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.

It might be a terrible list; that's debatable.

Just not for the reasons that he described.

It's not even debatable. Nobody is going to take a White Dwarf list to 'Ard Boyz.

And since the reasons he gave were based around the selections being terrible within the structure of the list, I don't see how his reasoning was flawed, either.

It is, indeed, a terrible list.

sourclams wrote:His point is that this is a terrible list, 'Ard Boyz or no. You're going to get eaten alive if you show up at 'Ard Boyz with a battlebox army, no matter what the codex is.

While the list was not the best around, imweasel questioned the wrong parts of the list. One landraider is used in many chaos lists and quite frequently bezerkers in a rhino are used. This makes me believe he has never played with CSM or doesnt know what he is talking about as Monster Rain insinuated.

Such a belief is unwarranted, or at least less warranted than the belief that imweasel's understanding of 40k is such that he values Land Raiders and Rhino-mounted Berzerkers differently than you.

Seriously, when are people going to pull a cork out and realize that other people may have different perspectives and opinions on what is good and what isn't?

mrwittwer wrote:

sourclams wrote:His point is that this is a terrible list, 'Ard Boyz or no. You're going to get eaten alive if you show up at 'Ard Boyz with a battlebox army, no matter what the codex is.

While the list was not the best around, imweasel questioned the wrong parts of the list. One landraider is used in many chaos lists and quite frequently bezerkers in a rhino are used. This makes me believe he has never played with CSM or doesnt know what he is talking about as Monster Rain insinuated.

Okay, someone else sees my point. I'm not crazy.

Nurglitch wrote:Such a belief is unwarranted, or at least less warranted than the belief that imweasel's understanding of 40k is such that he values Land Raiders and Rhino-mounted Berzerkers differently than you.

Seriously, when are people going to pull a cork out and realize that other people may have different perspectives and opinions on what is good and what isn't?

Different perspectives don't mean that everyone is right, Nurglitch. Attempting to say that Berserkers in a Rhino is totally ineffective is plainly incorrect.

Monster Rain wrote:

Different perspectives don't mean that everyone is right, Nurglitch. Attempting to say that Berserkers in a Rhino is totally ineffective is plainly incorrect.

Second

I read it completely differently.

Suffice to say, the list is still awful. If picking through garbage to find slightly less rancid garbage gives you moral satisfaction, then have at it.

Monster Rain:

I'm pretty sure that imweasel didn't attempt to say that Berzerkers in a Rhino are totally ineffective.

Likewise I'm pretty sure I didn't say that different perspectives mean everyone is right. Where did you get this from?

The List is not awful. It wins all the time! It's one of the most popular, most competitive, lists currently in play. We've been providing tourney after tourney of evidence. The anti's are entirely theory. Let's see one national level tourney CSM did worse than the field at large in. Just one.

40kenthusiast wrote:The List is not awful. It wins all the time! It's one of the most popular, most competitive, lists currently in play. We've been providing tourney after tourney of evidence. The anti's are entirely theory. Let's see one national level tourney CSM did worse than the field at large in. Just one.

The "Awful List" is this:
Abbadon & a squad khorne LC termies LR
Slaaneesh sorc w/ lash in a rhino w/ berzerkers
2 3 man combi-melta termicide teams
2 3man DS oblits
squad O' plague marines in rhino
1ksons in rhino
2 squads of 10 daemons
~2500

Which people on both sides of the "Are CSM Good?" debate can agree on.

sourclams wrote:I read it completely differently.

Suffice to say, the list is still awful. If picking through garbage to find slightly less rancid garbage gives you moral satisfaction, then have at it.

Thank you, I appreciate that. It gives me joy beyond description. Note that I didn't disagree with the idea of fielding Ksons. Though given how universally panned they are on forums leads me to believe that they're probably not as bad as people repeat how bad they heard someone else say that they are.

Nurglitch wrote:Monster Rain:

I'm pretty sure that imweasel didn't attempt to say that Berzerkers in a Rhino are totally ineffective.

Likewise I'm pretty sure I didn't say that different perspectives mean everyone is right. Where did you get this from?

