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.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

I'm not interested in the tourney meta, IDGAF about people that abandon tactics all together in order to try to create some super death-star unit, or use as many flyers as possible. I simply want to be able to run the units I want to run and have a chance at winning. But that wont happen if I have a 200 point disadvantage against most of my opponents.

...Scrub harder if you think this is what actually wins tournaments.

40kenthusiast wrote:
@Vakathi:

It's debatable. That invul save goes a very long way, as does the forgefiends' long range firepower and daemonforge.

You'll see a lot more CSM walker armies (can't even say how many people see Maulerfiend and are like , yep, 3 of those, beasts with jugger lords, that'll def win) than you will SM armies. (SM players who want walkers just become Knight players). The walker section of CSM is "live", while the SM one is not.

This doesn't matter, because both kinds of walker spam lists would flush out round 1 or 2, but the premise of this discussion was some noise about how expensive tac squads were, so I felt justified.

He's new, we don't want to just be like "Dude, play Tau". If he still wants to talk CSM vs SM I'm happy to entertain the scenario.

Its not. A forgefiend is 175 while a dread is 100 your paying almost twice the amount of points you could bring 3 dreads for 2 forgefiends and you would have 9 wounds to 8 and more fire power and still have points left over for upgrades.

The reason why Maulerfiends are popular is because they look good not because there good. they are a 125 point open topped vehichle. I want to run them not because they are good but because I likes the flav

Tau was the second on my list the whole water caste diplomacy thing got my attention then I started looking at the units, love the suits love the whole vibe of the army in general. What I couldn't handle is "the cannot handle close combat at all" thing in the end it felt cheap to just sit back and shoot at a target plus this game is not just about shooting everything in sight but also about holding objectives and when you can't suffer a single close combat round your asking to lose most games.

Let me be clear about this. I will most likely play Thousand Sons, I will most spend extra money and get my army to the way I want it aesthetics wise. The reason is the fluff, Thousand Sons are neither Traitors nor are they loyal, they are somewhere in between, Magnus hates Tzeentch, and his ultimate end goal is probably to kill him, and is willing to do what ever it takes to acquire the power needed to destroy Tzeentch. I don't even see him wanting to destroy Fenris unless it would increase his power, you don't get mad at the pawn for taking your Queen you get mad at the Chess Master. I will almost assuredly field an army and lose many a battle to poorly written rules, but that is something that I have to accept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So in regards to the OP: Free VoTLW matters more than just sweeping. Take Havocs for example. Chances are they'll be near the board edge, making the auto-regroup effectively pointless and even if they're not, a turn they spend falling back or regrouping is a turn they spend not firing. Ditto the same for Bikers, where the extra D6 fallback distance can easily disrupt your plans.

If you roll a leadership test in every feasible phase, that being my physic, shooting, and assault phases and your assault phase. You would end up rolling 24 checks of those 24 checks you would fail 4.5. It doesn't make a difference it nets 2 less runs in 24 checks and you auto regroup on the run, so while my unit might fall back until they run off the board,

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Of course, this is all "academic" since nobody runs Tactical Marines outside of a Battle Demi-Company. Also, nobody runs Heavy Bolters

If you put anything on the board that has legs, arms and isn't a walker then your putting a space marine on the board and benefiting from the gap.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
Now, you do get some fringe bonuses here and there, which do let you fight an asymmetrical game. Chaos does Psykers better than other armies, simply put . Spell Familiars are nice, and unlike Loyalists, you get ML 3 Sorcerers. You get Angels of Death copypaste powers too, which do a *lot* for your army's utility. The Chaos Warband is arguably every bit as good as a conventional Battle Demi-Company, as there's a lot more slotting flexibility in building your army.

Flexibility is only good if you have around the same points on the board, with on average a 100 to 200 point difference. As for the fact that I get really good Psykers I know and Angels of death is very good the problem with psykers is that its RNG on top of already existing RNG which makes things very shaky at best.

Except Maulerfiends are walkers, not open-topped vehicles.

And regarding tau... wow, you clearly have no idea how the meta is going. Nor you understand how to play Tau.
Also, Thousand Sons ARE traitors. And Magnus would gladly destroy the fang, regardless of power, due to his hatre to the space yiffs, but hey you play them for the fluff, I'm sure you've read all the material there: burning dozens of imperial worlds in an effort to realize an arcane ritual is something any loyalist marine worth its salt would do!

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:
When you get a bit more experience under your belt you'll see how this works. The game is balanced at the codex level, not the unit level. If you build a CSM army and an SM army in the same way, one will be better than the other.

Okay so what your saying is that GW has special psychic powers that lets them know exactly what everyone is going to run for every game they play...ever? No I'm sorry that is just plain stupid, the only way to balance a codex externally is to know ahead of time what each person is going to bring, and the Force Org Chart only gives guide lines, which means your going to have some people bringing 6 uints of Troops, 2 units of fast attack, and 1 HQ, while some one else with the same army may bring 2 min units of troops 3 units of fast attack, 3 units of HS and 1 HQ, and where as the former is heavy in infantry the latter is heavy in armor. There is no way to balance that externally you HAVE to do it internally on a model level.

No, you really don't.
Having each codex has other strengths and weaknesses is ESSENTIAL for the game to be of any intrest. if any codex could run any strategy/list type the very same way, what need is there for multiple armies?

Some armies are better at some things, others are better at other things. the fact CSM are called marines means not they should have the same strengths and weaknesses as loyalist marines.
The FOC is not guildlines, its structure (and a poor one at that, that's why the move to formations is made). NOT every combination makes sense, NOT every combination need to be "just as good". some units are just there to fill niches, or be "silver bullet" standards, while others serve as core unit, and a select few are "build around me" units, some would even be support units who are useless on their own (biggest example for these are tau marker units)
And that's GOOD, because its outright impossible to make every unit equal without making the game entirely bland.
So no, not every possible FOC setup needs to be equal. some need to be superior to others.
Its just that each army needs to be able to bring an equal value FINAL RESULT. the ingredients used to make said result are irrelevant.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:
CSM will destroy SM if you build them both as walker spam. If you have a no characters - elite infantry design cult troops will get the better of veterans. If you go with heavy shooters grav cents will put oblits on their backs.

No they wouldn't, Dreads with Lascannons/ ML will take apart any walker available to chaos, easily, and for less points.

Dread with TL Lascannon and ML 125 points

Helbrute with TL Lascannon and ML 135 points

Plus you have chapter tactics and don't have to roll on a chart that may or may not force you to run in the shooting phase all on a chassis that has slightly less options. What a sick deal!!!!!

Intentinally taking a wrong setup for the helbrute does not serve your point well. helbrutes are supposed to be combat machines, with backup guns just in case. that they COULD take dual long-range guns means not that its their intended use.
And helbrutes are far from the only walker CSM can put on the field. maulers pitted against said dread would easily mash them into pulp by virtue of being fast, durable (daemon and IWND), and being brutal enough in CC that they just need to hit once, and the battle is decided (thanks to daemonforge followed by magma cutter being outright can openers)
Or using the forgefiend, who although costs more at 175, still outguns and outlast the shooter dread.
Even the notoriously bad defiler with its 195 point pricetag will beat the dread, given it has similar shooting ability, but can also CC, and again being a daemon is harder to kill.

You repeat the mistake of trying to play the same game as loyalist marines, rather than doing your own thing.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:
Each dex is good at different things, and they pay different points values for those things (compare respective entries for rhinos).

