Chaos marines, underwhleming?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**ZebioLizard2**

bogalubov wrote:
Makumba wrote:

And SW or GK were popular because of their awesome fluff? no army gets popular because of fluff .

Exactly.

The OP started the thread because he doesn't like heldrakes, obliterators or nurgle. Because of that he feels that the chaos codex is under powered and uncreative. He would like to have more options that do not involve taking any of those options.

Throughout the thread I have been trying to show that the codex is not underpowered. It is of medium strength and that the problems that people have with it are not unique to the CSM codex. As part of that proof, I was brought up the supposed salad days of chaos space marines when choices were abundant and everything was strong. During those times people still gravitated only to a select number of units. Things are no worse than they have been before, that's what I am trying to get across.

And yet that does not mean that the extra choices that were in the book were completely useless, far from it as many other choices were still very viable. I still have blastmasters on my predators and dreads afterall before the Alessio/Gav "work" on 4th edition. I could still take Cult Terminators and have a full Legion/Warband and still do very well.

**Gharron**

bogalubov wrote:
Gharron wrote:

It's this I think that bother me most. I've had some terrible dice rolls in a game which led me to be a little underwhelmed with typhus and termis in general. But, as I started looking inwardly at my list and trying to understand exactly where I went wrong I'm just not pleased with most units. Everyone says this unit is bad that unit is unusable unless you want this or that. I'm just not sure where to go other than to nurgle for most things. Tzeentch doesn't have anything to garner his points cost for MOST units. Slaanesh is great for combat mediocre to poor for everything else. Nurgle is...nurgle and khorne is a liability because of the BRB. I'm just not sure where to take my army to feel like I can even put up a fight other than to do what everyone else is doing and take PM and lots of heldrakes. I don't really WANT to do that though and I'm working on a list with vindis bikes heldrakes normal csm's and some things to make me feel like an iron warrior...
I just feel like the "variety" is what the power of the book is SUPPOSED to be and it just fell waaaay short.

I am not sure what you expect from an Iron Warriors army. They are probably the CSM faction that gained the most from the new codex and 6th edition. You can bring havocs, obliterators (who possibly originated in the Iron Warriors), vindicators and predators. The majority of the new units are geared for them as well since they are daemonic machines. The forgefiend, maulerfiend and yes, even the heldrake are the fusion of machine and daemon.

Plus in 6th edition you can take fortifications which the Iron Warriors love. Furthermore, you can take allies. This gives you access to artillery batteries from the IG.

Now to go back to the 4th edition codex. The Iron Warrior special rules allowed you to take more heavy support at the expense of fast attack and they allowed you to take a basilisk from IG. The ally rules allow you to do both now. By the way, the only reason why Iron Warriors were popular back in 4th edition was the extra heavy support choice. The reason that was the case was that it allowed you to cram in more obliterators in the army. So even when choices were bountiful, people just spammed the best unit.

Never said I didn't like the oblits. I love the oblits, I just think it's sad with the amount of units we have that we're so piegonholed with this codex. I played a game yesterday and tabled a dark eldar player using huge blobs of marines 2 helbrutes some bikes and a heldrake. The helbrutes outshined all of my units but purely through bad dice rolls on the DE player's part. I know that most codices' have their strengths and weakness I came from orks to MEQ but I thought with all of the background and all of the choices we have, I would have gotten more bang for my buck. Iron warriors like to destroy fortifications not build them =P I don't remember in any of the books I read with the IW having daemon engines...I mean they're cool models and I will get some but man I'm just not happy overall, to each his own? I'll find my way with this codex like other people have said, I haven't given the codex a mess ton of play testing YET. but I did get to try a generous amount of the units against a tough opponent that it just did not measure up to.

**Jancoran**

bogalubov wrote:

Exactly.

The OP started the thread because he doesn't like heldrakes, obliterators or nurgle. Because of that he feels that the chaos codex is under powered and uncreative. He would like to have more options that do not involve taking any of those options.

Throughout the thread I have been trying to show that the codex is not underpowered. It is of medium strength and that the problems that people have with it are not unique to the CSM codex. As part of that proof, I was brought up the supposed salad days of chaos space marines when choices were abundant and everything was strong. During those times people still gravitated only to a select number of units. Things are no worse than they have been before, that's what I am trying to get across.

A Reasonable argument.