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.

Ok so to start off, this is not a rant towards CSM, this is just a discussion which I wanted the communities opinion on. Also sorry if this is in the wrong category of the Forum, if it is can a mod please move it to the appropriate section thank you

I started Wargaming in 2007 and I started with 40k (as I assume most people have on this forum here) and the first army I had chosen was CSM, this was mainly because when I looked at the options of armies everyone seemed to go for Ultramarines (I was 10-11 at a GW and also started the beginners club so bear with me on that thought I had) so I wanted to be seemingly different, so I chose CSM because they looked way cooler imo, anyway a few years after I went into my first tournament and lest to say I was crushed, which I understood I mean you get worse before you get better eh? what I did not understand was why people were telling me why Ahriman and my 1k sons were not viable for competitive play, as the thoughts processed through my head a Codex writer made rules for units that every unit was going to be playable using the right tactics, it was only a few years after that I joined Dakka and I learned about this "meta" in the competitive cycle of the game, so I adapted (even afer arguing countlessly on Dakka about my 1k sons) made PM but refused to play Oblits as I did not want them and preferred tanks and Defilers even more. So I made a triple defiler list (this was back in 4th ed. where Deffy's were cheaper) and I had even luck and every game was a close game and I enjoyed that, but I knew just like most people on Dakka back in them days of old that the CSM codex needed an update, now fast forward to the update, and I was really happy with our new codex, but that was only because I skimmed over it and assumed a few things here and there, it was only when I made lists I was finding out some options that I assumed units could take (such as Lords could get flesh metal) could not. this was a slight damper, but still I trudged on marching in the mud as they say keeping my mind open, then there was DP losing IW and still kept on T5 which I was a bit annoyed with meaning that Str 10 Weapons could have a good chance at sniping it. I then looked at the new units, now I really liked the Warp Talons (I really liked the rules and the models and thought Warpflame strike sounded really cool, plus I used to run Abbadon with MoS termies in a raider in the old codex so this sounded like a mini version of my deathstar) so I recently bought some, really like painting them in my scheme, yet as when I ran them a few times they just gave out first blood and Slay the Warlord (as I put my Jump pack lord with them) to anything that was not a Necron. my next problem for me at least is that when I saw the newer codex's and how they got really good units or majority of their stuff went from being mediocre to really good, from little rules such as Supporting fire and Battle focus (and now Chapter tactics), it changes entire play styles which was what I kinda really wanted, I wanted a ton of viable options just like these current codex's and whilst I will say we do have a ton of options, only a small amount of them are viable, which to me was a kick in the teeth. currently I had made a Warpsmith list (because I like Warpsmith things in every aspect of them) which have a ton of daemon options, and I really liked it as it was not Netlist X and Y but had (in theory) a ton of stuff that I liked. but alas every game I've had with it has been tabled. Now im being told to run PM again at my FLGS which to me I really did not want to do as I like variety in my lists and I wanted to get away from the majority of what I used to play back in the 4th ed. codex, to play something fresh and new list that no one had encountered before, and have a fresh gameplay value to it. Now I feel like I am returning to an old crusty, smelly shoe that I once played and to me that's kinda boring, I wanted to find new tactics and new ways of playing my army but alas I cannot. So this had me wondering, was CSM the right army for me? I have considered using a PM for a few battles and changing my lists accordingly and if they don't do well, I am thinking of selling off my CSM.

So if I do sell off my CSM these were the first armies I would consider buying up on (as well as finishing off my DE):

-Ultramarines
-BT

What I like about SM (or the rumours coming up) is that I can have DP and LoTD (which are the two options of units I really like) and the wide variety of viable options as well.

So what's your take Dakka? was CSM the right army for me? or should I consider selling them off if PM don't work out for me?

Cheers to all comments

That was a tuff read. I couldn't finish it sorry. Very hard to read the wall of text.

All I can say is are you having fun? Do you need to win with plastic toy soldiers? Having read you had fun with them in the beginning, don't know how it ended since I couldn't read it.

Why do you need to sell them? Why not hold on to them and start another army if you like to? You ight just regret getting rid of your CSM. I know when I got rid of my stuff, a few years later I wish I didn't.

If you edit your wall of text, I will re read it again.

Davor wrote:
I know when I got rid of my stuff, a few years later I wish I didn't.

I remember selling off one of my DA sarge when I was a kid.

