Switch Theme:

Why is Chaos getting a bad reputation in 40k at the moment?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






Table wrote:
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.


But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





 jreilly89 wrote:
Table wrote:
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.


But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.
And given the composition, it's pretty much barely CSM .
   
Made in se
Longtime Dakkanaut




Table wrote:
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.


If someone presented real stats about how CSM match up better than thought against top lists then that'd be pretty cool. Even if it isn't much better than is thought it would still be a solid look at how the game works, what CSM can do and how these two intersect. But if someone just claims that they're doing pretty alright, against the broad consensus of those who have dedicated serious time and analysis to tournament play, the most likely explanation is that they aren't playing in a hypercompetitive meta. That isn't a bad thing. It just means that their input on how the game works is neither here nor there on the topic of top-tier competitiveness.
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




We need more games played with Traitor's Hate to know.
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




 jreilly89 wrote:
Table wrote:
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.


But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.


They seem to place in the middle of the rankings. That was pre-traitors and legions. How they will place with the new suplements wont be known for a few more months. But my point is thus. You cannot attend every tournament. Unless you are reading the results for every ITC run event (which is fine) then its just that, your opinion and your experience. You cannot count that as absolute fact. In some forest, in some remote part of the world, a tree falls. So yes, and no. Its not hyperbole if you state that it is your personal experience but im not seeing alot of that lately and more of the hyperbole kind of hyperbole. The kind where people say something "sucks" and have no idea they are expressing opinion as fact.

This is all in reference to the original posters question. My opinion is that most of the "hate" comes from people who either wheel and deal in hyperbole or people who cant win games witht he said faction. I mean the question is loaded in and of itself. But all we can go on are ITC rankings and on that end while CSM players may not be sweeping tourneys, they are far from the bottom of the listings. Which leads to my point. People say "CSM sucks" because thats what they have heard repeated. It takes time for this sort of thing to both form and clear. I suspect in a few months the internet think tank will be singing a different tune. But I may be wrong.

Ill give a personal example. I recently finished painting up my chaos warband. A simple affair. A warband + raptor talon with some sorc spam. Run of the mill list. Nothing special stands out. In the five games ive played I have won 5. Sure, two were versus soft lists but one was a straight up net listed gladius , a necron decurion and an eldar jetbike spam list. (one wraith knight which i ended up never killing). If i went by the dakka arm chair hyperbole battalions estimations then there was no possible way I could have won three out of the five games I have played. And since it was not ranked ITC games I cannot "prove" my pudding. But it happened none the same. And I am a mediocre player, at best. If I can win games with a warband. Anyone can, given luck and table set up is on the level. I attribute my good start with my CSM to listening to players who have actually played the faction. Jancoran (spelling, sorry buddy) is one of them.

In the armchair game, every list is a hardcore scatter bike eldar list. 6's are always rolled. No one plays Maelstrom and you cant win unless you have a big 5 list. None of that is even close to reality.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rosebuddy wrote:
Table wrote:
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.


If someone presented real stats about how CSM match up better than thought against top lists then that'd be pretty cool. Even if it isn't much better than is thought it would still be a solid look at how the game works, what CSM can do and how these two intersect. But if someone just claims that they're doing pretty alright, against the broad consensus of those who have dedicated serious time and analysis to tournament play, the most likely explanation is that they aren't playing in a hypercompetitive meta. That isn't a bad thing. It just means that their input on how the game works is neither here nor there on the topic of top-tier competitiveness.


Ok, i understand your view point better. I think people are talking about different things at this point. I have little experience with a ITC setting. So I can only regurgitate what I have read. And from what Ive seen, CSM wasnt doing so bad, and with the new supplements its more than likely will be doing even better.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/06 21:50:04


 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

Rosebuddy wrote:


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.


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.


yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 mondo80 wrote:
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


Wowa. that would be killer. Where are these Night Lord rules you speak of!?!? this must be from the new thing coming out. If true, i would be ecstatic. I own...so...many...raptors...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 koooaei wrote:
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!


super jazzed.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/12/06 22:46:51


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




One can imagine eldar builds less susceptible to raptors, but those aren't the favored lists. WK still a problem too.
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






Table wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:
Table wrote:
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.


