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.

All jokes, glad you took it in good humor. No offense meant. This place can get so edgy and gloomy sometimes.

I've not run against full-bore Scatterbike lists yet, just a smattering of Wave Serpents and a few bikes. I did notice they will crumble under enough focus, trick is to pick your targets at the start of a turn and STICK WITH THEM. So often see people plink off a HP or two, lose hope, then switch focus to wound something else.

Recently been toying around with some FW units and trying more DS shenanigans. Trouble is getting reliable reserves and DS rolls as pure CSM. Would love to drop 3 Decimator Siege Engines behind enemy lines alongside Oblits.

It isn't complete unusable, true. That would be the legion of the damned rules, given you lose immediately without allies. But it is the lowest tier army right now, definitely if you don't take Nurgle or helldrakes. To pretend otherwise is falicious, because besides these casual tournaments you attend the anecdotel evidence elsewhere is universal in its claims of absolute defeat. It isn't hyperbole, nor is it pessimism. It is objective fact with actual statistics backing it. That doesn't mean the army can't be fun, nor that any one person can't beat another army with it. What it means is that the codex needs a rewrite with buffs to most every unit

You bring up a sore point for me with the Nurgle and Heldrakes. If you're not Nurgled to the gills, then most of your infantry/elites will underperform point for point.

Same auto-take problem with Drakes. I personally love the aesthetic, but for some it's an ugly unit that is a must include for a competitive list. Even with the fire arc nerf they are still pretty scary.

I think it's the lack of fluffy freedom you have when building an upper-tier CSM list. They're are plenty of awesome looking and good fluff-backed units in the codex (Mutilators, Warp Talons, Ectoplasma Forgefiend, etc.) that could however be swapped out for a more effective and cheaper unit somewhere else in the same book.

Even *with* Nurgle, CSM is still worse off point-for-point against most codexes. They're even measurably worse than IG...

It's very troublesome. It's especially bad for how I prefer to play my army in that I try to have a unit aligned to each god, as well as an unaligned terminator sorcerer in a termie squad. That's a lot of wasted points where I have khorne cultists, noise marines, tzeentch contemptor, and Nurgle obliterators. Any guess on which one survives and kills the most?

Nurgle Oblits?

autumnlotus wrote:
It isn't complete unusable, true. That would be the legion of the damned rules, given you lose immediately without allies. But it is the lowest tier army right now, definitely if you don't take Nurgle or helldrakes. To pretend otherwise is falicious, because besides these casual tournaments you attend...

My casual tournaments? riiiiight. Lol.

I won a tournament on Sunday. Wanna know what my "casual opponents' brought? Imperial Fists with Centurions, second opponent was a War Convocation with Imperial Knight and the third was some abomination of ForgeWorld and Daemonkin including a Castigator. But sure. If thats what you call casual.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:
Even *with* Nurgle, CSM is still worse off point-for-point against most codexes. They're even measurably worse than IG...

"measurably". Well since neither army really features analogous units outside of Cultists Im really not sure how measurable that is. Just sayin'.

My gawd.

You can compare anything with a statline to anything else with a statline. You can compare damage output, durability, speed, versatility, etc.

Your argument is essentially that you cannot compare a CSM with an IG, simply because one of them has a 3+ save.

 clamclaw wrote:

I think it's the lack of fluffy freedom you have when building...

This is the phenomona I was referring to though. It isn't the codex being unable to compete, Its the people playing it wanting it to be something it isn't and like I said, if we just called it something besides chaos would anyone be complaining then?

 Jancoran wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

I think it's the lack of fluffy freedom you have when building...

This is the phenomona I was referring to though. It isn't the codex being unable to compete, Its the people playing it wanting it to be something it isn't and like I said, if we just called it something besides chaos would anyone be complaining then?

Probably. You'd be amazed at what people will find to complain about.

If you called it Codex: Nurgle Marines, it'd still be a poor codex.

 Selym wrote:
My gawd.

You can compare anything with a statline to anything else with a statline. You can compare damage output, durability, speed, versatility, etc.

Your argument is essentially that you cannot compare a CSM with an IG, simply because one of them has a 3+ save.

Yet...that wasn't the argument. what i said was... That.... nothing in the IG codex is analogous outside of one unit. and I am accurate in saying so. So don't "my Gawd" me.