I'm pretty sure that saying "Berserkers in a Rhino?" in an incredulous fashion wasn't a compliment to the idea.

I pretty much got it from the "Get the Cork Out" comment you posted in reference to what is good and what isn't.

Iron_Chaos_Brute wrote:

The "Awful List" is this:
Abbadon & a squad khorne LC termies LR
Slaaneesh sorc w/ lash in a rhino w/ berzerkers
2 3 man combi-melta termicide teams
2 3man DS oblits
squad O' plague marines in rhino
1ksons in rhino
2 squads of 10 daemons
~2500

Which people on both sides of the "Are CSM Good?" debate can agree on.

The list is not very good. But not because there's a Land Raider and a bone bus full of Berserkers.

Monster Rain:

Then you were mistaken on both counts.

Being unimpressed with Berzerkers in a Rhino is a very far cry from saying they're totally ineffective. It's the distances between saying $1k isn't that much to saying $1k isn't anything at all.

Likewise pointing out that you are unwarranted in claiming another person's opinion is invalid is hardly the claim that all opinions are right, (or equal, or even valid).

Misrepresenting other people's opinions, like you have in these cases, is not constructive.

Nurglitch wrote:Monster Rain:

Then you were mistaken on both counts.

Being unimpressed with Berzerkers in a Rhino is a very far cry from saying they're totally ineffective. It's the distances between saying $1k isn't that much to saying $1k isn't anything at all.

Likewise pointing out that you are unwarranted in claiming another person's opinion is invalid is hardly the claim that all opinions are right, (or equal, or even valid).

Misrepresenting other people's opinions, like you have in these cases, is not constructive.

Nurglitch... buddy... Can we skip the semantics here please? I think you know exactly what I'm saying.

Nothing you have said is even remotely representing any post that I have made. You said this:

Seriously, when are people going to pull a cork out and realize that other people may have different perspectives and opinions on what is good and what isn't?

Yes, people have different perspectives. Some of those perspectives are wrong and it's perfectly acceptable to point them out when they are incorrect.

Monster Rain:

I agree, some perspectives are wrong. In fact, most of the time all the represented perspectives are wrong. That said, while some statements are easily decidable (something I read recently about shooting a Lascannon at a Land Raider and a Melta Gun at a Rhino comes to mind), other ones are not.

It's pretty easy to know which ones the latter are, because the disputed question is whether the Chaos Space Marines are a second-tier army. You have to expect that people are going to disagree with you and not be talking out of their sphincters.

You have to understand the difference between people's opinions being wrong, and people's opinions merely disagreeing with your own. And you have to understand that an opinion being wrong does not make it invalid. After all, the game is replete with idiots who somehow managed to play the game on a regular basis and yet have no strategic insight of which to speak.

It's one thing to state that someone's opinion is wrong and to give reasons for agreeing with that statement, and it's quite another to state that someone's opinion is wrong, and to further hypothesize that it's invalid because they don't play the game. That's called "ad hominem" and makes you look like you can't support the argument that their opinion is wrong.

The point was, regardless of the overall effectiveness of the list, is that imweasel was blatantly implying, if not directly stating, that a single land raider is a bad choice and that Zerks in rhinos is likewise a bad decision.

Monster Rain wrote:I'm pretty sure that saying "Berserkers in a Rhino?" in an incredulous fashion wasn't a compliment to the idea.

I am not quoting nurglitch because he is pretty spot on. My comment on 'berserkers in a rhino' is not a compliment. Neither are 1ksons in a rhino a compliment.

Their are much better choices than either for CSM.

I think the termicide is fine. I think the oblits are fine.

One land raider to deliver 400pts of stuff? Really? The lack of other solid targets in this list means that every anti-tank weapon will be lighting this thing up on turn one. It's not going to be very fun or efficient to be walking that 400pts of 'stuff' across the table. Sure, you can rhino wrap it, give it some cover. But there are better things to spend your points on than a 600+pt death star unit that's not even that good.

Monster Rain wrote:The list is not very good. But not because there's a Land Raider and a bone bus full of Berserkers.

