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:

 Toastedandy wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

Negative dismissal, classic
Well actually.......... With csm I've placed second in one tournament, first in three, placed top three in the games workshop campaigns while I attended the store. I've played against all but the rarest fw lists. Brought gods to heel and enslaved whole generations. I am the alpha and omega, the end of man :p

Maybe, I know my army inside and out, maybe I've played enough games to tell the outcome of most conflicts and act accordingly.

What tournaments? When were these tournaments? Provide links. Not mention in the course of a little more than a decade you were able to place top 3 in 4 tournaments? Lastly what are you running to place in these tournaments?

Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Toastedandy wrote:
I know people are in this hobby for all sorts of different reasons, BUT, I don't understand why you want people to ignore this opinion. Its an expensive hobby, so why not but the models you like the look of? When I play I want to win, but I'll never buy a piss ugly model (I'm looking at you heldrake) just so I can win a board game.

The rules may fluctuate like the warp, but at least you'll have some pretty awesome looking models.

Chaos is best. Ignore Imperial propaganda!

ToastedAndy
The Grand Warpsmith of the most Putrid Tide

Did you even read the post?

Im saying he should figure out what matters the most to him and move forward from there. Picking something based on what other people deem the "most important factor" is stupid. Nothing stops him from kitbashing his own models so the look the way he wants. Picking the rules he likes so he can play the army the way he wants makes way more sense because he CAN CHANGE THEM he CAN'T CHANGE THE fething RULES.

Here is an example you want to buy a door, you can pick based on what it is made out of, or you can pick based on what color it is. Which criteria do you use to pick? You pick based on what you want the door to do NOT what it looks like because you can paint the damn door any color you want.

Okay....you might of taking my response personily judging from your emotional reply. I'm on my phone so illcbe brief.

Firstly assuming that not only am I bad t the game, but everyone I've played and beaten are terrible or let me win is typical of imperial dawgs


Tournaments were local events 12 people at the smallest, 20 ish at the largest. University things so online presences was limited to Facebook type things. U want lists??? Not till I can get to a pc

Your door comparison though, lol really?

You want to take another attempt at an applicable comparison? Or is that what your sticking too?

I

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay....you might have taken my response personally judging from your emotional reply. I'm on my phone so I'll be brief.

Firstly assuming that not only am I bad t the game, but everyone I've played and beaten are terrible or let me win is typical of imperial dawgs


Tournaments were local events 12 people at the smallest, 20 ish at the largest. University things so online presences was limited to Facebook type things. U want lists??? Not till I can get to a pc

Your door comparison though, lol really?

You want to take another attempt at an applicable comparison? Or is that what you're sticking too?

First do not attribute emotion to what I said. You read words so leave it at that, don't assume I am being emotional.

Apparently the door analogy was too complicated for you. So let me make it simpler.

You have a thing and that thing has two main properties. Property X and property Y now you can do anything you want to property X it is limited by only your imagination, literally. Property Y is finite though, is has a certain number of sets, and each set is different unto itself. So, if you want to make a decision, then you should base it off of Y not X, because you can change X as you see fit while Y once picked it set and you will be stuck with it.

Finally you don't need a computer to tell me what year these tournaments occurred. You also don't need a computer to tell me if you knew most of the people in the tournament.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay....you might have taken my response personally judging from your emotional reply. I'm on my phone so I'll be brief.

Firstly assuming that not only am I bad t the game, but everyone I've played and beaten are terrible or let me win is typical of imperial dawgs


Tournaments were local events 12 people at the smallest, 20 ish at the largest. University things so online presences was limited to Facebook type things. U want lists??? Not till I can get to a pc

Your door comparison though, lol really?

You want to take another attempt at an applicable comparison? Or is that what you're sticking too?

First do not attribute emotion to what I said. You read words so leave it at that, don't assume I am being emotional.

Apparently the door analogy was too complicated for you. So let me make it simpler.

You have a thing and that thing has two main properties. Property X and property Y now you can do anything you want to property X it is limited by only your imagination, literally. Property Y is finite though, is has a certain number of sets, and each set is different unto itself. So, if you want to make a decision, then you should base it off of Y not X, because you can change X as you see fit while Y once picked it set and you will be stuck with it.