But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.


They seem to place in the middle of the rankings. That was pre-traitors and legions. How they will place with the new suplements wont be known for a few more months. But my point is thus. You cannot attend every tournament. Unless you are reading the results for every ITC run event (which is fine) then its just that, your opinion and your experience. You cannot count that as absolute fact. In some forest, in some remote part of the world, a tree falls. So yes, and no. Its not hyperbole if you state that it is your personal experience but im not seeing alot of that lately and more of the hyperbole kind of hyperbole. The kind where people say something "sucks" and have no idea they are expressing opinion as fact.

This is all in reference to the original posters question. My opinion is that most of the "hate" comes from people who either wheel and deal in hyperbole or people who cant win games witht he said faction. I mean the question is loaded in and of itself. But all we can go on are ITC rankings and on that end while CSM players may not be sweeping tourneys, they are far from the bottom of the listings. Which leads to my point. People say "CSM sucks" because thats what they have heard repeated. It takes time for this sort of thing to both form and clear. I suspect in a few months the internet think tank will be singing a different tune. But I may be wrong.

Ill give a personal example. I recently finished painting up my chaos warband. A simple affair. A warband + raptor talon with some sorc spam. Run of the mill list. Nothing special stands out. In the five games ive played I have won 5. Sure, two were versus soft lists but one was a straight up net listed gladius , a necron decurion and an eldar jetbike spam list. (one wraith knight which i ended up never killing). If i went by the dakka arm chair hyperbole battalions estimations then there was no possible way I could have won three out of the five games I have played. And since it was not ranked ITC games I cannot "prove" my pudding. But it happened none the same. And I am a mediocre player, at best. If I can win games with a warband. Anyone can, given luck and table set up is on the level. I attribute my good start with my CSM to listening to players who have actually played the faction. Jancoran (spelling, sorry buddy) is one of them.

In the armchair game, every list is a hardcore scatter bike eldar list. 6's are always rolled. No one plays Maelstrom and you cant win unless you have a big 5 list. None of that is even close to reality.



Grabbed a quick ITC event round up, of the TOP 16 listed (about 5-8 didn't have any lists up), only 2 were CSM-ish, 1 being Khorne Daemonkin, the other being FW Renegades and Heretics.

http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2016/09/12/tits-tournaments-nova-open-2016-top-16-lists/

I'll address your main point: "CSM sucks". Well they do. They need a total revamp of their book. They can do okay with multiple sourcebooks and lots of allies (FW books, Traitor's Hate, Belakor) to mitigate their weaknesses, but it's still a bad codex and they frequently lose to better stuff, I.E. Gladius, White Scar spam, Eldar, Tau, Daemons.

I really hope the new CSM stuff boosts them up because I'd love to see them winning tournaments ( I had a fledgling Nurgle CSM army before I shelved it for a full Nurgle Daemons army), but I don't see that happening without a total revamp of their codex.

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

 jreilly89 wrote:

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.


Indeed the RESULTS are not hyperbole. What the results are is misleading. Look at the NUMBER of actual times Chaos Space Marines compete in the events. They are eclipsed in a big way.

Sheer weight of numbers in attendees ensures that the more populous codex has a greater chance of making it to the top. this contributes. chaos Marines themselves are not THE strongest codex for sure and no one is arguing they are. I think the argument is that people underestimate the Codex to a much GREATER degree than it currently deserves. They do it so much that this gestalt sense that its true has developed. meanwhile people are having a grand old time playing them successfully.

The other thing that's misleading about that is that it is a CERTAIN type of build in the Space mariens and a cERTAIN type of build in the Eldar that tend to force an absolute A game out of the Chaos players. it isnt the codex in general. So i think that is the other kind of misnomer that we are a victim to here.

results are not to be ignored (as numerous people on Dakkadakka like to do for bizarelly self serving reasons) but they have to be looked at in context too. The Chaos Codex isn't going down in history as the best. it is however not necessary for a codex to BE the best in order to win. THAT would be false thinking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
One can imagine eldar builds less susceptible to raptors, but those aren't the favored lists. WK still a problem too.


