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.

8 years of Chaos VS Eldar

8 years ago I got into 40k with a buddy of mine. I bought CSM and he bought Eldar. At that time our armies were fairly balanced verses each other and we had a lot of fun. We made sure that we bought what we thought was cool and to stay away from the stuff we knew was "the best" in each codex. My buddy bought Khaine, dire avengers, banshees, fire dragons, wave serpents, and a falcon. I bought Abaddon, csm, khorne berzerkers, terminators, rhinos and defilers. We saw a few new rule books come out over time, but we found that our armies remained evenly matched. We had a lot of fun.
Right before the newest Eldar codex came out, another one of my friends picked up a used Eldar force which included wave serpents, wraithguard, fire prism, and guardians. He went on to buy a wraith knight, which he thought was the coolest thing ever, more wraithguard, more wave serpents, more jetbikes...
I took on the challenge. I believed that with enough creativity and tactical ingenuity, even Chaos could defeat the mighty Eldar. I've done it before, I'll do it again. I bought Obliterators even though I vowed when I first started playing that I'd never play them. I studied all the supplemental codex's to figure out what my options are, I teamed up with Daemons, I proxied, I used imperial guard, I used psychic powers, I slowly moved farther and farther away from the close combat bash and slash style that got me into 40k in the first place, and made lists where I squeezed in as many lascannons as I possibly could into an army. I could win sometimes, but it was a stretch. And at the end of the day, it just wasn't fun playing like this. Always trying to made the perfect efficient list to compete with a codex that can pretty much slap together any combination of units and be more competitive.
When Khorne Daemonkin came out... I reclaimed my gaming identity. I'm a bloody Chaos player. I'm a Khorne fanatic, and I want nothing but to run in and bash some skulls. I picked up this codex with incredible excitement, ready to finally destroy the Eldar. But I soon found myself wondering, where is Kharn, the champion of Khorne? Why do bloodcrushers suck so bad? Why didn't GW fix my defilers? Don't they know they are over costed? How come I don't have any realistic assault options for my assault army? Why can't Bloodthirsters assault the turn after they deep strike? These questions run through my mind as I get blown to smithereens by strength D weapons.
Then Traitor's Hate came out. Meh. All it is to me is proof that we will not get the changes we need anytime soon. That's the truth.

So now, after all the time, money, blood and sweat, it's come to this. I'm just another whiny Chaos kid.

But don't get me wrong, I still love 40k. I'll never sell my army. I still enjoy myself, in a twisted way, when I'm getting mashed to a pulp. The problem is, I really just don't understand. The game just doesn't make any sense.

CSM players, how do you go on with your wounds?
Eldar players, how lonely is the top?

Share with me your story Chaos and Eldar players!

 stealth992 wrote:
where is Kharn, the champion of Khorne? Why do bloodcrushers suck so bad? Why didn't GW fix my defilers? Don't they know they are over costed? How come I don't have any realistic assault options for my assault army? Why can't Bloodthirsters assault the turn after they deep strike?

Why don't you play them this way? You said you got the "not best" stuff in the first place, so you were kinda aware that the game balance is not there.

Common story. 8 years is not a long time compared to some players having to survive Codex updates.

I like Chaos but can't bring myself to play much under 7th edition. Not that 6th edition was much better, but this is what I did to keep the game interesting.

1) Carry around 4 or 5 lists and constantly experiment with tactics. Make sure your opponent never knows what to expect. If you bring the same army to each game, you are probably going to play it the same way.

2) Make your weaknesses strengths. I like having Rhinos because I can put 3 or 4 of them together to form a wall, and run the occupants up the board behind them. Your odds of winning improve whenever your opponent is shooting at empty transports instead of troops.

3) Get a copy of IA:13. For all the complaints about Forgeworld, Sicarans, Fire Raptors and conversion beamer artillery pieces are very good at killing Eldar.

4) Daemon allies are good to have. If you haven't run Fateweaver with the Grimoire, do so. It's a whole different game.

5) Play objective games instead of kill points. CSM has more options for MSU than most armies.

6) Do not write off Traitor's Hate. Think about what you can do to Eldar Jetbikes with deep striking Warp Talons that charge the turn they arrive. That book has some answers to the worst power creep abuses.

7) Stay away from tournaments. There is always someone who feels it's his responsibility to constantly remind you Chaos is not very powerful and probably will not win. You have better ways to spend your time than that.

The "Top" depends on the units you have. Like your first friend, I have the units I think are "cool". Unfortunately, most of them suck against the so called "Nice" lists my opponents kept bringing.....

In the end, the "Top" sucks if you don't have or want Wkights/bikes/spiders.

 stealth992 wrote:
Eldar players, how lonely is the top?

Share with me your story Chaos and Eldar players!