Finally you don't need a computer to tell me what year these tournaments occurred. You also don't need a computer to tell me if you knew most of the people in the tournament.

Thinly veiled insults and swearing are strong indicators of an emotionally charged argument.

Also this is how you try to make something simple. Okay.

Addressing your comparrison; I like aesthetics of csm (x) but someone told me elder are stronger (y) so I should spend hundreds of money units on y, the stronger army, as I have no ability to change the rules but I can glue some spikes on my eldar so they look similar to csm, whom I like the look of more.

Amirite?

I don't share this opinion. K

I have my models on display as I like and m proud of them all. I don't give two f eths what the stats are like


Didn't see your edits don't know why you are so gob smacked that someone can win thingswith csm

At least two were 4th edition, none in 5th, and 2, arguably 3 tournaments in 6th. I live in a smallish country with a small player base so I know some don't know others and am freinds with few

 Toastedandy wrote:
Thinly veiled insults and swearing are strong indicators of an emotionally charged argument.

Strong indicators are not absolutes, again read my words even if my arguments were emotionally charged you have to refute my arguments not say, you're being emotional therefore your wrong.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Addressing your comparison; I like aesthetics of csm (x) but someone told me elder are stronger (y) so I should spend hundreds of money units on y, the stronger army, as I have no ability to change the rules but I can glue some spikes on my eldar so they look similar to csm, whom I like the look of more.

Amirite?

No. You buy the rules for Eldar and spend the majority of your money on whatever models suit your taste. Again keep in mind its not JUST about picking a stronger army. If you like CC over shooting you should take that into account.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I don't share this opinion. K

That's fine, but understand that what I was saying is that he should come to his own conclusion, not do what other people tell him to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I have my models on display as I like and m proud of them all. I don't give two feths what the stats are like

That's great, and that is exactly what I would expect some one that puts hobby over game to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Didn't see your edits don't know why you are so gob smacked that someone can win things with csm

I'm not "gob smacked"over you winning i'm just suspicious of how your winning, and I'll ask again what do you run to win your games?

 Toastedandy wrote:
At least two were 4th edition, none in 5th, and 2, arguably 3 tournaments in 6th. I live in a smallish country with a small player base so I know some don't know others and am friends with few

So 2 that happened 10 years ago, not relevant. Fine 3 tournaments, and of those opponents how many do you know for a fact had the same, or more experience playing their army then you had with yours?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Thinly veiled insults and swearing are strong indicators of an emotionally charged argument.

Strong indicators are not absolutes, again read my words even if my arguments were emotionally charged you have to refute my arguments not say, you're being emotional therefore your wrong.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Addressing your comparison; I like aesthetics of csm (x) but someone told me elder are stronger (y) so I should spend hundreds of money units on y, the stronger army, as I have no ability to change the rules but I can glue some spikes on my eldar so they look similar to csm, whom I like the look of more.

Amirite?

No. You buy the rules for Eldar and spend the majority of your money on whatever models suit your taste. Again keep in mind its not JUST about picking a stronger army. If you like CC over shooting you should take that into account.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I don't share this opinion. K

That's fine, but understand that what I was saying is that he should come to his own conclusion, not do what other people tell him to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I have my models on display as I like and m proud of them all. I don't give two feths what the stats are like

That's great, and that is exactly what I would expect some one that puts hobby over game to do.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Didn't see your edits don't know why you are so gob smacked that someone can win things with csm

I'm not "gob smacked"over you winning i'm just suspicious of how your winning, and I'll ask again what do you run to win your games?

 Toastedandy wrote:
At least two were 4th edition, none in 5th, and 2, arguably 3 tournaments in 6th. I live in a smallish country with a small player base so I know some don't know others and am friends with few

So 2 that happened 10 years ago, not relevant. Fine 3 tournaments, and of those opponents how many do you know for a fact had the same, or more experience playing their army then you had with yours?