Gave him the paper banner on the pole and everything. Horrible paintjob, but it got a decent price on ebay.

Now that I know how to convert and paint, I wish I didn't. It was my first ever space marine...

happygolucky wrote:whilst I will say we do have a ton of options, only a small amount of them are viable

Well here's your problem.

You like CSM, but you don't like losing, and so your reaction is to want to play an army that is easier to win games with. In that regard, then yeah, CSM isn't exactly the easy mode win button you're looking for.

The problem is that if what you want to do is to play an easy army where you have multiple different options to easily win games, then you're going to be stuck in an endless cycle of switching armies, as whatever is hot at any given moment is going to be cold a few years later. When that happens, you'll have to sell your old army and then buy the new hot army, and then sell that for the next one, and so on and so forth.

If what you want to do is play CSM, then play CSM, and learn how to win with them. If what you want to do is win with the least effort, then offload your CSM as quickly as possible and start a Tau-dar army (or better yet, look into getting some forgeworld minis), and get ready to change when the next codex drops.

I'll throw my 2 cents into this.

Certain people gravitate towards certain armies. Before one of my friends bought a single model, I knew that he was an ork. There are things that resonate through the fluff and the models that people identify with, and gravitate towards.

I always found myself pulled to chaos. I liked the aesthetic and some of the fluff. I make music also, so the idea of sonic weapons and noise marines appealed to me. I played games, won some, lost some. As most players do, eventually they start to incorporate some metagame ideas into their style. In 4th, I added plague marines, and daemon princes, and obliterators. I won more games.

But now, the pendulum has swung a little against us. And I find myself fielding super-fluffy non-competitive armies. I mean, I could field a semi-decently tournament style CSM army, but i'm having fun playing what I've always liked about chaos. I'm averaging less wins, but better times playing the game.

So, in all honesty, no one likes to lose, and it's much better to have a relatively even matched nail biter of a game than one where someone gets stomped by turn 2. Ultimately, it's up to you to decide whether you have winning as your primary motive, or whether you have accepted the chaos gods into your heart.

So yeah, play chaos if you want to play chaos, learn, adapt, struggle a bit with the codex if you want to be uber-competitive. But if winning is your primary motivation, just get a flavor of the month.

p.s.-Ailaros- I like your style.

With the way they're doing supplements, it seems like you should hold on to your models because another chaos book will come out. Also, don't forget about allies!

 Ailaros wrote:

happygolucky wrote:whilst I will say we do have a ton of options, only a small amount of them are viable

Well here's your problem.

You like CSM, but you don't like losing, and so your reaction is to want to play an army that is easier to win games with. In that regard, then yeah, CSM isn't exactly the easy mode win button you're looking for.

The problem is that if what you want to do is to play an easy army where you have multiple different options to easily win games, then you're going to be stuck in an endless cycle of switching armies, as whatever is hot at any given moment is going to be cold a few years later. When that happens, you'll have to sell your old army and then buy the new hot army, and then sell that for the next one, and so on and so forth.

If what you want to do is play CSM, then play CSM, and learn how to win with them. If what you want to do is win with the least effort, then offload your CSM as quickly as possible and start a Tau-dar army (or better yet, look into getting some forgeworld minis), and get ready to change when the next codex drops.

Easy to say when the majority of your wins have come from non rule book missions, at least from I've seen on Dakka.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

happygolucky wrote:whilst I will say we do have a ton of options, only a small amount of them are viable

Well here's your problem.

You like CSM, but you don't like losing, and so your reaction is to want to play an army that is easier to win games with. In that regard, then yeah, CSM isn't exactly the easy mode win button you're looking for.

The problem is that if what you want to do is to play an easy army where you have multiple different options to easily win games, then you're going to be stuck in an endless cycle of switching armies, as whatever is hot at any given moment is going to be cold a few years later. When that happens, you'll have to sell your old army and then buy the new hot army, and then sell that for the next one, and so on and so forth.

If what you want to do is play CSM, then play CSM, and learn how to win with them. If what you want to do is win with the least effort, then offload your CSM as quickly as possible and start a Tau-dar army (or better yet, look into getting some forgeworld minis), and get ready to change when the next codex drops.

Easy to say when the majority of your wins have come from non rule book missions, at least from I've seen on Dakka.