Okay what is the CSM army good at because its not good at killing hordes, not in comparison to other armies at least, its okay at bringing hordes, but I don't want to bring cultists I WANT CSM not the Codex the actual models, not daemons, CSM. As for the Rhino point you mean that I'm able to get slightly more options on 11/11/10 chassis that can be glanced to death by S5 fire and have to be within 24" to use most of its upgrades some of which are slightly above worthless? Warpflame Gargoyles for example, do you know how many games I have watched were soul blaze actually killed something? 1 in i don't know how many games probably 500+ over the past 4 months or so, its a 5 point upgrade that is worth MAYBE 3 points, AND it actively punishes you for focusing fire, or maybe adding a havoc launcher and another combi bolter sure it adds 17 points in cost but you get some decent dakka oh yeah 11 front armor so mass S5 shots wreck that thing fast, and is there even an army that doesn't have easy cheap access to S7 shots? In fact the only thing CSMs do really well is bring Psykers, okay then what group have the best Psykers, Oh Tzeentch clearly I mean look at the lore, so naturally the Tzeentch table is the best table in the book. Nope I have yet to meet some one that thinks the Tzeentch table is anything but the worst of those 3 and possiblely the worst out of every table in the game.

You don't want Chaos space marines, you want spike marines.
If you want spike marines, just play loyalist marines and give them spikes.

Chaos marines ARE about daemons, mutants, hybrids and other oddities. CSM's whole thing is to play the asymmetrical battle, to be unpredictable, and to have everything and anything at once.
Unfortunatly many units are a bit too expensive, so it does not quite work as intended. but should you give the overcosted units a slight drop, the codex will shine in its own style.
(units needing price reduction: zerkers, 1ksons, noise marines, mutilators, defilers and possessed. some others could use a slight adjustment, but these guys are the main needs.)

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:
The balance that matters is what the lists that you can build with each codex do against one another, but to get to that point, to assess that value, you'll need to abandon your opposition to battle brothers and look at the greater tourney meta.

I'm not interested in the tourney meta, IDGAF about people that abandon tactics all together in order to try to create some super death-star unit, or use as many flyers as possible. I simply want to be able to run the units I want to run and have a chance at winning. But that wont happen if I have a 200 point disadvantage against most of my opponents.

"Want to run the units I want to run" is not valid in any game, no reason why it should be in 40k.
Do you think any card combination in a TCG is equally valid?
Or that any build order in an RTS is equally valid?
Is every ream composition in a MOBA equally likely to win?

The answer to them all is a resounding no.
Sure you got tons of choices. but making smart ones in part of the game, and part of the results of flexible choices is that it creates nigh-infinite possibilities, but many of them makes no shread of sense. you sure you might WANT to run these, but nobody promise that every oddlot combination is going to be equally as valid.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:
When you do, you'll realize that discussions of who pays more for tac marines with heavy weapons aren't important at all, and you'll be ashamed to admit that you instructed a bunch of strangers to boycott GW over it.

If you honestly believe that having extra points to spend else where on extra upgrades, or adding more models to what you have is "not important" then I am certain you have no idea what your talking about.

The only one not having an idea what he is talking about is you.
As said and mentioned, different armies don't need equal access to the same things, they need different levels of access to these thing in order to make sure they truly are different armies, and not yet another color coded marine chapter.
If two armies has identical access to the same things, one of them is bound to become irrelevant.

Turning marks to be like chapter tactics, giving ATSKNF "tactics", etc.
These suggesting exactly WILL turn CSM into spike marines, rather than enforce their own identity.

To enforce the CSM identity one should, nay one MUST stop making comparisons to marines.
Basic CSM being inferior to regular marines and costing less achieves nothing-as you still got the same unit in the end. the fact they are less cost-effiecet makes them less of a centerpoint and that ALRIGHT, as long the actual centerpoints would be fixed.

This just hurts, Because before it used to be that CSM COULD be stronger then Marines, where it took the Veterans of SM to get special rules it used to be that even the basic level grunt could be given veteran tactic rules in order to show that they've survived for long and learned how to fight.

To say the Chaos Space Marines aren't the Centerpiece in Codex: Chaos Space Marines.. I have no clue what you are even talking about at this point. If one wants it to be codex: Chaos then maybe they should just make it straight up, but the problem is they've had an identity back then but they ripped it away and haven't figured out what they want it to be since! The codex and itself talks about Renegades, Daemon Engines of the Dark Mechanicus, Possessed, the Mutated, with RNG added in just to make things harder.

The issue is not that CSM are worse than SM. The issue is they cost one point per model less, but miss ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics-neither of which are one point rules. If they're considerably worse, they should cost considerably less.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yes, the codex as a whole IS underpowered, nobody
questions that.

But just look at what some people here are suggesting.
Turning marks to be like chapter tactics, giving ATSKNF "tactics", etc.
These suggesting exactly WILL turn CSM into spike marines, rather than enforce their own identity.

To enforce the CSM identity one should, nay one MUST stop making comparisons to marines.

What should be fixed are the things that ARE the unique tastes of the CSM.
The daemon engines are mostly rather good. heldrakes are amazing, forge/maulerfiend have thier nieches, its just that the iconic defiler is too derp right now. and to fix the defiler doesn't take more than a point reduction, being a mess is part of it's thing. (and CSM got helbrutes to match SM dreads)

The cult marines each has an obvious niche they are supposed to play, its just that sans the plague's "high durability position holders" none of them fills it properly, mostly because of overpricing. zerkers don't chop hordes cheaply enough for their choppyness, noise don't create the shooting gallery properly due to prices and 1ksons fail the "marine slayer/counter marine slayer" role because they cost too much for that.

The "flexible yet unwieldy at times" daemon marines that are oblits and muties feel CSM and really push an agenda regular marines just can't match, unfortunatly only one really works because the latter costs far too much for its speed.

The "raw power though unreliable" spawn and possessed are true CSM flavor, they just need to cost a bit less.


CSM themes SHOULD be around all the things you can't quite control, cant quite predict or cant use as you wish, but in return get a surge in power.
Heck, even the RNG factors many people complain about-they are GOOD for the codex. then make it chaos-unpredictable and uncontrollable. they just need to be better RNG, and more tilted in the favor of the user.

Aaaaaand this is a horrible narrow-minded perception.

Your whole argument revolves around mutations and once again, the stereotype that all CSM are just Marines with 'muties and thats "fluffy". The main reason why this whole perception is fallacy is because not every Legion and/or Warband likes the deamon engines you say. Not every Legion/Warband likes the idea of challenging other characters, etc, etc. If you want something like what you post then there's always Crimson Slaughter for you, that should fit your interests.

But what about the Night Lords who don't really like mutation or daemon engines?

What about Warbands that don't employ the use of Cult-troops?

What we have now are spikey marines because there is no differentiation between each sub-faction, you just get the odd generic allies detachment for Deamons or Nurgle everywhere meanwhile when you play Marines if your opponent plays Raven Guard You know you're playing against Raven Guard. If your opponent takes Ultramarines you know you're playing against Ultramarines and so forth and so on. Why can't CSM play the same if they fleshed them out so that you could knew you were playing against a different traitor Warband/Legion when all it would do is enhance the narrative and flavor of a game. To suggest otherwise is just fallacy.

As to the Mark remark, the game has evolved from individuals to unit-by-unit basis, hence why point-for-point individuality is a thing of the past hence why CSM are usually stated as over costed. Again if they fleshed it out it would give a lot more flavor than the direct C+P that you think. Same mechanics but different play-styles granting more variety into a game.

