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.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eh, I disagree. That's 85 points for a Lascannon basically.
That's terrible for a kill point game.
When the alternative is 10 Cultists, 5 CSMs with a lascannon is great.
I'm not comparing them with everything else in the Codex. I'm saying, given a choice between MSU Cultists and CSMs, Cultists are better at progressive scoring objective games and CSMs with a lascannon are marginally better in kill points games.
Actually, to be correct, your alternative is now 17 Cultists. So for the spare 15 points that's 20 bodies instead of of just 5 bodies with only one good weapon for 85 points.
The accurate comparison is 5 space marines to 13 cultists. The option to take a Lascannon on top of that is then available to one of these units, for no other price than the cost of the weapon. Calling it 85 pts for a Lascannon was grossly misrepresenting it.
No, the accurate comparison was between MSU, which is what vaklor4 originally asked about.
Changing the context to points distorts the answer and derails the conversation.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eh, I disagree. That's 85 points for a Lascannon basically.
That's terrible for a kill point game.
When the alternative is 10 Cultists, 5 CSMs with a lascannon is great.
I'm not comparing them with everything else in the Codex. I'm saying, given a choice between MSU Cultists and CSMs, Cultists are better at progressive scoring objective games and CSMs with a lascannon are marginally better in kill points games.
Actually, to be correct, your alternative is now 17 Cultists. So for the spare 15 points that's 20 bodies instead of of just 5 bodies with only one good weapon for 85 points.
The accurate comparison is 5 space marines to 13 cultists. The option to take a Lascannon on top of that is then available to one of these units, for no other price than the cost of the weapon. Calling it 85 pts for a Lascannon was grossly misrepresenting it.
No, the accurate comparison was between MSU, which is what vaklor4 originally asked about.
Changing the context to points distorts the answer and derails the conversation.
We acknowledged that comparison as such as well. It was Slayer who changed the goal posts to being points vs points, something he again misrepresented, I was simply responding to the given context and making it accurate.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eh, I disagree. That's 85 points for a Lascannon basically.
That's terrible for a kill point game.
When the alternative is 10 Cultists, 5 CSMs with a lascannon is great.
I'm not comparing them with everything else in the Codex. I'm saying, given a choice between MSU Cultists and CSMs, Cultists are better at progressive scoring objective games and CSMs with a lascannon are marginally better in kill points games.
Actually, to be correct, your alternative is now 17 Cultists. So for the spare 15 points that's 20 bodies instead of of just 5 bodies with only one good weapon for 85 points.
The accurate comparison is 5 space marines to 13 cultists. The option to take a Lascannon on top of that is then available to one of these units, for no other price than the cost of the weapon. Calling it 85 pts for a Lascannon was grossly misrepresenting it.
No, the accurate comparison was between MSU, which is what vaklor4 originally asked about.
Changing the context to points distorts the answer and derails the conversation.
We acknowledged that comparison as such as well. It was Slayer who changed the goal posts to being points vs points, something he again misrepresented, I was simply responding to the given context and making it accurate.
It is right and proper to blame SlayerFan123 for everything bad on Dakka. It's entirely another to condone and amplify his distortions and misrepresentations by contributing to them.
Anyone ever tried a triple knight list with berserkers?
So, one knight will have the double avenger cannons for chaff clearing, and all the raise ion shields will go to it. While the other two are renegade knight Gallants to serve as two big distraction carnefixes.
Then the rest of the army will be zerkers in Rhinos. Think it will work? Or totally will fail? lol
I'm getting a little tired of things that are actually terrifying effective being referred to as "distraction carnifexes"
Friggin carnifexes arent even distraction carnifexes anymore.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 03:33:35
McGibs wrote: I'm getting a little tired of things that are actually terrifying effective being referred to as "distraction carnifexes"
Friggin carnifexes arent even distraction carnifexes anymore.
Heehee, ok my bad. Two renegade Gallants aren't really just distraction carnefixes. They are expected to do something too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eh, I disagree. That's 85 points for a Lascannon basically.
That's terrible for a kill point game.
When the alternative is 10 Cultists, 5 CSMs with a lascannon is great.
I'm not comparing them with everything else in the Codex. I'm saying, given a choice between MSU Cultists and CSMs, Cultists are better at progressive scoring objective games and CSMs with a lascannon are marginally better in kill points games.
Actually, to be correct, your alternative is now 17 Cultists. So for the spare 15 points that's 20 bodies instead of of just 5 bodies with only one good weapon for 85 points.