My argument isnt "essentially" anything. Iti s exactly what I said. Exactly. Dont paraphrase me friend. If you want to say there are entirely analogous units that we can look at, point it out. if there aren't, then say "You're right". But do not "my gawd" me.

i am on record as saying the Codex can use an update. So I have no problem with someone suggesting that. I have a problem with this extreme hyperbole that seems to exist anytime anything isn't perfect. It's just wearying, honestly. How can people spend so much time being negative? You have a codex. If Chaos is what you want to play, then you need to get over what it isn't and start dealing with what it is.

And the Thread is about what Chaos is good at. I'm saying they are good at being Night Lords. I have offered articles on other factions (and more are linked to that link so you can bounce around and look at the other Chaos Gawds and what i wrote about them).

I think we'd all be better served talking possibilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 War Kitten wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

I think it's the lack of fluffy freedom you have when building...

This is the phenomona I was referring to though. It isn't the codex being unable to compete, Its the people playing it wanting it to be something it isn't and like I said, if we just called it something besides chaos would anyone be complaining then?

Probably. You'd be amazed at what people will find to complain about.

...Fair point...

Jancoran has absolutely convinced me that csm are better than ba.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Selym wrote:
My gawd.

You can compare anything with a statline to anything else with a statline. You can compare damage output, durability, speed, versatility, etc.

Your argument is essentially that you cannot compare a CSM with an IG, simply because one of them has a 3+ save.

Yet...that wasn't the argument. what i said was... That.... nothing in the IG codex is analogous outside of one unit. and I am accurate in saying so. So don't "my Gawd" me.

 Jancoran wrote:

"measurably". Well since neither army really features analogous units outside of Cultists Im really not sure how measurable that is. Just sayin'.

No, Jancoran, you're saying that the IG can only be compared with CSM's cultists.

We can compare IG infantry with CSM in the same way that we can compare both to normal Marines. And we can compare the vehicles in the same way that all other vehicles in 40k are compared. And we can compare formations, and SHV's and allies.

The logic of your argument is saying that the IG and CSM codexes are incomparable. And that's just not true.

Until the new codex drops you will be stuck running mostly Daemons or daemonkin with a posible csm or crimson slaughters ally just to make the list you kinda want


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I still play them just use more Daemons and daemonkin and have made it to the final 3 every tournament I play

It's really sad when a debate falls into one sad basically screaming "I'm right, now follow my rules for discussion!". If you don't like the negativity then you picked the wrong thread to be in. Before you came in there was discussion on how things could be made better as well as general wish listing. Now it's people showing you how deluded your statements have been, using actual rules pointed out repeatedly. Cherrypicking comments to talk down to doesn't actually change that.

Back on topic: I hope that HQ choices become just Chaos Lord and Sorcerer with daemon prince as a separate section, with upgrade packs to fit a theme. Dark apostle upgrade, warpsmith upgrade, chaos cult upgrades, and hopefully basic ones for legions like diabolist or alpha legion cult master. This way all options are available and workable, without the options being forced into a specific build. Still upsets me that a dark apostle can't take special wargear like discs of tzeentch

 Selym wrote:


The logic of your argument is saying that the IG and CSM codexes are incomparable. And that's just not true.

Yet...that wasnt..what I said. Are you having a conversation with an invisible imaginary friend? I said... The armies only have one analogous unit.

Anywho, save it. I'm sure that when it hits you that Im not talking about an entire codex, and that the point being made is that you cannot REALLY compare them when form and function are so foreign to one another, it will all make sense to you. Til then, truck on with your bad self.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:
If you called it Codex: Nurgle Marines, it'd still be a poor codex.

...In your opinion. Sure. But no one would be saying "gee willikers, I wish it was like it used to be" and using those comparisons in 1000 threads a day to explain their rationale for it being bad. Because it isnt important that it be historically the same, though it might be preferable.

What needs to be true is that the Codex needs to allow you, the Good general that you are, to compete. And it does. Mission accomplished. Can it be better? What can't? So it's not a matter of us arguing over that. Sure it could be. My objection, as mentioned, is the extreme hyperbole. That is where I take issue. Not with the statement that it could be better.

There's no point arguing with insufferable trolls like you, Jancoran. Meet my ignore list.

 Jancoran wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
It isn't complete unusable, true. That would be the legion of the damned rules, given you lose immediately without allies. But it is the lowest tier army right now, definitely if you don't take Nurgle or helldrakes. To pretend otherwise is falicious, because besides these casual tournaments you attend...

My casual tournaments? riiiiight. Lol.

I won a tournament on Sunday. Wanna know what my "casual opponents' brought? Imperial Fists with Centurions, second opponent was a War Convocation with Imperial Knight and the third was some abomination of ForgeWorld and Daemonkin including a Castigator. But sure. If thats what you call casual.