Really? So the only 'flaws' you see in this list that doesn't make it good is the 2x10 demon squads?

And you asked me if I play in tournaments?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Partof1 wrote:The point was, regardless of the overall effectiveness of the list, is that imweasel was blatantly implying, if not directly stating, that a single land raider is a bad choice and that Zerks in rhinos is likewise a bad decision.

Yep. One squad of zerks in a rhino is terrible.

Matter of fact, looking back at the list, it seems the only thing that is missing is taking a squad of noise marines so you can have everyone 'represent'.

One squad of zerks. One squad of nurgle marines. One squad of 1ksons. That doesn't make your army a swiss army knife.

I happen to like swiss army knife armies.... as long as theyer well constructed. and you wouldnt need noise marines. The god is represented by the seemingly mandatory Lash user

sourclams wrote:His point is that this is a terrible list, 'Ard Boyz or no. You're going to get eaten alive if you show up at 'Ard Boyz with a battlebox army, no matter what the codex is.

There's nothing battle box about that army, its just not great. Is it weak because doesn't spam Land Raider?

Nurglitch wrote:
It's pretty easy to know which ones the latter are, because the disputed question is whether the Chaos Space Marines are a second-tier army. You have to expect that people are going to disagree with you and not be talking out of their sphincters.

I always expect that some people will disagree on a forum. I even concede that sometimes I'm wrong. Surely you allow that some people are in fact talking out of their sphincters?

Nurglitch wrote:
You have to understand the difference between people's opinions being wrong, and people's opinions merely disagreeing with your own.

I do, and I'm trying hard not to find your tone to be overly condescending. Some people who might not be a veteran of the game might read something crazy that has been posted and take it seriously, and I feel that someone should point out when there is a varying point of view. It doesn't even have to be a matter of right and wrong, just making sure all points of view are represented.

I still maintain that Zerks in a Rhino being panned as a non-competitive choice for a tourney is not simply an opinion differing from my own, but just wrong on it's face.

Sounds like chaos... a bunch of people bickering about who said what and what is right... just my perspective, which may be wrong I grant you. The bickering about each others posts isn't exactly constructive debate, and the personal jabs aren't either. I would say make a CONSTRUCTIVE point or leave it alone...

now... following my own advice, Why don't chaos players spam what they are good at, instead of trying to be a SM army. Love your raptors, for instance, love your lash+oblit, be 'cheesy' etc. It keeps it on the cutting edge if you learn by trial and error what works best in the new 5th ed. competetive setting, and abuse your good points to no end like its going out of style (which, by the responses to this thread, it seems to be, in some people's minds). Can anyone tell me what armies are considered 'tier 1'? IG I assume, SW, nid, ork... anyone else see a temporal connection here to when the books were scribed, and according to what rules edition? what would a 'tier 3' army be, then? squats?

Perhaps its simply the fact newer books are used more often that they appear to be the only tier 1 armies. Perhaps is the fact that GW tries very hard to make the new books tier 1 so people will go buy more of their stuff. Seems like common sense to me, but this doesn't degrade the quality of older books. Dark Eldar are a good example. People still play them and win, all the time.

If you really wanna look at this you have to look beyond codex release dates and look at the players.

And there are of course the cases like daemon hunters, where the books are so broken its rather difficult to play them. However people still use them maybe not in tournaments. But this also goes to prove that people simply play the newer books more.

Point to case, there are Tier 1, 2, and 3 players not the codex's.

So how do Tyranids fit into this temporal theory of army tiers?

well unless matched up against SW they seem pretty sick overpowered/underpriced no-brainer to me. I believe mrwittwer's comment about tier 1 and tier 2 players (right above yours) is more along the lines of keeping it in perspective. Chaos players, for a long time, had a dominating list of army choices and abusive psykers... the rest of us just dealt with lash as a fact of life and figured out what to do about it. Now, as new codex and rules and FAQ are released, players have to re-adapt what used to be a no-brainer power army in order to deal with a new way of playing that no longer involves a winged lashing demon prince plus wad of oblits garaunteeing the whoop-ass any more.