I shelved my Iyanden army when the 7th ed codex dropped, had a fair amount of stuff for it only 2 wraith knights, something like 3-4 wraith lords, wraith seer, a bunch of farseers and spirit seers and many wraith guard. Even a revenant and other Eldar stuff to support it.

Just stopped being fun really, dropped out of 40k for a bit eventually got into AoS and only now starting to look into getting back into 40k properly again after maybe taking a break for a bit over a year or two now. Even then not with my Eldar. I don't like winning unless I feel like I've earned it through skill instead of falling back on a crutch.

Former KDK player here, i thew in the towel against my freinds Eldar, couldnt do ANYTHING against the Wraithknigt, Jetbikes and stuff. No awnsers, no solutions, i just purely said... I am not playing against it anymore.

I went to Space Wolves (muuuuuuch better army melee wise, and ive allways loved them, Wolves and Vikings AWSOME!). Having much more fun now. And my freind is playing eldars as 6th instead of 7th. And she also bought Grey Knights, needless to say, we are both having a blast now

p.s. Bloodthirster in KDK should be able to get a drop and charge formation!!! 1 turn standing around is a joke!

And those people who said two turn for summoned Bloodthirster.....I hope their ass is itching and they have no arms, such idiots!

stealth992 wrote:CSM players, how do you go on with your wounds?

I stepped away from 40k early in 5E, but that wasn't really because my CSM had now become bland and rather weak (though they had), more that I moved to a new state with a much stronger WHFB presence, the game I'd started with and was thrilled to return to, especially in light of the ramping complexity of where 40k looked to be headed and me generally not enjoying it or its gamer mindset any longer. My chaos lads are absolutely ready to rampage the universe again once things get a little less complicated and WAACy out there

techsoldaten wrote:8 years is not a long time compared to some players having to survive Codex updates.

Part of what really bothers me is that CSM once had perhaps the best codex ever written:



Way back in 2002, Pete Haines stuffed so many options and upgrades and gifts and legion rules (!!!) into this thing that it was a modeler's dream, and not just in the typical chaos 'well at least it'll look cool as it does boring things in game' way. On the flipside, I also remember it being like the ultimate power gamer book as well, again because of all those options and upgrades and gifts and legion rules (!!!) leading to some combos and min/max builds that weren't necessarily anticipated.

But then over the years I've either personally experienced the blandification of CSM or watched it from afar, which hurts far worse falling from such a height. Honestly I think the worst was the 4E CSM book, which was the first in a 'new' line of stripped down codexes with far, far, far fewer options ... a design philosophy that didn't make it past CSM and then Dark Angels, before revving back up to fully equipped glory with (IIRC) C: SM, leaving those two armies to languish for much if not all of the edition.

- Salvage

I also remember it being like the ultimate power gamer book as well, again because of all those options and upgrades and gifts and legion rules (!!!) leading to some combos and min/max builds that weren't necessarily anticipated.

It really was. Normally, I'm happy to play the "never assign to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence" card, but you can compare every codex/army book Haines wrote and check its power level off against "did he own this army at the time" (compare white dwarf battle reports, etc).

The post index astartes chaos marine book could essentially have been retitled Codex:Screw You I Play Iron Warriors and the title would have been more accurate. Allowing the force to take what was essentially seven heavy support choices and a daemon prince who'd be in assault on the first turn was....a little over the top?

I liked the book - the artwork and background was lovely but it wasn't even slightly balanced with any other codex out at the same time or even for quite a while afterwards.

Play objective games instead of kill points. CSM has more options for MSU than most armies.

And Khorne Daemonkin better still. In fact it's probably the single best army for fielding a horde of disposable minions because not only are you okay with them getting killed, you're actively happy about it.

Bloodthirster in KDK should be able to get a drop and charge formation!!! 1 turn standing around is a joke!

They have got the Fist Of Khorne, too, which can be good (unless someone gets into full-blown nit-picky mode).

locarno24 wrote:
Normally, I'm happy to play the "never assign to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence" card, but you can compare every codex/army book Haines wrote and check its power level off against "did he own this army at the time" (compare white dwarf battle reports, etc).

QFT, and I had forgotten about the massive wave of Iron Warriors armies around this time

- Salvage

locarno24 wrote:

Allowing the force to take what was essentially seven heavy support choices and a daemon prince who'd be in assault on the first turn was....a little over the top?

.

Huh...no?!

Max was 4 HS when you're playing IW, you had to trade 2 FA slots for 1 HS, so how in the nine layers of hell could you have "essentially" 7 HS?...

3.5Ed CSM has become such a legend that, all sorts of weird stories are floating about it.