Again, winning doesn't really proof that a codex is fine or competitive. You could have won due to some unlucky rolls, or your opponent not playing the mission and instead focusing on targets that doesn't represent a threat to his army or simply bad target prioritizing.

That is why beyond "i win games" arguments you need to back that up comparing units. Amazingly point costs on units allow us to compare statistically units in different scenarios. Assuming you used the same list you posted. The only real threat are the squads of 13 raptors with their decked lords. The raptors cost 330 pts, a small squad of iron hand cents (as you said they were one of your opponents) costs roughly the same, lets say 3 cents with grav cannons and the sergeant with omniscope 330 pts as well.

So, a raptor unit will for sure take 1 round of fire before charging, raptors are also iirc the only unit in your list that can move 12" besides the rhinos, you could argue that the rhinos will block the LoS giving cover or negating wounds on the raptors... sure, but then the rest of the marine army surely has a way to deal with a AV11 vehicle. So for the sake of statistics there are just the raptors advancing to the enemy army and within the 30" radius of the cents. The cents would shoot 20 times, hit 13.33 of those 20, wound the raptors 8.88 times before re-rolls with re-rolls those are 11.85 wounds on the raptors... and only 0.22 wounds from the hurricane bolters. So... 12 raptors die before being able to assault, with a 5+ cover which is probably the most you could attempt to get it falls down to 9 wounds, it is still a pretty heavy hit.


So a 2nd round of fire will destroy the unit including the lord, this may or may not happen depending on how deep within the 24" range was your unit, if if was barely within the 24" you´ll move 12" then attempt an assault with a 7, 8" distance left which are good chances on 2D6 but if you fail the charge that unit will be completely destroyed.

It could be argued that the 2nd unit of raptors can charge at the same time allowing at least one of them to get into combat and take down the cents, however since this is a point vs point comparison nothing stops your opponent from bringing a second cents units which would deal with the second raptor unit just as well. At the end of the day it comes down to dice results and target/objective prioritizing. If your opponent knows what to target and what objectives to take on similar conditions CSM has the lower hand, it is impossible to argue against the point/effectiveness of units in other dexes.

 Lord Yayula wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

autumnlotus wrote:
It isn't complete unusable, true. That would be the legion of the damned rules, given you lose immediately without allies. But it is the lowest tier army right now, definitely if you don't take Nurgle or helldrakes. To pretend otherwise is falicious, because besides these casual tournaments you attend...

My casual tournaments? riiiiight. Lol.

I won a tournament on Sunday. Wanna know what my "casual opponents' brought? Imperial Fists with Centurions, second opponent was a War Convocation with Imperial Knight and the third was some abomination of ForgeWorld and Daemonkin including a Castigator. But sure. If thats what you call casual.

Again, winning doesn't really proof that a codex is fine or competitive. You could have won due to some unlucky rolls, or your opponent not playing the mission and ....

Sure.

 Selym wrote:
There's no point arguing with insufferable trolls like you, Jancoran. Meet my ignore list.

I'm with you at this point, the arguments are circular and he just seems to cherry pick pieces of the discussion. Tried to find a middle-ground but it seems to be met with a brick wall of "well I do fine, so you must be bad".

Anecdotal examples of winning your local tournaments does nothing to further a discussion on CSM in a broader sense. All I'm getting is the sense of a big fish, little pond scenario.

 clamclaw wrote:

 Selym wrote:
There's no point arguing with insufferable trolls like you, Jancoran. Meet my ignore list.

I'm with you at this point, the arguments are circular and he just seems to cherry pick pieces of the discussion. Tried to find a middle-ground but it seems to be met with a brick wall of "well I do fine, so you must be bad".

Anecdotal examples of winning your local tournaments does nothing to further a discussion on CSM in a broader sense. All I'm getting is the sense of a big fish, little pond scenario.

Jancoran posts a lot about his generalship and great wins with armies. Personally, I'd love to see how he ranks at things like Bay Area Open, Las Vegas Open, or even just being able to play him myself.

autumnlotus wrote:

Back on topic: I hope that HQ choices become just Chaos Lord and Sorcerer with daemon prince as a separate section, with upgrade packs to fit a theme. Dark apostle upgrade, warpsmith upgrade, chaos cult upgrades, and hopefully basic ones for legions like diabolist or alpha legion cult master. This way all options are available and workable, without the options being forced into a specific build. Still upsets me that a dark apostle can't take special wargear like discs of tzeentch

For myself, this is what I find so depressing and frankly insulting about our pile of gak codex - the extreme lack of options & character.

