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.

But where's the fun if you always win?

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.

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.

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.

There are many army builds than are considered cheesy. Dual lash, eldar jetbike councl, 45 lootas, nidzilla, landraider spam to name just a few. If every player in the world had an army that rivalled such builds in power (and believe me there are so many more than the standard internet cookie cutter builds) would they continue to be considered cheesy? If people stopped wimpering long enough to sit down and think "how can i make my army better, and how can i help others do the same" wouldnt the game improve for everyone?

We all know that.

However, there are top players out there who win there games even with an army that is not over the top.

Some of you make it seem that if you win alot you not having fun, power list or not. The #1 rule of gaming is to have a good time; win, lose or draw. There are no rules in the 40k rulebook banning any sort of list, fluffy or powerful. Learn to adapt! Who out there doesn't want to not only have fun, but to win their perspective games?

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.

Democratus wrote:In an unbalanced game certain lists are inherently more powerful than others and will always have an advantage.

You're always free to use those lists if you care about winning. If not then don't be surprised to find yourself at a disadvantage.

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 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.

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.

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.

Yes...It is. If there are a select few lists in a game which have advantage over others (and this is definately the case in 40K) then the game is not properly balanced.

I stated that there are certain lists in the game inherently powerful (therefore unbalanced) and your response was not to say this claim was untrue, instead you merely state "change your list".

If, instead, you had stated that the game was well balanced you could indeed claim that you "never said anything that even resembles that." Rather - in the quote you improperly added to my post - you even outright state that the codices were not even meant to have balance.

These combine to form a tacit approval of an unbalanced game. Which is why I thought it your statements were strange.

As to Strong CSM units:
Every slot in the Codex has very strong choices. This is one of the blessings of the codex. Unfortunately, most FOC slots (with the notable exception of Troops) have a "best" choice if not an outright "no brainer" choice. Daemon Prince, Raptors, Obliterator Cults...these are units which far outstrip many of the other units in efficiency and utility. When building an army for competitive play they will definately be on the short list.

Hey Krak-Kirby, toying with some army lists?
The discussion showed that there are some units that are must-have in any competitive CSM army, while other units are more suited for friendly play.

Unless you are playing an opponent or in a tournament where army composition does not matter (ie bring the cheeze) never use the lash. It is not competative as much as it is totally broken. I could "excuse" somebody using it in a pure emperors children army but there is a lot of people who consider it cheating.

I could "excuse" somebody using it in a pure emperors children army but there is a lot of people who consider it cheating.

This is my excuse when playing DP w/ lash.

Why bother excusing the fact that your using a dex to its potential in a competitive gaming environment (ie tourneys), i like the fluff for 40k it was one of the main things that got me into the game way back in second ed was sitting reading all the codexs and devouring each armies background and unique flavor,

this thread started as someone asking for advice on what were the "strongest units" for a CSM force, and it has bought out the people that damn taking things that work in the army, i have 2 CSM my tournament one and my balanced fun list, in the balanced list i use 2 dreads (giving them plasma cannons and never moving them an inch away from each other) this works pretty well as the PC is very rarely going to destroy the dreadnought and i had a great game where they spent 2 turns shooting at each other it was fun i lost the gave overall but damn it was fun

this army is an iron warriors army, in one game a few weeks ago i decided it was time to try lash, so i did, i told my mate who had arranged the game with for the next day and he said great bring it on, ironically i won the game - however i lashed 2 units of sternguard a grand total of 2 inches.....proving that it is not the game winner it sometimes is made out to be, as stated before it has its uses

with the way workshop has written that dex they have made chaos lose its unique flavor for each of the gods, for PM are no longer Death Guard Plague Marines they are essentially CSM that have given themselves over to nurgle like the Death Guard did, therefore i will be painting my PM to fit in with my iron warriors, nurglyfying them whilst keeping them in mainly silver armor to tie them in with the rest of my army and not have them stand out too much, same with any other cult troops, same with a daemon prince.

if you want to do the lash/pm/oblit army go for it, its what im going to be taking to next years tournament, however it all depends on down to you and what you want your army to look like, you asked us for advice on the stronger units to get an idea of what works in the CSM army, i still like using the humble CSM with their improved equipment they they get 3 attacks on the charge or can hold an objective with plasma guns and bolters etc what you have is a tactical squad that gets the best of both worlds i think they still have uses, as i said it all comes down to you and what you want your army to be like

99MDeery wrote:in the balanced list i use 2 dreads (giving them plasma cannons and never moving them an inch away from each other) this works pretty well as the PC is very rarely going to destroy the dreadnought and i had a great game where they spent 2 turns shooting at each other it was fun i lost the gave overall but damn it was fun

Of all the bad things GW has done to various lists, hell any game developer, severe randomness is the thing that drives me up the wall the most. The previous dread was random, but could be tweaked to make it a beneficial random. The current dread is beyond bad and mine will NEVER see the table under the current rules. Possessed are nearly as bad and even though I like the models, I doubt I'll buy them until they are made less random or heaven forbid, fixed in their profile. Nothing like spending points on something that may never even be in the battle, let alone make it's points back.