In short they tried cramming in 50 flavors of traitors in one book and it has not aged well at all giving us a bland mess of repetitive lists that we have today.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 happygolucky wrote:

Table wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You missed one rebuttal:

DEAL WITH IT.

And it IS a valid rebuttal: we know CSM have a bad codex, there's no need for you to point the obvious and over-indicated. But can we change it? NO, so stop whining (even if it's for valid causes) and deal with it because we shouldn't have to hear you CONSTANTLY remeber us how bad CSM are (and I know because I play them too) and in the process makes us feel like gak for not playing mainly a failure of an army.

I do not think that is a valid rebuttal.

What do you expect from the poster in question? As soon as any CSM player starts making opinions on balance, the individuals fingers twitch and flail on the keyboard. Its why everyone on this thread seems to have ignored that post.

What do you expect from a chaos (for hell's sake, my username is a refernce to the leader of my CSM warband) player that went and said: okay, this is the warp-how-many time we get shat upon in mechanics, so screw this codex I'm going to another place.

I love how much you're misrepresenting me,lovely indeed.

Nevertheless this discussions are the most sterile thing to ever come in 40k: we won't influence nothing from debating and gnashing our teeth on how much we'd like to have a nice time with our own army and that how we need to pull thrice the effort others have to just to have a marginally good time with this codex.

Certainly I hope they do bring something novel with Magnus and the Thousand Sons, I certainly do want to dust off my noise marines of the Flawless host. But honestly, I hold little hope.

And what do you gain by playing unnecessary Devils Advocate? What do you hope to achieve ignoring someone voice and just droning on a rhetoric that the common GW apologist uses? I've been here since 5th ed. (When I was a boy... ) and nothing changes because there is a problem with the core fundamental values of the representation of CSM. Many peple have tried and failed a trying to silence others opinions on these matters and have failed, because there is a problem. Best thing to do like everyone else is to scroll on and ignore topics that you don't really want to see, like everyone else.

Personally I just want flavor in a book, I don't pray for a god-tier in power as I know Craftworlds already have a rough time with that and I only want something that holds two feet in the sand per say within the context of power. I would much rather have a book that represents multiple Legions and Warbands than the bland mess of a stereotype we have now.

 BoomWolf wrote:
No, you really don't.
Having each codex has other strengths and weaknesses is ESSENTIAL for the game to be of any intrest. if any codex could run any strategy/list type the very same way, what need is there for multiple armies?

Some armies are better at some things, others are better at other things. the fact CSM are called marines means not they should have the same strengths and weaknesses as loyalist marines.
The FOC is not guildlines, its structure (and a poor one at that, that's why the move to formations is made). NOT every combination makes sense, NOT every combination need to be "just as good". some units are just there to fill niches, or be "silver bullet" standards, while others serve as core unit, and a select few are "build around me" units, some would even be support units who are useless on their own (biggest example for these are tau marker units)
And that's GOOD, because its outright impossible to make every unit equal without making the game entirely bland.
So no, not every possible FOC setup needs to be equal. some need to be superior to others.
Its just that each army needs to be able to bring an equal value FINAL RESULT. the ingredients used to make said result are irrelevant.

Yes I really do you think that some arbitrary restrictions make the game interesting, if Orks could suddenly do the same things SM can do but with a different flavor would you stop playing? No you wouldn't your army doesn't lose any value or play ability if other factions can actually win against it, assuming you don't already play a faction that cant win. FOC is not required at all you can run unbound if you want, which means yes they are guidelines. Second I'm not saying each build should be should be perfectly viable I'm saying that the weaknesses of an army should be determined by the army you build not the faction you pick.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Intentionally taking a wrong setup for the helbrute does not serve your point well. helbrutes are supposed to be combat machines, with backup guns just in case. that they COULD take dual long-range guns means not that its their intended use.
And helbrutes are far from the only walker CSM can put on the field. maulers pitted against said dread would easily mash them into pulp by virtue of being fast, durable (daemon and IWND), and being brutal enough in CC that they just need to hit once, and the battle is decided (thanks to daemonforge followed by magma cutter being outright can openers)
Or using the forgefiend, who although costs more at 175, still outguns and outlast the shooter dread.
Even the notoriously bad defiler with its 195 point pricetag will beat the dread, given it has similar shooting ability, but can also CC, and again being a daemon is harder to kill.

You repeat the mistake of trying to play the same game as loyalist marines, rather than doing your own thing.

The "wrong setup" because you decided, and yet it would be the best thing to take if your hunting walkers, getting 50 points more is not nothing. No they wouldn't they all have WS3 and BS 3 a mauler fiend would find itself immobilized fairly quickly and since Maulerfiends becomes a giant paper weight with a single immobilized that is NOT good in a shooting match with a Forgefiend the Dred would win since after 2 turns it would be blown up where as the FF would only take 1 hull point from the Dred. The Defiler costs twice as much and would win in close combat but still loses in a shooting match because bigger guns that hit more often win against inaccurate fire the scatters off the target, in fact the only vehicle that CSM have that would beat a shooty dread would be a Pred with lascannons, but that STILL costs more, at 140 points to come close to what SMs have.

 BoomWolf wrote:
You don't want Chaos space marines, you want spike marines.
If you want spike marines, just play loyalist marines and give them spikes.

Chaos marines ARE about daemons, mutants, hybrids and other oddities. CSM's whole thing is to play the asymmetrical battle, to be unpredictable, and to have everything and anything at once.
Unfortunatly many units are a bit too expensive, so it does not quite work as intended. but should you give the overcosted units a slight drop, the codex will shine in its own style.
(units needing price reduction: zerkers, 1ksons, noise marines, mutilators, defilers and possessed. some others could use a slight adjustment, but these guys are the main needs.)

Oh really so Night Lords the're all about daemon engines, mutants, and hybrids, and what about Iron Warriors they definitely don't cut off mutations and replace the felled limb with cybernetic ones. Ahriman once killed a soldier that liked that he was mutating, and his ultimate goal is to return his soldiers back to their original state and REMOVE THE MUTATIONS. I know these things because I don't like the mutations, I don't like daemons either, so I looked into the fluff of Legions that didn't like those things. Chaos is Chaos because the Emperor has deemed them heretics, and they have no where to go, not because they like their gods not because they like daemons not because like mutations, its because they have no home to go to, and are trying to survive that's why.

 BoomWolf wrote:
"Want to run the units I want to run" is not valid in any game, no reason why it should be in 40k.
Do you think any card combination in a TCG is equally valid?
Or that any build order in an RTS is equally valid?
Is every team composition in a MOBA equally likely to win?

The answer to them all is a resounding no.
Sure you got tons of choices. but making smart ones in part of the game, and part of the results of flexible choices is that it creates nigh-infinite possibilities, but many of them makes no shread of sense. you sure you might WANT to run these, but nobody promise that every oddlot combination is going to be equally as valid.