Why does that in any way weaken Ailaros' argument? I'm sure that the altered missions were more a factor of personal choice than an attempt to powergame, especially as the opponents agreed. Also, have you seen his list? That list is anything but a meta-list.


On topic, if your goal is to win games the maximum number of times, then yes, CSM is the wrong army.

Go with what you want to play the most. If you really like CSM, then play them. If your heart isn't in it anymore, find a new love. I used to play the heck out of a Khorne/Slannesh CSM army and loved them! But as GW changed the codices it changed what I loved about playing them so I stopped. Figure out what you want first.

ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:Why does that in any way weaken Ailaros' argument?

It doesn't in any way. It's just an attempt to drag an abstract discussion into a logical fallacy.

Thank goodness for the ignore button.

 Ailaros wrote:

ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:Why does that in any way weaken Ailaros' argument?

It doesn't in any way. It's just an attempt to drag an abstract discussion into a logical fallacy.

Thank goodness for the ignore button.

It does when you've been using such anecdotal evidence (as well as several others) in your topics on the power of chaos.

 Ailaros wrote:

happygolucky wrote:whilst I will say we do have a ton of options, only a small amount of them are viable

Well here's your problem.

You like CSM, but you don't like losing, and so your reaction is to want to play an army that is easier to win games with. In that regard, then yeah, CSM isn't exactly the easy mode win button you're looking for.

The problem is that if what you want to do is to play an easy army where you have multiple different options to easily win games, then you're going to be stuck in an endless cycle of switching armies, as whatever is hot at any given moment is going to be cold a few years later. When that happens, you'll have to sell your old army and then buy the new hot army, and then sell that for the next one, and so on and so forth.

If what you want to do is play CSM, then play CSM, and learn how to win with them. If what you want to do is win with the least effort, then offload your CSM as quickly as possible and start a Tau-dar army (or better yet, look into getting some forgeworld minis), and get ready to change when the next codex drops.

Very Incorrect. As I have said on multiple times on Dakka I am a casual player, I really don't mind losing or winning to me its just a game. What I don't like is getting tabled, I don't like tabling others and vice versa. What I am struggling atm is I am trying to make the Warpsmith work, I've found a list that I like but im found I am constantly getting tabled from it, not because my opponent outplayed me with tactics (not intending or meaning to be offensive to my opponents here, and I don't hold anything against my opponents for bringing what they want to bring this is just what I perceive) but because I feel they had rules, and whilst I agree armies should have powerful rules, what I am perceiving is that the rules overtake tactics and strategy which to me is the problem, for example I have had a few games against Eldar, Tau and Necrons (which are my normal opponents) currently Im having little success against them, with Eldar what I am finding difficult to cope with is that, everything is in a falcon/serpent (dunno which is the DT) and those falcons/serpents move, granting him a 4+ Jink save, that I cannot negate, I had thought about using IG for their barrage but Barrage does not negate a jink save, My Helldrakes are Vector Striking but those cover saves are still in the way, my lascannons/high Str weapons are firing yet those cover saves make the day again. I've thought about assaulting them but my speed is too slow and then the Dire Avengers come out and bladestorm whatever tried to assault them. What Im thinking of now is to use Maulerfiends against them. This to me is how I can ignore them safely and take them out. I will be trying that out the weekend coming, but that to me is another problem, I can only take out two possible (since I only have two and now, leave room for a squad of Oblits) in one turn meaning two are going to have space to breathe, drive around my fiends and either going to fire in the rear armour or my fiends, or going straight into my troops, and bladestorm them, and my troops already have their hands tied because there too busy firing at the mass amount of jet bikes coming in on my flanks. For Tau the problem is getting to the troops, especially if its an objective game, what I need is a something that would take out mass infantry, so again I thought IG allies with Barrage, but if I was to do that then I am hoping to high heck that I get a hit roll, otherwise their getting their cover save, so why not use something that could blind them or lessen the amount of their shots so I thought Warp Talons, I like them and they would have done good against Tau (as it ran through my head) and while it has done well quite a few times, when I do charge at the Fire warriors, the supporting fire rule just made my Warp talons redundant, so trying to get close is not an option anymore, and neither is long ranged fire power as he is behind that aegis. so Helldrakes which I have used before really don't do anything, why? because they get shot by interceptor weapons and marker lights and shot down. and the Necrons I do have success with but currently as I am trying to use my Warpsmith list my opponent has both Maulerfiends shot down then everything else just gets blown apart because destroyers are too fast and if I were to assault any troops a member of the Lord court is there with MSS meaning that I will not be able to hit a thing, and the warscythe will come crashing down. Like I say I don't mind losing, but Im feeling that im losing because other Armies have good rules for the vast majority of their codex, whilst for the CSM we have rules, but nothing that can keep us in a good condition unlike the latest codex's, and that's my problem. Anyho like I say I am going to return to what I used to play coupled with Typhus and his Zombies and Helldrakes just to stay in with a chance of not getting tabled, which is a sad day that I am sort of forced to change my playstyle into something that I did not want on the first place, whilst my opponents can use the majority of their codex's without a fear in the world.