To be fair, no one likes seeing the Wraith Knight and it might singlehandedly be THE reason for Grav Spam in lists. Lol.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/06 22:56:23


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 Jancoran wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:

But is it really hyperbole? I can count on my hand the number of ITC tournaments CSM won in the last year. It's always SM, Eldar, Taudar, or Daemons. That's not hyperbole.


Indeed the RESULTS are not hyperbole. What the results are is misleading. Look at the NUMBER of actual times Chaos Space Marines compete in the events. They are eclipsed in a big way.

Sheer weight of numbers in attendees ensures that the more populous codex has a greater chance of making it to the top. this contributes. chaos Marines themselves are not THE strongest codex for sure and no one is arguing they are. I think the argument is that people underestimate the Codex to a much GREATER degree than it currently deserves. They do it so much that this gestalt sense that its true has developed. meanwhile people are having a grand old time playing them successfully.

The other thing that's misleading about that is that it is a CERTAIN type of build in the Space mariens and a cERTAIN type of build in the Eldar that tend to force an absolute A game out of the Chaos players. it isnt the codex in general. So i think that is the other kind of misnomer that we are a victim to here.

results are not to be ignored (as numerous people on Dakkadakka like to do for bizarelly self serving reasons) but they have to be looked at in context too. The Chaos Codex isn't going down in history as the best. it is however not necessary for a codex to BE the best in order to win. THAT would be false thinking.



So, the CSM codex doesn't get the most entrees in the tournament, therefore it doesn't place the highest. But it's still a good codex? Really, what are you trying to argue here? It's a pretty proven point that competitive players will go for the best army (proven by the uptick in Gladius' and Scatter bikes), therefore, CSM is automatically a worse codex because it's not getting a similar numbers of entries. Yeah, you can win games with them, but I think it's half-hearted to say you can win with CSM without the caveat that most of these wins come from FW, extra books, allies, etc.

I also think most people are interested in the likelihood of you winning. Yeah, you can win, but how often? Against what armies? At what competitive level? All things that need to be addresed.

P.S. Randomly CAPITALIZING WORDS doesn't help prove your POINT. It makes you look RUDE.


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in ca
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





 Jancoran wrote:
Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.


Asking questions when a person makes a claim is cowardice. That is...amazing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Jancoran wrote:
Indeed the RESULTS are not hyperbole. What the results are is misleading. Look at the NUMBER of actual times Chaos Space Marines compete in the events. They are eclipsed in a big way.


So your argument is that because the people that are winning are not using CSM then you can't say CSM are bad because nobody uses them.


That's like saying the only reason Hi-Wheeler bikes don't win the Tour De France is because no one rides them. Maybe there is an underlying reason why people aren't entering with them...like there objectively worse.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/06 23:59:00


 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

 jreilly89 wrote:

1. So, the CSM codex doesn't get the most entrees in the tournament, therefore it doesn't place the highest. But it's still a good codex?

2. It's a pretty proven point that competitive players will go for the best army (proven by the uptick in Gladius' and Scatter bikes), therefore, CSM is automatically a worse codex

3. Yeah, you can win games with them, but I think it's half-hearted to say you can win with CSM without the caveat that most of these wins come from FW, extra books, allies, etc.

4. Yeah, you can win, but how often? Against what armies? At what competitive level? All things that need to be addresed.

5, P.S. Randomly CAPITALIZING WORDS doesn't help prove your POINT. It makes you look RUDE.



Dont mischaracterize what I said to suit your argument. What I said was in response to the assertion that the standings "proved" it must be bad. But they don't in and of themselves and I went on to explain the weight of numbers makes codex's more frequently played more likely to win. It's really simple math. More chances is more chances. Stretching what I said anywehrre beyond that is bad form.