Okay, your tone is very unappealing. You have the opinions that you are intitled to not only my addressing your every word, but also the time that it would take. I posted here to offer my opinion, and to add to a debate on the viability of running a csm army and actually win.

Being interrogated, belittling my experience and having you insinuate that I am a cheat isn't any interest to me. Be less rude if you want my lists pm me.......politely.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

 Toastedandy wrote:
You have the opinions that you are entitled to not only [am I] addressing your every word, but also the time that it would take.

Yes we are both entitled to our opinions. You're not I have to continuously ask for things and you keep giving me vague responses.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I posted here to offer my opinion, and to add to a debate on the viability of running a csm army and actually win.

And yet all you did was state that you have won lots of times, but have provided no evidence for how you have been winning, what you have won, or how you won, only THAT you have won.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Being interrogated, belittling my experience and having you insinuate that I am a cheat isn't any interest to me.

You made a claim that you win with CSM all the time. I'm allowed to ask questions and demand evidence before believing your claim. I didn't belittle your experience, I asked questions and demanded evidence, because that's what a skeptical person does when a person makes a claim.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Be less rude if you want my lists pm me.......politely.

Yes quite. How do I put this, you accused me of having an "unappealing tone" in written word, which is...a feat on my part, you also accused me of accusing you of "cheating" which I never said, you simply assumed I meant that when I said "suspicious", which was the wrong word to use, I should have used "skeptical", lastly you call me rude based on assumptions on your part. So you insult me because of assumptions you have made, and then demand that I be polite to you if I want the evidence that you should be willing to present so that I have a basis of whether or not your telling the truth? Yeah I'd rather not waste my time.

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:

I DISAGREE!

I started with Black Templars way back in 3rd edition, and moved to Chaos in 4th edition, so I've been playing with large squads of assaulty power armour lads for a long time, and I am of the unpopular opinion that CSM can indeed win games. I win about 80% of the games I play with CSM through experience and knowing my armies weakness's and strengths. (Although I do struggle with some Necron armies) I have over 4000pts of death guard, 2000pts of Iron Warriors and about 1000pts of Night Lords

You're probably playing against Dark Eldar or Flyrant-less Tyranids then - or maybe just players not actually trying to win.

Not cool. I am sure he plays all kinds of things in that much time. Lets not go after his opponents when you dont know them.

It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

It's not Dark Eldar level of garbage, but the very best TAC CSM list is just meh when you have to compare it with what SM, Necron, Tau and Eldar can bring.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

Just forget about it the both of you, this is leading to nowhere.

On topic though, Toasted, I think you will find that your experience with tournaments may reflect other tiny local tournaments but not truly competitive events with massive net listing and good representation of the stronger codexes.

There is nothing in codex CSM that can handle even a beginner Eldar player with a proper net list.

I mean... you could have 2x3 Heldrakes of course, but you'd probably be losing all your other games and it wouldn't be considered a TAC list anymore.

Also, good for you that you did beat people with CSM, it's a good thing to win when your army is not top tier.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

You think? But surely someone named thousand son sorcerer would know the power of words?

Tone, in written composition, is an attitude of a writer toward a subject or an audience. Tone is generally conveyed through the choice of words or the viewpoint of a writer on a particular subject. ... The tone can be formal, informal, serious, comic, sarcastic, sad, and cheerful or it may be any other existing attitudes.

http://writerswrite.co.za/155-words-to-describe-an-authors-tone

Just as a closing note: I never claimed I won all my games, I never claimed I won the Warhammer world Cup. I play games as a hobby, and for a long time, and as such, I win alot of my games. I offer a small bit of advise, as my phone is too small for my gorilla hands it was brief. The same reason I no longer attend GW, and rarely post on this forum are knee jerk reactors like you. Assumptions do make an ass out of you and me, but with the snide comments and thinly veiled insults its easy to see the tone you have apparently unknowingly written. My non addressing your posts is not from a lack of sources or links, but from a lack of interest in engaging someone in an emotionally charged argument, especially when they are on the offense.

Just forget about it the both of you, this is leading to nowhere.

Indeed.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Toastedandy wrote:
Okay, your tone is very unappealing.

