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.

Eh at duel con the finals of their 32GT players was
1. Daemons
2. Daemons
3. Nids
4. Eldar
5. Necrons
6.CSM/Daemons
7.Deldar
8.CSM
9. SM
10. tau/eldar

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/10/and-now-40k-meta.html

But yes CSM are competitive,

I don't know the exact make up of those lists, but I'm certain it will actually come down to heldrakes and plague are competitive. Or more accurately, heldrakes are so good that nearly any army containing them can win most of the time.

The issue with the CSM codex I found wasn't that it had no competitive builds but that out of the 30 units in the book, 5 were great, 10ish were ok and the rest were outright bad at doing the only thing they could do or just so much more expensive than other units that did the same thing that there was no point in using them. The same cannot be said for other 6th-minded codices.

The drakes are mitigated pretty eaily by a few rules like the 2 inch displacement and wound allocation. In competitive play you will never see them do more than a support role. Not to say they do that poorly by any means. Daemons allies will help a large amount I've found as well, also I agree on the 2 drakes > 3 drakes front however.

4 Helldrakes must have MOAR
Probably not very competitve though lol but silly, want to see it on a table.

GoliothOnline wrote:

I find 2 heldrakes more competitive than 3

Daemon princes arent competitive

Even Noise Marines arent that compettive

It really depends on your local meta...

I have seen game groups play with literally no cover on the board, simply open boards with sand and or grass... No hills, no buildings, no trees...

Wow, some game groups play the game quite wrong, lol.

Why is that wrong? Some battles are indeed fought out in the open. See: eastern front of WWII.

Ap0k wrote:

and even 20 can only have 2 of them.

10 can have 2. 2 Squads of 10 can have 4.

1 available regardless of squad size, with an additional available at 10 or more members.

Was FAQ'd ages ago,

Yes, I was responding to the thought of 1 20man unit with AN icon. 1 unit can only have 2

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Every army does well when played properly. That's why terms like compwtitive and viable are stupid and trite. In our local gaming circle, a Tyranids player has dominated our tournaments for a while now, even though Nids are "low-tier". Anything works well when you know how to use it properly.

Actually thanks to 6th Nids have risen up and is a decent mid-tier army. They were only Low-Tier in 5th due to the issues with Mechhammer and their lack of dealing with it, not to mention Biomancy everywhere.

Eh at duel con the finals of their 32GT players was
1. Daemons
2. Daemons
3. Nids
4. Eldar
5. Necrons
6.CSM/Daemons
7.Deldar
8.CSM
9. SM
10. tau/eldar

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2013/10/and-now-40k-meta.html

But yes CSM are competitive,

Those CSM lists didn't run many marines, it was mostly cultists, heldrakes, and plague marines.

They are Competitive in a very specific manner.

Cultists are mostly taken simply because they are the cheapest troops choice. Not because they are anything special in the eyes of most hobbyists.

Without trying to sound arrogant, I don't know if the responses in this thread do much to answer the question of the OP. Observations about the popularity of Heldrakes is really just a statement about the unit's popularity. Saying that any Codex is competitive with the right playstyle / build is a pretty general observation.

CSMs have a competitive Codex. I don't think it's competitive in a tournament setting, where you have to take a single list and expect it to perform against all comers. But in a friendly setting, where your list is optimized to beat a specific army, it's possible to design a force to beat a specific army, and beat it badly.

In terms of tournaments, the problem with CSMs really boils down to issues external to the Codex itself. First, the USRs other armies get for free has a big impact on games, and they have a bigger impact than anything we get for CSMs. Space Marines with ATSKNF is the best example, where their troops do not break and it affects the mechanics of the game. Like, a tactical squad that has only 1 model left can tie up a CSM squad in an additional round of combat, and this is huge considering the length of games. The new chapter tactics exaggerate this affect a great deal. The Eldar, Tau and Necron armies all have similar USRs, either on individual units or their entire armies. Bottom line is, in a tournament, you can get lucky and win against one of these lists, but probably not 3 - 4 of them.

In terms of friendly games, it's not very hard to design a CSM force specifically to beat any other army. Most of the lists you find on the internet are very general and designed to deal with whatever threats may come. Taking the time to tailor your list to fight specific enemies, when you know what they are and are not good at, leads to a lot more success.

