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.

I am toying with idea of making either Alpha Legion or Night Lords list. Unfortunately Apart from using two demon princes with Lash or Deathguard list I don't really see how CSM can be competitive - or perhaps I am wrong? It just seems that the codex is really old in in need of re-doing. My local club allows FW stuff on tournaments so I was thinking that dreadclaws could be a good idea, but would they really?

The current "most" competitive army list they can put out is MSU rhino rush in my opinion. It floods the area with power armored bodies that have melta guns and says "go". Here's an example:

2000 Pts – Chaos Marines Roster

1 Kharn the Betrayer, 165 pts

5 Chosen, 175 pts (Meltagun x4)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Chosen, 175 pts (Meltagun x4)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Chosen, 175 pts (Meltagun x4)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

4 Chaos Space Marines, 155 pts (Meltagun x1)
1 Aspiring Champion (Combi-melta)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

4 Chaos Space Marines, 155 pts (Meltagun x1)
1 Aspiring Champion (Combi-melta)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Chaos Space Marines, 130 pts (Meltagun x1)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Chaos Space Marines, 130 pts (Meltagun x1)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Chaos Space Marines, 130 pts (Meltagun x1)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Chaos Space Marines, 130 pts (Meltagun x1)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Havocs, 160 pts (Meltagun x4)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Havocs, 160 pts (Meltagun x4)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

5 Havocs, 160 pts (Meltagun x4)
1 Rhino (Twin Linked Bolter; Combi-flamer)

Total Roster Cost: 2000

That said there are some other ways to build it but this is one and I'd be nervous about lining up against it especially if Chaos get the first turn.

it soudns deadly, but strikes me as lacking bit of a character (not mentioning being terribly expensive to get ) - it sure sounds effective , but at the same time looks pretty.. boring? No offence mate

To be effective CSM armies almost have to be boring. Strange considering the amount of fluff and flavour that Chaos as a whole has.

If you're not too worried about being able to win on a consistent basis CSM is a hell of a lot of fun though. Beautiful model range with huge possibilities for customization.

If your FLGS allows forge world rules you might also consider making an alpha warriors legion patterned on the Tyrants Legion (Badab War Pt. 1) army list. Lots of fluff, interesting abilities and unique army composition!

Then again you'll probably get whipped...

The key to competitive 40K is not playing what the internet thinks is competitive, but playing what you enjoy and what drives you. Do you enjoy playing Rhino spam with meltaguns? No? Then you're not going to compete well with it. Not only that, but practice, practice, practice. And it's difficult to practice with an army you hate. This was one of the first maxims I really took to heart after playing a few armies that I played for the rules and not for the love of the army. I didn't like painting it. I didn't like fielding it. Because I didn't enjoy the army. But then, I go back to my Eldar, who may be very unconventional and considered a bit out-dated and I'd do very well with them. The reason I'd do well is because I loved the army, I knew how it worked well together and my opponent's weren't always expecting the tricks I had up my sleeve.

Play what you enjoy. Sure, it may not be the most competitive list out there, but no matter what the internet tells you, "uncompetitive" lists still win and win hard. Last month at the ATC, Eldar took home Best General, winning the most battle points out of anyone at this 70-person tournament. And his list wasn't necessarily optimized or WAAC. He was a great player with an army that he knew. If you love the army, you'll sit up nights, thinking of strategies, thinking of how you might work in Fabius Bile or throw in a character that people aren't used to. You may roll out scenarios that you think might work or try out units simply because you enjoy what they do. Believe it or not, when someone sees a unit they're not used to across the table from them, it throws off their gameplan. It makes them think twice.

The list above (and this is not targetted at the above poster, but it is a sample list of the internet meta) is not hard to break down and figure out. If it it's not difficult for me to break down and figure out, I know how to play against it. Throw something at me that I'm not used to, and I've got to adjust. If I have to adjust, I am prone to making mistakes. 40K is all about mistakes. The person who makes the least wins.

ahh, havent seen badab war yet, will need to have a look.
I dont mind army not being double hard, but I like to have a fighting chance and CSM codex unfortunately is poorly written- there are literally no differences between different chapters for example despite of them having different fightring styles etc. It is just quite annoying that such a potential for very interesting AND competitive codex was totally lost.