Second, This is patently false. I am a competitive player. You know that. I do not play my Eldar hardly at all (did last night actually but not frequently) and I DO play Chaos and while I'm at it, Militarum Tempestus, Sisters of Battle and I think I even got points this year as orks. None of those was top tier. Your argument is instantly proven invalid by my own standing in the ITC and this. So please stop telling me how its proven that competitive players will go for the best army. When you're good, you don't have to.

Third, irrelevant. All armies come from all kinds of sources now. So I don't see that as relevant at all. But for the record, I play with no Forge World...ever.

4th: Thats easy. I have told you like a half dozen times. I am in the top 2% of players in the ITC. I am also in the Deffrollaz which is in the top 2% of clubs. So I dont know what your issue is, but I don't suffer from it.

5th I capitalize for emphasis. You can take it however you want. That's on you. There's no yelling here. Not from me anyways.




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



Asking questions when a person makes a claim is cowardice. That is...amazing.



If that were what I said it would be amazing. But you didnt ask an innocent question, did you? No. You made a passive aggressive assertion that it was probably his lack of opponent strength. its insulting, its unnecesaary and its very likely wrong. Weak sauce. Just advising you. If you have a point to make, that should be the last one you try.


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


That's like saying the only reason Hi-Wheeler bikes don't win the Tour De France is because no one rides them. Maybe there is an underlying reason why people aren't entering with them...like there objectively worse.


Totally unrelated. So. I don't think it was really worth saying. Butcha did.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/07 02:04:42


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in ca
Automated Rubric Marine of Tzeentch





You know what I'm not even going to try you clearly think that the claim that winning 80% of your games when you play a game where 50% of people that play the game play with armies that are objectively superior to the army your playing is perfectly.

as for the whole "totally unrelated" thing why aren't people bringing CSM to Tournaments was the point.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/07 06:12:51


 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Well, we could say that Traitor legions buffed the tourney csm. Cause tourney csm is sorcabal + khornedogs. And sorcabal can now have free buffs. There are also different types of sorcabals now. Magnus can be interesting too.

The most important thing is that traitor legions buffed csm average fluffy builds significantly. So that they can now easilly compete with average fluffy builds from other codexes. What emp child player didn't want to bring his lovingly painted pink dudes en masse without feeling like shooting himself in the foot.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/12/07 06:20:19


 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
You know what I'm not even going to try you clearly think that the claim that winning 80% of your games when you play a game where 50% of people that play the game play with armies that are objectively superior to the army your playing is perfectly.

as for the whole "totally unrelated" thing why aren't people bringing CSM to Tournaments was the point.


They aren't playing them because they don't have enough faith in themselves. Option two: they love their models and simply prefer another choice. The same reason we all play what we play.

Lots of people went to the Bay Area Open including me, and lots of them took what they thought were "killer lists" from their respective codex's. everyone went with either an army they loved and could play very well or they took the killer list they read about somewhere. But either way, despite all those people, who wins it? NOT Eldar. Eldar did well, of course they did. There were a lot of them. Chaos Daemons did well and Daemon players were abundant. But note that Skitarii came in second and wasn't so abundant but there were a few in there. Anyone shocked to know what that list was? Not really. Though it was so converted that he had to provide pictures and such just so people could comprehend what they were looking at. QUITE a stunning army.

But there was only one guy who had what it took to go 6-0 against a huge field. One. And he took, of all things, Dark Angels. There were few Skitarii guys but yet one took second... Both of which flies in the face of the theory that competitive sorts "always" play the top tier stuff and the top tier stuff "always" wins.

Being number one doesn't make your codex number one. Does it? Because if it was true, We'd be hailing Dark Angels right now. We aren't. For good reason. People who are already good enough to win without a power codex are simply hedging their bets (I get it), but its still a bet as the BAO showed, and it wasn't rewarded in a ton of cases. An Eldar player placed 167th. Lowest Chaos Space Marine? 105.