And Tau-Dar? Bergh leaves a bad stain in my mouth, however as I do have the new IA Apoc and read the FW stuff in there I think I will give them a try though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Volsung- wrote:

Davor wrote:
I know when I got rid of my stuff, a few years later I wish I didn't.

I remember selling off one of my DA sarge when I was a kid.

Gave him the paper banner on the pole and everything. Horrible paintjob, but it got a decent price on ebay.

Now that I know how to convert and paint, I wish I didn't. It was my first ever space marine...

Aye I hear ya well when the new Ork codex gets its update and if im happy with it (since I collect Orks as well), I will most likely shelve my CSM until their new codex comes out

 Ailaros wrote:

ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:Why does that in any way weaken Ailaros' argument?

It doesn't in any way. It's just an attempt to drag an abstract discussion into a logical fallacy.

Thank goodness for the ignore button.

It does when you get all high and mighty when your batrep wins have been with non rule book missions and I believe that's not a fair assessment.

Feel free to ignore me though, I don't really care. Just means you can't deal with opposing opinions.

At the OP,
Seriously sell your CSM if you don't like them. I stopped using mine and just kept playing with my guard and I've been having a great time this edition. (That tends to happen when you are playing with a well constructed codex and have a good army).

Not going to turn this into a CSM complaint thread but seriously I don't enjoy the new book either. Time is precious and lives are short so why bother playing with a codex that frustrates you or stresses you out?

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:Why does that in any way weaken Ailaros' argument?

It doesn't in any way. It's just an attempt to drag an abstract discussion into a logical fallacy.

Thank goodness for the ignore button.

It does when you get all high and mighty when your batrep wins have been with non rule book missions and I believe that's not a fair assessment.

Feel free to ignore me though, I don't really care. Just means you can't deal with opposing opinions.

At the OP,
Seriously sell your CSM if you don't like them. I stopped using mine and just kept playing with my guard and I've been having a great time this edition. (That tends to happen when you are playing with a well constructed codex and have a good army).

Not going to turn this into a CSM complaint thread but seriously I don't enjoy the new book either. Time is precious and lives are short so why bother playing with a codex that frustrates you or stresses you out?

Well I think I will keep them for the time being, and still just experiment on how to go about my Warpsmith atm. if the new Ork codex comes out and I can play Kan wall, or at least a Mek's Workshop again I will shelve my CSM until the next codex comes out., what is making me cautious about selling them is that if the next codex comes out with Dreadclaw drop pods, I will be flipping many a table as it was the one unit I really wanted in this edition, plus I've had these bad boys since I was around 10, so they do have a little sentimental value to them.

happygolucky wrote:As I have said on multiple times on Dakka I am a casual player, I really don't mind losing or winning to me its just a game.

Well, you say that, but then you say...

happygolucky wrote:not because my opponent outplayed me with tactics... but because I feel they had [better] rules, and whilst I agree armies should have powerful rules, what I am perceiving is that the rules overtake tactics and strategy which to me is the problem

... which sums up the entire block of text.

On the one hand, you want to be able to play with whatever units you want and on the other hand, to do that without just losing very badly.

But here's the thing. Some units and combination of units just are stronger than others. That's just how 40k works. You're putting restrictions on yourself in such a way where you're bringing weaker lists, and then are wondering why you're getting roflstomped by people who are bringing strong lists. The reason you're getting crushed is because of the restrictions you're putting on yourself in list building.

As you get better at the game, you can start to ratchet up the difficulty level in this way. In fact, I'd highly encourage it. Right now, though, you're just not good enough at the game to be able to play it on hard mode against other people playing it on easy mode with super-strong lists.