While rhino rush is effective i find it boring to play. CSM are still contenders just as good as any other army with enough skill. First of all you need to have all of your bases covered like anti armor, anti infantry and character killers. We have plenty in our army to cover all situations and make the game fun to play. Both legions you picked are undivided factions and nether one have a named HQ in our codex so if you want a fluffy army you need to stick with undivided lords/sorcerers or daemon princes and paint them the legion you wants colors. There are a few Undivided named lords like Abaddon and Huron but they have their own undivided legions. In the elite section imo chaos marines are kind of lackluster. Possessed and the dreadnought are too random for my tastes . Chosen can be quite effective in small units infiltrating with plasma guns. Terminators are expensive but if you give them mark of tzeentch they get a 4+ invul making them a good meat shield for a lord or deep striking tank busters. CSM has some of the best troops in the game bar none, even basic marines are quite effective in a fight. I dont know if you want to use the cult marines or not for fluff reasons but the best two imo are Berzerkers and plague marines. Summoned lesser daemons are a troop as well but doesn't count toward your minimum troop requirements but they can also be a effective unit if used at the right time. In the fast attack section we have bikes and raptors both make great delivery units for greater and lesser daemons but i think they need a bit of love in the next codex before i can suggest using them. Lastly our heavy choices are kind of hit or miss. Havocs and predators have never earned their points when i used them and obliterators while a awesome unit as far as weapons go have only toughness 4 making them easy to pick off. I love my defilers they might not have the best armor but they can lay waste to your enemies and make a nice distraction for your opponent while the rest of your army does their job. Vindicators are also a fun unit but the cannon while powerful has a short range compared to the defiler. With all the melta and lance attacks out there i have trouble taking land raiders mostly because of the points its eats up in your list. I hope this helps you if you have any questions ask away.

cheers Caim, that sounds quite good. I might give CSM a chance after all I really love idea of lots of dreads, but you are right, I find them too unpredictable, whilst expensive pointwise.
Main thing that bothers me is lack of chapter-specific stuff. Marines get many different codexes, CSM have it all bundled into one, even thought they are actually more different from each other than loyalist marines.

Also as for basic troops- as I said- it is night lords or alpha legion for me (or thousands sons perhaps)- definitely not into zerkers and plague marines

What do you think about Dreadclawsx as a delivery system?

I cant give a decent opinion on drop pods as i have never used them but it seems to me that the unit in the drop pod would die quickly and wouldnt be able to assault in the turn they come in so they would have to be a sacrifice unit. So a small unit with 2 meltas might work or a havoc unit to pop some tanks.

Thousand sons can be a good unit with rapid fire ap3 bolters but i wouldn't let them get into close combat.

I dont think chaos marines needs more codexes just a new one that give you bonuses for having one legion over another. Like giving all khorne units furious charge or nurgle units having feel no pain. Black legion and other undivided legions can get somthing like a bonus to their save or somthing like that.

obliderators and abbadon are sweet. noise marines can bring a str 5 ap 3 flame template. defilers are competitive. plague marines with fnp are sweet.

you need to read the codex it has alot of competitive stuff.

puma713 wrote:The key to competitive 40K is not playing what the internet thinks is competitive, but playing what you enjoy and what drives you. Do you enjoy playing Rhino spam with meltaguns? No? Then you're not going to compete well with it. Not only that, but practice, practice, practice. And it's difficult to practice with an army you hate. This was one of the first maxims I really took to heart after playing a few armies that I played for the rules and not for the love of the army. I didn't like painting it. I didn't like fielding it. Because I didn't enjoy the army. But then, I go back to my Eldar, who may be very unconventional and considered a bit out-dated and I'd do very well with them. The reason I'd do well is because I loved the army, I knew how it worked well together and my opponent's weren't always expecting the tricks I had up my sleeve.