So the same applies to Chaos Marines. They aren't the apex predators. One does not need the top predator to win the Bay Area Open nor to do better than Eldar apparently. One just needs enough of a list to execute a well laid out plan against a progressively tougher and tougher group of hombres up the ladder. It's no picnic. I've only done the BAO once and yeah. You go there the first time to gain perspective. Lol. I got injured before my 4th game so I basically didn't get to compete much the second half but it showed me some serious lists and serious generals and I learned from all of them as i limped around the table.

So if our lowest Chaos Marine player was 62 places higher than the lowest Eldar player are we to understand that Chaos Space Marines are the next coming? Nope. No more than we can trust that Dark Angels won and are the automatic win button. A good plan, a good General and a really good list are whats needed.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
 koooaei wrote:
Well, we could say that Traitor legions buffed the tourney csm. Cause tourney csm is sorcabal + khornedogs. And sorcabal can now have free buffs. There are also different types of sorcabals now. Magnus can be interesting too.

The most important thing is that traitor legions buffed csm average fluffy builds significantly. So that they can now easilly compete with average fluffy builds from other codexes. What emp child player didn't want to bring his lovingly painted pink dudes en masse without feeling like shooting himself in the foot.


I fought that Dawgstar list, played by Chuck Arnett at the BAO. It brought home the need for Advanced Targeting Systems big time. Lol. Chuck Arnett and I have beaten each other once. We owe each other a rubber match...

And here's a pic of that army, THAT DAY!



And for fun, my 5th Opponent at BAO. Cool color.


Here's my second opponent. Tough list.



I injured myself right before playing this guy. ugh. Game four. Made for a looooooong second day but as you can see i saw a lot of cool armies.


Oh and of course this fun one. I didn't get a pic of his ork army but it was cool. This however was taken after my fully charged up StormSurge got hit by his one hull point Stompa... and he exploded me with FOUR six's on the D chart. We HAD to get a pic of that. I did end up tabling him but it was still a fun moment for both of us and thus the pic:

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/12/07 07:47:08


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!








btw, we still haven't played vs sob in vassal. Time's running out, man. The longer you wait the more powerful i grow. Wanted to just bring traitor's hate warband + termicides but will be bringing new night lords + world eaters now, see!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/07 07:22:31


 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

I expected a message back from you. We were going to do it 10 am Our time I think, last Saturday the 3rd?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/07 07:28:43


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






 Jancoran wrote:
I expected a message back from you. We were going to do it 10 am Our time I think, last Saturday the 3rd?


I think i did pm on saturday - check the mail box. Can do it this saturday.
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

 koooaei wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
I expected a message back from you. We were going to do it 10 am Our time I think, last Saturday the 3rd?


I think i did pm on saturday - check the mail box. Can do it this saturday.


It says it was sent at 6:02 PM. so... Maybe we got our time zones messed up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
hmm...let me test a theory. Send me a PM RIGHT NOW and let me see what time stamp it puts on there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
okay so you are 8 hours AHEAD of me. So this seems like it should have worked.

Anywho... whatevs. we can shoot for this Saturday if you'd like. In the meantime take a look at my pretty pictures. But 11AM this Saturday should work. We need to make a connection via skype. which means I have to install it and try to remember my login crap. Lol. I'll do that with you via PM.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/07 07:56:57


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Jancoran wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:


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.


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.


yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!


That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/07 09:11:01


 
   
Made in us
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine




morgoth wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:


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.


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.


yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!


That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.


Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.

If I can get some more time I fully plan to join in ITC tournaments with my CSM.

Also, is BAO ITC? Im seeing two storm surges in some armies and I thought ITC was one Lord of War per list unless its knights? Im could be very wrong.
   
Made in be
Longtime Dakkanaut




Table wrote:


Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.

If I can get some more time I fully plan to join in ITC tournaments with my CSM.

Also, is BAO ITC? Im seeing two storm surges in some armies and I thought ITC was one Lord of War per list unless its knights? Im could be very wrong.


I think the only thing we've argued against is that anyone at all would be able to maintain a 80% win average with CSM against comparable opponents who do use good lists from good codexes.

