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.

Any CSM Legion except World Eaters that is in the Chaos Space Marine Codex can take Slaanesh Obliterators without invalidating models or paintjobs. It's essentially just saying "I want this special rule on this unit" without it having a bearing on your Legion Trait (again, sans World Eaters).

Taking Guilliman requires both playing Ultramarines (for it to be any point) and a purchase of a suitable model. It's not even remotely the same.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Any CSM Legion except World Eaters that is in the Chaos Space Marine Codex can take Slaanesh Obliterators without invalidating models or paintjobs. It's essentially just saying "I want this special rule on this unit" without it having a bearing on your Legion Trait (again, sans World Eaters).

Taking Guilliman requires both playing Ultramarines (for it to be any point) and a purchase of a suitable model. It's not even remotely the same.

Sadly I play with a fair number of people that won't say their, say, Iron Warriors Obliterators are Marked by Slaanesh, even if it would give them access to a great stratagem. Marks are annoying for a force that is supposed to only be marked Chaos Undivided or no mark at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
"meanwhile every other non Slaanesh Obliterator has to deal with the pricehike."

Man don't even talk about a mark like it's something meaningful. It is a arbitrary rule that gives bonuses for no negative. Unlike a chapter trait which can not be mixed within detachments. Solution...take all of your obliterators as Slaanesh....

See my above post, that has stopped people I know from using the Marks, to their detriment, because of how anti-fluff it is.

Thousand sons are literally a different codex from CSM. You are talking about something entirely different. Plus that is also not true. That majority of chaos spells specify daemon or heretic astartes keywords. Only a few specify thousand sons. This is also a no issue because tzangors are also a great option and happen to have heretic astartes AND thousand sons keywords.

"Thousand sons are literally a different codex from CSM."
Now. That wasn't true.

"You are talking about something entirely different."
Oh, what an age of the game, where taking one of the four Cult Troops in a CSM book is taking something entirely different - unlike two of the four.

I think you mean that was true. Complaining about TS and CSM not jiving is like complaining that BA and SM don't jive. Totally different codex. TS still jives pretty well though really. Ahriman and DP both have access to CSM powers and they affect most units in both codex.

 ph34r wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Any CSM Legion except World Eaters that is in the Chaos Space Marine Codex can take Slaanesh Obliterators without invalidating models or paintjobs. It's essentially just saying "I want this special rule on this unit" without it having a bearing on your Legion Trait (again, sans World Eaters).

Taking Guilliman requires both playing Ultramarines (for it to be any point) and a purchase of a suitable model. It's not even remotely the same.

Sadly I play with a fair number of people that won't say their, say, Iron Warriors Obliterators are Marked by Slaanesh, even if it would give them access to a great stratagem. Marks are annoying for a force that is supposed to only be marked Chaos Undivided or no mark at all.

This is the boat I'm in. I like to make my armies as competitive as possible...within their established fluff.

For me, Iron Warriors are largely an undedicated army, with extremist elements who dedicate themselves to Khorne but are otherwise seen as crazy/lost/expendable by their brethren. That's how they've been presented in detail for most of their history, and that's how I build my Iron Warriors armies.

Hamfisting a Mark of Slaanesh on a unit that ostensibly is already its own unique chaos cult in an army that otherwise doesn't dedicate itself to Slaanesh (and if anything tends towards a rival god) simply for a Stratagem is, to me, a TFG move that undercuts the fluff basis that makes anyone interested in playing the game in the first place.

While the rules allow for that, it feels like cheating in spirit in a manner that other codex books take more steps to actively combat.

 Vaktathi wrote:
For me, Iron Warriors are largely an undedicated army, with extremist elements who dedicate themselves to Khorne but are otherwise seen as crazy/lost/expendable by their brethren. That's how they've been presented in detail for most of their history, and that's how I build my Iron Warriors armies.