Play what you enjoy. Sure, it may not be the most competitive list out there, but no matter what the internet tells you, "uncompetitive" lists still win and win hard. Last month at the ATC, Eldar took home Best General, winning the most battle points out of anyone at this 70-person tournament. And his list wasn't necessarily optimized or WAAC. He was a great player with an army that he knew. If you love the army, you'll sit up nights, thinking of strategies, thinking of how you might work in Fabius Bile or throw in a character that people aren't used to. You may roll out scenarios that you think might work or try out units simply because you enjoy what they do. Believe it or not, when someone sees a unit they're not used to across the table from them, it throws off their gameplan. It makes them think twice.

The list above (and this is not targetted at the above poster, but it is a sample list of the internet meta) is not hard to break down and figure out. If it it's not difficult for me to break down and figure out, I know how to play against it. Throw something at me that I'm not used to, and I've got to adjust. If I have to adjust, I am prone to making mistakes. 40K is all about mistakes. The person who makes the least wins.

Best damn advice you can get.

If you know your list, know the game, and know what your fighting, you can win. Even if odds are stacked against you.

I run mass footslogging infantry with raptors, obliterators with a single demon prince or mostly just chaos lords with demon weapons, with some possessed (in my only rhino) and terminators in a land raider.

It's deathly effective around here. MOCG is my favorite mark on basic CSM squads, and since I normally run a jump pack chaos lord, raptors join the field from time to time.

Just play what you want, barring chaos spawn of course

I forgot to say, I am really not a big fan of special characters, especially really major ones so no abaddon or kharn for me

I was thinking- actually having dreadnoughts dropped by dreadclaws might be a better idea thn dropping units, what do you guys think?

wardancer wrote:it soudns deadly, but strikes me as lacking bit of a character (not mentioning being terribly expensive to get ) - it sure sounds effective , but at the same time looks pretty.. boring? No offence mate

It's effective so long as you never ever play an Avatar


Automatically Appended Next Post:

puma713 wrote:The key to competitive 40K is not playing what the internet thinks is competitive, but playing what you enjoy and what drives you. Do you enjoy playing Rhino spam with meltaguns? No? Then you're not going to compete well with it. Not only that, but practice, practice, practice. And it's difficult to practice with an army you hate. This was one of the first maxims I really took to heart after playing a few armies that I played for the rules and not for the love of the army. I didn't like painting it. I didn't like fielding it. Because I didn't enjoy the army. But then, I go back to my Eldar, who may be very unconventional and considered a bit out-dated and I'd do very well with them. The reason I'd do well is because I loved the army, I knew how it worked well together and my opponent's weren't always expecting the tricks I had up my sleeve.

Play what you enjoy. Sure, it may not be the most competitive list out there, but no matter what the internet tells you, "uncompetitive" lists still win and win hard. Last month at the ATC, Eldar took home Best General, winning the most battle points out of anyone at this 70-person tournament. And his list wasn't necessarily optimized or WAAC. He was a great player with an army that he knew. If you love the army, you'll sit up nights, thinking of strategies, thinking of how you might work in Fabius Bile or throw in a character that people aren't used to. You may roll out scenarios that you think might work or try out units simply because you enjoy what they do. Believe it or not, when someone sees a unit they're not used to across the table from them, it throws off their gameplan. It makes them think twice.

The list above (and this is not targetted at the above poster, but it is a sample list of the internet meta) is not hard to break down and figure out. If it it's not difficult for me to break down and figure out, I know how to play against it. Throw something at me that I'm not used to, and I've got to adjust. If I have to adjust, I am prone to making mistakes. 40K is all about mistakes. The person who makes the least wins.

QFT

That Rhino rush list looks like a blast to play!

I play something similar but with Vindicators instead of havocs, but I think the havocs might be more fun.

Doesn't it get rolled in Killpoints lists?

Enh. In regards to the above "good general beats good lists" comment - that doesn't always work.

Despite how good someone's Eldar list may be, it will never win against anyone who's halfway decent with a WAAC Thunderwolf Spacewolf list. I'm all about giving people hope, but you also have to be realistic - some things are just outdated.