TCGs come with rules printed on the cards, you don't pay 100+ dollars in books to get rules to play them and you don't pick what you buy, but most importantly the "item" cards are almost always general cards that any deck can use. RTS build orders exist for increased play ability, other wise the games would last 20 minutes, and on top of that each army has access to the same generic things that combine with some unique units to make a army shine, but they still have access to everything to generic things that let them get the Job done. Seriously MOBAs? Yeah the team that picks the most diverse setup wins NOT the all ADC team, not the all support team, not the all tank team, Tau is all ADC, CSM is all support, IG is all tanks, well 4 tanks and 1 ADC that keep running out in front of them. And none of them is a table top game where the rules can be changed at a whim, RTS and MOBAs are comp games which are limited by programming. As for not valid in any game, D&D lets me run whatever I want no restrictions at least the old versions did.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The only one not having an idea what he is talking about is you.
As said and mentioned, different armies don't need equal access to the same things, they need different levels of access to these thing in order to make sure they truly are different armies, and not yet another color coded marine chapter.
If two armies has identical access to the same things, one of them is bound to become irrelevant.

Your confusing identical access with similar access im not saying Orks should get drop pods, I'm saying Orks should get something like drop pods, and so should CSM or some way for them to close the gap just as easily but that isn't whats happening is it? SM are getting everything under the sun and most armies are left in the dust.

Let me explain the whole Codex level balance thing again since people seem to not be getting this. You cant balance a codex at the codex level. lets say you have 4 units valued 1-4 respectively, now if you try to balance the codex on a codex level you will say okay we get 10 points worth of stuff, but then player A comes along and he likes to win so picks the min of 1 1 and then brings 3 4s so he has 13 points worth of things, now player B comes along but he likes 2s not 4s so he brings min 1 of 1 and 3 2s now you have 8 points and the two meet and Player A trashes Player B because he likes a different unit but then he had more points so that seems fair. Now lets assume that because were balancing on the Codex level they say well were going to charge a little more for 2 and a little less for 4 so what happens well now they both have 9 points worth of stuff but in actuality there is a big disparity in power, the same applies if you import a different codex because the same thing can still happen.

 happygolucky wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yes, the codex as a whole IS underpowered, nobody
questions that.

But just look at what some people here are suggesting.
Turning marks to be like chapter tactics, giving ATSKNF "tactics", etc.
These suggesting exactly WILL turn CSM into spike marines, rather than enforce their own identity.

To enforce the CSM identity one should, nay one MUST stop making comparisons to marines.

What should be fixed are the things that ARE the unique tastes of the CSM.
The daemon engines are mostly rather good. heldrakes are amazing, forge/maulerfiend have thier nieches, its just that the iconic defiler is too derp right now. and to fix the defiler doesn't take more than a point reduction, being a mess is part of it's thing. (and CSM got helbrutes to match SM dreads)

The cult marines each has an obvious niche they are supposed to play, its just that sans the plague's "high durability position holders" none of them fills it properly, mostly because of overpricing. zerkers don't chop hordes cheaply enough for their choppyness, noise don't create the shooting gallery properly due to prices and 1ksons fail the "marine slayer/counter marine slayer" role because they cost too much for that.

The "flexible yet unwieldy at times" daemon marines that are oblits and muties feel CSM and really push an agenda regular marines just can't match, unfortunatly only one really works because the latter costs far too much for its speed.

The "raw power though unreliable" spawn and possessed are true CSM flavor, they just need to cost a bit less.


CSM themes SHOULD be around all the things you can't quite control, cant quite predict or cant use as you wish, but in return get a surge in power.
Heck, even the RNG factors many people complain about-they are GOOD for the codex. then make it chaos-unpredictable and uncontrollable. they just need to be better RNG, and more tilted in the favor of the user.

Aaaaaand this is a horrible narrow-minded perception.

Your whole argument revolves around mutations and once again, the stereotype that all CSM are just Marines with 'muties and thats "fluffy". The main reason why this whole perception is fallacy is because not every Legion and/or Warband likes the deamon engines you say. Not every Legion/Warband likes the idea of challenging other characters, etc, etc. If you want something like what you post then there's always Crimson Slaughter for you, that should fit your interests.

But what about the Night Lords who don't really like mutation or daemon engines?

What about Warbands that don't employ the use of Cult-troops?

What we have now are spikey marines because there is no differentiation between each sub-faction, you just get the odd generic allies detachment for Deamons or Nurgle everywhere meanwhile when you play Marines if your opponent plays Raven Guard You know you're playing against Raven Guard. If your opponent takes Ultramarines you know you're playing against Ultramarines and so forth and so on. Why can't CSM play the same if they fleshed them out so that you could knew you were playing against a different traitor Warband/Legion when all it would do is enhance the narrative and flavor of a game. To suggest otherwise is just fallacy.

As to the Mark remark, the game has evolved from individuals to unit-by-unit basis, hence why point-for-point individuality is a thing of the past hence why CSM are usually stated as over costed. Again if they fleshed it out it would give a lot more flavor than the direct C+P that you think. Same mechanics but different play-styles granting more variety into a game.

In short they tried cramming in 50 flavors of traitors in one book and it has not aged well at all giving us a bland mess of repetitive lists that we have today.

No, my whole argument does not revolve around "muties", it revolves around the fact that if CSM does not take a step AWAY from loyalist space marines, it looses its right to exist as another army, as the two will be functionally the same.

The fact that separate legions/warbands lack proper representation has nothing to do with the fact CSM should NOT be retextured space marines, and does not magically turn them into "spike marines". Its another issue that does not directly interact with the problem and can be solved separately, or could very well remain even if the problem get solved.

And yes, not every CSM faction uses mutants. or daemon engines, or challenges, or whatever. that's why there is a variety of choices, so you can pick the things you do like.


Lets take your example of Night Lords.
They don't like mutations. they don't use daemon engines. they don't offer any tribute to the chaos gods. they don't get along with any other chaos faction.
In fact-why are they even part of CHAOS, when nothing about them is chaos?
The fact they sided with Horus during the heresy does not make them chaos. they do not belong there, they never had. not everyone that goes against the Imperium is by default a member of chaos.
No. the fact they are traitors does not make them chaos. they never should have been part of the CSM book to begin with. Night lords belong to renegades, not to heretics. its only natural the CSM book won't fit them.
In fact, the CSM book can NEVER fit them, considering half the codex should be barred to them. no chapter tactics or "supplement rules" would ever fix that. they need to be in their own codex, or as part of a renegade marine codex.

And much like KDK before, and upcoming 1ksons codcies do, the solution IS to split them up. CSM is about "regular" CHAOS marines. ie, marines devoted to chaos-Not fringe groups that go "well, we don't want chaos toys and daemon influence and we don't really like the ones who do use them". they simply don't belong there. they are in fact better off using the regular marine codex.

Oh really so Night Lords the're all about daemon engines, mutants, and hybrids, and what about Iron Warriors they definitely don't cut off mutations and replace the felled limb with cybernetic ones. Ahriman once killed a soldier that liked that he was mutating, and his ultimate goal is to return his soldiers back to their original state and REMOVE THE MUTATIONS.

Do remember that there are warbands of each that while they are from do enjoy such things, Ahriman is a singular warband now as well so there would be various groups in between that have their own opinions on the matter.

No, my whole argument does not revolve around "muties", it revolves around the fact that if CSM does not take a step AWAY from loyalist space marines, it looses its right to exist as another army, as the two will be functionally the same.

Man that was the argument against Dark Angels, Blood Angels, and Space Wolves too, and yet they exist.

In fact-why are they even part of CHAOS, when nothing about them is chaos?
The fact they sided with Horus during the heresy does not make them chaos. they do not belong there, they never had. not everyone that goes against the Imperium is by default a member of chaos.
No. the fact they are traitors does not make them chaos. they never should have been part of the CSM book to begin with. Night lords belong to renegades, not to heretics. its only natural the CSM book won't fit them.