And DPrince first turn assault was possible only in the beginning, when you had the Daemonic Speed upgrade on a Khorne Prince, because Speed would make it move like cavalery ( 6"+D6" Fleet and 12 assault) and Mark of Khorne would give you the Blood Frenzy( +D6" movement in the shooting phase instead of shooting), and since it was poorly worded you could actually move 6"+2D6".

It got FaQed a week later that you had to choose between Fleet OR Blood Frenzy, and not cumulate both, wich nerved the Rape Train DPrince.

Even though a D SPeed Khornate Prince with either the Berserker Glaive or Dread Axe, was still the scariest thing that could have been on a table, but thats not only because of the Codex rules, it was also the assault rules of 3rd/4th Ed that where different like been able to come into contact of another unit when making a sweeping advance or a consilidation move and count has been locked in combat with that unit, nearly annihilated a Tau army with one guy doing so...

locarno24 wrote:

I also remember it being like the ultimate power gamer book as well, again because of all those options and upgrades and gifts and legion rules (!!!) leading to some combos and min/max builds that weren't necessarily anticipated.

It really was. Normally, I'm happy to play the "never assign to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence" card, but you can compare every codex/army book Haines wrote and check its power level off against "did he own this army at the time" (compare white dwarf battle reports, etc).

The post index astartes chaos marine book could essentially have been retitled Codex:Screw You I Play Iron Warriors and the title would have been more accurate. Allowing the force to take what was essentially seven heavy support choices and a daemon prince who'd be in assault on the first turn was....a little over the top?

The rules for Iron Warriors were as follows: -2 FA slots, +1 HS slot, could take a single Vindicator and Basilisk, and had the 0-1 restriction on Obliterators removed. They also got Siege Specialists for free. Not sure where that 7 came from.

 Lukash_ wrote:

locarno24 wrote:

I also remember it being like the ultimate power gamer book as well, again because of all those options and upgrades and gifts and legion rules (!!!) leading to some combos and min/max builds that weren't necessarily anticipated.

It really was. Normally, I'm happy to play the "never assign to malevolence what can be explained by incompetence" card, but you can compare every codex/army book Haines wrote and check its power level off against "did he own this army at the time" (compare white dwarf battle reports, etc).

The post index astartes chaos marine book could essentially have been retitled Codex:Screw You I Play Iron Warriors and the title would have been more accurate. Allowing the force to take what was essentially seven heavy support choices and a daemon prince who'd be in assault on the first turn was....a little over the top?

The rules for Iron Warriors were as follows: -2 FA slots, +1 HS slot, could take a single Vindicator and Basilisk, and had the 0-1 restriction on Obliterators removed. They also got Siege Specialists for free. Not sure where that 7 came from.

Could he perhaps mean the Obliterator Cult? These were Elite choices, not Heavy, correct? (Not a chaos player, and it's been years ago)

So you could have a Basilisk, a Vindicator, a Defiler, and a Predator, along with three squads of Obliterators (Three squads of 3x Obliterators). That could be what he meant by by 7, as he was looking at the Oblits as a kind of faux heavy support choice in the Elite slot.

I knew a guy who ran this exact list. He had them painted up as "Fallen Dark Angels" so he could field them as Loyalist Dark Angels who just were using their pre-heresy paint job, or as Chaos marines (Iron Warriors) who were Fallen Dark Angels. We started calling them the Dark Iron Angel Warriors. He didn't like that, but the shoe fit. It was a tough list, not unbeatable, but certainly tough.

Thanks, and take it easy.

-Red__Thirst-

I'm generally attracted to underdog armies that slip below the radar, because I feel that playing them and learning their quirks and flaws to second nature helps me become a better player overall. Relying solely on "my list is better than yours" doesn't help me learn. Also, I enjoy the conversion potential of armies.

I know it could be far worse, knowing that this time Chaos has passable Fast Attacks and Heavy Supports, while the previous codex had gems like Bikers that cost 33 points per model, Dreadnoughts that could shoot your own army, Slow and Purposeful Spawn that *had* to charge the closest enemy unit, no matter if it was a unit of Guardsmen, or a Dreadnought that could Instant-Death it because you didn't have the option to buy Marks for them (or Marks for Obliterators for that matter), and that Autocannons used to cost 20 points on Havocs ("Gee...do I take 4 Havocs with Autocannons, or do I take a Defiler?).

I think the other reason I'm not feeling as salty is I'm a fairly defensive player. I care less about closing rushing headlong into the fight, as much as I do locking down the center of the board, while using melee as an speed booster "finishing off" weakened targets.

Also, Traitor's Hate may have been a lazy copypaste job, but I would argue we now get better Psykers than the Loyalists do. True, we don't get Psychic Hoods, but the most dangerous powers are Blessings/Summonings, which Hoods won't do anything against. Our Sorcerers start off a few points cheaper due to not paying for this upgrade, and can be upgraded to Mastery Level 3 (unlike Conclave Marines) and take Spell Familiars.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm generally attracted to underdog armies that slip below the radar, because I feel that playing them and learning their quirks and flaws to second nature helps me become a better player overall. Relying solely on "my list is better than yours" doesn't help me learn. Also, I enjoy the conversion potential of armies.