The accurate comparison is 5 space marines to 13 cultists. The option to take a Lascannon on top of that is then available to one of these units, for no other price than the cost of the weapon. Calling it 85 pts for a Lascannon was grossly misrepresenting it.
No, the accurate comparison was between MSU, which is what vaklor4 originally asked about.
Changing the context to points distorts the answer and derails the conversation.
We acknowledged that comparison as such as well. It was Slayer who changed the goal posts to being points vs points, something he again misrepresented, I was simply responding to the given context and making it accurate.
They ARE bad. I'm not going to let someone just buy bad models and expect them to do something and instead get the opposite.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eh, I disagree. That's 85 points for a Lascannon basically.
That's terrible for a kill point game.
When the alternative is 10 Cultists, 5 CSMs with a lascannon is great.
I'm not comparing them with everything else in the Codex. I'm saying, given a choice between MSU Cultists and CSMs, Cultists are better at progressive scoring objective games and CSMs with a lascannon are marginally better in kill points games.
Actually, to be correct, your alternative is now 17 Cultists. So for the spare 15 points that's 20 bodies instead of of just 5 bodies with only one good weapon for 85 points.
The accurate comparison is 5 space marines to 13 cultists. The option to take a Lascannon on top of that is then available to one of these units, for no other price than the cost of the weapon. Calling it 85 pts for a Lascannon was grossly misrepresenting it.
No, the accurate comparison was between MSU, which is what vaklor4 originally asked about.
Changing the context to points distorts the answer and derails the conversation.
We acknowledged that comparison as such as well. It was Slayer who changed the goal posts to being points vs points, something he again misrepresented, I was simply responding to the given context and making it accurate.
It is right and proper to blame SlayerFan123 for everything bad on Dakka. It's entirely another to condone and amplify his distortions and misrepresentations by contributing to them.
Was expecting better of you Shuppet.
was not my intention to condone or even amplify his misrepresentations. He moved the goal posts, I simply tried to demonstrate that they it still didn't result in him kicking a goal.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Eh, I disagree. That's 85 points for a Lascannon basically.
That's terrible for a kill point game.
When the alternative is 10 Cultists, 5 CSMs with a lascannon is great.
I'm not comparing them with everything else in the Codex. I'm saying, given a choice between MSU Cultists and CSMs, Cultists are better at progressive scoring objective games and CSMs with a lascannon are marginally better in kill points games.
Actually, to be correct, your alternative is now 17 Cultists. So for the spare 15 points that's 20 bodies instead of of just 5 bodies with only one good weapon for 85 points.
The accurate comparison is 5 space marines to 13 cultists. The option to take a Lascannon on top of that is then available to one of these units, for no other price than the cost of the weapon. Calling it 85 pts for a Lascannon was grossly misrepresenting it.
No, the accurate comparison was between MSU, which is what vaklor4 originally asked about.
Changing the context to points distorts the answer and derails the conversation.
We acknowledged that comparison as such as well. It was Slayer who changed the goal posts to being points vs points, something he again misrepresented, I was simply responding to the given context and making it accurate.
They ARE bad. I'm not going to let someone just buy bad models and expect them to do something and instead get the opposite.
whether they are bad or not doesn't change that your logic was still flawed.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 04:18:47
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Personally, if I am going MSU but wanted a good decent long range weapon for this MSUCSM unit to shoot, I would go with autocannon for just 10 points. Its two shots and each shot does 2 damage. And I would have no issues at all with running such a squad at an objective to try and capture it. Well, maybe I would add a chain axe to the champ. For just 1 more point, you get the champ hitting with str 5 at ap -1. That's not bad.
Abby cant be within 6" of everyone at once. I use him to keep then80 cultists moral and give them rerolls. The 20 black legi9n marines get the 5+++ making them resilient enough to be a bad target much like the cultists. And for 1cp keeping a seperate squad of 20 with advance/shoot plus rerolls, all i am saying is they have a separate, tactical value that gets ignored because "its not a mathematical best option so the opponent doesnt think of them when list building ".
Take it as you will. I am not the best player ever, i dont play itc or etc. But i do my best to make the players in my area who do/are think twice.
Azuza001 wrote: Abby cant be within 6" of everyone at once. I use him to keep then80 cultists moral and give them rerolls. The 20 black legi9n marines get the 5+++ making them resilient enough to be a bad target much like the cultists. And for 1cp keeping a seperate squad of 20 with advance/shoot plus rerolls, all i am saying is they have a separate, tactical value that gets ignored because "its not a mathematical best option so the opponent doesnt think of them when list building ".