..Wha? What exactly sort of metric are you using to judge things at all, considering it seems like you are entirely basing your thoughts on the 6th edition codex despite how some codex's can drastically change between editions.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Lets take your example of Night Lords.
They don't like mutations. they don't use daemon engines. they don't offer any tribute to the chaos gods. they don't get along with any other chaos faction.
In fact-why are they even part of CHAOS, when nothing about them is chaos?
The fact they sided with Horus during the heresy does not make them chaos. they do not belong there, they never had. not everyone that goes against the Imperium is by default a member of chaos.
No. the fact they are traitors does not make them chaos. they never should have been part of the CSM book to begin with. Night lords belong to renegades, not to heretics. its only natural the CSM book won't fit them.
In fact, the CSM book can NEVER fit them, considering half the codex should be barred to them. no chapter tactics or "supplement rules" would ever fix that. they need to be in their own codex, or as part of a renegade marine codex.

And much like KDK before, and upcoming 1ksons codcies do, the solution IS to split them up. CSM is about "regular" CHAOS marines. ie, marines devoted to chaos-Not fringe groups that go "well, we don't want chaos toys and daemon influence and we don't really like the ones who do use them". they simply don't belong there. they are in fact better off using the regular marine codex.

The 3.5 codex proves the solution is not to split CSM up. It did a very good job at portraying the different CSM factions without resorting to a steaming pile of special rules with fancy names. KDK was a blatant and unapologetic money grab in order to sell the new Bloodthirster kit to 40k players.

CSM just need to receive a decent, proper effort towards making them a decent army again.

Likely won't ever happen.

I liked the 3.5 codex but the 3.5 codex was largely unfair because of how difficult it made it for non-chaos players to follow what sort of army was coming there way. It is in many ways proof that an all in one book is problematic when presenting different sub-factions and 2 different layers of upgrade options.

 BoomWolf wrote:

No, my whole argument does not revolve around "muties", it revolves around the fact that if CSM does not take a step AWAY from loyalist space marines, it looses its right to exist as another army, as the two will be functionally the same.

The fact that separate legions/warbands lack proper representation has nothing to do with the fact CSM should NOT be retextured space marines, and does not magically turn them into "spike marines". Its another issue that does not directly interact with the problem and can be solved separately, or could very well remain even if the problem get solved.

And yes, not every CSM faction uses mutants. or daemon engines, or challenges, or whatever. that's why there is a variety of choices, so you can pick the things you do like.

Lets take your example of Night Lords.
They don't like mutations. they don't use daemon engines. they don't offer any tribute to the chaos gods. they don't get along with any other chaos faction.
In fact-why are they even part of CHAOS, when nothing about them is chaos?
The fact they sided with Horus during the heresy does not make them chaos. they do not belong there, they never had. not everyone that goes against the Imperium is by default a member of chaos.
No. the fact they are traitors does not make them chaos. they never should have been part of the CSM book to begin with. Night lords belong to renegades, not to heretics. its only natural the CSM book won't fit them.
In fact, the CSM book can NEVER fit them, considering half the codex should be barred to them. no chapter tactics or "supplement rules" would ever fix that. they need to be in their own codex, or as part of a renegade marine codex.

And much like KDK before, and upcoming 1ksons codcies do, the solution IS to split them up. CSM is about "regular" CHAOS marines. ie, marines devoted to chaos-Not fringe groups that go "well, we don't want chaos toys and daemon influence and we don't really like the ones who do use them". they simply don't belong there. they are in fact better off using the regular marine codex.

So Night Lords aren't real Chaos says Tau player. Just stop talking about CSM Lore you clearly know nothing about it. You don't get to decide what makes a Marine army Chaos or not.

And for the record Night Lords are considered Chaos because although not usually possessed by daemons that is because they fething are daemons. Have you read the fluff on their Primarch? He's a cross between Batman and Vlad the Impaler who went around and would teach bad guys lessons by skinning them alive and hanging them in a town square. Every Night Lord is the Joker from Batman in fething power armor, some of the gak about them is strait up disturbing, the reason why they have no daemons is because even the daemons are like "whoa that's a bit much isn't it?".

Has there been some announcement that I haven't heard about? as far as I know we only know that Magnus is being released and plastic Thousands Sons and Sisters are going to be put "in a box" and they have the Battle of Prospero box set coming out with you guessed it all of the above except Magnus. And even IF and that is a big if, they do put out a new Codex they will do the same thing they did with KDK which will piss me off to no end. Take a bunch of gakky CSM units and shoehorn them in with 1k sons and sprinkle in Daemons. instead of making an army that would actually make sense and remove anything that has mutations they are going to include damn near everything that has mutations, and make them central to the army to boot. I can deal with Daemons I can deal with Daemon Engines I wont stand for fething mutations they look like gak. Oh and before you say something else stupid here are some quotes from Ahriman.


"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

"Change is sometimes necessary. But I prefer order. It is more...predictable."

Well jeez that sounds nothing like chaos does it. Prodical sons must not be Chaos Marines there just renegade marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Do remember that there are warbands of each that while they are from do enjoy such things, Ahriman is a singular warband now as well so there would be various groups in between that have their own opinions on the matter.

Which is good for those that are into that, but for someone that wants to run a Tzeentch themed army the only units that benefit from MoT in any real way are horribly mutated, horribly overpriced, or both.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

So Night Lords aren't real Chaos says Tau player. Just stop talking about CSM Lore you clearly know nothing about it. You don't get to decide what makes a Marine army Chaos or not.

You know what Ad-Hominum is?
When you cannot refute one's words, and you choose to instead attack his person.
As if the fact I play Tau has any relevance to how much I know, or care about Chaos.

To me it appears I am more familiar than Chaos than you are.

No no, I can't "decide" what makes a marine army Chaos, but I can very well look at their personality, agendas, behavior and methods and JUDGE wether or not they actually belong, or are being shoehorned in.
And the Night Lords, are shoehorned. they don't belong. they never did.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
And for the record Night Lords are considered Chaos because although not usually possessed by daemons that is because they fething are daemons. Have you read the fluff on their Primarch? He's a cross between Batman and Vlad the Impaler who went around and would teach bad guys lessons by skinning them alive and hanging them in a town square. Every Night Lord is the Joker from Batman in fething power armor, some of the gak about them is strait up disturbing, the reason why they have no daemons is because even the daemons are like "whoa that's a bit much isn't it?".

Being cruel beyond reason does not make Chaos. if that was the case, the majority of the Inquisition, the GK and half the still "loyalist" Imperium would have been officially Chaos.
On the same coin, Dark Eldar do such things, does not mean they are part of chaos. they still hate it. Some Necron Dynasties also do similar things (especially ones where the Flayer virus runs deep), and they got no relation to Chaos.
Chaos is not the source of all evil, it merely feeds on it. you can be cruel, nasty, flying rodent gak crazy and have no relation to Chaos at all.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Has there been some announcement that I haven't heard about? as far as I know we only know that Magnus is being released and plastic Thousands Sons and Sisters are going to be put "in a box" and they have the Battle of Prospero box set coming out with you guessed it all of the above except Magnus. And even IF and that is a big if, they do put out a new Codex they will do the same thing they did with KDK which will piss me off to no end. Take a bunch of gakky CSM units and shoehorn them in with 1k sons and sprinkle in Daemons. instead of making an army that would actually make sense and remove anything that has mutations they are going to include damn near everything that has mutations, and make them central to the army to boot. I can deal with Daemons I can deal with Daemon Engines I wont stand for fething mutations they look like gak. Oh and before you say something else stupid here are some quotes from Ahriman.