I know it could be far worse, knowing that this time Chaos has passable Fast Attacks and Heavy Supports, while the previous codex had gems like Bikers that cost 33 points per model, Dreadnoughts that could shoot your own army, Slow and Purposeful Spawn that *had* to charge the closest enemy unit, no matter if it was a unit of Guardsmen, or a Dreadnought that could Instant-Death it because you didn't have the option to buy Marks for them (or Marks for Obliterators for that matter), and that Autocannons used to cost 20 points on Havocs ("Gee...do I take 4 Havocs with Autocannons, or do I take a Defiler?).

I think the other reason I'm not feeling as salty is I'm a fairly defensive player. I care less about closing rushing headlong into the fight, as much as I do locking down the center of the board, while using melee as an speed booster "finishing off" weakened targets.

Also, Traitor's Hate may have been a lazy copypaste job, but I would argue we now get better Psykers than the Loyalists do. True, we don't get Psychic Hoods, but the most dangerous powers are Blessings/Summonings, which Hoods won't do anything against. Our Sorcerers start off a few points cheaper due to not paying for this upgrade, and can be upgraded to Mastery Level 3 (unlike Conclave Marines) and take Spell Familiars.

Yeah... but the marine conclave can harness on 2+ versus our 4+.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm generally attracted to underdog armies that slip below the radar, because I feel that playing them and learning their quirks and flaws to second nature helps me become a better player overall. Relying solely on "my list is better than yours" doesn't help me learn. Also, I enjoy the conversion potential of armies.

I know it could be far worse, knowing that this time Chaos has passable Fast Attacks and Heavy Supports, while the previous codex had gems like Bikers that cost 33 points per model, Dreadnoughts that could shoot your own army, Slow and Purposeful Spawn that *had* to charge the closest enemy unit, no matter if it was a unit of Guardsmen, or a Dreadnought that could Instant-Death it because you didn't have the option to buy Marks for them (or Marks for Obliterators for that matter), and that Autocannons used to cost 20 points on Havocs ("Gee...do I take 4 Havocs with Autocannons, or do I take a Defiler?).

I think the other reason I'm not feeling as salty is I'm a fairly defensive player. I care less about closing rushing headlong into the fight, as much as I do locking down the center of the board, while using melee as an speed booster "finishing off" weakened targets.

Also, Traitor's Hate may have been a lazy copypaste job, but I would argue we now get better Psykers than the Loyalists do. True, we don't get Psychic Hoods, but the most dangerous powers are Blessings/Summonings, which Hoods won't do anything against. Our Sorcerers start off a few points cheaper due to not paying for this upgrade, and can be upgraded to Mastery Level 3 (unlike Conclave Marines) and take Spell Familiars.

Yeah... but the marine conclave can harness on 2+ versus our 4+.

Chaos does get spell familiars to reroll their psychic tests

Just curious, has anyone still got a copy of the 3.5 dex and used to it make an army, then played it against a current Codex? I'd be interested to see how it held up.

Sudowoodo1 wrote:
Just curious, has anyone still got a copy of the 3.5 dex and used to it make an army, then played it against a current Codex? I'd be interested to see how it held up.

Yep, and I will, let you know what happens

 Formosa wrote:

Sudowoodo1 wrote:
Just curious, has anyone still got a copy of the 3.5 dex and used to it make an army, then played it against a current Codex? I'd be interested to see how it held up.

Yep, and I will, let you know what happens

Thank you.

 n0t_u wrote:

 stealth992 wrote:
Eldar players, how lonely is the top?

Share with me your story Chaos and Eldar players!

I shelved my Iyanden army when the 7th ed codex dropped, had a fair amount of stuff for it only 2 wraith knights, something like 3-4 wraith lords, wraith seer, a bunch of farseers and spirit seers and many wraith guard. Even a revenant and other Eldar stuff to support it.

Just stopped being fun really, dropped out of 40k for a bit eventually got into AoS and only now starting to look into getting back into 40k properly again after maybe taking a break for a bit over a year or two now. Even then not with my Eldar. I don't like winning unless I feel like I've earned it through skill instead of falling back on a crutch.

Ya, I figured there would be some players like you. I feel like if I was Eldar, I wouldn't have that much fun stomping my friends all the time. The problem is, my buddy who runs the wraithknight/wraithguard/jetbikes, etc., he is fairly new to 40k and so he does not have a good sense of how imbalanced our armies actually are verses each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brutallica wrote:
Former KDK player here, i thew in the towel against my freinds Eldar, couldnt do ANYTHING against the Wraithknigt, Jetbikes and stuff. No awnsers, no solutions, i just purely said... I am not playing against it anymore.