We used to have a Mark for that, it wasn't amazing, but it was solid. But hey, you work with what you got, apparently IW have softened up on the whole casual dedication thing, because frankly, the other option is pretty crappy.

if CSM had primaris equivalent troops all would be good

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Ask ANY Chaos player. Literally anyone. Ask them if they prefer Marks as they are now, or Marks as they were (Tzeentch:+1 invul, Nurgle: +1 toughness etc). Don't speak about Marks of Chaos as they are "bonuses" when they used to actually provide useful abilities every single edition before GW decided to just make them into a cool tatoo on the models. Especially when the chaos daemons kept their abilities of their marks just fine.

Chaos player here, I'd rather not go back to the days when you were a moron for taking anything other than Nurgle on units that could pick their mark. At least now there's some argument for the other marks, and it's really just your biggest dakka unit that really should be a specific mark.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Ask ANY Chaos player. Literally anyone. Ask them if they prefer Marks as they are now, or Marks as they were (Tzeentch:+1 invul, Nurgle: +1 toughness etc). Don't speak about Marks of Chaos as they are "bonuses" when they used to actually provide useful abilities every single edition before GW decided to just make them into a cool tatoo on the models. Especially when the chaos daemons kept their abilities of their marks just fine.

Chaos player here, I'd rather not go back to the days when you were a moron for taking anything other than Nurgle on units that could pick their mark. At least now there's some argument for the other marks, and it's really just your biggest dakka unit that really should be a specific mark.

Don't lie, there is none beyond Slaanesh and cacophony.
Atleast for the damage part.
Everything else just requires even more hoops to go through.
Also last edition Slaanesh and icon were the hotness par ecelence not nurgle.

Slaanesh daemon wings with Sonic terminators used slaanesh. Nurgle was great on many things too but there were restrictions.

I don't know about tzeentch and khorne. Pretty sure bloodletter summoning -wing armies were existant.

I used mark of chaos undivided or no mark at all. RIP

 ph34r wrote:
Slaanesh daemon wings with Sonic terminators used slaanesh. Nurgle was great on many things too but there were restrictions.

I don't know about tzeentch and khorne. Pretty sure bloodletter summoning -wing armies were existant.

I used mark of chaos undivided or no mark at all. RIP

Yep. And I still use no mark, because I play an undivided army of Iron Warriors and it doesn't make sense for that, of course it means I'm punished rules wise for it.

 Sir Heckington wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Slaanesh daemon wings with Sonic terminators used slaanesh. Nurgle was great on many things too but there were restrictions.

I don't know about tzeentch and khorne. Pretty sure bloodletter summoning -wing armies were existant.

I used mark of chaos undivided or no mark at all. RIP

Yep. And I still use no mark, because I play an undivided army of Iron Warriors and it doesn't make sense for that, of course it means I'm punished rules wise for it.

I use noise marines to represent a unit of "demi" oblits, ones on the way to the big bois but the virus has not taken over yet, but like you I wont use any other mark because Iron warriors hate that stuff.

I think a great example of how marks can differ in a unit, or even within a squad, is the Night Lords omnibus. There's one guy that's clearly marked by Khorne, Uzas, though the rest of his squad spurns him. Doesn't stop him from screaming 'blood for the blood god' when he charges in to slaughter the foe.

Chaos Space Marines can be recently turned renegades. They can be legionnaires that have fought for 10k years. They can be a mix of legions, each squad unique (havocs from Iron Warriors, raptors from Night Lords, noise marines from Emperor's Children), or they can be mono-god, whether they follow a legion or not (Death Guard vs. the Purge).

More than any other faction, Chaos Space Marines leaves room for you to build your army how you see it. If you want to go 100% fluff-bunny Iron Warriors, with no marks and no daemons, you go for it. Your list is just as valid, fluff wise, as the competitive player that brings a 3 squads of 3 Slaanesh Obliterators along with a Chaos Knight Castellan and little else except blobs of Cultists. Chaos Warbands can look like that.

Sadly, the rules don't reflect the fluff, but there's hardly a faction out there now that doesn't have some grievous distance between fluff and rules. If you want your army to be more effective, you're going to have to make some hard choices. That's just the reality of playing Warhammer 40k. That said, I've seen super fluffy World Eaters or Night Lords lists do just fine in just about every kind of play bar tournament. Learning your army, using the tools you have, and having a bit of luck go a lot further than having an extra bonus that you waited 5 years for GW to give you.