Take it as you will. I am not the best player ever, i dont play itc or etc. But i do my best to make the players in my area who do/are think twice.
Sorry but any of the "best" players in your area won't be scared of 20 Marines if they were actually any good.
Hey guys I was mucking about with this list in battlescribe today and wanted to know what you all thought of it. Ive been trying normal codex helbrutes and havent been impressed so i thought id give fw a go. :
Chaos Lord [5 PL, 74pts]: Bolt pistol, Chainsword, Mark of Khorne
+ Heavy Support +
Havocs [7 PL, 105pts]: No Chaos Mark
. Aspiring Champion: Bolt pistol, Boltgun
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
Havocs [7 PL, 105pts]: No Chaos Mark
. Aspiring Champion: Bolt pistol, Boltgun
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
Havocs [7 PL, 105pts]: No Chaos Mark
. Aspiring Champion: Bolt pistol, Boltgun
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
. Havoc w/ heavy weapon: Heavy bolter
posermcbogus wrote: I'm totally new to Chaos Marines, and am looking for a bit of advice.
Currently adding them to my Renegades and Heretics army (which is v. static gunline-y) as a hammer to the renegades' anvil (mortar spam and basilisks with bubblewrap bodies)
As far as I can tell, plasma is still king of 8th ed, so should I just try to cram a lot of plasma into everything?
I've got a hellbrute (no arms yet)
the plastic terminator lord/sorcerer
FW's Necrosius
5 raptor/warptalons (undecided)
27 marines (no arms yet)
5 terminators (no arms yet)
I'd ideally like to play them a bit fast and aggressive, to take the heat off my artillery, and as like a fun counterpart to my otherwise static trench rats. For a bit more context, I'd also like them nurgle themed, so if there are any cool synergies with that that'd be cool to hear about (not keen on death guard stuff tho, just bc I'm super unfamiliar with all their new stuff, and prefer the older chaos marines' style).
Cheers!
TBF: you will get a lot of cp from Renegades, so there is nothing stopping you from running your marines as Chosen with combi bolters / Plasma.
The hellbrute i'd either kit as a dakka brute with a reaper and missile launcher or as cheap as possible.
Terminators are, ehh , the only real effective way i found is either as cheap as possible, or with as many combiplas and mark of slaanesh in order to quadrupple tap with the guns.
Raptors/ warptalons, they can work but generally require some daemon allies that can help them out.
1-2 sorcerers would be nice add on, except ofcourse you intend to run psyker covens /malefics to cast the R&H powers.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Azuza001 wrote: Abby cant be within 6" of everyone at once. I use him to keep then80 cultists moral and give them rerolls. The 20 black legi9n marines get the 5+++ making them resilient enough to be a bad target much like the cultists. And for 1cp keeping a seperate squad of 20 with advance/shoot plus rerolls, all i am saying is they have a separate, tactical value that gets ignored because "its not a mathematical best option so the opponent doesnt think of them when list building ".
Take it as you will. I am not the best player ever, i dont play itc or etc. But i do my best to make the players in my area who do/are think twice.
Sorry but any of the "best" players in your area won't be scared of 20 Marines if they were actually any good.
I never said they are scared. I said they dont get factored in as something that needs to be thought about seeing in a chaos list. I personally like the squad of 20. They have obj sec, a full squad can put out 80 shots (it will never be a full squad, i know that) rerolling all failed hits while only needing to be semi close to a sorc for support, they can move quite fast, and most opponents don't plan on facing them. And if they do get focused and shot at then they are doing a good job distracting for more valuable options on the table. If not between endless canophy and vets of the long war they are a viable threat that the opponent will have to deal with.
I ran this list against an eldar player running 3 hemlocks and a bunch of dark reapers. He lost turn 3 because i had 80 cultists, 20 marines, rest were charecters that he couldnt target. I had first turn, got the feel no pain off on the marines, and it helped keep the squad alive for the first turn.
I dont need to go into the whole thing, if anyone doesnt like the idea of 20 basic men thats fine, its an option that i am having luck using. But i find it insulting to say i must play vs bad opponents for something to work. And saying sorry before saying something rude doesnt make it ok.
80 shots that are stopped by a couple of measly charges. Have fun fighting back with those S4 attacks!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: and now we circle back around to the start.
"whether they are bad or not doesn't change that your logic was still flawed."
they still aren't 85 points for a Lascannon, thats just idiotic no matter what silly measure you try to use.
My bad, 85 points for a Lascannon AND 4 Bolters!
Still useless. Loyalists have ALL the tools to do the same better and they're bad at it. So suggesting it for Chaos Marines is honestly silly and not well thought out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 15:43:51
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Think we can put this back and forth to bed? All parties have made their opinions heard, at this point we’ve gone in circles multiple times. No one is going to convince anyone else, here.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 80 shots that are stopped by a couple of measly charges. Have fun fighting back with those S4 attacks!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: and now we circle back around to the start.
"whether they are bad or not doesn't change that your logic was still flawed."
they still aren't 85 points for a Lascannon, thats just idiotic no matter what silly measure you try to use.
My bad, 85 points for a Lascannon AND 4 Bolters!
Still useless. Loyalists have ALL the tools to do the same better and they're bad at it. So suggesting it for Chaos Marines is honestly silly and not well thought out.
Well, my best list has 3 laspreds, 3 Helbrutes with twin lascannons and 3 squads of 10 CSMs with 2 lascannons each. Everything gets clustered around Abaddon to attack at distance with rerolls to hit.
Not sure Loyalists can do gunlines better, unless you mean straight AM. The only armies that really give me trouble are Orks, Imperial Knights and Dark Eldar.
Reading the pure shades of black and white put out in this thread by slayer-fan123 is just too familiar. I think some people just find nuances a bit too disconcerting. However it must be difficult to play this game without getting frustrated while needing to categorize everything into two neat columns. There is much more to this game than deconstructing it to a simple math equation of how much pew each unit has, and you are only doing yourself a disservice as a player by approaching discussion like this. just some advice
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 80 shots that are stopped by a couple of measly charges. Have fun fighting back with those S4 attacks!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: and now we circle back around to the start.
"whether they are bad or not doesn't change that your logic was still flawed."
they still aren't 85 points for a Lascannon, thats just idiotic no matter what silly measure you try to use.
My bad, 85 points for a Lascannon AND 4 Bolters!
Still useless. Loyalists have ALL the tools to do the same better and they're bad at it. So suggesting it for Chaos Marines is honestly silly and not well thought out.
Well, my best list has 3 laspreds, 3 Helbrutes with twin lascannons and 3 squads of 10 CSMs with 2 lascannons each. Everything gets clustered around Abaddon to attack at distance with rerolls to hit.
Not sure Loyalists can do gunlines better, unless you mean straight AM. The only armies that really give me trouble are Orks, Imperial Knights and Dark Eldar.
Uh yeah Loyalists can do that a LOT better.
1. Multiple Chapter Master auras to access
2. Generic Dreads with a built-in BS2+
3. Lieutenant auras
4. Devastator benefits
5. More capable shooting units even outside that
You can't be serious.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
First Among Gators wrote: Reading the pure shades of black and white put out in this thread by slayer-fan123 is just too familiar. I think some people just find nuances a bit too disconcerting. However it must be difficult to play this game without getting frustrated while needing to categorize everything into two neat columns. There is much more to this game than deconstructing it to a simple math equation of how much pew each unit has, and you are only doing yourself a disservice as a player by approaching discussion like this. just some advice
Well said, but totally un-Chaosy. Taking away points for a lack of arrogance.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: 80 shots that are stopped by a couple of measly charges. Have fun fighting back with those S4 attacks!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: and now we circle back around to the start.
"whether they are bad or not doesn't change that your logic was still flawed."
they still aren't 85 points for a Lascannon, thats just idiotic no matter what silly measure you try to use.
My bad, 85 points for a Lascannon AND 4 Bolters!
Still useless. Loyalists have ALL the tools to do the same better and they're bad at it. So suggesting it for Chaos Marines is honestly silly and not well thought out.
Well, my best list has 3 laspreds, 3 Helbrutes with twin lascannons and 3 squads of 10 CSMs with 2 lascannons each. Everything gets clustered around Abaddon to attack at distance with rerolls to hit.
Not sure Loyalists can do gunlines better, unless you mean straight AM. The only armies that really give me trouble are Orks, Imperial Knights and Dark Eldar.
Uh yeah Loyalists can do that a LOT better.
1. Multiple Chapter Master auras to access
2. Generic Dreads with a built-in BS2+
3. Lieutenant auras
4. Devastator benefits
5. More capable shooting units even outside that
You can't be serious.
This is an example of how, at a certain level, points and gimmicks lose their value.
Abaddon for full rerolls, 20+ lascannons, go second and don't move unless you have to. Wipe out your opponent's long-range shooting first turn, force them into fighting mid-range the rest of the game.