I went to Space Wolves (muuuuuuch better army melee wise, and ive allways loved them, Wolves and Vikings AWSOME!). Having much more fun now. And my freind is playing eldars as 6th instead of 7th. And she also bought Grey Knights, needless to say, we are both having a blast now

p.s. Bloodthirster in KDK should be able to get a drop and charge formation!!! 1 turn standing around is a joke!

And those people who said two turn for summoned Bloodthirster.....I hope their ass is itching and they have no arms, such idiots!

Yeah it took me like 8 years to finally paint only 2000 points of Chaos, so I don't have the motivation to play any new armies. I also couldn't afford it if I had the motivation! I'm trying to think of some house rules that would make games vs my buddy more enjoyable. Maybe if we added a universal special rule where you get to take cover saves after to hit roles, then after wound roles you get armor or invulnerable saves. So kinda like universal feel no pain. I'd probably still lose with this house rule too hahaha.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm generally attracted to underdog armies that slip below the radar, because I feel that playing them and learning their quirks and flaws to second nature helps me become a better player overall. Relying solely on "my list is better than yours" doesn't help me learn. Also, I enjoy the conversion potential of armies.

I know it could be far worse, knowing that this time Chaos has passable Fast Attacks and Heavy Supports, while the previous codex had gems like Bikers that cost 33 points per model, Dreadnoughts that could shoot your own army, Slow and Purposeful Spawn that *had* to charge the closest enemy unit, no matter if it was a unit of Guardsmen, or a Dreadnought that could Instant-Death it because you didn't have the option to buy Marks for them (or Marks for Obliterators for that matter), and that Autocannons used to cost 20 points on Havocs ("Gee...do I take 4 Havocs with Autocannons, or do I take a Defiler?).

I think the other reason I'm not feeling as salty is I'm a fairly defensive player. I care less about closing rushing headlong into the fight, as much as I do locking down the center of the board, while using melee as an speed booster "finishing off" weakened targets.

Also, Traitor's Hate may have been a lazy copypaste job, but I would argue we now get better Psykers than the Loyalists do. True, we don't get Psychic Hoods, but the most dangerous powers are Blessings/Summonings, which Hoods won't do anything against. Our Sorcerers start off a few points cheaper due to not paying for this upgrade, and can be upgraded to Mastery Level 3 (unlike Conclave Marines) and take Spell Familiars.

Yeah I've definitely tried playing as a super defensive player. Its something that I'm quite capable of doing. I have maybe 100 or more models of traitor imperial guardsmen and cultists. Pretty sure I can make some pretty nasty high firepower infantry armies if I really wanted to. The problem is, I just never enjoyed sitting back and shooting a ton of cannons all game. I want to be able to play with the models I think are cool that got me into 40k in the first place. Most notably, my defilers. I use them as proxied soul grinders. The regular defiler cost is just too unbearable to field.

I still have the 3.5 book (I bought like 3 of them over its lifespan, due to its various stealth reprints; the one I have is the April 2006 printing). I don't think I'll ever get a chance to try out a list from it, though - my gaming time is too limited as it is.

That said, looking through the "Books of Chaos" at the back of the Codex, those rules could easily be ported over to the 6th edition CSM codex with just a few tweaks.

In fact, I'm very tempted to do exactly that...

 stealth992 wrote:
...Eldar players, how lonely is the top?

Share with me your story Chaos and Eldar players!

Less than you'd think, honestly. I own a Wraithknight for tournament play, I own Windriders because they're the newest and nicest Troops models in my book, but I don't bring either to pick-up games because contrary to popular belief Eldar players aren't all awful munchkins with no sense of balance or proportion. I play pretty much the same old mechanized Swordwind approach I've been running since I first picked up Warhammer back in 4th in casual games. I don't win very much that way because I keep trying to play it the way I learned how to three editions ago, but everyone has a lot more fun than we would if there were giant stompy things wandering across the battlefield escorted by a swarm of flitting laser-flies.

Oddly the Eldar are the closest I get to playing 40k 'normally'; my Salamanders were built for 30k so they don't translate well (Spartans and Sicarans aren't in any formations, among other things), and I've gotten sufficiently fed up with the Great Codex Diaspora that's spread my Daemonhunters army over five books that I've been building them a homebrew Codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheexsta wrote:
I still have the 3.5 book (I bought like 3 of them over its lifespan, due to its various stealth reprints; the one I have is the April 2006 printing). I don't think I'll ever get a chance to try out a list from it, though - my gaming time is too limited as it is.

That said, looking through the "Books of Chaos" at the back of the Codex, those rules could easily be ported over to the 6th edition CSM codex with just a few tweaks.