I've been playing Chaos Space Marines for 12 years. I've been vocal on this forum and plenty of other places about how it feels like GW keeps slapping us in the face. That doesn't stop me from loving the models and this faction for the variety and openness that you get out of it that no other faction offers.

The topic here is Chaos Cultists, can we please stick to it.

Its funny watching everyone get salty over 4ppm guardsmen. Many guard players would be happy to see cultists go back to 4ppm, especially after all the nerfs.

But only salty csm players would ask for everything else to be brought up to their crappy level.

 ingtaer wrote:

The topic here is Chaos Cultists, can we please stick to it.

The topic in this case will always compare to comparable units that perform ( overperform?) so you putting down your foot here is due to the nature of this thread about as usefull as a bath in manure.

 Smirrors wrote:
Its funny watching everyone get salty over 4ppm guardsmen. Many guard players would be happy to see cultists go back to 4ppm, especially after all the nerfs.

But only salty csm players would ask for everything else to be brought up to their crappy level.

Well no, cultists are in their correct location at 5 ppm. They were too cheap at 4 points. Guardsmen are also too cheap at 4 points, is the thing.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 ingtaer wrote:

The topic here is Chaos Cultists, can we please stick to it.

The topic in this case will always compare to comparable units that perform ( overperform?) so you putting down your foot here is due to the nature of this thread about as usefull as a bath in manure.

So the posts I deleted where people were swearing at each other, discussing their lunch and talking about some TV show are on topic?

Cross discussion of other units is of course warranted, off topic spam and insults are not.

To be honest, why not make IS, Cultists, and gaunts 6PPM. Weight of dice is a real problem and increasing cost across the board would help.

Slight knock on effect are MeQ's don't look so poor in comparison. (Yes I would hate my termagants being 6 pts at first, but really anything with a gun and is cheap needs to be around that level, keep hormagants are 5 since the likelihood of them even getting in CC is a crapshoot)

The joys of this again, and I wasn't even responding last time. The issue with guard troops costing is simply the two trouble areas for this whole edition, command points and allies. Both can be broke as a joke, together are amazing broke. Guard infantry, in their own book, are fine. Used as command point batteries less so. I knew it would be an issue way back at the beginning it's now on an inevitable course where everything must be nerfed over and over because some game aspects, as the ones mentioned previous make balance a sick joke.

I'd also point out the other ways to use guard forces were nerfed pretty fast, like scions, remember when they were amazing ? I do. That couldn't be allowed to stand ! Conscripts ? Commissars ? All must fall. I think there are some players who will only be happy when Guard are terrible bad, seemingly like through 6th-7th.

Is it annoying to have guard batteries all over ? Yes, yes it is but I more over blame ally abuse and command point farming for all of that. Now I'm sorry some armies feel hard done over, yeah I felt that before. I have a few power armor forces so I hear it. However wanting to drag others down because cultists were nerfed does feel a bit sad. I didn't honestly feel cultists needed the point hike in the first place, removing their access to some strats and traits would have been enough but in standard GW fashion, why nerf a little when you can nerf a lot and leave other issues to fester forever.

Guard have been nerfed a bunch already. From scions, to conscripts, commissars. To be honest I'm just waiting for more nerfing coming down the road as it just feels like it's the thing to do. I really other armies would be brought up, than just bringing others down all the time. I can as well say from most of these changes my games have been more the casual competitive type so haven't had any issues, my guard win and lose just fine. I don't though CP farm for ally knights with smash captains etc. I'm one of the few that usually runs list pure just because it feels right and from when I started playing that was the norm. I can say list pure, guardsmen are fine, but I see the problem I don't wish them nerfed though. The game has issues but all the nerfing won't bring up those which currently languish. Just my opinion of course, at least without touching the real problem areas that will see more and more issues arise from. However these mechanics are too baked into this edition I feel for them to change that much at this point.

As always dreams of balance are smashed apart with the reality of GWs inability to hold steady direction.

Guard aren't even fine in their own book. Guard need more nerfs, or they wouldn't be in so many tournament lists. If said mechanics are REALLY baked in, shouldn't guardsmen pay more for being able to exploit those mechanics?