My tone? There is no such thing as tone with written word, it cannot happen, literally.

 Toastedandy wrote:
You have the opinions that you are entitled to not only [am I] addressing your every word, but also the time that it would take.

Yes we are both entitled to our opinions. You're not I have to continuously ask for things and you keep giving me vague responses.

 Toastedandy wrote:
I posted here to offer my opinion, and to add to a debate on the viability of running a csm army and actually win.

And yet all you did was state that you have won lots of times, but have provided no evidence for how you have been winning, what you have won, or how you won, only THAT you have won.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Being interrogated, belittling my experience and having you insinuate that I am a cheat isn't any interest to me.

You made a claim that you win with CSM all the time. I'm allowed to ask questions and demand evidence before believing your claim. I didn't belittle your experience, I asked questions and demanded evidence, because that's what a skeptical person does when a person makes a claim.

 Toastedandy wrote:
Be less rude if you want my lists pm me.......politely.

Yes quite. How do I put this, you accused me of having an "unappealing tone" in written word, which is...a feat on my part, you also accused me of accusing you of "cheating" which I never said, you simply assumed I meant that when I said "suspicious", which was the wrong word to use, I should have used "skeptical", lastly you call me rude based on assumptions on your part. So you insult me because of assumptions you have made, and then demand that I be polite to you if I want the evidence that you should be willing to present so that I have a basis of whether or not your telling the truth? Yeah I'd rather not waste my time.

Writing can have a tone mate, not literally but virtually, it's all over literature for ... well the entirety of the written word, now misinterpreted tone is very common and that may have happened here, but saying that the written language cannot have tone is just wrong.

On topic it looks like the be traitor legions book will a sort a lot of issues, but not the fundamental ones, like most things being over costed.

 Formosa wrote:

On topic it looks like the be traitor legions book will a sort a lot of issues, but not the fundamental ones, like most things being over costed.

Unless you're Death Guard or Iron Warriors.

For the tax of a Mark or VotLW - hoo boy.

Death Guard getting +1 T, FNP, Fearless and Relentless (but -1 I) and free VotLW is...wow. All I can say. Wow. Suddenly my overpointed Terminators seem crazily good.

Iron Warriors getting Stubborn across the board and 6+ FNP, as well as tank hunters on havocs is rather good too - Someone tries telepathy shenanigans and you just look at them, point to Stubborn USR and then flip the bird.

Not too sure how much value is in the other Legions abilities - armywide they're good but situational for the most part. Khorne is just....meh. It's basically Furious Charge, Rage etc for the cost but Assault in 7th feels like a penalty.

 DarkStarSabre wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

On topic it looks like the be traitor legions book will a sort a lot of issues, but not the fundamental ones, like most things being over costed.

Unless you're Death Guard or Iron Warriors.

For the tax of a Mark or VotLW - hoo boy.

Death Guard getting +1 T, FNP, Fearless and Relentless (but -1 I) and free VotLW is...wow. All I can say. Wow. Suddenly my overpointed Terminators seem crazily good.

Iron Warriors getting Stubborn across the board and 6+ FNP, as well as tank hunters on havocs is rather good too - Someone tries telepathy shenanigans and you just look at them, point to Stubborn USR and then flip the bird.

Not too sure how much value is in the other Legions abilities - armywide they're good but situational for the most part. Khorne is just....meh. It's basically Furious Charge, Rage etc for the cost but Assault in 7th feels like a penalty.

As a deathguard and Iron Warriors fan ---- Hurray. I LOVE the alpha legion multi headed leader rule. So awesome


Dissappointed at the lack of new models, was hopping for a new codex, instead of another suppliment.

The supplement's great though. It's what all the csm fans have been asking for since the 4-th dex dropped. 3.5 is back. And better than ever!

World eaters seem to have taken a massive buff too, I'm quite happy

Even if not all the EC stuff may be costed well enough, just the idea of actually getting proper combat drugs and various other neat things is practically energizing.

Now if only sonic guns weren't so overcosted I could be truly happy, but hey it's still better then jack nothing.