So, you have two options, really. The first is to stop playing the game on hard mode until you get better at the game. This means stopping playing fun and silly things that are bad, or are in bad combinations. You can do this with CSM, but if you really want to make the game easier for yourself, then you should probably stop playing CSM, as there are easier armies out there.

The second is to keep playing on hard mode, but understand that you're just not going to win very much (and by win, I mean, "not get tabled"). In this case, you would have to go into it with a different attitude to stay sane, like thinking to yourself how great it is that you're playing on such a difficult setting because that means that you will become a better player faster than someone loafing on easy mode with riptide spam. Or something.

To boil it down to the tldr version - you're losing badly because of decisions you're making. Make different decisions, or learn to deal with the consequences better.

If what you like is CSM, and have the patience to play the long game, then the latter will be better for you over all. It will take more work, but the best things in life always do.

Just putting something out there...it's not too hard to run Choas marines as loyalist marines.

Daemon Engines=Predators
Helldrakes=Stormtalons
Oblits/Mutis=Centurions
Special Characters run as counts as

Gives you a bit of versatility without major investment.

Utmost thing you should care about: are you having fun still?

If you field them purely because you a) only have them so its default, but wish you had another race or b) your "main" race has been used a lot and you wanna mix it up...then you probably arent having that much fun with them.

To me i will never sell my models even if i get out of the hobby. The value drops 1/3 to 1/2 just because you opened the box, and i would never get them back at the same rate i sold them for. Also, who cares about price increases if you already have the model from before?

If you are getting tired of them and sometimes have this "sigh" feeling when you put them down on the table, you should probably get a different army yes.

In non-tournament non-multi spam games, I don't see CSM being that bad. I'm curious as to what units Mr. IveNeverHeardofaParagraph is running in his lists. What are the issues and what is the meta (if you could answer that in less than a tidal wave of text, I'd appreciate it)

A couple of quick remarks about Heldrakes:

Vector Strike *does* negate cover saves (check the errata/FAQ. )

Generally speaking, Heldrakes are a hell of a flyer (no pun intended ): Deamon, It will not die, S7 VS, AP3 torrent weapon (who cares about BS3?), AV12... for 170 pts looks definitely good to me.

Having said this, I must admit that I agree with all those who fail to fully grasp the main point.
If, as I understand, you deliberately choose to deploy a less-than-optimal list, and then complain about getting "tabled", I'm not sure the culprit is the army. What I mean is that an army from whatever codex, if not min-maxed, could be "tabled" when confronted by an optimized army, so I doubt switching to a different codex would, by itself, remove the issue. I'd say, try to find opponents more inclined to play just for fun.

If instead what bothers you is the very existence of weak/overpriced units and very good/underpriced ones (which makes a bad idea spending points on the first instead of the latter, thereby potentially forcing you to compromise between fluff/flavour and effectiveness), then I'm afraid it's just the game.
One thing I hate, for example, is the fact that I (we) have to roll for psychic power and Warlord traits: I've no problem with randomness during the game (if I didn't want a chance component, I'd be playing chess in the first place ), but having to deploy a somehow "random list" bothers me...

PS. Sorry for my english.

Sounds like the OP is wanting to power game frankly. The fact is even when i played (just getting back in a bit) i was nothing but a pure casual player. For nothing more than i would find a unit I liked buy it and use it. Were loyalist (or chaos for that matter) Dred's good? Hell no they were big targets with light armor. Did i enjoy using them? Yes I did, there was nothing as fun and satisfying as having my opponent make fun of my Naughts, only to have them pop his big tank or chew threw his good infantry unit. Didn't care if they did anything else they were fun to use. Same stories with the old Possessed Marines, they were horrible. but they were enjoyable to see be silly.

if you dont care about winning then it shouldn't matter that your fellow players are killing you. Just make a list that is fun, either because its good or because it is utterly random and stupid.

I have said it before, I will say it again. The Nova tournament proves it perfectly. On the C&B CSM site they were talking about the Nova Tournament and how badly CSM were represented.

This proves my point perfectly. People NEED to win with plastic toy soldiers. Alot of the lists had Tau and/or Eldar Allies. You telling me, that these people were using Tau and/or Eldar at the begining of 6th edition? No they were not. Why now all of a sudden they are using them? To make the game easier so they can with plastic toy soldiers.

Yes we all play not to loose, but these people are playing to win. It's one thing if you are playing for fun and you used these units before, but please show me people who used Tau and Eldar as allies in the begining of 6th. Maybe a few did, but the numbers that use them now are a hundred fold if not a thousand fold. So it just goes to show you what people do to win with plastic toy soldiers.

So the question now is, Do you want to have fun with plastic toy soldiers, or do you need to win with plastic toy soldiers?

Remember what is powerful now, in a few years will become weak. SW were once the All be all army. Same for Blood Angles, (well they were more FotM) and Grey Knights. Now they all have become weaker. So by the time, you collect, buy and start playing your powerful plastic toy soldiers, or dolls, they will be weak when new codexs come out, or a new edition or FAQ comes out.

So if you find it hard now, you will have an easier time later, but then a year, 2 years, when they become weaker, you will have a tough time again and back at square one.

Hasker wrote:
Sounds like the OP is wanting to power game frankly. The fact is even when i played (just getting back in a bit) i was nothing but a pure casual player. For nothing more than i would find a unit I liked buy it and use it. Were loyalist (or chaos for that matter) Dred's good? Hell no they were big targets with light armor. Did i enjoy using them? Yes I did, there was nothing as fun and satisfying as having my opponent make fun of my Naughts, only to have them pop his big tank or chew threw his good infantry unit. Didn't care if they did anything else they were fun to use. Same stories with the old Possessed Marines, they were horrible. but they were enjoyable to see be silly.

if you dont care about winning then it shouldn't matter that your fellow players are killing you. Just make a list that is fun, either because its good or because it is utterly random and stupid.

There's a difference between wanting to power game, and actually wanting to win a game once in a while.

True there is a difference between wanting to power game and win an occasional game. After re-reading the other posts i see your point. I guess what i am trying to say it that it seems the OP wants his list to be good regardless of anything else. there is nothing wrong with running off the wall weird lists, especially with friends is strictly casual games where no one is running really strong lists. However if he is going to a shop to run in a weekly style game then those silly fun lists may not be competitive and its time to run something a little more able to stand its ground. That's my point.

Ailaros wrote:

happygolucky wrote:As I have said on multiple times on Dakka I am a casual player, I really don't mind losing or winning to me its just a game.

Well, you say that, but then you say...

happygolucky wrote:not because my opponent outplayed me with tactics... but because I feel they had [better] rules, and whilst I agree armies should have powerful rules, what I am perceiving is that the rules overtake tactics and strategy which to me is the problem

[/spoiler]... which sums up the entire block of text.

On the one hand, you want to be able to play with whatever units you want and on the other hand, to do that without just losing very badly.

But here's the thing. Some units and combination of units just are stronger than others. That's just how 40k works.

Which is a poor rules system when ya come to think of it, but agreed non the less, in terms of 40k.

You're putting restrictions on yourself in such a way where you're bringing weaker lists, and then are wondering why you're getting roflstomped by people who are bringing strong lists. The reason you're getting crushed is because of the restrictions you're putting on yourself in list building.

I don't put ant restrictions on myself, I only bring what I want to use why? well it goes into a small story of when I brought Battlewagon rush Orks back in 5th, whilst I did win a vast majority of my games with them I did not have fun running the list and my opponents hated it, so from then on I went to the "rule of cool" where I would only play with what I wanted to use so I went back in the Codex and found that I really liked killa Kanz and so began where I ran a few Kanz and Koptas and whilst I still won a lot of games still, my friends didn't feel like as helpless as they did and I was having a blast running the list. this is why I don't play "Netlist X and Y". I have no Illusions about wondering why I get tabled and its not my list its the way I deploy certain units
, as I have said my problem is when rules overtake skill and strategy, to me if I cannot use strategy because my opponent had one rule saying " you and your tactics" then what's the point of trying to play a game that's meant to be played strategically?

To boil it down to the tldr version - you're losing badly because of decisions you're making. Make different decisions, or learn to deal with the consequences better.

Yes different tactical decisions, like my deployment I will admit may need changing tbh.

If what you like is CSM, and have the patience to play the long game, then the latter will be better for you over all. It will take more work, but the best things in life always do.

Agreed

Vineheart01 wrote:Utmost thing you should care about: are you having fun still?

If you field them purely because you a) only have them so its default, but wish you had another race or b) your "main" race has been used a lot and you wanna mix it up...then you probably arent having that much fun with them.

