then why not play Raven Guard?

Because how the two former legions play as aren't identical. One likes to sneak in under cover, prepare a strike, and attack from all sides while the other is about overwhelming assaults and fear tactics. That's kinda like saying I want to play a good thousand sons army, so I better just play grey knights: its a vaguely correct alternative, but different enough that it is not helpful

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
Not intelligence. Willingness. Possibly ability. But mostly just willingness. How many "i just shelved mine when x codex came out" posts have I read? A lot. How many "My old list cant compete" posts? How many "Chaos doesnt have the formations to compete" posts when you can and will win without them? A lot. If you are winning, which of those resonates? None. Because despite all those posts, people ARE winning. Ask how. Dont ask "if" is my point of view. I want to hear more good ideas and less gloom

I've never given up on my CSM and still play at tournaments at my FLGS now and then, and get wins against the most powerful armies, but 100% of the time it is due to luck (great rolls, getting invisibility, getting cards on the maelstrom of war missions that I can complete by sitting there with my cultists) or because my opponent didn't pay attention to the objectives. That has nothing to do with how powerful the army is, in most of these wins I've ended about to be erased from the table, which is luck again since the game ends 1 turn before the enemy can finally destroy my army.

Winning a game doesn't change the fact that if being at equal power level a victory wouldn't have to depend entirely on luck or playing against people with a lot less experience on the game.

I am sorry to hear you give yourself so little credit. Luck? If you say so. You'd know better than I how your games go. I don't attribute my wins to luck. Again: just my point of view.

autumnlotus wrote:

 Selym wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
Except the Night Lords don like chaos, don't worship chaos, and don't even live in the Eye of Terror. Their gene seed is also surprisingly pure.

Then why not play Raven Guard?

Because how the two former legions play as aren't identical. One likes to sneak in under cover, prepare a strike, and attack from all sides while the other is about overwhelming assaults and fear tactics. That's kinda like saying I want to play a good thousand sons army, so I better just play grey knights: its a vaguely correct alternative, but different enough that it is not helpful

Fair point. CSM as a whole needs a conceptual redesign. It's currently "C:SM -2".

The havoc launcher is by far the best item in our codex.

Followed by scrolls of magnus (I use it all the time and love it)

Followed by Thousand Sons (because no one takes your list seriously)

 Konrax wrote:
The havoc launcher is by far the best item in our codex.

Followed by scrolls of magnus (I use it all the time and love it)

Followed by Thousand Sons (because no one takes your list seriously)

Havok launchers are cheap, but in no way great compared to most every codex choices for blasts.

Scroll of magnus is useful for small point games, or against armies with no psykers of their own. Personally I prefer it on a dark apostle tagteaming with a sorcerer of Tzeentch for boon of mutation.

And thousand sons are objectively worse then chaos space marines with a cheap sorcerer hanging out with them.they cost far to much with almost no benefit to that cost. Even if the opponent treats them like conscripts, they will still never kill enough to make up their points. If I was playing thousand sons I would rather have tzeentch generic marines and terminators to escort lots of sorcerers.

 Konrax wrote:
The havoc launcher is by far the best item in our codex.

Followed by scrolls of magnus (I use it all the time and love it)

Followed by Thousand Sons (because no one takes your list seriously)

I did an article on Tzeentch a while back:
Tzeentch stuff

 Jancoran wrote:

I am sorry to hear you give yourself so little credit. Luck? If you say so. You'd know better than I how your games go. I don't attribute my wins to luck. Again: just my point of view.

And on this day, we were so blessed by our 5th God of chaos... Jancoran... He who is clearly the best and brightest amongst the Dakka players. Who can refute an entire popular opinion by his force of will alone...

Seriously though, I love my CSM and have not / will not stop playing them, but statistically they are one of the weakest codex's out. Cut and dry stats they are worse point for point than their counterparts. Is it possible to win with them? Certainly. Are you going to have a good time vs. an optimized Eldar list? Probably not, unless you enjoy being turned into a fine mist by turn 3.

CSM have tons of options for modeling and painting, not to mention the possibility for homebrew chapters and warbands. To me CSM are good at bringing character and lore to the table. I have much more fun running my CSM than my Eldar, even though the win rate for both those armies could not be more different.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
The havoc launcher is by far the best item in our codex.

Followed by scrolls of magnus (I use it all the time and love it)

Followed by Thousand Sons (because no one takes your list seriously)

I did an article on Tzeentch a while back:
Tzeentch stuff

Some decent stuff in there.

The scrolls are awesome when I take my 270 point mega Sorc.

He has killed all sorts of things, and although he is expensive he either destroys himself or causes serious damage to the enemy.

Very fun to play to be honest.

 clamclaw wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

I am sorry to hear you give yourself so little credit. Luck? If you say so. You'd know better than I how your games go. I don't attribute my wins to luck. Again: just my point of view.

And on this day, we were so blessed by our 5th God of chaos... Jancoran... He who is clearly the best and brightest amongst the Dakka players. Who can refute an entire popular opinion by his force of will alone...

Seriously though, I love my CSM and have not / will not stop playing them, but statistically they are one of the weakest codex's out. Cut and dry stats they are worse point for point than their counterparts. Is it possible to win with them? Certainly. Are you going to have a good time vs. an optimized Eldar list? Probably not, unless you enjoy being turned into a fine mist by turn 3.

CSM have tons of options for modeling and painting, not to mention the possibility for homebrew chapters and warbands. To me CSM are good at bringing character and lore to the table. I have much more fun running my CSM than my Eldar, even though the win rate for both those armies could not be more different.

Overstating what I said and acting like I said it isnt cool.

I assume tongue in cheek so I'm not tooo offended. =)

The thing is, though, I built my Night Lords to defeat Eldar Wave spam originally and it oddly does pretty well against biker spam also. It takes one hard round of shooting and overwhelms the bikes, and then the Wraith Knight is left to do all the work and objective stealing but it cant be everywhwere at once, and i really can be. So I mean... i ant actually do much TO the Wraith KNight but his buddies? Oh, I can do something about them. And I do!

Don't give into despair. chaos isn't the dead meat its being made out to be.