In fact, I'm very tempted to do exactly that...

I actually have a pile of brainstorming notes to that effect. The big thing I like about trying to use elements of the 3.5 book today is the lack of differentiation between 'unit with the Mark of X' and 'Cult unit', it makes the whole affair much more straightforward and makes it much easier to define other Cult units (Berserker bikes, Plague Havocs, Noise Terminators...). The Daemonic Gifts and proper dedications for vehicles were also a lot more interesting then.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
I'm generally attracted to underdog armies that slip below the radar, because I feel that playing them and learning their quirks and flaws to second nature helps me become a better player overall. Relying solely on "my list is better than yours" doesn't help me learn. Also, I enjoy the conversion potential of armies.

I know it could be far worse, knowing that this time Chaos has passable Fast Attacks and Heavy Supports, while the previous codex had gems like Bikers that cost 33 points per model, Dreadnoughts that could shoot your own army, Slow and Purposeful Spawn that *had* to charge the closest enemy unit, no matter if it was a unit of Guardsmen, or a Dreadnought that could Instant-Death it because you didn't have the option to buy Marks for them (or Marks for Obliterators for that matter), and that Autocannons used to cost 20 points on Havocs ("Gee...do I take 4 Havocs with Autocannons, or do I take a Defiler?).

I think the other reason I'm not feeling as salty is I'm a fairly defensive player. I care less about closing rushing headlong into the fight, as much as I do locking down the center of the board, while using melee as an speed booster "finishing off" weakened targets.

Also, Traitor's Hate may have been a lazy copypaste job, but I would argue we now get better Psykers than the Loyalists do. True, we don't get Psychic Hoods, but the most dangerous powers are Blessings/Summonings, which Hoods won't do anything against. Our Sorcerers start off a few points cheaper due to not paying for this upgrade, and can be upgraded to Mastery Level 3 (unlike Conclave Marines) and take Spell Familiars.

Yeah... but the marine conclave can harness on 2+ versus our 4+.

Chaos does get spell familiars to reroll their psychic tests

And? 83% is still better than 75% as far as my math goes. Also, tigurius gets to re-roll the tests.

Tigurius has that ability too. Huh, remember my first match ever in 40k.

I brought a very elite army, I went and did a very Your dudes approach and dropped plenty of upgrades. The guy I went against brought an unbound list of ultras: grav-vets (1st company taskforce), grav-centurions and tigurius with a 10th company taskforce. I killed exactly one scout there from the slaughter he made.

On a side note, eldar have a very good power balance: wanna play friendly? Do as I do and bring a couple of shinning spears (good but far from OP), a couple vehicles with lances and guardians/avengers. Maybe one bike squad if you want the jetseer and maybe a spiritseer for your wraithblades.

Loyalist Marines can't spam cheap Warp Charge the way Tzeentch Daemons can, and if you're playing with Forge World content volume of dice and Kasyr Lutien may actually be situationally better than Tigurius' 2+/reroll failed. I'd have to do the math on it, but twenty-odd Warp Charge that can pick and choose which dice to reroll on Malefic Daemonology tests may get more powers off and get fewer Perils results.

Chaos isn't better at psychic powers than loyalist Marines, but they're certainly no slouch at it.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Loyalist Marines can't spam cheap Warp Charge the way Tzeentch Daemons can, and if you're playing with Forge World content volume of dice and Kasyr Lutien may actually be situationally better than Tigurius' 2+/reroll failed. I'd have to do the math on it, but twenty-odd Warp Charge that can pick and choose which dice to reroll on Malefic Daemonology tests may get more powers off and get fewer Perils results.

Yes, they can because they not only can take the exact same Tzeentch daemon Allies but their conclave is better at summoning daemons than anyone else but a Tzeentch daemon with Paradox.

Don't forget; CSM aren't Chaos Daemons and visa versa, they are their own separate entities with one making up part of the "big four" competitively while the other battles it out for the title of worst Codex in 40K. I'll let you figure out which is which.

 Drasius wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Loyalist Marines can't spam cheap Warp Charge the way Tzeentch Daemons can, and if you're playing with Forge World content volume of dice and Kasyr Lutien may actually be situationally better than Tigurius' 2+/reroll failed. I'd have to do the math on it, but twenty-odd Warp Charge that can pick and choose which dice to reroll on Malefic Daemonology tests may get more powers off and get fewer Perils results.

Yes, they can because they not only can take the exact same Tzeentch daemon Allies but their conclave is better at summoning daemons than anyone else but a Tzeentch daemon with Paradox.

Don't forget; CSM aren't Chaos Daemons and visa versa, they are their own separate entities with one making up part of the "big four" competitively while the other battles it out for the title of worst Codex in 40K. I'll let you figure out which is which.

