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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
Orks are good.

Orks are the definition of mediocre at best.

It depends. I see orks as very solid. At least waaaay above how op depicts them.

As for CSM, they can be fine but it requires more effort and list variations ain't great without allies or FW.

The persistent problem is just the game itself, which is totally stalled with every army that needed work in sixth now barely playable, and every army that didn't need work in 6th buffed to absurd levels.

The people playing a poor army were dealing with 45% win rates, cookie cutter builds, lame rules and scant fluff in sixth and early 7th and going into 7.5, that winrate dropped to 35, 30, 20...and all the while all the people stomping them with crazy librarius conclaves and 2+ rerollable jinks and army wife ignores cover were saying

"Don't complain! GW is putting out great codexes every month now! You'll get yours, there's no reason I should feel bad just because I got mine a little early!"

Well, here we are. Given the guard and Ork content released recently, GW thinks the current balance level is in a great spot. There are ZERO rumors of upcoming 40k releases for any of the have-nots. It seems to be a nonexistent priority given the recent releases (oh what the heck, two new mini factions! Plastic marines for the only space marine game! Age of sigmar! Space marine anniversary edition!)

So by all means. If you have a reason csm de ba IG sob Ork and Nid players shouldn't be bitter, share it.

They just don't have much in the way of viable builds. They are bottom of the power tier and for some reason the only thing they had going for them were Heldrakes, but once GW sold enough of them they nerf batted them. The only faction worse off currently are (in my opinion) sadly my fav army, the orks who got the worse codex update ever to be worse than the outgoing one.

Honestly, CSM rules are just horrible.
I wanted to play CSM when I started, but the rules were just so bad I couldn't bring myself to it, and eventually went to my second favorite tau.
I'm pretty dedicated tau these days, but I try going chaos every once in a while, but I just CAN'T. the most cheesy boring lists are easily trumped by my most casual tau (and I tend to play mostly the subpar tau units, very little of the new generation), heck anything I can think of with csm it takes me zero thought to do a better loyalist marine variation, even without ally minmaxing or formations.

The codex is just bad. Both in power and in design.

=Most units are between slightly overpriced (most infantry) to hideously overpriced (possessed, 1ksons) with very few well priced.
=There is nearly no synergy between units beyond "we both shoot stuff" or "we both charge".
Some units dont even have synergy with themselves (warp talons and mutilators) or psychotic (defiler)
=Many fields lacking (no proper AA or artillery except a poor unit like flak havocs and defiler )
=There is no real focus. It's called" chaos space marines", but it's a mishmash of Chaos marines, chaos cults, dark mech and human cultists. However because it doesn't accept the fact it's not CSM but chaos in general there is no proper interaction between the subgroups as they are all treated as tack on the CSM. Even though the CSM are honestly a minority.
=Little "personality" of the various chaos groups.
=So much RNG and loss of control. I know it's chaos, but for feth sake. Random is nice when all results are decent, and about as decent. But CSM random goes from "you're screwed" to "jackpot"
=The slannesh question hits here too. What IS tabletop slannesh? He currently has a mix of unrelated factors (initiative boost mark, cult unit is all about special stationary guns, banner in FnP. Mishmash inside the mishmash that is CSM)

A MASSIVE change is required. And fans are right to complain.



Currently I'm working on a fan codex set to completely rewrite chaos, but it will take some time. (writing five similar yet unique codcies is time consuming. And the slannesh codex is hard) hopefully I can post initial outcome soonish (given that one of them is basically patched KDK, that one is quick. Nurgle not too hard either.)

While the rules are horrible and only a mere 10+ years out of date, an even bigger issue for many of us is that the model line itself is in even worse shape.

Look at what we have available in plastic for just 'basic upgrades';
- Flamer, Meltagun, Plasma gun.
- Heavy bolter.
- Power sword, Power fist, Lightning claws (only because Warptalons are so garbage).

Show me another army besides Sisters of Bitter who have such a useless model line...