Again, "waaaah... its not as easy to slaughter some other army because of my broken codex and their outdated one matchup, because now they have a broken one too... not as easy as it used to be... waah..."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
adapt my friends, adapt.

I'm amazed this thread is still going.

imweasel wrote:

In fluff and soft score tourneys, they (and any list) can do just fine, except for power lists.

In 'Ard Boyz environments, they (meaning CSM) don't have many options to be competitive.

Adepticon does pairings arbitrarily. GT's are can be dominated (and certianly influenced by) soft scores.

You're confused. The UK GT hasn't had soft scores for years (and then it was only painting / presentation) and CSM scored P1 and P2. Finding an ETC (no soft scores, never has soft scores) team without a chaos lash list is quite a task. Tournament players at the highest level rate chaos and succeed with chaos. Don't understand the counter argument. Rubbish players don't and can't?

Nah... it's just that rubbish players need something to blame for their own shortcomings. I'm sure we have all heard it before; Something along the lines of "When I win it's because I am a tactical mastermind" followed by "If you win it's because your codex is broken". There's your rubbish players for you. I personally like to put my faith in the dice gods and leave it at that

cheers guys... but I am also surprised this thread isn't locked up as DONE yet. Chaos is doing fine. end of story.

Guitardian wrote:Nah... it's just that rubbish players need something to blame for their own shortcomings. I'm sure we have all heard it before; Something along the lines of "When I win it's because I am a tactical mastermind"

Ah yes. I was particularly fond of that coming from 4th Ed Eldar players...

And when those 'tactical masterminds' loose is it because they got unlucky with the dice?

Y'know, there's two styles of 40k, and both are 'viable' tactically in my opinion.

On one extreme you have things like Eldar, DE, Tau, marine drop-pod armies or rhino rush armies, who are very 'precise' armies, often outnumbered but maneuvering superiority to make up for it. If you do everything perfectly, dice don't even need to be on your side so much, but that means you have to do everything perfectly (which never really happens, so you still need the dice gods to cut you some slack from time to time).

On the other side are things like Da Green Tide, Nidzilla, space wolves 'Loganwing' and new BA assault spam, balanced vanilla marines, balanced CSM, crons, lascannon salute IG etc... where you either have enough numbers or good enough saves (or both) to get away with just kind of stamping around the board and not caring if you get shot at. This approach doesn't have nearly the same level of prioritizing targets and minimizing return. It relies on LOTS of DICE.

When I used to play IG, I knew my lasguns sucked, but I also knew that if I roll enough of them, sooner or later that save will come up a 1. When I played SM I knew I could just sit mid board and own the place and occasionally fail a save or whatever but still not worry about random bolter guy going down just so long as the squad ML was still pumping it out.

When I hit Eldar, I realized that maneuver was the only thing that could save me from being shot to bits, and started adjusting my play style to the hit-n-run way that works for them.

SO, what play style are CSM? They have fast attack, heavy support, elite, and troops more or less on the level of the SMurfs, so what's the problem. You have power armor and ridiculous psykers. That should be a pretty good hint about how you should use them 'competatively'. They are not so much a 'maneuver' army as a 'chug my way foreward and destroy whatever doesn't get out of the way' army, like Orks or SW. Just my opinion.

Where as CSM may be a second tier army, there are some build which stupidly powerful.

Nurgle Plague Marines are tough as old boot.
Noise Marines can chuck a lot of dice at your opponent and they aren't bad in combat either at I:5.

I saw a noise marine based list tear apart an Eldar Army yesterday. It was Mechanised, but still, the amount of shots those guys have is amazing. I asked the guy what his secret was to playing Noise Marines and he said "Play them like Eldar. You have to know when to commit your force, when to retreat and how to get them to work together."

I was a bit puzzled by this as this was an MEQ army, not an Eldar army. Then it got me thinking...

What if we started playing CSM like Eldar???

Mechanised, highly elite and by getting our units to work together in unison at the correct time???

@Nurglitch - Nids are the suck ATM dude. They really missed the boat on power creep. An experienced player will do well, but an average player will do very poorly. I personally rate CSM higher than Nids.