"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."

"Change is sometimes necessary. But I prefer order. It is more...predictable."

Well jeez that sounds nothing like chaos does it. Prodical sons must not be Chaos Marines there just renegade marines.

The announcement you have not heard about is the fact rumors on stand-alone 1ksons codex is coming are on for a while, and when we got Magnus box art, one could notice that the play that usually says the miniature's army does not say "Chaos Space Marines", it says "Thousand Sons". The fact a Magnus release is tied with the HH Burning of Prospero release, and the 40K Fenris part 2 release is known by now, and all point at one thing.
Its all but officially confirmed by now.

And yes, 1ksons do NOT belong with CSM.

They team up at times. but they don't think the same, act the same, fight the same or live the same.
1K sons are further away from "regular" CSM than GK are from codex marines.
Sure, they fall under the grand umbrella that is "Chaos", and they technically are (sort of) space marines-but so are GK technically IoM and technically SM-yet have thier own codex because they are simply too off the "baseline" SM to fit in the same book without it being absurd or underrepresented.

Currently, 1ksons get the same treatment LotD gets. And as long they are forced into one codex, its all they CAN get.


Also, being negative from the get-go and declaring you "know" that the 1ksons codex will be the direct opposite of 1ksons does not buy you any internet cookies. Sure it MAY be a clusterfeth. but it can also be a KDK-a well balanced, well flavored book.

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Do remember that there are warbands of each that while they are from do enjoy such things, Ahriman is a singular warband now as well so there would be various groups in between that have their own opinions on the matter.

Which is good for those that are into that, but for someone that wants to run a Tzeentch themed army the only units that benefit from MoT in any real way are horribly mutated, horribly overpriced, or both.

So...the god of change and mutation is mostly helpful to mutated units?
Shocker.
Sure, the MoT is a derp in the general sense-but the fact it mostly plays along with mutation is not a bad thing. The fact most mutated units are derpy and the mark is often overpriced is the problem. And the fact the does not play nice with psykers though it really should.








I can't for the life of me understand the insistence of some chaos players that "everything should be in one codex"
No. it really shouldn't.

Is the entire IoM one codex?
Heck, even loyalist space marines have FIVE codcies, and that's putting aside supplements or minibooks like Angels of Death and Legion of the Damned.
If it took multiple codcies to get the loyalists their needed diversity and uniqueness, do you really think Chaos, who is far more diverse and it's subfactions far less coherent, can be done in one without it feeling outright silly?

The KDK was the best thing that happened to Chaos. far above Traitor's Hate-it showed how a Chaos subfaction getting its own standalone codex can be something truly unique, and capture to flavor and fighting style of the faction in a way "one codex to rull them all" never could. it opened the path for more subfactions to be standalone releases in the future.

And as 1ksons are coming, so too should anyone else that simply doesn't fit in "regular" CSM.

(And before anyone even think of brining up 3.5 codex as "properly representing all of chaos is a single codex", no. it didn't. the 3.5 codex is a clusterfeth of indeciperable rules and lists that shoehorn you into spesific armies rather than let you build your own. nostalgia and the fact it was OP at it's time are the only things going for it.)

Is the entire IoM one codex?
Heck, even loyalist space marines have FIVE codcies, and that's putting aside supplements or minibooks like Angels of Death and Legion of the Damned.
If it took multiple codcies to get the loyalists their needed diversity and uniqueness, do you really think Chaos, who is far more diverse and it's subfactions far less coherent, can be done in one without it feeling outright silly?

You know that they were originally just one codex right? The Original "Angels of Death" supplement before they tried to shoehorn more and more space marines in, though on the plus side multiple codex's would force them to make them more unique over time like they did at least.

(And before anyone even think of brining up 3.5 codex as "properly representing all of chaos is a single codex", no. it didn't. the 3.5 codex is a clusterfeth of indeciperable rules and lists that shoehorn you into spesific armies rather than let you build your own. nostalgia and the fact it was OP at it's time are the only things going for it.)

..Indecipherable? It's actually pretty simple to read through, but the fact that it at least allowed you to finally properly build out mutations rather then random rolling every turn for them still made it better for me then all the problems added with tons of RNG additions later on. Ability to give my possessed the ability to fly or deal with armour saves made things better overall. Abilities could be granted to basic troops like SM veteran's for a cost to represent such.

Also you didn't have to follow any legion if you didn't want the rules, there was the baseline codex that you seem to want to enjoy in there, but for someone like me who enjoys mutations and monsters and the like for CSM, I don't like the 6th codex because of Kelly's horrific idea that Random = Chaos.

Chaos is random though.
Or at least, unpredictable and uncontrollable from the mortal point of view.

Had the randomness been properly done it would fit like a glove and people would love it. Kelly just messed up on the numbers and the power fluctuations.

It could have been far more random than it currently is, while being far better.
It's just that his random is "could be OP as feth, worth the price, not worth, do nothing at all or screw you over equally", proper random is "no matter the result it is in your favor and worth more than you paid for, you simply don't know what you get and it might not be what you need right now, and it can not be counted on as a critical factor"

 BoomWolf wrote:
Chaos is random though.
Or at least, unpredictable and uncontrollable from the mortal point of view.

Had the randomness been properly done it would fit like a glove and people would love it. Kelly just messed up on the numbers and the power fluctuations.

It could have been far more random than it currently is, while being far better.
It's just that his random is "could be OP as feth, worth the price, not worth, do nothing at all or screw you over equally", proper random is "no matter the result it is in your favor and worth more than you paid for, you simply don't know what you get and it might not be what you need right now, and it can not be counted on as a critical factor"

IMO they epicly botched it when they restricted mutations to assualt only and only for characters. Imagine if they made it unit-wide (as in the unit is blessed by the gods) and affect both shooting and assault (while having separate tables). The more you kill the better it goes. But alas, that's something GW won't ever do so no point, tbh.

 JNAProductions wrote:
The issue is not that CSM are worse than SM. The issue is they cost one point per model less, but miss ATSKNF and Chapter Tactics-neither of which are one point rules. If they're considerably worse, they should cost considerably less.

I totally agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:
You know what Ad-Hominum is?
When you cannot refute one's words, and you choose to instead attack his person.
As if the fact I play Tau has any relevance to how much I know, or care about Chaos.

Do you know what a psudeo-intellectual is?

Here's a good example.

 BoomWolf wrote:
No no, I can't "decide" what makes a marine army Chaos, but I can very well look at their personality, agendas, behavior and methods and JUDGE w[h]ether or not they actually belong, or are being shoehorned in. And the Night Lords, are shoehorned. they don't belong. they never did.

So you can't decide, but you can decide? You do know that to JUDGE something is to DECIDE something right?

Dude, it's been gone over a few times in this post. How are you not getting this?

Codexes are balanced, not units. Stuff costs different amounts in different dexes, depending on how it is supported. Stealers in an Ork dex (with Trukks) would be way better than they are in the Nid dex.

The idea that CSM's entry for "Chaos Space Marines", is somehow comparable to SM's entry for "Tactical Marines" is silly. Why not compare with vets, with immortals or with fire warriors while you are at it?

SM's do some stuff better than CSM, and they also do those things better than, let's say, Dark Eldar.