I thought Necrons were the 4th,not Deamons. Also, id hardly call CSM the worst codex in 40k. Im a newer convert to CSM so ill try not to sound like I know to much, but Ive seen csm win games, the army still has harder lists (belakor + lord of skulls + heldrakes) and im sure once traitors hate has had some time to settle in itll produce some decent lists as well. Sure CSM isnt a tourney army. I think most people understand this and also understand we will always be a subpar army due to being the punching bags of 40k along wih the orcs and tyranids (because loyalists need wins amirite?) but other armies have it far worse as of late and I can now say CSM is firmly mid-tier. The problem is that the distance between mid-tier and top tier is so vast.

Now that im done white knighting my new favorite faction I will admit that even to a new convert that the codex has severe problems. Everything is horribly overcosted (chaos tax) you will almost never see lists with actual chaos space marines in it and most will be fluff lore lists that do field them. The codex is getting long in the tooth in general and needs a replacement, not a supplement. But to make a blanket statement that CSM is the worst codex, well that is incorrect.. Also add in the fact that CSM can ally in some nice toys and you have firmly mid-tier faction.

"Ive seen csm win games, the army still has harder lists (belakor + lord of skulls + heldrakes)"

Sorry for the badly done quote, I'm on phone and this is the only part I really wanted to focus on. The problem with this army that you've seen win, is that although it's a CSM army, only one of the units you've highlighted are actually from the Codex. Belakor is a dataslate, the Lord of Skulls is a massively expensive (point wise) superheavy from one of the forgeworld books.

If an army needs to look outside of its own Codex to be viable in anything more than the most casual setting, then that Codex is bad. It is not achieving it's intended goal; Allowing a player to use an army to play games with a reasonable chance of winning.

Orks: need FW support to really shine. Dark Eldar: need to use allies to keep an edge. Chaos Space Marines: need supplements and dataslates to be a worthwhile force. The top tier codices don't need that, they have everything they need to win already in their book. Eldar don't need to bring along a Scorpion superheavy to give them a better chance of winning. Vanilla Space Marines don't have to buy dataslates and supplements to remain competitive.

It's frankly ridiculous that the codices at the bottom of the pile either spend 3-4 times the amount on extra rules/allies just to be at a similar level to the top books, or have to make their peace with forever being the underdog.

Sorry for the rant, but this "I've seen such and such army win" really winds me up when at its basic level, that army is a hollow representation of its Codex.

I'm not a CSM players, but at this point I really understand Chaos fans who just run their armies, using SW or SM codexes...

Sudowoodo1 wrote:
"Ive seen csm win games, the army still has harder lists (belakor + lord of skulls + heldrakes)"

Sorry for the badly done quote, I'm on phone and this is the only part I really wanted to focus on. The problem with this army that you've seen win, is that although it's a CSM army, only one of the units you've highlighted are actually from the Codex. Belakor is a dataslate, the Lord of Skulls is a massively expensive (point wise) superheavy from one of the forgeworld books.

If an army needs to look outside of its own Codex to be viable in anything more than the most casual setting, then that Codex is bad. It is not achieving it's intended goal; Allowing a player to use an army to play games with a reasonable chance of winning.

Orks: need FW support to really shine. Dark Eldar: need to use allies to keep an edge. Chaos Space Marines: need supplements and dataslates to be a worthwhile force. The top tier codices don't need that, they have everything they need to win already in their book. Eldar don't need to bring along a Scorpion superheavy to give them a better chance of winning. Vanilla Space Marines don't have to buy dataslates and supplements to remain competitive.

It's frankly ridiculous that the codices at the bottom of the pile either spend 3-4 times the amount on extra rules/allies just to be at a similar level to the top books, or have to make their peace with forever being the underdog.

Sorry for the rant, but this "I've seen such and such army win" really winds me up when at its basic level, that army is a hollow representation of its Codex.

Lord of Skulls is considered a CSM unit with an entry in traitors hate. And heldrakes come from the codex. But your point is still true. While you can use the CSM dex solo, its not going to end well. Also for the record, ive seen other lists win. This one is just our currently "accepted" tourney list.
I cannot say I have won yet, because I have yet to play (still painting and converting. have played necrons previously) . But im fairly certain ill get a few wins in , even vs eldar. You see people like to forget about things like mission type, scenario rules and treat every game as a kill point game. Now, not accounting for your meta in your circles. But in mine and id wager most others, kill point games are not seen. In my meta its all maelstrom missions or scenarios. This isnt also taking into account one HUGE factor in this game. Luck. You can bring a a top tier filthy scatter bike list but if you roll horribly you are going to have a hard time.

If your meta is nothing but tournament lists and kill point slug fests then yes, we are one of the worst codex's and never win games outside of our ONE tourey list. And i would suggest shelving the army if winning in those conditions is what matters to you.