This is a dice game and there is no such thing as a guaranteed loss, beyond the hyperbole what we are discussing is averages, which don't look too good for SMC in general.
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 Jancoran wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:

1. So, the CSM codex doesn't get the most entrees in the tournament, therefore it doesn't place the highest. But it's still a good codex?

2. It's a pretty proven point that competitive players will go for the best army (proven by the uptick in Gladius' and Scatter bikes), therefore, CSM is automatically a worse codex

3. Yeah, you can win games with them, but I think it's half-hearted to say you can win with CSM without the caveat that most of these wins come from FW, extra books, allies, etc.

4. Yeah, you can win, but how often? Against what armies? At what competitive level? All things that need to be addresed.

5, P.S. Randomly CAPITALIZING WORDS doesn't help prove your POINT. It makes you look RUDE.



Dont mischaracterize what I said to suit your argument. What I said was in response to the assertion that the standings "proved" it must be bad. But they don't in and of themselves and I went on to explain the weight of numbers makes codex's more frequently played more likely to win. It's really simple math. More chances is more chances. Stretching what I said anywehrre beyond that is bad form.


No, the standings literally do prove the codex is bad. That's the whole point of standings. It's really simple math; the more players of a certain army = generally the stronger the codex. It's why you never see fluffy Dark Angels winning ITC tournaments, it's only ever Ravenwing spam.


Second, This is patently false. I am a competitive player. You know that. I do not play my Eldar hardly at all (did last night actually but not frequently) and I DO play Chaos and while I'm at it, Militarum Tempestus, Sisters of Battle and I think I even got points this year as orks. None of those was top tier. Your argument is instantly proven invalid by my own standing in the ITC and this. So please stop telling me how its proven that competitive players will go for the best army. When you're good, you don't have to.


You're only one player and you don't make up the whole ITC. What do the other players of the "Deff Rollas" play? $5 there's a top tier codex among them. Competitive players go for the best army, it's why Gladius, Tzeentch Daemons, and Ravenwing are so popular. We can amend that to "Not all competitive players" or "Most competitive players".


Third, irrelevant. All armies come from all kinds of sources now. So I don't see that as relevant at all. But for the record, I play with no Forge World...ever.


Congrats? You're now at an even worse standing with CSM. Do CSM need FW to win? No, but it helps.


4th: Thats easy. I have told you like a half dozen times. I am in the top 2% of players in the ITC. I am also in the Deffrollaz which is in the top 2% of clubs. So I dont know what your issue is, but I don't suffer from it.

5th I capitalize for emphasis. You can take it however you want. That's on you. There's no yelling here. Not from me anyways.


I'm out, man. I provided literal factual evidence (not anecdotes) and you can't see reason that CSM are not that good of an army. I'm done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Table wrote:

Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.


No one's saying CSM can't win, they're saying "Hey, you're going to have a rough time. The odds are not in your favor."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/07 14:20:49


~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






Legions buffed csm fluffy lists quite well. So, i think that an average csm list can now compete with other average lists and even have an upper hand sometimes.
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 koooaei wrote:
Legions buffed csm fluffy lists quite well. So, i think that an average csm list can now compete with other average lists and even have an upper hand sometimes.


I'm hesitant, but I expect to see a lot of Thousand Sons in the ITC top now. 1K Sons got some massive buffs.

~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

morgoth wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:


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.


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.


yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!


That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.


I dont know what you mean by team games.

Teams are gaming clubs in ITC context. That does not imply group games. Lol. Just that our group is distinguished as an entity and rated on its performance in a similar way as individual accomplishments. And actually you can see the club people belong to in the standings too. I'm up there, along with Chancy Ricky and Oseas Aduna. Chancy has a GT that was supposed to be in his score but it got separated out on acccident so they need to fix that. once they do he will jet even further up. But as of now it shows as two scores. Hope they fix that soon.

I also dont know what you mean by list tailoring. My Night Lords have been pretty much unchanged other than the new Formation, but the new formation barely changed what was in my list. basically just ended up having to split the Night lords into three units instead of two. otherwise, same list.