Over half of our codex isn't even available 'off the shelf', instead being limited to ancient, expensive & crappy Finecast bitz packs. And of the few actual squad boxes we do have, only two of them even come with enough actual bitz to build a viable squad. (Termie Lord/Sorc + Raptors/Talons box)
On top of missing 50% or more of our basic upgrade options in the bare handful of non-vehicle plastic kits we do have, almost all of them are at least 10+ years old, and either are full of miscasts/botched details (of what little there even is), or else aren't even from this ****ing millennium.

Instead, Chaos players get to pay as it's been long dubbed "The Chaos Tax", being forced to shell out for Imperial kits to fill in the massive holes that still remain in our model line.


And we're sick of it. We've suffered the double standard of being the eternal "have-nots" long enough, and sick of every Loyalist player hand-waving away the many, many issues with BOTH our rules & model line, while they've spent the last decade and a bit receiving almost every single thing that used to be a unique Chaos rule/ability/toy.

Instead, we keep being punished for the imagined crimes of the Eye of Terror campaign, where for once, Space Marines weren't simply handed their instant victory on a silver platter and instead had to choke down a helping of humble pie.

DorianGray wrote:
Arguably there are armies with worse codexes out there. Like Orks, Sisters of Battle, Imperial Guard and Tyranids

Oh lordy...

Because people don't want to feel like a joke. For so many, the faction they choose has a huge emotional investment in it. And the larger your personal army grows, the deeper that investment gets. So after 3.5 years seeing the gap grow wider and wider between the factions... yeah, there's some bitterness.

Forums exist for people to share their ideas and opinions. Both positive and negative. It's going to happen, as long as the perceived and actual unfairness of the game is a factor. Which, well, will be always.

CSM: that faction you take only as an allied detachment so you can get a Dreadclaw in your Khorne Daemonkin list.

They're way, way overdue an update and a boost in power level. I don't understand GW's decision on this - I'd buy a CSM army if they just put a little work into it. It's a great faction for kitbashing and innovating.

Chaos Fire raptor...I rest my case.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Chaos Fire raptor...I rest my case.

What case? That CSM get a hand-me-down version of a loyalist unit, missing half its rules but costing the same points? If fire raptors are so good why don't you see anyour SM CAD just to take one? It's a walking stick given to a paraplegic, then asking why he can't keep up.

StarHunter25 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Chaos Fire raptor...I rest my case.

What case? That CSM get a hand-me-down version of a loyalist unit, missing half its rules but costing the same points? If fire raptors are so good why don't you see anyour SM CAD just to take one? It's a walking stick given to a paraplegic, then asking why he can't keep up.

Choas fire raptor is a much improved loyalist fire-raptor. Fully capable of crippling 3 units a turn. You don't see any loyalist take the fire raptor because it is gak compared to the chaos version. LOL joking.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Chaos Fire raptor...I rest my case.

Where can you find the rules? Are they in the codex?

The fire raptor is awesome, but it comes with a very large money tax.... Its actually cheaper to play a HH legion army....

Thoughts... inflammatory initial post using the guise of a question to complain about 'whiners'

I doubt any actual reasons for CSM being a poor codex I provide would change your opinion.

StarHunter25 wrote:-snip- then asking why he can't keep up.

welshhoppo wrote:
-snip- Its actually cheaper to play a HH legion army....

I believe that's his case for why CSM players are so bitter, not his case for why CSM players shouldn't be.

zerosignal wrote:They're way, way overdue an update and a boost in power level. I don't understand GW's decision on this - I'd buy a CSM army if they just put a little work into it. It's a great faction for kitbashing and innovating.

Don't be silly. It's how 40k works - you pay for customisability and interesting modelling opportunities by being rubbish on the table.

 Vaktathi wrote:
[

The 4E CSM codex has *one* really good thing. Lash of Submission. Aside from that, it was "eh" ok in terms of power level. CSM's were likewise not the dominant army of 4th edition. You're thinking of Eldar and the unkillable skimmerspam flying circus. CSM's were solid in 4E, and part of the problem currently is that the army really hasn't changed, it's still built around 4E & 5E core rules mechanics that no longer exist or function. You can't consolidate into new combats anymore (which was a good change, but an impactful one for CSM's), you can't assault out of a stationary transport anymore (a very poor core rules change), it's new Daemon Engines are built to function and costed to 5E vehicle rules, while newer armies get such units as far more capable MC's instead.

I take it you don't remember the other fourth edition codex then?

You know, the one with the all but unbeatable iron warriors builds, siren prince builds (that could not be targeted by enemy attacks) and the rest of Pete Haines' ridiculousness. It (and specifically, iron warriors) very much was the dominant army of most of fourth edition.

Trust me. It was bloody broken. The codex you're thinking about was the one that gave the one I'm talking about a good kneecapping. But the one I'm talking about would make any of the cheese builds today blush with shame.

 Vaktathi wrote:
[
[Even if we assume CSM's were the most broken OP army in 4th (though few would consider them to be so), how many people playing the game today played 4th? Maybe 5-10% of the playerbase? Most people play the game for a year, maybe two, and move on, very few play for multiple editions, much less through four of them or more. 4th edition hasn't been in place in 8 years, it's time to let it go.

Some did.

But surely, ten years is enough time to be in the doldrums?

You mean the 3.5 dex, not the 4th ed. :p

Pete Haines is the only person at GW who has given CSM any real care and effort in like 20 years. He overdid it a bit and the 3.5 codex allowed some nasty builds (Iron Warriors being probably the main offenders) but it could have easily been solved with minor adjustments and tone-downs.

It didn't happen. 4th ed. codex was a massacre.

DorianGray wrote:
so I could care less.

Couldn't care less. Could care less means you care a little.

DorianGray wrote:
There are or WERE a LOT of CSM players from back in 4th when they ***ed everyone.

That was 3.5. If you're going to bitch about bitchers, at least be right.

Much of the CSM criticism is warranted, as they are grossly overpriced for the most part, the model range is extremely dated, and CSM are the only army given new models that were clearly MCs in fluff and design, but were instead made vehicles (ie, dinobots).

What I can't stand is the belief that any Imperial unit should automatically have a Chaos version. This was really prevalent when the various Ad Mech armies came out, but also comes up every time there is a new loyalist marine release. If you want to play with the same toys as Loyalists, build an Imperial army, or play 30K.

I'm on the fence about the demand for Legion rules....per the fluff, most of the traitor legions are no longer functioning legions and haven't been for a long time; however, there are a few that have remained intact, and the game should represent that. How about GW make a bigger deal about those few legions that are intact (I believe its Alpha Legioin, Iron Warriors,and Word Bearers that still function as single unified organization) and publish a separate Codex for each, treating them in the same manner as Space Wolves, Blood Angels, etc. The rest can be done via the CSM standard codex, which should really function in the same way as the Black Legion. Also, continue making a Daemonkin style book for each of the Chaos powers.

So, Legion rules for those few that remain intact is fine. For non-Legion (ie, the core CSM codex), revise the Mark system, make an army wide version that is based on the composition (Chaos Undivided tactic for mixed cult armies, specific tactics for single Cult armies), and also have the actual marks themselves as option for non-cult units.

Deadnight wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
[

The 4E CSM codex has *one* really good thing. Lash of Submission. Aside from that, it was "eh" ok in terms of power level. CSM's were likewise not the dominant army of 4th edition. You're thinking of Eldar and the unkillable skimmerspam flying circus. CSM's were solid in 4E, and part of the problem currently is that the army really hasn't changed, it's still built around 4E & 5E core rules mechanics that no longer exist or function. You can't consolidate into new combats anymore (which was a good change, but an impactful one for CSM's), you can't assault out of a stationary transport anymore (a very poor core rules change), it's new Daemon Engines are built to function and costed to 5E vehicle rules, while newer armies get such units as far more capable MC's instead.

I take it you don't remember the other fourth edition codex then?

You know, the one with the all but unbeatable iron warriors builds, siren prince builds (that could not be targeted by enemy attacks) and the rest of Pete Haines' ridiculousness. It (and specifically, iron warriors) very much was the dominant army of most of fourth edition.

Trust me. It was bloody broken. The codex you're thinking about was the one that gave the one I'm talking about a good kneecapping. But the one I'm talking about would make any of the cheese builds today blush with shame.

The book you are referring to was a 3E book, I do know it very well, but it was released two years before 4E was released. I was assuming when OP referenced the 4E CSM codex, they were referring to the CSM codex released during 4E.

Yeah, it had balance issues, absolutely, though even the nasiest IW army from that book would be thoroughly yawn inducing today and wouldnt do very well at all. That said, the fluff and feel of that book was excellent.

I think it's hilarious that people think that CSM players want an OP codex just because we want a decent fluffy codex full of rules that fully represent the myriad legions and warbands that were previously available to us and are prominent in the fluff.

Nobody said that other armies don't need updating. Hell, Eldar could do with an update, and by update I mean update their points costs to reflect the relative power of their units.

Some people genuinely want some effort put into their army. Some people want quality in their rules. I don't care if people think I'm asking too much, I want my legion rules back god damnit. I want proper special rules to represent all cult armies. I want a Daemon Weapon for all 4 gods, not just one. I want good warlord traits, amazing artifacts and fluffy formations that don't penalize me for taking actual normal Chaos Marines. I want the codex to stand on it's own and be able to at least have a 50/50 shot of taking on all other armies in the game. I consider this to be the bare minimum requirement for my satisfaction and I refuse acknowledge a job well done until these demands are met.

I think chaos players have very legitimate gripes about their current standing in the meta. Here's one of, if not the biggest bads of the villains in the fluff. One of the core factions of the entire game and franchise, and they are languishing with outdated rules and models.

I don't even play chaos and it annoys me that the Tau, a faction that IMO doesn't even fit the grim dark setting, get more attention than the main villains.

When GW is releasing rules for individual companies of loyalists, the fact the Legions are mostly fractured doesn't seem like a reason they shouldn't be supported.

 Vaktathi wrote:

The book you are referring to was a 3E book, I do know it very well, but it was released two years before 4E was released. I was assuming when OP referenced the 4E CSM codex, they were referring to the CSM codex released during 4E.

Yeah, it had balance issues, absolutely, though even the nasiest IW army from that book would be thoroughly yawn inducing today and wouldnt do very well at all. That said, the fluff and feel of that book was excellent.

You should clarify then.

It was technically one of the two third edition codices. The one I'm referring to here was released in 2002 as you say. The other was released in 1999.

Considering it was the codex that chaos players brutalised the vast majority of fourth edition with (four of its five year lifespan), in my mind it very much was the fourth edition codex, and it pretty nearly ruined 40k towards the end of its life. I still remember going to tournaments and every one else (I was the masochist who took tau, who were quite severely underpowered towards the tail end of fourth ed. le sigh, how things change!) running iron warriors. The 'fourth edition' codex you refer to was released in 2007 with fifth edition pretty much coming in on its heels in 2008, so I'd very much debate it as the 'true' fourth edition codex, since most of its lifespan was during fifth edition, but that's really just semantics we'd be debating.

And I'll debate the fluff and feel too, my good sir. The opening story of a csm decapitating a space marine from behind (despite his backpack making this impossible) was always a doozy, and I loved how loyalist marines were essentially made out of cardboard. In 'feel', it was just brutally overpowered compared to everything else that was there. When the next codex came along and kneecapped it, I shed no tears. Thst codex was a monstrosity.

It's called 3.5 because it is the second codex of the third edition.


And at least they tried in that one, the 4th codex was blander than a paper sandwich.

Deadnight wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The book you are referring to was a 3E book, I do know it very well, but it was released two years before 4E was released. I was assuming when OP referenced the 4E CSM codex, they were referring to the CSM codex released during 4E.

Yeah, it had balance issues, absolutely, though even the nasiest IW army from that book would be thoroughly yawn inducing today and wouldnt do very well at all. That said, the fluff and feel of that book was excellent.

You should clarify then.

It was technically one of the two third edition codices. The one I'm referring to here was released in 2002 as you say. The other was released in 1999.