I get that it feels unfair, but let that feeling go. You will make yourself unhappy expecting stuff to be the same in every book. It hasn't ever been, and it won't ever be.

There ARE comparisons to be made between the competitive lists which arise from every dex, and the more veteran players around here kick them around from time to time.

But, and you can trust me on this, no part of the CSM's codex deficiency comes from their troops costing more than SM units. Nobody who can read a dex plays tac marines. Nobody who is trying to win plays CSM units. They are just bad choices. It doesn't matter that one is slightly better than the other, they are both rubbish.

40kenthusiast wrote:

The idea that CSM's entry for "Chaos Space Marines", is somehow comparable to SM's entry for "Tactical Marines" is silly. Why not compare with vets, with immortals or with fire warriors while you are at it?

Probably because they're both Space Marines you fething walnut.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:

The idea that CSM's entry for "Chaos Space Marines", is somehow comparable to SM's entry for "Tactical Marines" is silly. Why not compare with vets, with immortals or with fire warriors while you are at it?

Probably because they're both Space Marines you fething walnut.

Then we compare a chapter master with a tactical, shall we? They are both space marines!

Lord Kragan wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:

The idea that CSM's entry for "Chaos Space Marines", is somehow comparable to SM's entry for "Tactical Marines" is silly. Why not compare with vets, with immortals or with fire warriors while you are at it?

Probably because they're both Space Marines you fething walnut.

Then we compare a chapter master with a tactical, shall we? They are both space marines!

You can compare Chapter Masters to Lords.

I shouldn't really have to do this.

40kenthusiast wrote:
Dude, it's been gone over a few times in this post. How are you not getting this?

Codexes are balanced, not units. Stuff costs different amounts in different dexes, depending on how it is supported. Stealers in an Ork dex (with Trukks) would be way better than they are in the Nid dex.

The idea that CSM's entry for "Chaos Space Marines", is somehow comparable to SM's entry for "Tactical Marines" is silly. Why not compare with vets, with immortals or with fire warriors while you are at it?

SM's do some stuff better than CSM, and they also do those things better than, let's say, Dark Eldar.

I get that it feels unfair, but let that feeling go. You will make yourself unhappy expecting stuff to be the same in every book. It hasn't ever been, and it won't ever be.

There ARE comparisons to be made between the competitive lists which arise from every dex, and the more veteran players around here kick them around from time to time.

But, and you can trust me on this, no part of the CSM's codex deficiency comes from their troops costing more than SM units. Nobody who can read a dex plays tac marines. Nobody who is trying to win plays CSM units. They are just bad choices. It doesn't matter that one is slightly better than the other, they are both rubbish.

But we do compare CSM to Vets, Immortals, and Fire Warriors.

Vets are 60 Points for 10 3s across the board models. They're worth less than half the points, but are maybe only half as good as a Tac Marine, especially due to their 5+ armor save. Grenadier Doctrines improves that to the almost twice as good 4+ save, for an extra 15 points. Overall, they could probably stand to be a bit cheaper, especially the Grenadier Doctrines, but they're almost worth their points.

Immortals are outright better than SM, having FNP (through Reanimation Protocols) and S5 Guass or Tesla guns. But are also I2 and 3 points per model more. That seems a fair trade to me-better survivability and shooting power, at the cost of being slightly more expensive and slightly slower.

I don't know the Tau Codex well enough to compare it.

Point is, though, they occupy the same role-Troops-so yes, we do compare them.

40kenthusiast wrote:


Codexes are balanced, not units.

Wew lad

Also, I'm fine if CSM are worse than SM. Just make sure they're priced cheaper.

Vets are a LOT worse than a Tac Squad. They're also a hell of a lot cheaper.

 BoomWolf wrote:

But just look at what some people here are suggesting.
Turning marks to be like chapter tactics, giving ATSKNF "tactics", etc.
These suggesting exactly WILL turn CSM into spike marines, rather than enforce their own identity.

To enforce the CSM identity one should, nay one MUST stop making comparisons to marines.
Basic CSM being inferior to regular marines and costing less achieves nothing-as you still got the same unit in the end. the fact they are less cost-effiecet makes them less of a centerpoint and that ALRIGHT, as long the actual centerpoints would be fixed.

Point being, a lot of stuff, included 2+ Armour, and rules for legions, were in the Chaos codices during the years.
What CSM players witnessed was first the "blue team" equivalent given to loyalist, and then their stuff taken away.

Codex: Space Marines has enough flavour to run Iron Heads, Smurfs, RetconnedSpaceBlackPeople, TeamGood Emos, Yellow "Special" Kids, Those Guys with The Bikes; furthermore Furries, Metrosexual Vampires, A Joke About LGBT Community Gone Too Far, and other even more special snowflakes have their own codices.

GW had Kelly either not interested in the CSM codex or had to give it unfinished to te printers because GW had to exploit the success of Dark Vengeance (DA were out soon thereafter). He himself stated that the base of his work would have been the hated Thorpe codex. How bloody oblivious or uncaring you have to be as a designer to base your work on that?

How would salamander marines players feel if, after editions of associating the chapter to fire, they would have in a couple of books first the flamers and melta rules given to a CSM legion, and then taken away from them soon thereafter.
This is what CSM players feel since 4th edition.

No go ahead and check when 4th edition happened, which year. Scary, isn't it?
Have really people the guts to say that CSM players are whiners?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BoomWolf wrote:


You know what Ad-Hominum is?

Are you the guy who invented "Astra Militarum" and "Militarum Tempestus"?

40kenthusiast wrote:
Dude, it's been gone over a few times in this post. How are you not getting this?

Codexes are balanced, not units. Stuff costs different amounts in different dexes, depending on how it is supported. Stealers in an Ork dex (with Trukks) would be way better than they are in the Nid dex.

The idea that CSM's entry for "Chaos Space Marines", is somehow comparable to SM's entry for "Tactical Marines" is silly. Why not compare with vets, with immortals or with fire warriors while you are at it?

SM's do some stuff better than CSM, and they also do those things better than, let's say, Dark Eldar.

I get that it feels unfair, but let that feeling go. You will make yourself unhappy expecting stuff to be the same in every book. It hasn't ever been, and it won't ever be.

There ARE comparisons to be made between the competitive lists which arise from every dex, and the more veteran players around here kick them around from time to time.

But, and you can trust me on this, no part of the CSM's codex deficiency comes from their troops costing more than SM units. Nobody who can read a dex plays tac marines. Nobody who is trying to win plays CSM units. They are just bad choices. It doesn't matter that one is slightly better than the other, they are both rubbish.

Okay I'm tired so I will make this quick. How do they balance Sorcs/Libs then, since they range from lvl 1 to lvl 4 and have access to multiple disciplines which have some very good effects and some mediocre effects, while others are just bad. All of which is determined by RNG on top of which the success of those are RNG so the RNG on top of RNG makes things almost unpredictable. Here is a quick example, Lvl 1 Sorc, rolls on Biomancy get Endurance, another level 1 Sorc rolls on Telepathy and gets Mental Fortitude. You pay THE EXACT SAME and yet they have two VERY different levels of power.

Why compare CSM with SM same stat lines with comparable special rules. It's the simplest compassion to make.

What do CSM do "better" then SM.

It doesn't "feel unfair" it is unfair when another army has access to more options with a wider variety for cheaper. That's objective. Unless you have some weird definition of fair which means one group gets everything they could possibly want, and the rest get fethed. They only way the two codices are the same is if every SM player is either totally inept or suffers from severe mental disabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:


Codexes are balanced, not units.