It's a sign that GW finally realizes what Chaos wants, and it's actual progress! Now if they can fix Orks and maybe even bring back Da Klans in some form too. Along with old craftworld rules (Maybe not altoic ), but allowing for more customization within an army is always better then none.

Even if not all the EC stuff may be costed well enough, just the idea of actually getting proper combat drugs and various other neat things is practically energizing.

Now if only sonic guns weren't so overcosted I could be truly happy, but hey it's still better then jack nothing.

It's a sign that GW finally realizes what Chaos wants, and it's actual progress! Now if they can fix Orks and maybe even bring back Da Klans in some form too. Along with old craftworld rules (Maybe not altoic ), but allowing for more customization within an army is always better then none.

Agreed! I pre-ordered both the Traitor Legions book and the Index Apocrypha. I've played since the final days of Rogue Trader and this is the first time in all those years that I've actually bothered to pre-order anything. For the Legion rules, I was really hoping for something more akin to Chapter tactics (where you don't have to take a specific formation to get the benefits), but I'm still really excited. I've always said my gripe with the main CSM book is with the flavor first and the power level second, and it looks like this new book will go a long way towards fixing the flavor at least. So I'll be running it even if it ends up not being all that strong.

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

That Dakka Hyperbole machine, still running strong. Im just gonna stick my head back in this mess. Chaos isnt top tier, but with the new supplements you shouldnt be having many problems with coming up with a competitive list. The last "official" report iI have seen on "game balance" would be the ITC rankings. These rankings were placed BEFORE traitors hate. Those have CSM at the straight middle. Alot of factions place better, just as many place worse. Now that we have some supplemental love, thats going to hit even higher. I myself would say we are going to end up just south of the big 5. Which is a damn good place to be and better than CSM have had it as a faction since...well..3.5 or maybe the lash prince at its heyday (I was playing fantasy only back then, but even I knew about that d-bag lash prince and his vindicator patrol). And I am going to try and not ruffle feathers here but I still think a large part of the negativity of the faction is people being people. And we dont need a post to explain how that works. Does it suck that GW is taking its fan base to town with its 5 supplements = codex business stratagem? Or course. But that is a different rant for a different day,.

 Jancoran wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

If you claim success with a mediocre-to-bad army then one of the possible explanations is that your opponents are simply not very good players or field lists that are significantly less optimised than they could be. Either is a more likely answer than you sitting on secret understandings of how CSM work.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

If you claim success with a mediocre-to-bad army then one of the possible explanations is that your opponents are simply not very good players or field lists that are significantly less optimised than they could be. Either is a more likely answer than you sitting on secret understandings of how CSM work.

Lets get on common ground here. I think CSM are far above mediocre now but I dont have the ITC rankings to back that up. So lets all assume its a mediocre faction. Are you trying to say a mediocre list cannot win games? Im asking this as a honest to goodness question. Not having a poke at you or anything.

CSM have cheap assault from deep strike. That's pretty good.

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

It has an "okay" answer even against the second most powerful force, the Grav Spam White Scars Battle Company and its variants. It does struggle against the War Convocation because that much ranged AP 2 is going to hurt any kind of list but I mean... outside of that hard counter which i freely admit is very tough sledding, its not like the codex IN GENERAL struggles. the Bay Area open this year saw Chaos Space Marines take 25th place, which was great and i think he had 4 wins. Chuck Arnett who i have played a few times and DID play at the BAO made 66th (that's the top 3rd). There just werent that MANY of them which is why it kind of looks worse than it is. With enough chances, any faction will get to the upper levels of those rankings by weight of numbers. For a Chaos Marine to hit 25th with so few chances is pretty good, and that was BEFORE Traitors Hate.

Perspective is key,


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:


Are you saying it's not possible that the people you play against are terrible? Or that they are not building their lists so that you can win? My cousin plays SW he and I play just about every weekend and after a while he stopped bringing his TWC because they would just steam roll my army and there was little I could do about it.

Are you saying they ARE terrible? You dont know that. So just dont go there. Its such a weak argument to make. I could attack YOURS as a reason not to listen to YOU but it would be equally pointless. So let's just stop.

If you claim success with a mediocre-to-bad army then one of the possible explanations is that your opponents are simply not very good players or field lists that are significantly less optimised than they could be. Either is a more likely answer than you sitting on secret understandings of how CSM work.

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

However, CSM are objectively not as strong as Eldar or gladius marines. Taking the general out of the equation.

Martel732 wrote:
However, CSM are objectively not as strong as Eldar or gladius marines. Taking the general out of the equation.

I agree. Those two, along with War Convocations are the top three most powerful forces you might face. But in the case of the Gladius, it isnt the Gladius, its specifically the one Grav spam Battle Company build so one car argue that even the Space marine Codex isnt as "strong" as this indiviidual build would suggest.

So that is why its messy to try and make these generalizations. I played the Eldar bastard list of doom the other night for my friends benefit becasuse he needed to face it in orsder to prep for it at a tourney upcoming. it took him off the board in essentially 3 turns. One model lasted to turn f our. so Yeah, Eldar can lay the lumber big time. But its the gold standard anyways. Not unbeatable however. Chaos is one of the codex's thjat can do very well against it ironically.

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

Please list that army you think is both TAC and a reliable counter (at least 51% win) to a top Eldar list.
There's an army list forum for that, where I'm sure you'll see a lot of good feedback.

Call the topic something like "SMC 1850 competitve"

morgoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

Please list that army you think is both TAC and a reliable counter (at least 51% win) to a top Eldar list.
There's an army list forum for that, where I'm sure you'll see a lot of good feedback.

Call the topic something like "SMC 1850 competitve"

TAC is not really a classification in and of itself. Every list has a weakness. Well, most do. Those that dont are clearly problematic. Are we arguing that CSM is over powered? Im lost.

morgoth wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

morgoth wrote:


It's not about going after opponents or anything.

CSM can win games, but not reliably against same-skill opponents with good lists from a good codex.

Chaos has one of the BEST counters available against one of the strongest Eldar tournament builds you will see. I've used it and it works GREAT.

Please list that army you think is both TAC and a reliable counter (at least 51% win) to a top Eldar list.
There's an army list forum for that, where I'm sure you'll see a lot of good feedback.

Call the topic something like "SMC 1850 competitve"

The raptor formation is a good counter to a specific eldar build. Not all eldar builds.

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

This thread seems hostile but i'll post something anyway. I'm happy that raptors will be troops in the nightlords rules, I can have 6 5 man squads of raptors and 3 heldrakes in a CAD army

As a marine player that can't do this, it helps that CSM can make many units of one model.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Jancoran wrote:

The more realistic possibility is that GIVEN the detractors CLAIM its terrible, the person playing it must be quite good if they are correct. If they are incorrect...well...they are incorrect. So that's the angle I would pursue. Attacking opponent strength is dumb. Just dumb. It's the last bastion of cowards in these kinds of debates. I just hate it when this argument even comes up.

You haven't been rigorously tested and are a total unknown so it's more likely that your opponents either are mediocre players or have suboptimal lists than you being amazing. Wondering about the state of your opposition isn't cowardice, it's the single most important thing to know before deciding whether your reports are relevant in any way.

Id rather listen to someone like Jan, who has used the faction in question than a maw full of bloated hyperbole from armchair internet generals who have "heard" something sucks. And more than half of any 40k site seems to be populated by those very people. Not a dig at you mind you. But presenting a opposing viewpoint. Its good to gather differing view points on a subject. That is the great thing about the internet. But sadly on the opposite side of the coin it breeds and fosters hyperbole (i keep using this word, i need to expand my vocab). The static comes when you have people trying to prove opinions as fact. Which no one is immune. Now if you are going to argue that heavy bolters are ap4 when someone says 5 then thats warranted. But to say someones view is irrelevant because it does not fit your particular meta or that they are facing bad players, then that is pure lunacy. You have NO way of knowing whom he plays against or what his meta contains. Its a horrible way to prove a point, as in it proves nothing.

Once more, not taking a piss on you, talking in general.