How about a Sorcerer with terminator armor, MoS, and lash joining a Terminator squad?

You don't want him joining a Terminator squad, as it isn't fearless. Attach him to some Plague Marines to make sure they don't flee the table.

It's really annoying that the Sorcerer is the only HQ that isn't fearless. Moreover, the TS Sorcerer is fearless, too.

So it appears that fearlessness transfers from fearless squad to non-fearless HQ joining it?

How is having some lists that are better then other lists make a game unbalanced? Part of the strategy of the game (indeed a real battle) is picking the right units for the style of play you have in mind and making sure that the army meshes well together. For me, how much fun I have isn't determined by the list, but the player (while it is true an Ahole player with a power list can be more annoying then just an ahole.) For a recent team tournament I brought my Dark Eldar and my partner brought CSM with 2 lash sorcers 2 oblits 2 noisemarine squads and some csm. I had brought 2 ravagers with max dissies. I thought we would get killed in Sportsmanship but got max score and a favorite opponent vote, we where only second to a team that got 2 votes and they brought 2 eldrads and 18 war walkers!!

The point is some lists are better then others, thats part of the strategy of the game. As long as everyone involved is having fun the component pieces don't matter nearly as much.

I'd like to throw the land raider out there too. In 5th ed they are very resilient.

Also, I here some lord haters out there. For smaller point games I agree the lash prince is the way to go, but when you start getting into 1800 points plus, I like the sorcerers and lords get better.

I personally think a slannesh sorcerer and a nurgle lord is a better choice than 2 slaanesh daemon princes. They ultimately play different rolls. The DPs are fire magnets early in the game and are a force multiplier for units that have low AP weapons or templates.

The sorcerers can hide out in squads and tend to make it to the end game. So if you go second you can use them to move units off objectives if you can keep them alive.

I personally send sorcerers up the board with a Plague marine squad in a rhino early in the game to clump squads for oblits. When hth's start to happen I toss the sorcerer in the landraider to save him for the end game.

This is a choice you don;t have with daemon princes...

As for the nurgle lord. I find that having a character than can single handedly swat a couple 'Nid monstrous creatures to be more valuable in tournies than 2 lashes. Also, poison under the new rules re rolls against equal toughness models. This is something that I think is usually overlooked.

Don't get me wrong. 2 lashes is very powerful, but I think people take two lash princes more because you are likely to lose a DP pretty quickly, so you need two to get enough out of them to make them worth it.

Anyway, just thought you might want a view that's a little different than being said here, which I think is equally viable.

Pete

Pdeflorio wrote:I'd like to throw the land raider out there too. In 5th ed they are very resilient.

Also, I here some lord haters out there. For smaller point games I agree the lash prince is the way to go, but when you start getting into 1800 points plus, I like the sorcerers and lords get better.

I personally think a slannesh sorcerer and a nurgle lord is a better choice than 2 slaanesh daemon princes. They ultimately play different rolls. The DPs are fire magnets early in the game and are a force multiplier for units that have low AP weapons or templates.

The sorcerers can hide out in squads and tend to make it to the end game. So if you go second you can use them to move units off objectives if you can keep them alive.

I personally send sorcerers up the board with a Plague marine squad in a rhino early in the game to clump squads for oblits. When hth's start to happen I toss the sorcerer in the landraider to save him for the end game.

This is a choice you don;t have with daemon princes...

As for the nurgle lord. I find that having a character than can single handedly swat a couple 'Nid monstrous creatures to be more valuable in tournies than 2 lashes. Also, poison under the new rules re rolls against equal toughness models. This is something that I think is usually overlooked.

Don't get me wrong. 2 lashes is very powerful, but I think people take two lash princes more because you are likely to lose a DP pretty quickly, so you need two to get enough out of them to make them worth it.

Anyway, just thought you might want a view that's a little different than being said here, which I think is equally viable.

Pete

this is a fallacy. it is very hard to kill demon princes. it is easier to kill squads with lords and sorcerers in. greater damage will be done to your army if you have a character hiding in a squad than if they are shooting at your demon prince. add to that that a demon prince wills everything much more effectively for the same a points cost there is no reason not to take demon princes.

on to the fluff/cheese argument

mech eldar, jetbike eldar, mech sisters, pure EC, and many others are fluffy lists that are still considered cheesy. they are not mutually exclusive. what could be considered a cheesy army is one that somebody doesnt like because they havent put the brainpower in to thinking how they can beat it.

in any case it is not the fault of the player if they play an army that is effective and does not fit the background, nor is it their fault if they play an ineffective army that does. it is the fault of GW for removing much of the background and competitiveness of many choises in many codecies.

ick, what a silly argument above about having fun vs fluff vs power gaming.

you GW people are just a different breed. nerdtastic. make comments about me posting then? ugh, I bought sconces and whiskey and I'll never troll back to this thread.

you win

ugh, I bought sconces and whiskey and I'll never troll back to this thread.

Cheers! Everything is said here. Lock it.