To me i will never sell my models even if i get out of the hobby. The value drops 1/3 to 1/2 just because you opened the box, and i would never get them back at the same rate i sold them for. Also, who cares about price increases if you already have the model from before?

If you are getting tired of them and sometimes have this "sigh" feeling when you put them down on the table, you should probably get a different army yes.

I am having fun with them and my CSM were my first army its what I like to use because its the army I have put most effort into. plus my Orks died when the Ork tanks died, so I do have no other choice than play my CSM until my DE are up and running.

Lobukia wrote:In non-tournament non-multi spam games, I don't see CSM being that bad. I'm curious as to what units Mr. IveNeverHeardofaParagraph is running in his lists. What are the issues and what is the meta (if you could answer that in less than a tidal wave of text, I'd appreciate it)

Here is what I bring:


http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/546845.page we have a casual group and our meta is a very mixed variety of Xeno and IOM army's. when my battle report gets uploaded I will post it up on this thread. currently Im thinking on changing the Quad-gun (since it really doesn't do anything for me) to a comms link to get my reserves out quicker. Also I've only tried this out on my Necron opponent, so im going to try this on my Eldar opponent next week and see how it fares.

happygolucky wrote:Which is a poor rules system when ya come to think of it, but agreed non the less, in terms of 40k.

Actually, I kind of like the fact that not all builds are equally strong as others. If everything were the same, and the only difference was the aesthetics of the models, that would make choice meaningless. It wouldn't matter how you built your list if any way you built your list was the same as any other.

happygolucky wrote:I don't put ant restrictions on myself, I only bring what I want to use

That IS a restriction. If what you want to do is win, then you take what units win, not what units you want to take.

... I'll let the irony of that sink in for a moment.

happygolucky wrote:what's the point of trying to play a game that's meant to be played strategically?

And here's the heart of it.

40k isn't a strategy game. At least, not a very serious one. It isn't MEANT to be played all that strategically.

If what you want is a strategy game, then I'd suggest stopping playing 40k, and start playing a game that doesn't involve rolling dice, as random elements make a complete mockery of serious strategy. I'd also migrate towards ones where a person's sense of art aesthetic doesn't have an impact on the game, or that come with the ability to choose which quantities of which game pieces you take.

For example, if you started playing chess, you would notice a distinct lack of people talking about how the rules for queens make them OP, or if pawns are worth taking.

Otherwise, you have to take 40k for what it is - a game of socializing and painting minis and playing a dice game while making pew noises and telling stories - rather than what you want 40k to be.

happygolucky - I don't see anything at all wrong with that list. You should be winning games with it. It's not uber-powerful, but it's also not bad, and you're spamming Heldrakes, so...

I truly am not trying to be rude, but I have to think you're losing because whatever you're doing in game is not working.

But, I think the real crux of the problem is that 6th edition is flat out not designed to be played competitively. It's a very easy edition to break for people who are looking to do that. I mean Tau-Dar? Grey-Crons? Give me a break.

My advice would be to find people on the same wavelength as you - looking to play for fun and for "cool factor" and then stick with your Chaos army.

I've got 4 painted 40k armies, and, through it all, in spite of alllllll the internet pissing and moaning, CSM is still my favorite. I've got 5,000 painted points of the buggers.

Play what you love.

 Ailaros wrote:

happygolucky wrote:what's the point of trying to play a game that's meant to be played strategically?

And here's the heart of it.

40k isn't a strategy game. At least, not a very serious one. It isn't MEANT to be played all that strategically.

If what you want is a strategy game, then I'd suggest stopping playing 40k, and start playing a game that doesn't involve rolling dice, as random elements make a complete mockery of serious strategy. I'd also migrate towards ones where a person's sense of art aesthetic doesn't have an impact on the game, or that come with the ability to choose which quantities of which game pieces you take.

For example, if you started playing chess, you would notice a distinct lack of people talking about how the rules for queens make them OP, or if pawns are worth taking.

Otherwise, you have to take 40k for what it is - a game of socializing and painting minis and playing a dice game while making pew noises and telling stories - rather than what you want 40k to be.