Considering it was the codex that chaos players brutalised the vast majority of fourth edition with (four of its five year lifespan), in my mind it very much was the fourth edition codex, and it pretty nearly ruined 40k towards the end of its life. I still remember going to tournaments and every one else (I was the masochist who took tau, who were quite severely underpowered towards the tail end of fourth ed. le sigh, how things change!) running iron warriors. The 'fourth edition' codex you refer to was released in 2007 with fifth edition pretty much coming in on its heels in 2008, so I'd very much debate it as the 'true' fourth edition codex, since most of its lifespan was during fifth edition, but that's really just semantics we'd be debating.

And I'll debate the fluff and feel too, my good sir. The opening story of a csm decapitating a space marine from behind (despite his backpack making this impossible) was always a doozy, and I loved how loyalist marines were essentially made out of cardboard. In 'feel', it was just brutally overpowered compared to everything else that was there. When the next codex came along and kneecapped it, I shed no tears. Thst codex was a monstrosity.

By your own logic, then Loyalist players should no doubt suffer at least 10+ years of kneecapped, flavourless, garbage bin quality rules, since their 5th, 6th & now especially 7th edition rules are beyond obnoxious and have ruined the hobby for at least half the game's armies.

Remind me not to shed a tear when it's your army kicked to the curb and left to rot for over a decade if that's your attitude.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

The book you are referring to was a 3E book, I do know it very well, but it was released two years before 4E was released. I was assuming when OP referenced the 4E CSM codex, they were referring to the CSM codex released during 4E.

Yeah, it had balance issues, absolutely, though even the nasiest IW army from that book would be thoroughly yawn inducing today and wouldnt do very well at all. That said, the fluff and feel of that book was excellent.

You should clarify then.

It was technically one of the two third edition codices. The one I'm referring to here was released in 2002 as you say. The other was released in 1999.

Considering it was the codex that chaos players brutalised the vast majority of fourth edition with (four of its five year lifespan), in my mind it very much was the fourth edition codex, and it pretty nearly ruined 40k towards the end of its life. I still remember going to tournaments and every one else (I was the masochist who took tau, who were quite severely underpowered towards the tail end of fourth ed. le sigh, how things change!) running iron warriors. The 'fourth edition' codex you refer to was released in 2007 with fifth edition pretty much coming in on its heels in 2008, so I'd very much debate it as the 'true' fourth edition codex, since most of its lifespan was during fifth edition, but that's really just semantics we'd be debating.

And I'll debate the fluff and feel too, my good sir. The opening story of a csm decapitating a space marine from behind (despite his backpack making this impossible) was always a doozy, and I loved how loyalist marines were essentially made out of cardboard. In 'feel', it was just brutally overpowered compared to everything else that was there. When the next codex came along and kneecapped it, I shed no tears. Thst codex was a monstrosity.

By your own logic, then Loyalist players should no doubt suffer at least 10+ years of kneecapped, flavourless, garbage bin quality rules, since their 5th, 6th & now especially 7th edition rules are beyond obnoxious and have ruined the hobby for at least half the game's armies.

Remind me not to shed a tear when it's your army kicked to the curb and left to rot for over a decade if that's your attitude.

I can think of one loyalist army that's well on its way there. Ben total ass since the end of 5th and continues to get worse.

Well, people always say chaos have it worst, and I use to think they were wrong because squats. But then I realised chaos squats.

Deadnight wrote:

You know, the one with the all but unbeatable iron warriors builds, siren prince builds (that could not be targeted by enemy attacks) and the rest of Pete Haines' ridiculousness. It (and specifically, iron warriors) very much was the dominant army of most of fourth edition.

Trust me. It was bloody broken. The codex you're thinking about was the one that gave the one I'm talking about a good kneecapping. But the one I'm talking about would make any of the cheese builds today blush with shame.

The difference between Iron Warriors and other CSM forces was that IW had access to 0-1 vindicator and 0-1 basilisk in addition to lifting the 0-1 restriction on obliterators, with 4 heavy support slots if they gave up 2 fast attack slots. I recall mainly the obliterators being the problem and that's something that could've been solved through editing. The Siren minor psychic powers could have been handled easily as well. Only other things that stand out are the Word Bearer "daemon bomb" lists that relied on a handful of bikers rushing forward madly to drop an astonishing amount of daemons into assault range and the daemon weapon that ignored invulnerable saves only put into the hands of a monstrous creature.