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.

By the way, anyone else think GW missed a trick by not releasing a new codex for one of the 'evil' races on Halloween?

Well, technically it's not happened yet.
Would be surprised as all hell if something pops out tomorrow without any of the rumors coming up about it, but just worth mentioning.

 the clone wrote:
the dude who works in my local gw store said that the 14th November is going to be a massive release day with A LOT of new kits being released. wonder what will come out of it

Kau'yon of course as well as the Dark Angels stuff and possibly the White Scars thing.

 Jancoran wrote:

 the clone wrote:
the dude who works in my local gw store said that the 14th November is going to be a massive release day with A LOT of new kits being released. wonder what will come out of it

Kau'yon of course as well as the Dark Angels stuff and possibly the White Scars thing.

Uh, guys?

November 14th is the release date of the Plastic HH "Board Game" HH players are just going to toss the rest of the box and bolster their HH armies, though...

It's in the GW-released video in the link above.

There might also be some books and other stuff, but the plastic MKIV armor is the main event.

 Jancoran wrote:

Akiasura wrote:
I looked through your blog briefly, didn't see the battle report. Link?

I did see your comments on how CSM can take down a wraith knight and saw you got some rules wrong, enough that makes your strategy not work. So....yeah. There is that.

I edit'd the most recent article. We all make a mistake now and again. Peer editing is good.

As for the batreps... which ones are you looking for specifically?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Night Lords Batrep

Also this one: NIGHT LORDS ATTACK!

Night Lord Thoughts

Night Lords Wrap up

Thanks, I looked over some of your battle reports.
First off, I think I should mention that the lists your opponent run are pretty weak, imo. I didn't see a single example of the stuff you'd see in a competitive meta, and many bad choices are being made. The best example of this I can find is your mechdar battle report, the list your opponent took is....just awful, with not a single strong choice outside of eldrad.
I think this may be coloring your ideas on what can work, like on your article about why warp talons are useful. You don't seem to have a competitive meta, or even a semi competitive meta (which I would consider to be no formations/Allie stuff, but still strong mono dex builds).

Akiasura wrote:


Thanks, I looked over some of your battle reports.
First off, I think I should mention that the lists your opponent run are pretty weak, imo. I didn't see a single example of the stuff you'd see in a competitive meta, and many bad choices are being made. The best example of this I can find is your mechdar battle report, the list your opponent took is....just awful, with not a single strong choice outside of eldrad.
I think this may be coloring your ideas on what can work, like on your article about why warp talons are useful. You don't seem to have a competitive meta, or even a semi competitive meta (which I would consider to be no formations/Allie stuff, but still strong mono dex builds).

You didn't think wave spam was powerful? Lol. Im pretty sure the entire interwebz would disagree, if thats the one you're talking about. I'm not really daunted by your opinion because I've played since 4th Edition and i assure you my meta is competitive and veteran.

Its a really easy thing to test though. Play me on VASSAL. then you wont have to wonder anymore.

EDIT: Better yet, play them!

 Jancoran wrote:

Its a really easy thing to test though. Play me on VASSAL. then you wont have to wonder anymore.

Oh, snap!

 Jancoran wrote:

You didn't think wave spam was powerful? Lol. Im pretty sure the entire interwebz would disagree, if thats the one you're talking about.

Before the latest codex, wave serpents were very powerful. Now? It's all about the bikes, the bikes, the bikes, no serpents.

 Jancoran wrote:

Akiasura wrote:


Thanks, I looked over some of your battle reports.
First off, I think I should mention that the lists your opponent run are pretty weak, imo. I didn't see a single example of the stuff you'd see in a competitive meta, and many bad choices are being made. The best example of this I can find is your mechdar battle report, the list your opponent took is....just awful, with not a single strong choice outside of eldrad.
I think this may be coloring your ideas on what can work, like on your article about why warp talons are useful. You don't seem to have a competitive meta, or even a semi competitive meta (which I would consider to be no formations/Allie stuff, but still strong mono dex builds).