Martel732 wrote:
Guard aren't even fine in their own book. Guard need more nerfs, or they wouldn't be in so many tournament lists. If said mechanics are REALLY baked in, shouldn't guardsmen pay more for being able to exploit those mechanics?

If the issue is soup, then nerf the fething soup. Don't punish "pure" IG-players because other armies exploit the CP-system in their name.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guard aren't even fine in their own book. Guard need more nerfs, or they wouldn't be in so many tournament lists. If said mechanics are REALLY baked in, shouldn't guardsmen pay more for being able to exploit those mechanics?

If the issue is soup, then nerf the fething soup. Don't punish "pure" IG-players because other armies exploit the CP-system in their name.

Ditto.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
Ask ANY Chaos player. Literally anyone. Ask them if they prefer Marks as they are now, or Marks as they were (Tzeentch:+1 invul, Nurgle: +1 toughness etc). Don't speak about Marks of Chaos as they are "bonuses" when they used to actually provide useful abilities every single edition before GW decided to just make them into a cool tatoo on the models. Especially when the chaos daemons kept their abilities of their marks just fine.

Chaos player here, I'd rather not go back to the days when you were a moron for taking anything other than Nurgle on units that could pick their mark. At least now there's some argument for the other marks, and it's really just your biggest dakka unit that really should be a specific mark.

Just because Old Nurgle used to be better than the other marks, does not mean it's nice that Marks of chaos are now nothing more than glorified tattoos. the old Marked lists were flavorful and thematic. What are they now? What are we now, Mal?

Hey, this might be already mentioned here, but does the new apostle prayers affect cultists? If I remember correctly, there was one prayer that buffs wounding +1, similar to the veterans stratagem..

I don't know. Maybe in ITC Soup is the hotness but in ETC Tournament teams (Where one team can't repeat factions so one Imperial Soup automatically fills 3 factions from being used) Guard stills destroys nearly everything else. I know people has allready forgot how good baneblades are because Castellan is just must better.
But catachan hordes with Straken and Hellhounds are still very hot (Lol I made a joke), and theres many armies that can't do anything agaisnt a Imperial Guard artillery army.

And yeah I know, nothing of that appears in LVO or Adepticon so everything is crap and only Ynnari and 32+Castellan is actually powerfull (Glorius american meta that is better than european one because their tournament pack> our tournament pack ). Just like in 7th Tau were fine because they didn't won tournaments, because it was all Demon spam and Eldar.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guard aren't even fine in their own book. Guard need more nerfs, or they wouldn't be in so many tournament lists. If said mechanics are REALLY baked in, shouldn't guardsmen pay more for being able to exploit those mechanics?

If the issue is soup, then nerf the fething soup. Don't punish "pure" IG-players because other armies exploit the CP-system in their name.

But punish other chaos players because some people stick slaanesh mark on their oblits, or like to abuse alpha legion cultist bombs?

Because of tide of traitors, the cultists in my thousand sons codex (completely different codex according to GW) also went up to 5 ppm. Plot twist though: Thousand Sons do not have access to tide of traitors. Or alpha legion traits or anything else for that matter. Why did my codex have to go through the cultist nerf just because someone else exploits them? This is exactly the same reasoning as to why guardsmen need to go up in points.

 MinscS2 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guard aren't even fine in their own book. Guard need more nerfs, or they wouldn't be in so many tournament lists. If said mechanics are REALLY baked in, shouldn't guardsmen pay more for being able to exploit those mechanics?

If the issue is soup, then nerf the fething soup. Don't punish "pure" IG-players because other armies exploit the CP-system in their name.

Soup is not the issue per se. Guardsmen being a no brainer pick in every conceivable scenario is. Soup just gives more lists access to the broken guardsmen, it does not break them itself. The soup lists don't function the same with 6 ppm guardsmen.

 Spreelock wrote:
Hey, this might be already mentioned here, but does the new apostle prayers affect cultists? If I remember correctly, there was one prayer that buffs wounding +1, similar to the veterans stratagem..

Yes they do. Apostles are like the shepherd for cultists.