So No list tailoring going on here. But let me say this: if you are not ACCOUNTING for Eldar in your list construction, you aren't going to do well. You are best served by being open to the possibility of fighting one in every tournament you attend. It's likely to come up, I promise.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Table wrote:
morgoth wrote:
 Jancoran wrote:
Rosebuddy wrote:


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.


Nope. Just cowardice, I don't know this guy from Adam but I'm not going to let someone jump to the immediate conclusion that his opponents are bad. Such...poor...form.

As for me not being rigorously tested...This wasn't about me. But I myself HAVE been. The Deffrollaz are ranked 18th out of the 705 ranked clubs in the ITC. So there's that. How is your club doing this year in the International Tournament Circuit? Good? If not, do not pass judgement on any one else's opponents. You don't know them. You don't know me. It's just bad form and you end up looking silly when the guy you're questioning is where we're at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:
ITC does tone things down at least a bit. Scatterbikes are unchanged, hence the raptor counter.


yup. I smashed the last couple Eldar jetbike spam lists with my lowly Chaos Marines. Was glorious. would recommend!


That sounds like combo vs nemesis ... the kind of stuff that makes pairing more important than playing in team games .. .is that what you play ?

I don't think team performance means anything with regards to actual single player TAC gaming.

CSM just doesn't rank well, and your Eldar-scatbike-counter-list will not change that fact.

Besides, list tailoring, outside of team gaming, is mostly frowned upon.


Question : How does a near competent level CSM warband + raptor talon beat a well played gladius? On paper, and in most armchair generals estimation I should have lost. I should not have even had a chance. But I didnt lose. I will admit that it was the hardest game of 40k I have ever played and it was neck and neck the entire time. I wish I had it recorded in a vlog BR. Maybe ill start doing those. Anyhow. Despite have a clear and heavy disadvantage compared to my opponent I eeked out a win. Now, you can say he sucked, or I got lucky or whatever diatribe suits your fancy. But the fact is CSM can and do win games. And even sometimes vs tourney lists.

If I can get some more time I fully plan to join in ITC tournaments with my CSM.

Also, is BAO ITC? Im seeing two storm surges in some armies and I thought ITC was one Lord of War per list unless its knights? Im could be very wrong.


BAO is ITC. ITC allows 0-1 unit, essentially. the stormsurge is a unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jreilly89 wrote:

No, the standings literally do prove the codex is bad. That's the whole point of standings. It's really simple math; the more players of a certain army = generally the stronger the codex. It's why you never see fluffy Dark Angels winning ITC tournaments, it's only ever Ravenwing spam."


Lol. so...Dark Angels are not allowed to call their wins wins now if they use Ravenwing? Eh...Sorry. Not buying. And "fluffy" Dark Angels lists is irrelevant. Dark Angels as a Codex are good enough to WIN a 200 man tournament. digest that. understand it. its demonstrable fact. So no.




Automatically Appended Next Post:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jreilly89 wrote:

What do the other players of the "Deff Rollas" play? $5 there's a top tier codex among them. Competitive players go for the best army, it's why Gladius, Tzeentch Daemons, and Ravenwing are so popular. We can amend that to "Not all competitive players" or "Most competitive players".

Sure it's not a big secret.

I played orks, Militarum Tempestus, Sisters of Battle and Tau Empire this season in actual ITC events. The store lost our results for a tournament in which i played Necrons so that one never showed up in my stats, sadly. but I did do it once. I played the Scarab swarm. Fun.

Chancy played Space Wolves and GeneStealer Cult this season and is our highest ranked player (but he knows who the boss is, hehehe. Love you Chancy ).

Oseas played Orks. He did very well. He also has an event that is detached from him so his standing is actually much higher. ITC has to fix both Chancy and Oseas's score. That reminds me...

Other members who played less, but in significant events: Matt Stephens played DeathWatch (he's the top player for Deathwatch currently), Space Marines (non battle Company) at BAO and Astra Militarum. He, like me, wasn't very focused on one faction standing. Our other notable member Don Sartain played Necrons in three ITC events (and scored VERY well in all of them as you can see) and also as a Space Marine once I think. Dan who plays with us is the only guy who plays a battle Company, but its not the typical one. He also doesnt typically give his email address correctly (on purpose) because he doesn't want people having it or something. meh. whatevs. Not a hyper competitive dude but very active in our group.