Magnalon wrote:Enh. In regards to the above "good general beats good lists" comment - that doesn't always work.

Despite how good someone's Eldar list may be, it will never win against anyone who's halfway decent with a WAAC Thunderwolf Spacewolf list. I'm all about giving people hope, but you also have to be realistic - some things are just outdated.

You can build lists that always lose, but saying the Eldar book is going to lose to thunder wolf cav is patently false. Especially if the eldar player is better. Winning armies can be built out of anybook. It's all about who's driving them.

The CSM player i know plays Oblits, and they do some damage, and even if they don't i end up focusing what seems like a whole turn of shooting haha.

As far as the list itself goes it's not for everyone, I was just trying to give an example of what could be considered highly competitive in 5th edition against 5th edition armies.

lunarman wrote:That Rhino rush list looks like a blast to play!

I play something similar but with Vindicators instead of havocs, but I think the havocs might be more fun.

Doesn't it get rolled in Killpoints lists?

I've never had one of my personal MSU focused lists get rolled in KP because of "easy" kp, it's only ever been because I was either outplayed or their army was more optimized than mine was. While my Ork list may drop 15 KP on the table it's almost all dangerous or my Tau list may drop 17-24 KP on the table the stuff that's really killing you is either more durable than the stuff that's easy or protected or the stuff that is easy to kill is also easy to hide while not detracting from the list much (or at all). Can it be a bit more difficult? Sure, but the added flexibility you gain from having the army style more than out-weighs the drawbacks IMO.

As far as everyone claiming that generalship > list you can only claim that so long as your list has the tools to fight against any opponent, before the game starts it's easy enough for even the best general to lose when he tries to hammer a nail with a screwdriver. Also saying that this list is useless against an Avatar is more than a little short-sighted (probably intentionally so, but still deserves to be addressed) because while that 1 overpriced model may be difficult to kill, odds are the rest of the army around it is not. And really how hard is it to avoid a single MC that moves between 7-12" (assuming no terrain between it and where it wants to go) a turn if it doesn't shoot?

MrDrumMachine wrote:As far as the list itself goes it's not for everyone, I was just trying to give an example of what could be considered highly competitive in 5th edition against 5th edition armies.

60 marines may seem like a lot, but this army is getting rolled by a single dedicated CC deathstar.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Magnalon wrote:Enh. In regards to the above "good general beats good lists" comment - that doesn't always work.

Despite how good someone's Eldar list may be, it will never win against anyone who's halfway decent with a WAAC Thunderwolf Spacewolf list. I'm all about giving people hope, but you also have to be realistic - some things are just outdated.

You can build lists that always lose, but saying the Eldar book is going to lose to thunder wolf cav is patently false. Especially if the eldar player is better. Winning armies can be built out of anybook. It's all about who's driving them.

If you're playing in a fixed environment, with newer players, any old Firewarrior ridden Tau General can beat even the cheesiest Blood Angels razor-spam list.

However, from a competitive standpoint, there's a reason no Tau armies were entered in Adepticon. There are clear cut top tier armies, and clear cut outdated ones.

From the broad perspective of "General A is better than General B", anything can beat anything. But if you're playing anyone who knows what they're doing, odds are the 5E codices will give you a run for your money - especially if you're playing a 3rd for 4th. What I'm saying is skill can compensate somewhat, but I don't want to give false hope to some kid who thinks his 6 squads of Firewarriors that he "enjoys playing" are going to beat a tourney winning Razorspam list from someone else who "enjoys playing it".

It's all about the environment, and from this conversation, I think we're trying to weigh what's competitive and what's not.

DarknessEternal wrote:

MrDrumMachine wrote:As far as the list itself goes it's not for everyone, I was just trying to give an example of what could be considered highly competitive in 5th edition against 5th edition armies.

60 marines may seem like a lot, but this army is getting rolled by a single dedicated CC deathstar.