Like most CSM players, I do very well against Orks, Tyranids, IG, SoBs, and SMs. I struggle against SW, Tau, Eldar and Necrons - which is not to say I lose to them all the time, I just have a tougher go at beating them. But I have army lists ready to go against each army, most of which do not involve Heldrakes, and do pretty well in friendly matches. Here are some specific tips I have for each:

- Orks are my favorite list and the one I do the best against. Ork players tend to bring a lot of boys. My anti-Ork lists are mostly composed of Noise Marines maxed out with Sonic Weapons. They tend to overperform relative to their points cost, given all the shots they can lay down and the lack of Ork armor. I like to bring 4 squads of 10 NMs in these games and typically by the 3rd or 4th round I have eliminated > 50% of his forces. The things that are left usually cannot score.

- Against Tyrannids, I do the same thing but back up the NMs with Dakkapreds and / or Autocannon Havocs. The combined firepower is necessary for dealing with the kind of hordes they bring.

- Against IG / SoB, I have 2 lists. One uses 2 10 man squads of bikers, who are great at getting behind Aegis Defense Lines and eating up large blobs. I always bring a CL with the Black Mace to get the extra wounds. Bikes also space out across a board very well, in case the IG player is dropping pie plates. The other list is more focused on anti-armor and is useful when I know someone is bringing Leman Russ squads. I max out on Obliterators and Raptors with Melta weapons to hit them from behind.

- Against vanilla SMs and Blood Angels, massed firepower and deep strikes are usually not as useful. I focus on my HQ options and bring powerful ICs that can take on tactical squads on their own. I bring cultists specifically to tie up tactical squads, and usually back them with Plague Marines and / or NMs with IoE (the goal being to outshoot enemy squads by being a little tougher). I will bring Heldrakes against these armies, but I also like to get MoN or MoS bikers to carry my CL up the board. Generally, battles against SMs come down to finding a way to get to their ICs and controlling the center of the board.

I don't have simple answers against the other armies, but do try to understand what my opponent has before I choose what to bring. But I do find more uses for generic CSMs in these lists than the others, their vulnterabilities only seem to come out when they face more units than they could shoot up in a single round. My Heldrakes / Obliterators / Preds / other things tend to get shot up before they can really do much of anything against these armies.

This is what's so tough for me about the new Codex, and about the idea of what really constitutes a competitive army. Chaos has a lot of tools, they cost a lot and can be very effective against specific opponents. They tend to perform better at 2k points and above. The downside is you really need to know your opponent, because what works against one army is not what's going to work against the other army. Tournaments are organized around the idea of bringing one army that can face all comers, and the CSM Codex doesn't really work this way. I think this is why it's so hard for people to get their heads around whether or not it's competitive.

One last thought: before the BL supplement came out, one of my favorite tactics was to put Abbadon in a Land Raider with a unit of MoN Chosen with Plasma and just aim them at the toughest thing my opponent has. Really deadly combo there, they would chew up their target in a round or two and draw a lot of attention to themselves. This is not the sort of thing you would want to try in a tournament, because it's not going to stand up against all armies. But it's great at taking out a Farseer, Riptide or Overlord along with whatever's in 12 inches of it very reliably. While it's expensive, this kind of thing tends to really screw with people's battle plans and is never expected.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Every army does well when played properly. That's why terms like compwtitive and viable are stupid and trite. In our local gaming circle, a Tyranids player has dominated our tournaments for a while now, even though Nids are "low-tier". Anything works well when you know how to use it properly.

boy is this the truth.

There's nothing I hate more than lazy analysis and glittering generalities

GoliothOnline wrote:
our ability to throw spikes on anything Imperial and calling it something else... Drop Pod = Dread Claw (I put spikes on it, shut-yer-trap!)

I keep hearing references to this. Is it an official rule somewhere or what?

So what about friendly games where you can't list tailor.

And I'd also propose that if your codex is only good when you can tailor, that's a bad codex.

You can bring a solid list of CSM that can take on all comers, but there has to be a bit of variety...

Versatility of noise marines make them a good option...also relatively cheap.

Plague marines do not have the offense to compete with the point value, Tsons are similar, but are deadly against high point marine armies like Grey Knights.

Cultists are too good for their value...so they often see the table.

CSM troops are only great with Fabius, 20 deep with a 50/50 CCW/bolter split...I like MOS on them..., then FNP...it's a gross CC unit S5 I5. Usually works well 2k points to 2,500 points

Laspred is great

Laspreds combined with noise marines makes a SM player like me cry. But the NM's or Laspred are now what I usualy Orbital bombardment.

I have had consistent success, actually, with noisemarines, cultists, chaos lord, only a single heldrake (2 in larger games) and, of all things, maulerfiends. And spawn.

My pair of maulerfiends together with a squad of spawn seriously ruin everyone's day. Taking lasher tendrils, most monsters that would smash them get only a single attack. More dangerous ones just get double-teamed. And they're so fast!

That assault element of double mauler and spawn in my army is causing people severe problems. I'm liking it!

What?! Someone having success without the PM/oblit/drake super boring spam list?! Impossible. But seriously, I love to see people doing good with underused units like fiends. I have many issues with the CSM dex, but fielding a competitive army is not one of them.

Martel732 wrote:
Why is that wrong? Some battles are indeed fought out in the open. See: eastern front of WWII.

I was exaggerating. It isn't wrong, it just isn't the best way to play 40k. Shooting is already emphasized even with the general guidelines for terrain that GW puts out. Having no cover and no LOS blocking terrain then just gives certain armies and certain builds way way too much of an advatange over others. If people know that, ok. But I see too many folks play with lack of terrain generally, not just in 'some battles.'

Ah. You mean they fight in "Tauland".

I always figured the whole point of power armor was to make the marines less reliant on cover, but now they are reduced to cowering in cover as well. Might as well play Orks at that point.

 raiden wrote:
Also remeber, thousand Sons are actually pretty good, bit pricey, but one of the better elites

Not a spammy type of unit, but one that is a lot better than some others. Plague marines are more durable overall though.

 Timmy149 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
Also remeber, thousand Sons are actually pretty good, bit pricey, but one of the better elites

Not a spammy type of unit, but one that is a lot better than some others. Plague marines are more durable overall though.

Not really close actually, Thousand sons are just poor in an edition where there is far better AP3 in the list, especially considering the poor powers on the sorcerer, the likely hood he'll kill himself using them, as well as the fact that they are very expensive but die just like normal marines with less fire output and can be tarpitted really easily with their sorcerer being forced to accept challenges.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Timmy149 wrote:

 raiden wrote:
Also remeber, thousand Sons are actually pretty good, bit pricey, but one of the better elites

Not a spammy type of unit, but one that is a lot better than some others. Plague marines are more durable overall though.

Not really close actually, Thousand sons are just poor in an edition where there is far better AP3 in the list, especially considering the poor powers on the sorcerer, the likely hood he'll kill himself using them, as well as the fact that they are very expensive but die just like normal marines with less fire output and can be tarpitted really easily with their sorcerer being forced to accept challenges.

A lot better than some units from other codices...

I think variety may be the way to go in this one. That and overall strategy. think about it, enough cultists can give vehicles cover. They are also a convenient tarpit for grav-gun centurions. Chosen can take 4-5 plasma guns in a 5-man squad, and a mark for 10 more pts. 10 Khorne berserkers in a Land Raider. MoN spawn rushing/absorbing firepower. 5 man Tsons squad in a rhino w/soul blaze. Raptors get FNP for 30 pts plus the mark. Alpha Legion use cultists as bait for ambushes all the time. There are dozens of options in this codex. Probably more. Try out new ideas, and see what they can do. But honestly, your own playstyle has to be in there somewhere. My own experiences with Grey Knights drive me to protect my units as best as I can. Cultists die easily, but come cheap and numerous, so they are taking some getting used to. Fiends have invul saves, so they appeal to me. I tried the Defiler, but could not make it work for me. Sorcerers get mastery levels for 25 pts a piece. Grey Knight Librarians pay 50 points for the third one. Don't want a unit in CCW? don't let him get there. bikes are fast and durable enough to tie up your opponents valuable units. And they get 2 special weapons no questions asked. daemonic possession on the vindicator: you are looking for hits anyway. Why not be able to ignore crew stunned/shaken on a 2+? destroyer blades casue wounds when tank shocking. Each unit is good at something. Trick is finding it.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. Short answer: yes. you just have to make them work as a cohesive army.

Thousand Sons or Possessed - which is the least crap of these units?

Not going for tourney tier, just as an Ork player I'm sick of using garbage

Chaos space marines of course are competitive...
I win maybe 80% of my games with chaos. (and I only use 0-1 heldrake)
You must be a competent commander and know exactly what each unit in your army is used for before hand, and deploy to that knowledge. For example my khorne juggerlord is a massive wrecking ball, so I put him on point on one flank to charge up quick and work down the enemy back field. Same strategy with the daemon prince. My cultists are objective takers/tarpitters so I keep a nice spread of them across the table so they can get into a combat or onto an objective almost anywhere. My defiler is the big gun platform so he goes central with clear lines of fire to pie plate infantry formations...

As always, practice makes perfect, but having a clear goal before hand goes a long way to taking you to victory.

.

Tzeentch guys standing on sky shield are pretty powerful. For the most cheese, ally with guard and take 2/3 vendettas to keep your heldrakes safe and a Rus squadron to sit on the skyshield

Make sure to surround the Skyshield edge with Tzeentch Cultists (3++) or Havoks to prevent those cheesy drop pods getting into melta range.

Every army does well when played properly. That's why terms like compwtitive and viable are stupid and trite. In our local gaming circle, a Tyranids player has dominated our tournaments for a while now, even though Nids are "low-tier". Anything works well when you know how to use it properly.



boy is this the truth.

There's nothing I hate more than lazy analysis and glittering generalities

lol glittering genralities like this one:

Just play better. half the problems people have would go away if they did. Lists cant do all the work for ya guys.

Seriously, saying "Your army is fine because "tactics" and then not making ANY suggestions other than to say "That guy I saw that time ..." or "So yeah, if you were better you would not be as bad" is really becoming a pet peeve of mine in these talks. You mention your blog is dedicated to tactics. Maybe link us to one of your posts that discusses the subject at hand? Personally, I'm of the mind that codex "NurgleDrake" is super competitive and that the rest is average to below par at best. I would love to be proven wrong by someone, but typically, the only answer given is "tactics" as though I hadn't already thought of that. lol

Without trying to sound arrogant, I don't know if the responses in this thread do much to answer the question of the OP. Observations about the popularity of Heldrakes is really just a statement about the unit's popularity. Saying that any Codex is competitive with the right playstyle / build is a pretty general observation.

CSMs have a competitive Codex. I don't think it's competitive in a tournament setting, where you have to take a single list and expect it to perform against all comers. But in a friendly setting, where your list is optimized to beat a specific army, it's possible to design a force to beat a specific army, and beat it badly.

I think this is a fair assessment and you do a VERY good job of going on to support your opinion. My biggest issue is that when I'm planning on playing some friendly Saturday afternoon games, I have no way of knowing who's showing up and what they are bringing so I tend to need a TAC list and, as you mention, TAC is something CSM really struggles with.

CSM have the ability to win games in a tournament setting. However, they need allies in order to beat Tau/Eldar.

Much like the 5th edition CSM codex, the 6th edition codex suffers from a very limited selection of effective units. (Cue a bunch of random people chiming in to claim that things like Thousand Suns and kitted out Noise Marines are competitive because they beat up on the same three people they play at their LGS with them )

The truth is, there are a handful of units that can still work.

HQ: Mace DP, Lord, Sorcerer, Abaddon, Typhus
Troops: Cultists, maybe Plague Marines
Elites: cheap Terminators
FA: Drakes (1 is pretty much required, 2 is a good number), Nurgle Spawn
HS: Maulerfiends, Oblits

Crons make a nice ally, as they add some fast moving troops, another assault unit, and an Anni Barge. Orks may be able to work as well, but you don't see it too much. CSM+IG isn't all that great. It works better with IG primary (and really, you want to go with SM Battle Bros at that point). Tau are the same. You CAN make Tau with CSM, but there are better allies out there. Daemons+CSM work better with Daemons primary.

The issue with the combinations is that CSM don't really bring all that much on their own. An HQ, 1-2 Cultist units, a Drake, and maybe some Oblits or a Mauler is all one really needs from the dex. Thus, in an ally role, CSM are fine. When used as a primary army, players need to be prepared for some of the newer nastiness. The big three of Tau/Eldar/Daemons are hard to handle. Crons are still a tough match-up as well. One final thing to consider is allying CSM with CSM via the Black Legion dex. The ability to grab 2x Drakes and 2x Spawn with 4x Maulers would be a way to beat Tau and Crons, as there are enough threats to make it across the board.

It isn't that CSM can't win in a competitive setting--they can. However, players claiming that it is easy or that the army isn't at a disadvantage are being naive. The book simply isn't all that good as a whole.

It isn't that CSM can't win in a competitive setting--they can. However, players claiming that it is easy or that the army isn't at a disadvantage are being naive. The book simply isn't all that good as a whole.

QFT!

The lack of synergy between its own units, rules like Champion of Chaos, and the lack of internal balance makes this book a bit of an uphill battle imo.

I hear rumblings that terminator heavy armies are doing well, with obliterators and such. although now with grav weapons, the approach against space marines will have to be carefully addressed.

Chaos still has good nurgle bikers, good flyer, good/decent heavies. I haven't run my Chaos marines in a while, so I'm not sure how they fair against the likes of Tau and new eldar, but a savvy player can make anything work.

What is the definition of competitive according to the OP? (sorry if i missed it in the thread). can you play at your LFGS? sure!.... local RTT? sure!... NOVA or a GT? Probably not without allies, but it wouldn't blow my mind if someone did it.