Some of our newer members or ones who didn't attend as much as them, play Grey Knights, Blood Angels, UltraMarines and Matt Demartino took Skitarii to one and one it. Glen played Imperial Knights+Inquisition at BAO. Nathan plays Necrons and is a more recent addition to the team..

I am sure I am missing a few. but among those who are in our club, that's more or less what we play in actual ITC games.

Most of us play other armies, obviously. I frequently play ringer armies against my friends to allow them to practrice for tournaments. They often use me as a "barometer" for their list.

Regular opponents include the TZC and MUGU crews and of course the clubs we travel to like BCoast and some others. You can see where their members are listed. Joshua Death actually played at two of our tournaments which was cool. Both at the Guardian Cup and at the March Madness GT. So i got to meet him and his dog.

Anywho, no Eldar as you will note used in ITC matches, only one Skitarii in one match and then... on to the other armies. I think you underestimate what good players will play. I really do. Open your mind to more possibilities. i play these Chaos mariens against a ver ytough group of generals and you can ask them whether they find me an adequate representative of the dark powers.





This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/12/07 23:47:18


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






 jreilly89 wrote:
 koooaei wrote:
Legions buffed csm fluffy lists quite well. So, i think that an average csm list can now compete with other average lists and even have an upper hand sometimes.


I'm hesitant, but I expect to see a lot of Thousand Sons in the ITC top now. 1K Sons got some massive buffs.


1k sons look like the weakest of the bunch to me, tbh. But maybe there are some combinations i'm missing. It's the daemon part of Tzeench that got significantly better. As for the marine part...well, maybe the flavor of sorcs and the tzeench sorcabal. Magnus for sure. But the basic 1k sons, tacticals and their new termies are still not worth it. The formation that makes them more durable writes the list for you and you end up with a tough-ish force with very weak offence other than potential psy trickery. But if you want psy, why don't you just spam cheaper psychers with even more cheap and now unkillable from afar warp batteries. Cause 1k psychers are fun and all but they come at such a price that you don't get enough warpcharges to fully utilise them.

Well, that's just my first expression anywayz. Compared to free fearless, relentless and fnp that nurglits gain or khornates who get free furious charge, fearless and 2d6 scout move that's not a scout move and you can still charge 1-st turn after it, the 1k son's +1 inv after a blessing is not so impressive on the regular dudes.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 06:28:38


 
   
Made in us
Shas'o Commanding the Hunter Kadre




Olympia, WA

It sems like all upside though. Even if it is more expensive options, its more expensive but very awesome options. I mean AP 3 is always impressive and as a Militarum Tempestus player, i would kill to have AP 3 weapons that actually damage people. Lol. Warpfire is a thing too, and very useful against all kinds of things.

I think some creative sorts are going to have a ball with this. My friend Rory in Portland is already geared up and bought a BUNCH of Thousand Sons just for the occasion. Dunno how it will do but I'm excited to find out!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 06:37:59


Hold out bait to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and then crush him.
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War
http://www.40kunorthodoxy.blogspot.com

7th Ambassadorial Grand Tournament Registration: http://40kambassadors.com/register.php 
   
Made in ru
!!Goffik Rocker!!






From what i can tell with my limited experience with 1k sons, their strength is not in their shooting but in their force axe sorc with 4++ and fearless. But once again, it's probably just me. Every time i try flash gits, they end up doing more damage on the charge rather than with all their shooting across the game. Even my ig are melee-oriented. And sm always end up charging something instead of shooting their bolters. Last time i played sob vs csm, i shot every single bolter at csm and scorred 0 kills. Next turn i shot a few bolt pistols and charged chosen and bikers and ended up wiping them eventually.

Aha, got a gun! Me gona smash ye with it now!

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/08 06:45:07


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: