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.

I have not seen this posted elsewhere so i feel it needs to be asked.

This question is aimed at the non CSM players since i have a good idea what the CSM players think of Traitor Legions. Now that a couple months have gone by and people have gotten a feel for things, What is your opinion of them, what army do you normally play against them, and are there any specific legion you like/hate to go up against?

Sadly, I haven't gotten to play against too many TL legions, however, I like the balance of most of them.

Death Guard seem really strong against a lot of armies, it's not a big deal for me, but it doesn't bother me too bad.

I really don't like EC, I hate any army with that much ignores cover as it basically neuters a few armies in the game and makes winning with them inicredibely difficult. Maybe I'm just not good enough but they seem (to an extent) very RPC against armies that need cover to win, (but I guess DE are very RPS against tyranids, so I can't really complain)

I really like the balance of the World Eaters, strong, but not /too/ good, same with the Alpha Legion.

I really like the book. CSM were very boring in my eyes, as I mostly saw/played against only vanilla CSM before the TL book. It gave them a lot of flavor, a lot of interesting and different builds. I think a LOT of builds from belong in the competitive side of things (not GT winning, but more than playable) and everything is different and spicy. It allows the CSM player to field a different legion every day, a completely different army. The power level is where it should be an where I like it. Most builds are very capable of winning, even top builds while there's no absolute cheesy lists that you will see on top tables GT.(exept the Rehati War Sect)

EDIT: The Rehati War Sect is obviously WoM, but I kind of included it. Nevermind my thought.

It's a great balanced book, releasing a lot of potential that CSM had and finally we get to see it. It develops the entire army to a whole new level, I'm honestly impressed. I'm mostly playing versus Deathguard (basicly a tougher, more interesting, less spammy, toned down Gladius.) and they're beating my non-ObSec necrons a lot of times. I can't wait to play versus all the other Legions too.

I'm calling it one of the best books I've seen from GW. Great job.

Death Guard on paper look great.

Death Guard in practice suffer from two issues:
1. If you run Warband you are still a coward and have moral issues.
2. If you run any of the formations they get costly quick.

Basically if your saves are "on" in the game you are competitive, but if you aren't getting the saves then you are screwed.

One might say, "Well that goes for anyone." Death Guard FOCUS on saves, it's their thing. Your toughness, saves, cover, and FNP all allow you to deliver your weaponry to the enemy.

Unlike Eldar who use their range and speed, both of which are in your control and not dependent on a dice roll.

So yeah, the DG seem to be hit or miss, and unless I drop a crap ton of cash to spam oblits and sorcerers the success is dictated by whether or not I make those Armor, Invuln, Cover, FNP rolls.

Well, can't answer then since this book made me into a CSM (Thousand Sons) player for the first time since 1994.

 sfshilo wrote:
Death Guard in practice suffer from two issues:
1. If you run Warband you are still a coward and have moral issues.
2. If you run any of the formations they get costly quick.

1. I'm obviously missing something here, but since DG hand out fearless to everything with VotLW (which also makes them Ld10 while a sarge is present/alive), how are they having any more or less issues with morale than any other army?
2. It's true that there are very few "cheap and cheerful" formations, but there aren't a huge amount of total stinkers either beyond the mandatory inclusion of warpsmiths everywhere you look (which will hopefully get a significant points drop from their current 110 point insanity to match the what, 65 ppm the loyalist scum pays?). This is also balanced out by taking a single spawn as an Aux choice to a certain degree.

I think he didn't mean morale but moral as in something is wrong with the persons character, but i cant see why. Maybe he prefers CAD over the warband.