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 just completed redoing my army lists for 9th edition for all seven factions I own, including lists of 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 1750, and 2000 points (all lists for exactly those max points) for Orks, Primaris Space Marines (all infantry), Necrons, Imperial Guard, Craftworld Eldar, Harlequins, and AdMech. Call me an oddball but I like list building; I find it enjoyable like piecing together a puzzle. While I am not a hardcore tournament player, I attempt to build efficient and competitive lists with the models I own.

From this recent experience I found that there are definitely some oddities with the newly-released points, but overall I have to come to appreciate most of the changes. I know that might sound like heresy, but for the most part the move towards units and wargear with points in multiples of 5 points sped up my list building, and minus a few odd changes, a lot of the changes seemed fair in my opinion.

I try to make balanced, take-all-comers lists, and all of the 1500-2000 points lists I made ended up with just a single Battalion to maximize CP, except for AdMech which I added a Knight Crusader in an Aux Heavy Detachment. I doubt we will see too many Brigades any more, even for factions like Imperial Guard and Orks. For the lower-points lists a single Patrol was often the best strategy in my opinion to maximize CP. For what it's worth, I very much like 9th edition's detachment/CP system over 8th's system that could be gamed more easily. List building with just one Battalion felt more like a return to the old default Force Org Chart.

Some personal observations based on the list building of the armies I own:

Harlequins: Big Winner, as I was able to retain nearly all of the units/configurations that I had in my 8th edition lists. With the recent White Dwarf update to Harlequins and the minimal reductions to their points in 9th edition, I think this faction will definitely be able to compete at least with the mid-tier factions. A Death Jester my have to Fire and Fade to stay alive though. This faction can be a lot of fun to play as they are allowed to "break" so many of the general game rules.

Primaris Space Marines (solely infantry-based): Winner, not surprisingly, with some fair points increases but nothing truly detrimental (some units remained unchanged). GW will ensure that their cash cow will continue to be competitive, at least until the old marine models are completely replaced and squatted into Legends status. With most primaris units having no wargear options it can be tricky at times to maximize list points, but when heavy hitters like Intercessors now come out to exactly 100 points for five models, list building wasn't too tough. This is the army I built for my sons to learn with, as you only need a handful of basic unit types and those units are quite strong and forgiving.

Necrons: Another winner overall. With most Necron units costing quite a bit of points, list building went very quickly. Crazy as it may sound, I'm taking blobs of Warriors over Immortals this time around (especially with the new RP rule for Warriors); I'm going to test my luck against the Blast weapons in this edition. I'm also (perhaps foolishly) taking a Monolith at 270 points, a Nightbringer, as well as a Deceiver to chance getting in my opponent's face first turn. Heavy Destroyers and Ghost Arks are still nice since CA2019. Scarabs are improved and a steal at 15 points per four wounds now. In lower points games especially, big blobs of Warriors with a resurrection orb and Ghost Ark will win games.

AdMech: Another winner in my opinion. Mostly fair changes, with units like Ironstriders, Dunecrawlers, Dakkabots, and Drills coming out quite strong with the Big guns never tire rule. My Knight Crusader also came out pretty good. I am dropping Arc Rifles, as the bump in price does not seem worth it. I am waiting on the points value for the Trans. Arquebus, and if it is not 10 points, I will likely drop all Rangers in favor of Vanguard.

Imperial Guard: Pretty good overall, though Leman Russ and Tank Commander variants saw significant bumps in points especially with sponsons and Heavy Bolters going to 15 points a piece. Reasonable though with the Big guns never tire rule. Tank Commanders will stay in most lists. I like the Valkyrie with multiple rocket pods, as well as Sentinels and the Hellhound. One of the oddities in list building was Mortar Heavy Weapon teams. While pretty much all of the rest of my lists had units with points ending in 0 or 5, three mortar teams comes out to 51 points, making them frustrating to fit neatly into a list. This is just one of several instances I came across where it seems GW dropped the ball in their desire to make all units cost multiples of 5 points (why couldn't they have just made them 3 x 15 points?).