Does not matter how closely their list mirrors yours if they are hitting less frequently and you are rerolling with a lot of multiple-damage, AP negative weapons. The mechanics of the game favor the side that wipes out the other's long-range stuff first.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/03 23:32:15
And Abigail can only buff so many units himself, whereas even Vanilla Marines can do significantly more buffing for their shooting Marines.
It's all part of why the Chaos Marine is bad. They're a bad unit because all the buffs you put into them can be put into better units. The fact we even have to discuss it when most of the codices have been released and they got nothing again in Chapter Approved is silly.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: And Abigail can only buff so many units himself, whereas even Vanilla Marines can do significantly more buffing for their shooting Marines.
It's all part of why the Chaos Marine is bad. They're a bad unit because all the buffs you put into them can be put into better units. The fact we even have to discuss it when most of the codices have been released and they got nothing again in Chapter Approved is silly.
These comments are nonsensical. Do you even play Chaos?
The entire list I described, plus a Daemon Price and Cultists, fits into Abaddon's 6 inch reroll bubble.
First Among Gators wrote: Reading the pure shades of black and white put out in this thread by slayer-fan123 is just too familiar. I think some people just find nuances a bit too disconcerting. However it must be difficult to play this game without getting frustrated while needing to categorize everything into two neat columns. There is much more to this game than deconstructing it to a simple math equation of how much pew each unit has, and you are only doing yourself a disservice as a player by approaching discussion like this. just some advice
Shades of grey stop mattering to some people in a tactics thread who are seeking full optimization. That's their hobby, so I'm not going to muck with it. I enjoy reading these threads to see what the optimum combination of models/units is, and then I'll likely find a way to put a watered down version of it into my own lists, because I'm a far more casual gamer. People here enjoy crunching the numbers and wringing the best value out of their codex, so when you're asking for advice here or reading a discussion on what's the best value for points, you're going to see it come down to stuff like that. Anecdotes and outlier statistics likely don't register, and that's fine.
You play the game your way, include the units you want to use knowing that if you need to know the optimum build for something, this thread is here full of people who will do the number crunching to find it. I personally have found the back and forth between 10 Cultists and 5 CSMs w/ heavy weapon quite interesting. I might go one way, I might go the other, I might try both. It's just interesting to see a far more in-depth discussion on something I have not given much thought to, and with that information readily available, I can use it to improve my lists and my own game.
First Among Gators wrote: Reading the pure shades of black and white put out in this thread by slayer-fan123 is just too familiar. I think some people just find nuances a bit too disconcerting. However it must be difficult to play this game without getting frustrated while needing to categorize everything into two neat columns. There is much more to this game than deconstructing it to a simple math equation of how much pew each unit has, and you are only doing yourself a disservice as a player by approaching discussion like this. just some advice
Shades of grey stop mattering to some people in a tactics thread who are seeking full optimization. That's their hobby, so I'm not going to muck with it. I enjoy reading these threads to see what the optimum combination of models/units is, and then I'll likely find a way to put a watered down version of it into my own lists, because I'm a far more casual gamer. People here enjoy crunching the numbers and wringing the best value out of their codex, so when you're asking for advice here or reading a discussion on what's the best value for points, you're going to see it come down to stuff like that. Anecdotes and outlier statistics likely don't register, and that's fine.
You play the game your way, include the units you want to use knowing that if you need to know the optimum build for something, this thread is here full of people who will do the number crunching to find it. I personally have found the back and forth between 10 Cultists and 5 CSMs w/ heavy weapon quite interesting. I might go one way, I might go the other, I might try both. It's just interesting to see a far more in-depth discussion on something I have not given much thought to, and with that information readily available, I can use it to improve my lists and my own game.
Nah, he's right. There is more steps in between black and white to each unit at a competitive level, and while you as a casual player aren't at a level where you are able to recognize this and Slayer as a (highly vocal) low-level player is also continually stumped by it, the opinions of most the top players of the game are in direct conflict with this mentality of trying to box every unit and decision into a neat little chart. There's a reason why players like Don Hooson, Nick Nanavati and Sean Nayden go out and win events with units that players of a smaller caliber have previously declared as garbage, that posters like this then rush to find explanations for only afterwards to fit then back into their "categorization", for everything to still make sense to them afterwards. Aside from all that, slayer's opinions in this thread are nonsense from both a competitive standpoint anyway. Don't mistake confident declarations as accurate and optimal competitive advice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 04:10:49
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