After over 15 years, I'm sick and tied of being stuck with the exact same 3 special + 4 heavy weapon options. Yet every other Marine codex continually gets new toys and new options.
Why can't Chaos Marines have Heavy flamers make a comeback? Sure it's not "optimal", but it looks damn cool, and it's fun to zoom about in a 'burny wagon!'
Why can't we have our own unique special + heavy weapons?
Why must our evil Chappies & Techmarines be massively inferior to Loyalists and lose out on options such as Jump packs or Bikes? (and daemonic steeds...)
Why can't we get assaulty toys like Eviscerators, or Unholy Relic blades, or a punchy version of a combat shield?
Where the flying **** are our ****ing Drop Pods!!
Why can't we have better transport options for our damned "Assault" based play style?!
Why can't we have characterful things like 'Traitor Tactics', decent army-wide special rule(s), 'free' perks, etc... like every other damn faction?

In short, why the hell must Chaos stay so firmly mired in 3rd/4th edition rules & abilities, yet everyone else (especially Loyalist Marines) get heaps of new toys and continually added flavour & character?

That's all I want for my Chaos Marines. I don't care if we remain at the very bottom of the preverbial trash heap for all eternity, I just want some new options since I'm bored stiff of our 15+ year old armoury that refuses to change!

Pretty good at starting arguments

 jreilly89 wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

 Selym wrote:
There's no point arguing with insufferable trolls like you, Jancoran. Meet my ignore list.

I'm with you at this point, the arguments are circular and he just seems to cherry pick pieces of the discussion. Tried to find a middle-ground but it seems to be met with a brick wall of "well I do fine, so you must be bad".

Anecdotal examples of winning your local tournaments does nothing to further a discussion on CSM in a broader sense. All I'm getting is the sense of a big fish, little pond scenario.

Jancoran posts a lot about his generalship and great wins with armies. Personally, I'd love to see how he ranks at things like Bay Area Open, Las Vegas Open, or even just being able to play him myself.

It won't happen, because he said he had "nothing to prove".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

 Selym wrote:
There's no point arguing with insufferable trolls like you, Jancoran. Meet my ignore list.

I'm with you at this point, the arguments are circular and he just seems to cherry pick pieces of the discussion. Tried to find a middle-ground but it seems to be met with a brick wall of "well I do fine, so you must be bad".

Anecdotal examples of winning your local tournaments does nothing to further a discussion on CSM in a broader sense. All I'm getting is the sense of a big fish, little pond scenario.

Jancoran posts a lot about his generalship and great wins with armies. Personally, I'd love to see how he ranks at things like Bay Area Open, Las Vegas Open, or even just being able to play him myself.

It won't happen, because he said he had "nothing to prove".

Yup

/argument

 Jancoran wrote:

 clamclaw wrote:

I think it's the lack of fluffy freedom you have when building...

This is the phenomona I was referring to though. It isn't the codex being unable to compete, Its the people playing it wanting it to be something it isn't and like I said, if we just called it something besides chaos would anyone be complaining then?

You're right. People want the dex to be good and it isn't.

If it was all about the codex, would I be winning against other people who use better ones? I mean this big fish little pond stuff is cool and all, but even if the pond were miniscule, they're still using the same codex's you think are so much better.

I mean right?

So how is it about the codex then? How can it be? If i suck at this game, then it can't be the codex's because I'd lose a ton if it was. Simple.

On the other hand its rather arrogant if I say I won just because of my own ability. So of course I'm either arrogant for saying I'm good enough to win with a bad codex (even if its true someone would call me that) oooor the codex isn't bad and I'm not that good. Which one is it?

Well I think the fair minded person says its both. I'm not good enough to make a terribad codex good, am I? And a terribad codex hasnt been terribad enough to stop a decent "big fish in a little pond" like me.

Ergo... why the hyperbole hurts my head so much. Its a completely usable codex that you can compete with if you're decent, as I think I am. I havent beaten the world so lets say I can't. Whatevs. Point is, I can't be making this codex look this good when everyone else is using "better" ones. Small pond, big pond, whatever you think it is.

Would you say you have an equal chance of winning with your chaos as you would with Eldar?

 MWHistorian wrote:
Would you say you have an equal chance of winning with your chaos as you would with Eldar?

Using my lists? I suppose it depends on what the enemy is packing. What's opposing me in this scenario?