I would agree, in CC yes they can and will most likely get eaten by anything with real punch. However, combining anywhere from 4-30 melta gun shots to kill said death-star may be worth the trouble if it will actually eat through 60 marines (which is also likely impossible because of the nature of MSU killing 1-2 5 man squads a turn without taking any casualties in return just seems silly). What's more it's easy enough to box them in when you have 12 ish rhino chassis running around.

Magnalon wrote:
However, from a competitive standpoint, there's a reason no Tau armies were entered in Adepticon. There are clear cut top tier armies, and clear cut outdated ones.

It's because if you plan on winning a large tournament like that you are going to run into exceptional competition. Even if you are great, Tau will probably lose more than they win to wolves run by an equal player. But if you are great and your opponent is just average, you'll win more than you lose. The problem is to win at A-Con you need to come to beat great players running the tops armies.

Magnalon wrote:
What I'm saying is skill can compensate somewhat, but I don't want to give false hope to some kid who thinks his 6 squads of Firewarriors that he "enjoys playing" are going to beat a tourney winning Razorspam list from someone else who "enjoys playing it".

Skill can take you up quite a bit but it can take you down A LOT. And picking an army that you don't enjoy playing and won't practice with just because that internet tells you it's the best is a bad idea. 9/10 you will do better going with the so called less competative army that you enjoy, will practice with, and will discover the good units and tactics.

I agree the lists some people "enjoy playing" are terrible. I'm not suggesting making a bad list. But if you hate wolf models, and wolf fluff, and wolf whatever don't play wolves. I'm not saying do an all Chaos Spawn army, but if CSM are the army for you there is enough in that book (and really any book) to make an army that wins more than it loses.

Magnalon wrote:
It's all about the environment, and from this conversation, I think we're trying to weigh what's competitive and what's not.

If you take the right things virtually all the armies are close enough to eachother to let the better player win the majority of the time. Not all builds from all books, but some builds from all books. So my opinion is every book is competative enough that the whole "Is it competative" arguement is way overblown, and really shouldn't be the #1 consideration in starting an army.

just to clarify- competitiveness was never the main issue for me- I am old school ork player , often take quite fluffy builds (mad enough to use Blood Axe fan codex during the local tourno? oh yes!) but at the same time I am checking whether its is possibly to build something semi-fluffy and not get totally raped during every game..

"and really shouldn't be the #1 consideration in starting an army. "

For some people, it is.

If people ask "I want to play one of the more competitive armies", and people answer "Yes" to say, Tau, I feel like that person just got cheated, as opposed to maybe Blood Angels, Space Wolves, IG, DE, Nids, or something not outdated.

I think if someone is coming out of the gate asking "can this win consistently", they don't want something that has high hopes of winning sometimes, depending on the situation and your opponent. When I think "competitive" I think Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and IG (among a few others) - things that usually tend to win tournaments.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Magnalon wrote:
However, from a competitive standpoint, there's a reason no Tau armies were entered in Adepticon. There are clear cut top tier armies, and clear cut outdated ones.

It's because if you plan on winning a large tournament like that you are going to run into exceptional competition. Even if you are great, Tau will probably lose more than they win to wolves run by an equal player. But if you are great and your opponent is just average, you'll win more than you lose. The problem is to win at A-Con you need to come to beat great players running the tops armies.

Having to be significantly better at playing than your opponent in order to win actually points to an army being uncompetitive, I'm not sure how you're getting the opposite conclusion.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Magnalon wrote:
What I'm saying is skill can compensate somewhat, but I don't want to give false hope to some kid who thinks his 6 squads of Firewarriors that he "enjoys playing" are going to beat a tourney winning Razorspam list from someone else who "enjoys playing it".

Skill can take you up quite a bit but it can take you down A LOT. And picking an army that you don't enjoy playing and won't practice with just because that internet tells you it's the best is a bad idea. 9/10 you will do better going with the so called less competative army that you enjoy, will practice with, and will discover the good units and tactics.

I agree the lists some people "enjoy playing" are terrible. I'm not suggesting making a bad list. But if you hate wolf models, and wolf fluff, and wolf whatever don't play wolves. I'm not saying do an all Chaos Spawn army, but if CSM are the army for you there is enough in that book (and really any book) to make an army that wins more than it loses.