You didn't think wave spam was powerful? Lol. Im pretty sure the entire interwebz would disagree, if thats the one you're talking about. I'm not really daunted by your opinion because I've played since 4th Edition and i assure you my meta is competitive and veteran.

Its a really easy thing to test though. Play me on VASSAL. then you wont have to wonder anymore.

EDIT: Better yet, play them!

Maybe I misread the date, but the new codex spiders and bikes are the strongest. Fire dragons are great too.
Guardians, scorpions, and dire avengers are not the strongest. They are in fact pretty weak, as far as the eldar codex goes. 2 wave serpents and a prism is hardly spam. 5 or 6 is spam.

If it makes you feel better, I've played since 3rd

I don't currently play on vassal, though I appreciate the invite to a game!

No he had three serpents and the prisms. One came on from reserve later, because he forgot to deploy it. And yes. This was pre-7th edition codex.

 Jancoran wrote:
No he had three serpents and the prisms. One came on from reserve later, because he forgot to deploy it. And yes. This was pre-7th edition codex.

Right, pre 7th does help the list. Though again;
Why 10 guardians?
Why 10 avengers?
Why a prism at all?
He....forgot to deploy a tank....?

Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone. But compared to a competitive list this looked incredibly tame. 3 wave serpents isn't spamming. Most discussions on here during the 6th dex felt that 2-3 serpents were fine, but 5-6 is where it got spammy.

It could by why your CSM are doing so well.

Also,
No fire dragons
No spiders

Akiasura wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No he had three serpents and the prisms. One came on from reserve later, because he forgot to deploy it. And yes. This was pre-7th edition codex.

Right, pre 7th does help the list. Though again;
Why 10 guardians?
Why 10 avengers?
Why a prism at all?
He....forgot to deploy a tank....?

Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone. But compared to a competitive list this looked incredibly tame. 3 wave serpents isn't spamming. Most discussions on here during the 6th dex felt that 2-3 serpents were fine, but 5-6 is where it got spammy.

It could by why your CSM are doing so well.

Also,
No fire dragons
No spiders

Well you're stating some obvious things there but that Karandras unit is a HARD CORE Bad ass. It slew a huge chunk of my army and would have kept doing it. You may not have had that kind of unit illustrated to you very frequently since the netlists of the universe so often slap a couple minimum sized Fire Dragons in the Serpents. And that's not a bad way to go but its a fragile exchange unit and some Genrerals do not like Exchange units. I happen to be one, as is my opponent.

Forgetting to deploy the tank was a minor issue. It came on turn two so yeah it was a mistake but its not as if you've never made any. So give the guy a break.

I absolutely agree with his use of ten guardians though. Those things put out a LOT of damage for their cost and if you're taking 5 anyways at 8 points each, why not have a unit of ten? Its not like he was going to get another Serpent out of it. And though he might have gone with 5 Fire Dragons instead of ten guardians, against my force that would make little difference. He actually can do more damage to my army with the guardians ironically. Even if you wouldn't do it, it wasn't a mistake in the context of our matchup. he gets 2.22 rends out of them at least, plus 4 more wounds against my tough 5, so he's killing a little over 3 Raptors in a round (possibly more) as compared to the Fire Dragons who would do slightly less. In both cases, Guardians and Dragons, neither probably survives my charge. So maybe he could have subbed Dragons in and maybe they would be cool against some things? Guardians and Avengers also greatly improve with Prescience. Avengers are particularly cool with their 5+ invuls and getting to rer-roll that and their normal 4+. Pretty hearty unit to wrap Eldrad in without too much more cost. Plus he had to have two troops so I mean... why are you upset that he took those two choices? He had a good reason for at least one of them. he coulda used bikes for the Guardians but they weren't like they are now and he wouldn't get a wave serpent with them. sooo....

 Jancoran wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:
No he had three serpents and the prisms. One came on from reserve later, because he forgot to deploy it. And yes. This was pre-7th edition codex.

Right, pre 7th does help the list. Though again;
Why 10 guardians?
Why 10 avengers?
Why a prism at all?
He....forgot to deploy a tank....?

Again, I'm not trying to insult anyone. But compared to a competitive list this looked incredibly tame. 3 wave serpents isn't spamming. Most discussions on here during the 6th dex felt that 2-3 serpents were fine, but 5-6 is where it got spammy.

It could by why your CSM are doing so well.

Also,
No fire dragons
No spiders

Well you're stating some obvious things there but that Karandras unit is a HARD CORE Bad ass. It slew a huge chunk of my army and would have kept doing it. You may not have had that kind of unit illustrated to you very frequently since the netlists of the universe so often slap a couple minimum sized Fire Dragons in the Serpents. And that's not a bad way to go but its a fragile exchange unit and some Genrerals do not like Exchange units. I happen to be one, as is my opponent.

I'm not sure what you mean by exchange units, unless you mean piece trades. In which case, all units in 40k are just piece trades to some extent. Like, say, the guardians or the DA. Melee units most of all, since after melee they tend to stand in the open. The extreme range on the weapons means that piece trades are the main strategy in 40k.

Wave serpents are piece trades, they just tend to trade way way up.

Karandras is a guy who is good in melee, yes. Striking scorpions with him are good, but in 6th, they were clearly not the best the dex can bring. Frankly, the unit is very expensive for what it does and it's relative toughness, though it's a lot of fun to run it into things. Against chaos it would do fine. I'm not sure if I'd like it against a more competitive dex, though I'd be curious to see how it would fair against necrons.

I do not know how you call fire dragons in a serpent a fragile unit. Serpents were the toughest tanks in the entire game. Their sole purpose was to drop the dragons off at some unit, the dragons eliminate a tank or MC, making their points back and then some. The serpent continues to fly around, a lot of damage. Losing the min squad of dragons isn't a big deal considering they were relatively cheap for their fire power. Personally I like spiders (and have since 3rd, when they were weak) and Swooping hawks (which I still can't find much use for outside of their PL) but fire dragons are very good. A competitive list would have at least a squad.

Again, I am merely saying that your meta is most likely not very competitive. This isn't a strong competitive list. It's pretty fluffy. Like you said, the power choices I listed were obvious, and he chose not to take them.

 Jancoran wrote:

Forgetting to deploy the tank was a minor issue. It came on turn two so yeah it was a mistake but its not as if you've never made any. So give the guy a break.

It's weird for someone in a competitive meta to forget to deploy an entire tank, and it's the only reason I brought it up.

 Jancoran wrote:

I absolutely agree with his use of ten guardians though. Those things put out a LOT of damage for their cost and if you're taking 5 anyways at 8 points each, why not have a unit of ten? Its not like he was going to get another Serpent out of it. And though he might have gone with 5 Fire Dragons instead of ten guardians, against my force that would make little difference. He actually can do more damage to my army with the guardians ironically. Even if you wouldn't do it, it wasn't a mistake in the context of our matchup.

If he knew he was going to face you and built a list accordingly, he could have done a better job.
If you both built a list for a fun game before hand, then the meta isn't very competitive.
As a TAC choice, guardians are poor.
Either way, it wasn't a competitive option, which is my only point.

 Jancoran wrote:

he gets 2.22 rends out of them at least, plus 4 more wounds against my tough 5, so he's killing a little over 3 Raptors in a round (possibly more) as compared to the Fire Dragons who would do slightly less.

I have them doing roughly the same, assuming fast shot, but alright.
What you aren't taking into account is that the Fire dragons do comparable damage against an MEQ but do better against;
MC (and these were deadly in 6th)
A tank
TEQ (granted, uncommon). making them great TAC units, especially combined with a serpent, which is what competitive players look for in a unit.
And the serpent honestly does quite enough damage against infantry that the dragons are better off killing things it doesn't want to see across the table.
Not to mention that guardians are horrifically fragile.

 Jancoran wrote:

In both cases, Guardians and Dragons, neither probably survives my charge.

Depends. If the serpent fires in addition, the dragons can probably survive a turn with their much better saves.

 Jancoran wrote:

So maybe he could have subbed Dragons in and maybe they would be cool against some things?

If by some things you mean every other unit (especially MCs) other than GEQ, yes.

 Jancoran wrote:

Guardians and Avengers also greatly improve with Prescience. Avengers are particularly cool with their 5+ invuls and getting to rer-roll that and their normal 4+.

Honestly, I'd pick better units for the powers. Spiders or the dragons, for example.

 Jancoran wrote:

Pretty hearty unit to wrap Eldrad in without too much more cost. Plus he had to have two troops so I mean... why are you upset that he took those two choices?

I'm not sure if you mean the Guardians or the Avengers as a hearty unit. Neither are that tough, or as tough as dragons, who have a better save. Eldrad is expensive and critical to the unit, so I can justify the extra points on him.

Generally the competitive choice was 2 min squad of DA with WS and nothing else. Troops are usually bad in most dexes, 6th edition eldar wasn't much of an exception.
Also, I'm not mad. Again, I'm just claiming that your belief that the Chaos dex is fine likely stems from a more casual meta.
At my local store, we have people who used to play the game very competitively from 3rd-5th. I would never see a list like this across from me, and would welcome it if I did. We had to flat out disallow formations and alter the ally rules to even have a game. I still don't take my CSM out as much as I'd like.

 Jancoran wrote:

He had a good reason for at least one of them. he coulda used bikes for the Guardians but they weren't like they are now and he wouldn't get a wave serpent with them. sooo....

There wasn't a reason to take the max squad of avengers or take Guardians at all. No fire dragons seems weird, as do a lack of spiders (which, next to the WS, were the strongest units in that dex). Prisms are just flat out inferior, I haven't played mine in years sadly.
Again, if this is your meta it's fine. Nothing wrong with it. But you can't come into a thread and tell everyone they've been wrong about balance and not have them glance at your local meta.
This is no different than someone saying they have a tournament winning list, and then posting it to find out it has 2 squads of Howling Banshees, or all their guard take are heavy bolters. It says a lot about what the local mindset is, and where your ideas are coming from.

I find the meta argument to be the second worst argument in Warhammer, right behind "quality of opponents" which is really just the same thing said a different way (sort of).

The reality is that no one is looking at two different codex's. ANYONE with a calculator, which means everyone, can figure out the kill per point ratio vs. MEQ units. Anyone. Anyone can do the math to figure out what the probable effective threat radius is of Thunderwolf Cavalry. Anyone can learn that it is unwise not to have some dedicated AP 2 in the list in order to make sure Terminators and the like have an answer,

The player in question here is not a casual player. Well let me rephrase that. He is not a casual person. He comes for blood when he plays and does not like to lose. I've had to disappoint him of course. But he builds the Paladin Stars and the wave spam lists and all that. So he likes to win and he's absolutely not above cranking it up to 11 with netlists.

i think we should stay away from making coments about my meta though. i dont plan on name dropping. I think its stupid. I will just say this: my meta is about as healthy as they come.

In fact it is healthy enough that some of the better generals choose to win with somewhat more friendly looking armies. =) You will find that once you win enough, you start finding the challenge of not stealing netlists is a truer test of ability.

 Jancoran wrote:
I find the meta argument to be the second worst argument in Warhammer, right behind "quality of opponents" which is really just the same thing said a different way (sort of).

The reality is that no one is looking at two different codex's. ANYONE with a calculator, which means everyone, can figure out the kill per point ratio vs. MEQ units. Anyone. Anyone can do the math to figure out what the probable effective threat radius is of Thunderwolf Cavalry. Anyone can learn that it is unwise not to have some dedicated AP 2 in the list in order to make sure Terminators and the like have an answer,

The player in question here is not a casual player. Well let me rephrase that. He is not a casual person. He comes for blood when he plays and does not like to lose. I've had to disappoint him of course. But he builds the Paladin Stars and the wave spam lists and all that. So he likes to win and he's absolutely not above cranking it up to 11 with netlists.

i think we should stay away from making coments about my meta though. i dont plan on name dropping. I think its stupid. I will just say this: my meta is about as healthy as they come.

In fact it is healthy enough that some of the better generals choose to win with somewhat more friendly looking armies. =) You will find that once you win enough, you start finding the challenge of not stealing netlists is a truer test of ability.

Well, no one at my local meta is stealing net lists. I appreciate the snide comments about either me or my meta though especially after requesting I stop commenting about your meta.

As you said, anyone can look at a codex and see what is strong. 40k, despite its special rules bloat, is an incredibly shallow game without a lot of tactical depth. This is seen in the lists taken to the ETC this year, which are pretty much "Spam best 2-3 units in dex", with possibly one extra unit thrown in to cover a base that is missing.

Which, given the simplicity of the math in this game, it makes us wonder why you are claiming everyone is wrong about the relative strength of the IG and the CSM.
You posted a unit that, for IG, wasn't that great when DA were first doing IG blobs with a tankier unit out in front, citing it as a strength.
You said that CSM are strong but aren't discussing why. After a look at your battle reports, it seems you face pretty casual lists.

So, I am either left with really two ideas. You and your friends are all either geniuses that are able to overcome the math stacking against your choices (better, even, than everyone playing at the ETC actually!) or your meta isn't that competitive.
I applied occam's razor and reached a conclusion. You could always state why you think CSM are good (I own a huge collection, wouldn't mind hearing some tips on what to bring. I own every model, so go nuts) or post something that works better for IG.

If my guard get the tau treatment I fear for my guardsmen...

What is the big bad tau treatment that people are fearing? I mean, GW did give a StrD gun to the ranged shooting specialists . . that has a TEN INCH RANGE!?!?!?!?

I mean, how much lazier can they get? 'Hey CSM players, pick up a 30k army and field it with its HH rules. Done.'

 carldooley wrote:
What is the big bad tau treatment that people are fearing? I mean, GW did give a StrD gun to the ranged shooting specialists . . that has a TEN INCH RANGE!?!?!?!?

I mean, how much lazier can they get? 'Hey CSM players, pick up a 30k army and field it with its HH rules. Done.'

You are so far behind the news mien friend. 4 STR D Missiles 60 inch AND the 10 Inch D gun which is still good at its medium range bracket.

But you have to "unlock" the Strength D destroyer missiles with markerlights. And you get four shots per game, whereas Eldar can keep shooting D at you forever, essentially.

It's mainly the formations and the "Taucurion" that are pissing people off, since everything else is copy/paste except for the new stuff, and the new stuff isn't necessarily any more devastating than gak we already had. Still apparently bad enough to be "NEW ELDAR!", though.

 War Kitten wrote:
If my guard get the tau treatment I fear for my guardsmen...

Guard are pretty awesome. In the history of 40K, other than the roomsweeper list, I really have always enjoyed those games. they feel gritty. Lots of stuff dies. Waves of humanity and all that. I like them. If they get the Tau treatment, I am not sure WHERE they will get it? Like what units? I sure hope Rough Riders get the Tau treatment cause those are super fun units. They just die like flies but still, Pretty cool. I so want them to get the Tau treatment!

 Sidstyler wrote:
But you have to "unlock" the Strength D destroyer missiles with markerlights. And you get four shots per game, whereas Eldar can keep shooting D at you forever, essentially.

It's mainly the formations and the "Taucurion" that are pissing people off, since everything else is copy/paste except for the new stuff, and the new stuff isn't necessarily any more devastating than gak we already had. Still apparently bad enough to be "NEW ELDAR!", though.

As a tau player, they are so, so very wrong.

Even without formations, I can do things I never could with the new codex. the changes are subtle, but meaningful.

Even if I choose not to deploy any of the new options at my disposal, the mere fact they exist, means that in a match with pre-known opponents (you know enemy army before building lists) it means my opponents need to spread thinner to cover the extra possibilities at my disposal, or, if they are unaware of just what changed under the surface-risk being blown away by something they did not even consider I might do.

With 0 new models (well, I'm working of scratch buliding a few tactical drones, but that hardly counts), my army list options has become far more flexible.
And that, as said, is without taking formations into account.

 BoomWolf wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:
But you have to "unlock" the Strength D destroyer missiles with markerlights. And you get four shots per game, whereas Eldar can keep shooting D at you forever, essentially.

It's mainly the formations and the "Taucurion" that are pissing people off, since everything else is copy/paste except for the new stuff, and the new stuff isn't necessarily any more devastating than gak we already had. Still apparently bad enough to be "NEW ELDAR!", though.

As a tau player, they are so, so very wrong.

Even without formations, I can do things I never could with the new codex. the changes are subtle, but meaningful.

Even if I choose not to deploy any of the new options at my disposal, the mere fact they exist, means that in a match with pre-known opponents (you know enemy army before building lists) it means my opponents need to spread thinner to cover the extra possibilities at my disposal, or, if they are unaware of just what changed under the surface-risk being blown away by something they did not even consider I might do.

With 0 new models (well, I'm working of scratch buliding a few tactical drones, but that hardly counts), my army list options has become far more flexible.
And that, as said, is without taking formations into account.

I actually really like the new Tau codex. The old one I thought was really good, since it's one of the few dexes with synergy. The new one just made it so now, if you want to, you can play against the big 3 if they optimize their list.
The only reason I don't play my Tau often is that people seem to hate playing against Tau. But the army is in a very good place.

What you're talking about is list-tailoring, though, which is very widely frowned upon and (rightfully) considered douchey. Not much point in playing out the game if you can create a hard counter to your opponent's list and be almost sure to win before a single die is even rolled.

Unless you and your opponent are doing a specific scenario and it's all planned out ahead of time, you really want to build "take all comers" lists for casual play, and especially pick-up games.

Wait...

Why are there people saying CSM's are good....what game are you playing @Jancoran?????

I looked at some of your blog posts, for eg the eldar list you faced 3 serpents, karandras.., guardians...,striking scorpions...,Prisms. That's absolutely garbage if your talking competitive Eldar. (Even if it was the 6th ed eldar codex, it was still terrible). So because your CSM fluffy list can beat eldar fluffy lists CSM must be fine? Ohh dear.

On Topic, I hope all the future codexs get brought up to the same style as Tau, Eldar, Necrons and Space Marines. Packed with plenty of options. But this is GW, they could not balance two items that weigh the exact same. Who knows if they will keep this design trend or revert back to rubbish like the Blood Angels book.

Guard, Nids and CSM will have to wait and see!

I don't know why people are so difficult about that.
In my local, it's usual that both players knows each other's army (not list, just faction/general vibe) in advance and plan accordingly.
Makes it so much more interesting when every unit in both sides is deployed with thought if what is in front of you, rather than TaC list that get you some stuff that turn out useless (like anti air against sisters or anti horde against imperial knights)

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't know why people are so difficult about that.
In my local, it's usual that both players knows each other's army (not list, just faction/general vibe) in advance and plan accordingly.
Makes it so much more interesting when every unit in both sides is deployed with thought if what is in front of you, rather than TaC list that get you some stuff that turn out useless (like anti air against sisters or anti horde against imperial knights)

Traditionally, most table top games actively discourage cooperative list design. Every other table top game doesn't do it, and the tournament scene of course doesn't allow it.
List tailoring has been a dirty word in gaming since 3rd edition.

It actually requires more thought if you don't list tailor, in regards to deployment. If you bring 5 tanks and I only have 2 anti tank units, I have to be very careful in how I use and deploy them or I'll lose. If we list designed I can just take 5 anti tank units for your 5 tanks and the game becomes a lot easier for me.

I'll agree that a lot of the more recent innovations like fliers and knights make tac lists very hard to create.

Akiasura wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't know why people are so difficult about that.
In my local, it's usual that both players knows each other's army (not list, just faction/general vibe) in advance and plan accordingly.
Makes it so much more interesting when every unit in both sides is deployed with thought if what is in front of you, rather than TaC list that get you some stuff that turn out useless (like anti air against sisters or anti horde against imperial knights)

Traditionally, most table top games actively discourage cooperative list design. Every other table top game doesn't do it, and the tournament scene of course doesn't allow it.
List tailoring has been a dirty word in gaming since 3rd edition.