Wew lad

Is that "wew" because what he said was stupid?

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

Wew lad

Is that "wew" because what he said was stupid?

No, but way too optimistic. Balance is just not there in GW codices, internal, external and whatever.
The design team is just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks. There is no vision, or will to balance stuff.

I just fail to understand how one can trust a team that gave us 5 failing chaos codices, the ever sucking tyranids, failed to understand how orks work (and changed mob rules for the sake of change), gave free transports to marines, failed to understand how the old reanimation protocol and Necron weak points worked, failed to understand why scatterbikes are bad, and underpriced WK and Riptides can be taken seriously, how can these people be considered serious designers that carefully weight and balance codices. These hack frauds either spent 5 minutes per model or pushed the new big kit. And I am not even sure of the last one, see Gorkanauts. I always joke that the next Eldar codex will finally nerf Howling Banshees.

Besides, I am sorry, but Marines ARE underpriced compared to other troops. And if we play a game with the same points, two units should be comparable.
Compare units with different roles is tricky (say, infiltrators vs front assaulters) but all-purpose marines should be not identical, but comparable. I 3rd edition Chaos lacked ATSKNF and I think that the fact chaos marines lack it is fluffy, but they compensated with greater Leadership score without paying premium price for it.

3rd edition Chaos lacked ATSKNF and I think that the fact chaos marines lack it is fluffy, but they compensated with greater Leadership score without paying premium price for it.

They could also buy Veteran Skills for all their models for a price, while SM could only get them on SM Veterans (Comparable to DA's rather then Sternguard now)

Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:
Dude, it's been gone over a few times in this post. How are you not getting this?

Codexes are balanced, not units. Stuff costs different amounts in different dexes, depending on how it is supported. Stealers in an Ork dex (with Trukks) would be way better than they are in the Nid dex.

The idea that CSM's entry for "Chaos Space Marines", is somehow comparable to SM's entry for "Tactical Marines" is silly. Why not compare with vets, with immortals or with fire warriors while you are at it?

SM's do some stuff better than CSM, and they also do those things better than, let's say, Dark Eldar.

I get that it feels unfair, but let that feeling go. You will make yourself unhappy expecting stuff to be the same in every book. It hasn't ever been, and it won't ever be.

There ARE comparisons to be made between the competitive lists which arise from every dex, and the more veteran players around here kick them around from time to time.

But, and you can trust me on this, no part of the CSM's codex deficiency comes from their troops costing more than SM units. Nobody who can read a dex plays tac marines. Nobody who is trying to win plays CSM units. They are just bad choices. It doesn't matter that one is slightly better than the other, they are both rubbish.

Okay I'm tired so I will make this quick. How do they balance Sorcs/Libs then, since they range from lvl 1 to lvl 4 and have access to multiple disciplines which have some very good effects and some mediocre effects, while others are just bad. All of which is determined by RNG on top of which the success of those are RNG so the RNG on top of RNG makes things almost unpredictable. Here is a quick example, Lvl 1 Sorc, rolls on Biomancy get Endurance, another level 1 Sorc rolls on Telepathy and gets Mental Fortitude. You pay THE EXACT SAME and yet they have two VERY different levels of power.

Why compare CSM with SM same stat lines with comparable special rules. It's the simplest compassion to make.

What do CSM do "better" then SM.

It doesn't "feel unfair" it is unfair when another army has access to more options with a wider variety for cheaper. That's objective. Unless you have some weird definition of fair which means one group gets everything they could possibly want, and the rest get fethed. They only way the two codices are the same is if every SM player is either totally inept or suffers from severe mental disabilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:


Codexes are balanced, not units.

Wew lad

Is that "wew" because what he said was stupid?

Dude, this isn't complicated. Ready?

Ok. Each dex is a set of choices. You use those to make armies. Each dex doesn't get the same choices. Sorcerers and Librarians are in different dexes. Tac marines and Chaos Space marines are in different dexes.

Comparing them to one another is pointless, and doesn't get you anywhere, at all.

When you ask how a librarian who rolls biomancy and gets one power is "balanced" against one who rolls another discipline and gets another power I don't even know what you mean? Like, what is "balanced", in your mind? Do you think that if I choose one thing, and you something different, we are going to have a fifty fifty chance to win? Like, every discipline that you could choose, every roll that is on every chart...should be equally good? Do you even think that is possible?

The meaningful comparison between codexes isn't making lists that are as close to the same as possible and then whining about which costs more points. Yes, a SM tac marine spam list has points left over when it faces off with a CSM equivalent list, but that doesn't matter, because those lists are jokes. The comparison that matters between CSM and SM codexes is what they can each contribute to a list that might win a game once in a while. When people say that the CSM codex is "bad", what they mean is that it isn't useful. If you are building a list to win games of 40k you don't need to own that codex, because it doesn't contribute to victorious armies.

By contrast when you say it is bad you go off and compare units that nobody uses to each other, and fixate on points costs. That's not relevant.

I'm not like "Huh, getting ready to play some 40k, what version of 'useless units that make saves until they die' should I deploy? Hmm....which codex are they cheapest in... Gosh, the CSM sure have a raw deal."

Here are the things that exist in the current battlefield.
Stuff that survives on cover saves, whose job is to exist and be in the way/score. This needs to be cheap and hard to shift unless you get into assault.
Things that are extremely durable and shoot unbelievably hard This is constantly changing, but basically looks like Oblits/Dev Cents/Tau shooty suits etc. This gets meaner as the game goes on.
Death stars (Lots of chars in a unit that give sthem special rules and moves 12" per turn)
Super Heavy Walkers & Gargantuan Creatures (antidote to Death Stars because of Stomp rules, generally immune to shooting for a while)

Here's a tau list I saw at ATC
Ghostkeels + stealth suits formation
2 Riptides
bunch of Broadsides
Some kroot scorers

Everything that you can shoot at in this list is either in reserve, hiding behind a 2+ cover save and T5+.

Here's an AoI list I saw at ATC
Dark Angel command squad
Lots of Space Wolfs on Wolfs joined to it
Some scoring bike units

Here's a chaos list I took to ATC

Renegade Knight
So many Vrax chumps
Ordnance tyrnat
All the artillery
Daemon psychic factory + GUO

Here's a Knight list I saw at ATC
5 Knights

Here's an Admech list I saw at ATC
That formation that everyone plays

Here's an Eldar list I saw this weekend
3 Wraith things
jetbikes to scoot around and score

If you build an AoI bundle, then from SM you might get:
Dev Cents (durable + shooty)
Scouts (cheap + cover saves + score)
maybe some of those shooty planes to do last minute scoring stuff

If you build a chaos bundle then from CSM you might get:
Some special characters?

THAT'S the axis on which SM is a viable book while CSM is nothing. Not the comparison of units that don't matter, but the fact that SM do a few things right, while CSM are built for a game that doesn't exist, a game where infantry squads fight infantry squads. But nowadays if you want wounds on the table for chaos you go with daemons, they are cheaper and have better saves. If you want killing done by Chaos once again Daemons have you covered, and if you want Super Heavies then Renegade Knights are generally better and cheaper than CSM choices.

You could take a tac spam against any of those lists, and literally take double the other player's points, and lose 7/10. Points don't matter if there is nothing worth spending them on.

If you don't read anything else, read the following:

CSM would be a garbage codex if the CSM unit entry was literally half its current point costs. They still wouldn't be worth taking.