Incorrect. It is a strategy game, otherwise it is not a wargame, this is what tricks people. What 40k is has to be described as what's its purpose is and here is what 40k is:

40k is designed as a casual strategy game, its not meant to be taken seriously, as you say its a game about telling a story each battle (which I agree with). The problem is when people do take it seriously, and play "competitive 40k". the problem is that then it becomes a game where it becomes 90% rules 10% Skill + Strategy. its a game designed for casual gamers, not for competitive gamers, if you want to play a competitive game, play Warmachine/Hordes that's a game designed for people who want to cheese everything up (and yes I do play Warmachine as well, and I play that as a game with what its designed to be as well which is a competitive game, different games for people to try).

I never said I did want 40k to be anything, other than what you said, as that is what I also envision what 40k should be, the problem is when I should become penalised for the stuff I want to take yet everyone else will take what they want and have no problems for their own. to me the fact that there are supposed "bad units" (such as Hellbrutes for example) just shows that the rules are flawed, in terms of any game you should be able to take any units you want and still have an even chance of winning against your opponent.

Also what if I told you I play 40k because I like the background, because I like the setting, because I like the Ideas with the universe (such as Dreadnoughts and the Mechanicum) because I like the setting, because I put in a lot of effort over 5 years into the hobby and because I like the armies I chose? its a bit more complicated than "play Netlist X or Y or GTFO" as your trying to tell me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
happygolucky - I don't see anything at all wrong with that list. You should be winning games with it. It's not uber-powerful, but it's also not bad, and you're spamming Heldrakes, so...

I truly am not trying to be rude, but I have to think you're losing because whatever you're doing in game is not working.

But, I think the real crux of the problem is that 6th edition is flat out not designed to be played competitively. It's a very easy edition to break for people who are looking to do that. I mean Tau-Dar? Grey-Crons? Give me a break.

My advice would be to find people on the same wavelength as you - looking to play for fun and for "cool factor" and then stick with your Chaos army.

I've got 4 painted 40k armies, and, through it all, in spite of alllllll the internet pissing and moaning, CSM is still my favorite. I've got 5,000 painted points of the buggers.

Play what you love.

Thanks I have only tried this list out twice (both against Necrons) and I think tbh im putting too much stuff in reserve and I think im giving too much LoS to my opponent when I am deploying my fiends, so Im gonna change that, and I will change my Quad gun to a comms link as I think I will be getting my reserves out quicker... plus the Quad-gun really does nothing for me apart from shooting the other players quad-gun, and I think I will start putting my Warpsmith into a squad of CSM to get more firepower out of him. And I agree that 40k can now be easily broken by people who just want cheese look at Grimore Fatewaver as well, it is designed as a casual game, for campaigns, and story driven scenarios, not competitive play imo.

So the question now is, Do you want to have fun with plastic toy soldiers, or do you need to win with plastic toy soldiers?

But wining isn't exclusive of fun . Wining is very fun , in fact it is more fun the losing . It is more fun by a mile. And before 6th no one played tau or eldar or necron , because they had old suck codex. People dont want to play weak codex , because fighting against your opponent and your own codex at the same time is not fun at all.

Makumba wrote:

So the question now is, Do you want to have fun with plastic toy soldiers, or do you need to win with plastic toy soldiers?

But wining isn't exclusive of fun . Wining is very fun , in fact it is more fun the losing . It is more fun by a mile. And before 6th no one played tau or eldar or necron , because they had old suck codex. People dont want to play weak codex , because fighting against your opponent and your own codex at the same time is not fun at all.

This I completely disagree with.

Yes winning is nice and all, but at the end of the day I enjoy the friendly banter more than winning or losing. Three of the players in my group have played Eldar for a while. Once one of the guys finds his copy of the books we are doing a 3rd ed v 6th ed Eldar battle. I played Eldar and Nids in 5th and will continue to do so for quite a while. My brother stopped playing Tau once the new codex came out. If having an old codex meant that people don't play the army, the only armies that would be played right now are Eldar, Tau, Daemons, Dark Angels and CSM.

Yes winning is nice and all, but at the end of the day I enjoy the friendly banter more than winning or losing.

Then I don't get it . It is impossible to prove the wining is exclusive to fun . That playing to win somehow makes the game less fun or that it eliminates "friendly banter" what ever that is.

As eldar players go , we have 3 people playing eldar right now too . All of the are old eldar player . The army just costs too much to start for new players. I doubt all 3 of your friends were playing eldar in 5th or start of 6th ed as their main or only army . And it was the same for necrons and tau players. People started playing necrons , because their new codex was fun for new players and for old players. The old one was a one dimensional like no army I ever seen .