Strong units for chaos marines?

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.

**Typeline**

Regwon wrote:
Looky Likey wrote:Strong or cheesy?

Cheesy would be nothing but Daemon Princes with Mark of Slaanesh and wings, Plague Marines with as many Meltas as possible and/or Thousand Sons, Raptors, as many Obliterators as you can fit in.

If you break it up with some Defilers, Berzerkers, and normal Chaos Marines, couple that with some toned down Daemon Princes then it won't be quite as cheesy.

Edit: I don't agree that Daemon Princes are expensive, even a basic kitted out Lord with a fist and a combi weapon is going to be within 20 to 30 points (if not 5 or 10 points time you give him a jump pack or wings) of a fully kitted out Daemon Prince and the Prince has better stats and is a MC. I agree that they are fire magnets.

cheese (as a gaming concept) is an illusion proliferated by people that get bitter about losing. certain armies builds will always be better than others. the fact that you are suggesting that a player should NOT do something because it may be construed as cheesy is rediculous. you play a game with a huge variety of options, some will be better than others, but if you cant deal with losing to some of then you need to harden the feth up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EY7lYRneHc

Cheese Elemental wrote:But you really can't use DPs effectively in a big army. They just get shot up and you've wasted 2KP and a boatload of points.

the idea that ICs are superior to demon princes in large games is a fallacy. yes they will be shot at, and yes they will probably die eventualy, but it requires a huge effort to kill a demon prince, far greater than than of an IC (that can be powerfisted to death). if your enemy is devoting so much resource to kill a demon prince they will not be focusing on the other elements of your army. if you dont have demon princes (for whatever wacky reasons) the rest of your army will be getting shot at. its much better to lose a demon prince after a few turns than it is to lose an IC and a squad.

what a lot of people dont realise is that demon princes dont often win games on their own. they (like most HQ choices in 40K) are support for the rest of your army. does it matter if they get shot? if you win the game it doesnt. will a demon prince help you win more games an any of the other basic HQ choices? most certainly. even against armies with huge firepower demon princes are better.

also, the only reason you would take a sorcerer over a demon prince is for use of a psychic power, such as lash (dont take a lord unless you want to have a fluffy army of some sort). lash wont win you games by itself, it will help, but its not the be all and end all. if you lose your lash carrier its not the end of the world, and since the combat prowess of a sorcerer pales in comparison to a DP there is no real reason to have one.

i would understand this argument IF there was a significant points difference between the HQ choices, but there isnt. an adequately equipped lord will cost the same and still be inferior to a demon prince. the same is true of sorcerers (especially tzneetch sorcerers). neither have the same versitility as a DP, neither can deal with such a wide range of foes and neither is good enough to warrant one over a demon prince.

to the OP: read this article. it is a good competitive break down of CSM

http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/Stelek%27s_Chaos_Space_Marine_Army_Analysis

QFT

Here is a list to sum that up.

HQ:
DP, MoS, LoS, Wings 155
DP, MoS, LoS, Wings 155
Troops:
10x PMs, 2x Melta, Champ w/ PF, Rhino w/ Havoc 340
10x PMs, 2x Melta, Champ w/ PF, Rhino w/ Combi-Flamer 335
10x PMs, 2x Melta, Champ w/ PF, Rhino w/ Havoc 340
Heavy:
3x Oblits 225
3x Oblits 225
3x Oblits 225

This will win.

Also Lords are a terrible choice. They really suck. Access to Daemon weapons does not a good unit make.

Edit: I predict this thread to become a war zone. After the invocation of Stelek I don't think many will be able to resist.

**Typeline**

Pirate_joe_666 wrote:
Raptors are the best fast attack option imho. Unit of 5-6 with meltaguns can blow apart some tanks then chuck their weight into combat.

What other fast attack choices are there? (I know them, but they suck. Unless it's a ton of Bikers with an IoN)

**Typeline**

Cheese Elemental wrote:But where's the fun if you always win?

The argument is: If you are losing adapt. If you can't beat Dual Lash, learn to beat it. If you can't beat Land Raider Spam, learn to beat it. It just so happens that sometimes your super fluffy Eldar list is crap and can't handle any other list because it is scatter brained and useless. Your 30 Spawn CSM list also isn't any good either for some reason. Sometimes learning to beat something is learning what units are trash. No codex is built with balance in mind, no individual unit was built with balance in mind. All is illusion, everything is permitted. Run what you want.

**Typeline**

Cheese Elemental wrote:The thing that really bugs me is the fact that fluffy lists are rarely good. I mean, there's no spirit in the game anymore. There are so few fluff-lovers like myself. Most people just play to win and not for fun. If you want to play in such a soulless manner, just play Vassal 40K.

There are plenty of you out there. Most of them aren't here though. They don't care about what units are strong for CSM. They care about what looks cool and what is fluffy. Probably using their time to get something done.

**Typeline**

Democratus wrote:
Typeline wrote:The argument is: If you are losing adapt. If you can't beat Dual Lash, learn to beat it. If you can't beat Land Raider Spam, learn to beat it.

This argument only works if the game is well balanced, which has yet to be proven of 5th edition 40K. In an unbalanced game certain lists are inherently more powerful than others and will always have an advantage.

That's when you change your list to counter said advantage.

**Typeline**

Democratus wrote:
Typeline wrote:
Democratus wrote:
Typeline wrote:The argument is: If you are losing adapt. If you can't beat Dual Lash, learn to beat it. If you can't beat Land Raider Spam, learn to beat it. It just so happens that sometimes your super fluffy Eldar list is crap and can't handle any other list because it is scatter brained and useless. Your 30 Spawn CSM list also isn't any good either for some reason. Sometimes learning to beat something is learning what units are trash. No codex is built with balance in mind, no individual unit was built with balance in mind. All is illusion, everything is permitted. Run what you want.

This argument only works if the game is well balanced, which has yet to be proven of 5th edition 40K. In an unbalanced game certain lists are inherently more powerful than others and will always have an advantage.

That's when you change your list to counter said advantage.

So your argument is that a game that is unbalanced is a good thing?

Strange.

The game is not made better if everyone must play one of 5 or 6 lists simply to remain competitive. That's the sign of a poorly designed system.

No sir it isn't. Never said anything that even resembles that. There are more than 5 to 6 competitive lists and the competitive lists that do exist can be tweaked individually to give you a better game against certain kinds of opponents.

Edit: fixed your partial quote so you can't misconstrue what I said.