Table wrote:


Lord of Skulls is considered a CSM unit with an entry in traitors hate. And heldrakes come from the codex. But your point is still true. While you can use the CSM dex solo, its not going to end well. Also for the record, ive seen other lists win. This one is just our currently "accepted" tourney list.
I cannot say I have won yet, because I have yet to play (still painting and converting. have played necrons previously) . But im fairly certain ill get a few wins in , even vs eldar. You see people like to forget about things like mission type, scenario rules and treat every game as a kill point game. Now, not accounting for your meta in your circles. But in mine and id wager most others, kill point games are not seen. In my meta its all maelstrom missions or scenarios. This isnt also taking into account one HUGE factor in this game. Luck. You can bring a a top tier filthy scatter bike list but if you roll horribly you are going to have a hard time.

If your meta is nothing but tournament lists and kill point slug fests then yes, we are one of the worst codex's and never win games outside of our ONE tourey list. And i would suggest shelving the army if winning in those conditions is what matters to you.

Oh god, you're sounding soooo condescending right now. Also, if you're relying on luck, you're going to be dissapointed. And even with luck, you'll lose against a filthy eldar list. Period.

Table wrote:

Sudowoodo1 wrote:
"Ive seen csm win games, the army still has harder lists (belakor + lord of skulls + heldrakes)"

Sorry for the badly done quote, I'm on phone and this is the only part I really wanted to focus on. The problem with this army that you've seen win, is that although it's a CSM army, only one of the units you've highlighted are actually from the Codex. Belakor is a dataslate, the Lord of Skulls is a massively expensive (point wise) superheavy from one of the forgeworld books.

If an army needs to look outside of its own Codex to be viable in anything more than the most casual setting, then that Codex is bad. It is not achieving it's intended goal; Allowing a player to use an army to play games with a reasonable chance of winning.

Orks: need FW support to really shine. Dark Eldar: need to use allies to keep an edge. Chaos Space Marines: need supplements and dataslates to be a worthwhile force. The top tier codices don't need that, they have everything they need to win already in their book. Eldar don't need to bring along a Scorpion superheavy to give them a better chance of winning. Vanilla Space Marines don't have to buy dataslates and supplements to remain competitive.

It's frankly ridiculous that the codices at the bottom of the pile either spend 3-4 times the amount on extra rules/allies just to be at a similar level to the top books, or have to make their peace with forever being the underdog.

Sorry for the rant, but this "I've seen such and such army win" really winds me up when at its basic level, that army is a hollow representation of its Codex.

Lord of Skulls is considered a CSM unit with an entry in traitors hate. And heldrakes come from the codex. But your point is still true. While you can use the CSM dex solo, its not going to end well. Also for the record, ive seen other lists win. This one is just our currently "accepted" tourney list.
I cannot say I have won yet, because I have yet to play (still painting and converting. have played necrons previously) . But im fairly certain ill get a few wins in , even vs eldar. You see people like to forget about things like mission type, scenario rules and treat every game as a kill point game. Now, not accounting for your meta in your circles. But in mine and id wager most others, kill point games are not seen. In my meta its all maelstrom missions or scenarios. This isnt also taking into account one HUGE factor in this game. Luck. You can bring a a top tier filthy scatter bike list but if you roll horribly you are going to have a hard time.

If your meta is nothing but tournament lists and kill point slug fests then yes, we are one of the worst codex's and never win games outside of our ONE tourey list. And i would suggest shelving the army if winning in those conditions is what matters to you.

You're right, playing to the objectives in a maelstrom game is going to give you a better chance of winning. And luck is definitely a deciding factor. However, my issue is not so much about winning itself, but how much we at the bottom have to spend just to be in the same league as the top. We literally pay more cash, by paying for supplements like Traitors Hate, just to even play on a level field alongside higher tier codices. And then when we do pay extra, we're forced into sub-par purchases points-wise (Warpsmiths anyone?) simply because the original entry in the codex is overpriced and ineffective. So now not only are we paying more cash, but we have to take inefficient units at a higher points cost, just to be able to use a formation that in theory, should put us on a level chance against higher codices. Basically what I'm trying to say there is that our "tax" for a lot of our formations is higher than it should be, for which we are getting less effective units, which in turn means that we will literally never have that level chance.

And as for shelving the army, I did that a few years ago when 90% of my Worldeater force got stolen. I've just been playing my Dark Eldar since then, which although suffers from the same kinds of problem, I at least don't have to drop a load more money on building just to know that I'm probably going to lose most of the time. As soon as a decent (core) Codex for CSM gets released, I'll dive right back at them. But for now there's no reason to buy an entirely new neutered army when I have a perfectly good one sat at home to lose with.