And this is where counts as armies can be appropriate. In all honesty loving the fluff for thousand sons will never make them good units or yield an actually competitive army. However, taking grey knights rules, some green stuff and some Chaos models can quickly yield you a competitive pre-heresy 1k sons army, and arbitrarily limiting oneself to the codex from which the fluff you enjoy is derived from is narrow thinking IMO, and the hobby and game would both benefit from everyone being able to compose competitive armies from the models they enjoy most. Also winning more than you lose is also no reason to consider a codex competitive because we then have to define what we're playing against and how good each general is. If it comes down to making a hyper optimized army from one codex being able to compete on par with a mediocre-poor army from a new codex (piloted by equal generalship) in order to win consistently then again, that's not the hallmark of a competitive codex.

ArtfcllyFlvrd wrote:

Magnalon wrote:
It's all about the environment, and from this conversation, I think we're trying to weigh what's competitive and what's not.

If you take the right things virtually all the armies are close enough to eachother to let the better player win the majority of the time. Not all builds from all books, but some builds from all books. So my opinion is every book is competative enough that the whole "Is it competative" arguement is way overblown, and really shouldn't be the #1 consideration in starting an army.

I'll agree here, but buying into a mono-build army without realizing it's only viable in playing a very few ways is a quick way to get disenfranchised with the hobby and only hurts the community overall by driving newer players away.

MrDrumMachine wrote:I'll agree here, but buying into a mono-build army without realizing it's only viable in playing a very few ways is a quick way to get disenfranchised with the hobby and only hurts the community overall by driving newer players away.

Fair enough. But I think telling every one they need to build counts as armies from the same three codices is equally discouraging, and makes the gaming side of the hobby homogenous and boring.

I think maybe a more appropriate question is how many strong builds can you get out of a book? For wolves I can think of 4 radically different extremely good armies.
1. Razorspam/MSU shooting lists
2. Podding Lists (with masses of Grey Hunters)
3. Rhino rush lists (like the one that one Adepticon, also based on masses of grey hunters)
4. Thunder wolf centered lists (big unit of Thund cav as the main workhorse, backed up by misc shooting elements)

For CSM, I have only run into one army that has consisently given me trouble. It was a rhino based army that had lots of CSM squads with IoCG, a berzerker unit here and there, a few oblits, usually Kharne and a lash sorceror. I'm sure there are more, but that's the only one that has beaten my guard in over a year.

So on a scale of many-builds to mono-build I would put Wolves, BA, Guard, and GK far to the many builds end of the spectrum. I would put Necrons and Tau far on the mono build end, and I would put CSM somewhere in the middle closer to the mono build side.

To the debate of whether or not an army is competitive, it really depends on your environment. If you are playing a group of friends who all try out different fun lists and occasionally run top lists then you can win. Most people aren't running super spammy and min maxed stuff. Lots of people who do run the super spammy and min maxed stuff are bad at running them because they just copy pasted and don't know how to use the army.

The key to competitive 40K is not playing what the internet thinks is competitive, but playing what you enjoy and what drives you. Do you enjoy playing Rhino spam with meltaguns? No? Then you're not going to compete well with it. Not only that, but practice, practice, practice. And it's difficult to practice with an army you hate. This was one of the first maxims I really took to heart after playing a few armies that I played for the rules and not for the love of the army. I didn't like painting it. I didn't like fielding it. Because I didn't enjoy the army. But then, I go back to my Eldar, who may be very unconventional and considered a bit out-dated and I'd do very well with them. The reason I'd do well is because I loved the army, I knew how it worked well together and my opponent's weren't always expecting the tricks I had up my sleeve.

Play what you enjoy. Sure, it may not be the most competitive list out there, but no matter what the internet tells you, "uncompetitive" lists still win and win hard. Last month at the ATC, Eldar took home Best General, winning the most battle points out of anyone at this 70-person tournament. And his list wasn't necessarily optimized or WAAC. He was a great player with an army that he knew. If you love the army, you'll sit up nights, thinking of strategies, thinking of how you might work in Fabius Bile or throw in a character that people aren't used to. You may roll out scenarios that you think might work or try out units simply because you enjoy what they do. Believe it or not, when someone sees a unit they're not used to across the table from them, it throws off their gameplan. It makes them think twice.

The list above (and this is not targetted at the above poster, but it is a sample list of the internet meta) is not hard to break down and figure out. If it it's not difficult for me to break down and figure out, I know how to play against it. Throw something at me that I'm not used to, and I've got to adjust. If I have to adjust, I am prone to making mistakes. 40K is all about mistakes. The person who makes the least wins.

This is a good post and I agree to an extent. I used to run Summoned Lesser Daemons in my CSM army all the time. The internet claims they are trash. I found them to be a worthwhile complement to a Plague Marine based force. It's always nice to have a few tricks up your sleeve, HOWEVER

Back to the "competitive environment". Are you planning on taking your army to NOVA, Adepticon, and other big tournies? Then you are dealing with a different definition of "competitive". There's a recent thread on whether or not Tau can compete. Sure, Tau can win games. A good Tau player will be able to beat top lists occasionally. However they are in for an uphill battle with lots of elements outside of their control. Their list is very restricted as well. Now, take that "competitive" Tau list and change the single game at your FLGS or friend's basement against a top list to six to eight consecutive games against people who live, breath, and sweat Warhammer and expect to score big wins and take first. It isn't going to happen. That's why huge portions of players play SW and BA. They are very forgiving and easy to win with.

Now, CSM aren't in the Tau level yet. I won all the time with my Nurgle based CSM force. And to a degree I was intentionally gimping myself by not mix/matching factions. Still, the codex is old enough to start feeling the codex creep of the newer edition. 40K is not a balanced game. As much as people want to believe it, there are gaps. The problem with the codex is that there is very little in between. For the most part there are good and bad units.

HQ- Deamon Prince- Nurgle or Lash Princes are good. Mass poisoned weaponry and st 8 spam is making them less desirable. Sorcerors with lash are the best choice here.

Elites- Termicide is cheap and decent. Chosen are expensive for what they can do. Not a horrible unit but are still confined to the speed of a Rhino with short range.

Troops- Plague Marines are great. I actually don't think it's worth upgrading them a whole lot. 5 with 2 specials in a combi Rhino should be fine. Berzerkers and CSM aren't bad. I don't mind summoned lesser daemons.

Fast Attack- Horrible, horrible section.

Heavy Support- really the only reliable source of ranged anti tank. Which is where CSM feel the burn. They are a slow list that lacks range. When 15 missile launchers lay waste to your Rhinos turn 1, the game gets alot less fun. Obliterators are a must. I like the Daemonically Possessed Vindi as well.

The codex is filled with lots of bad options and stuff that's increasingly becoming overcosted. Take it for what you will. It can win though.

Competitiveness is much more general than Codex. A good general can use a mediocre to bad codex and still win. What happens, though, when the generalship tends to even out, such as in later round tourney play? The strength of the codex and lists starts to emerge as a more critical factor. CSM have a substandard codex for 5th ed. You figure out what that means.

wardancer wrote:I am toying with idea of making either Alpha Legion or Night Lords list. Unfortunately Apart from using two demon princes with Lash or Deathguard list I don't really see how CSM can be competitive - or perhaps I am wrong? It just seems that the codex is really old in in need of re-doing. My local club allows FW stuff on tournaments so I was thinking that dreadclaws could be a good idea, but would they really?

CSM's aren't that bad in terms of raw competitiveness against many armies out there. The problem is that other 5E marine armies, primarily Space Wolves, can often do almost exactly the same lists (or literally the exact same lists in some cases), for fewer points with more effective troops.

MrDrumMachine's list looks rather scary actually (and, while very cut/paste, exceedingly Iron Warriors-y), but is reminiscient of most SW Razorfangspam lists that'll have similar firepower and greater range