It actually requires more thought if you don't list tailor, in regards to deployment. If you bring 5 tanks and I only have 2 anti tank units, I have to be very careful in how I use and deploy them or I'll lose. If we list designed I can just take 5 anti tank units for your 5 tanks and the game becomes a lot easier for me.

I'll agree that a lot of the more recent innovations like fliers and knights make tac lists very hard to create.

Best thing to do is know who the OPPONENT is ahead of the time, which is what he was saying. Know the army, not the list.

CSM can actually put forth fairly decent lists IF we know who our opponent will be ahead of time. With all the widely ranging options available from god powers, creating a TaC list is what's impossible.

What I mean by the Tau treatment is the codex will get copy/pasted and most units won't actually change. So Rough Riders will still be terrible, Ogryns will still be overcosted, and Russes will still not have Lumbering Behemoth back. But hey, I'll get a Decurion formation that will make me buy 50 more guardsmen, and a bunch of other stuff to actually use.

 Arkaine wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
I don't know why people are so difficult about that.
In my local, it's usual that both players knows each other's army (not list, just faction/general vibe) in advance and plan accordingly.
Makes it so much more interesting when every unit in both sides is deployed with thought if what is in front of you, rather than TaC list that get you some stuff that turn out useless (like anti air against sisters or anti horde against imperial knights)

Traditionally, most table top games actively discourage cooperative list design. Every other table top game doesn't do it, and the tournament scene of course doesn't allow it.
List tailoring has been a dirty word in gaming since 3rd edition.

It actually requires more thought if you don't list tailor, in regards to deployment. If you bring 5 tanks and I only have 2 anti tank units, I have to be very careful in how I use and deploy them or I'll lose. If we list designed I can just take 5 anti tank units for your 5 tanks and the game becomes a lot easier for me.

I'll agree that a lot of the more recent innovations like fliers and knights make tac lists very hard to create.

Best thing to do is know who the OPPONENT is ahead of the time, which is what he was saying. Know the army, not the list.

Right, which is still list tailoring, just to a lesser degree.
Traditionally, in most table top games, you show up with a list prepared and just play a game. You don't swap units in and out because you know you are facing a guard opponent, and will most likely need more anti tank. Such moves have, again traditionally, been treated with scorn and as a dirty move.
The only reason we have moved away from this is because, for the vast majority of the armies, making a TAC list has become impossible. Hence why you see this game moving away from PUGs at local clubs to more of a friends house or close-knit group only setting.

 Arkaine wrote:

CSM can actually put forth fairly decent lists IF we know who our opponent will be ahead of time. With all the widely ranging options available from god powers, creating a TaC list is what's impossible.

I strongly disagree.
CSM can list tailor to some degree, but if the enemy does the same, we will still lose against the vast majority of dexes. Our only good god powers are slaanesh (very often not great, really only good for cover denial weapons if you need them) and nurgle (which, in a TAC list, is what you spam). Against the stronger dexes, CSM just can't compete with the damage they can put out unless they use a very casual list, as seen in some of the battle reports linked where CSM perform.

Compare the strongest units in the CSM codex to Warp Spiders, or Wraiths, or Centurions. It's not even close in terms of power. You can take the weaker dexes, but ones that are still really good like Tau, and see similar disparities in power.
Many of our options are just bad or flat out inferior to other choices in the same dex (Warp Talons, MoT/K, Fiends, Land Raider, Possessed, Raptors compared to Bikers, Chosen) requiring us to toss out a majority of our options to compete. For those of us who own 1k sons...ouch. Beautiful army, hasn't been good in a very long time.

If you want me to believe that CSM can put forth fairly decent lists, you'll have to post one and list who it's going to go up against, and it should be able to go up against a decent opponent (so not BA foot horde, for example).

Every codex has something thats pretty darn cool Centurions are cool. Heldrakes are cool. the new StormSurge is col, the Militarum Tempestus Formation that twin links you every time you disembark is cool. There's a lot of cool things in every codex.

Even if something is cool, if it has stats it can die. So... Don't despair.

(I'm sure the joke has already been made but...) Sisters get an actual update......hahahhahah!