Orks: Not too bad if you weren't focused on Shock Attack Guns and Gretchin. I only ran one SAG in 8th, and with the huge points increase, I took it out of my lists. I'm going mechanized this edition: Deffkilla Wartrike, Megatrakk Scrapjets, tough Infantry like Nobs and MANz in Battlewagons and Trukks. Only three 10-man squads of Boyz to fill out a battalion (Deathskulls at the moment, especially to get Objective Secured on my other infantry, but I may consider running as Evil Sunz for the speed boost), riding in trukks; no Gretchin whatsoever. The Warbikers were another odd situation where the model should have ended up with points in a multiple of 5 but did not (23 to 27 points; why couldn't they have just made it 25!!!), and so I ended up taking only 5 of them in a squad to fit in my lists better.

Craftworld Eldar: Big Loser in my opinion. I have mostly older models, focused primarily on the aspect warriors, and my lists took a beating. I simply can't figure out what GW has against these T3 models, especially units like Banshees and Striking Scorpions. If you run mostly vehicles and flyers you may have a different experience, but at this stage of 9th edition my Craftworld Eldar will stay on the shelf.

Now to run some trial games at home with these lists and see how they fare. . .

Why aren't you running Gretchin? They're better than guardsmen and at only 5 points.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Why aren't you running Gretchin? They're better than guardsmen and at only 5 points.

I will leave the beating of that dead horse to other threads

 Gnarlly wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Why aren't you running Gretchin? They're better than guardsmen and at only 5 points.

I will leave the beating of that dead horse to other threads

It ain't dead yet... Still got some life in it!

Craftworld Eldar: Big Loser in my opinion. I have mostly older models, focused primarily on the aspect warriors, and my lists took a beating. I simply can't figure out what GW has against these T3 models, especially units like Banshees and Striking Scorpions

Elf stat tax, I'm quite serious. Older editions of Fantasy and 40k (particularly rogue trader), broke down points in more detail than they do today.

Rogue Trader actually gave the formula.(on page 58)
Thing was, not all stats were worth the same, and baseline was the standard human statline, which was set at 5 points. Any stat above or below that added or subtracted points.
M: 1/4 point
WS: 1/2
BS: 1/4
S: 1
T: 1
W: 4
I: 1/4
A: 4
Leadership: 1/4
Intellect: 1/4
Cool: 1/4
Willpower: 1/4

A lot of those stats seem low, but those 4 mental stats mattered, especially to eldar. (And squats as it turned out). Orks were +1 point for +1 toughness, but -1/2 a point for lower than average Cool and Init. (The ork statline changed significantly in 3rd)

Eldar, though, had the basic statline of
M4, WS4, BS4, S3, T3, W1, I6, A1, Ld8, Int9 Cl 9 WP 8
So 5+1/2+1/4+3/4+1/4+1/2+1/2+1/4= 8 points
But 8 points for something that wasn't any more survivable than a 5 point human.
Mesh armor (5+save) would be 1 point, and a shuriken catapult would be 2, for a baseline eldar guardian coming in at 11 points with basic equipment.

But as stats were shed, that baseline point value never really changed (There was one exception, when they errata'd a Dark Elf armybook to hell, including dropping point costs, because it was competing directly with the Always Strike First High Elves and failing completely, because they almost always built those two armies as mirrors)

The points for Space Marines are a little weird (since in RT they had toughness 3, not 4), but with some adjustments, a an RT era Space Marine under this system
M4 Ws4 BS4 S4 T3 W1 I4 A1 Ld8 Int 8 Cl8 WP8 would be
5+ 1/2+1/4+1+1/4+1/4+1/4+1/4+1/4= 8 points
Gear would be bolter for 2, power armor for 6 (but only a 4+ save, because rogue trader), so 14 points total.

Guardsmen in flak (1/2) and lasgun (1 1/2) would bring them to 7.

So an RT era eldar guardian would be 11 points
A marine 14
A guardsmen 7... but only because of gear.

9th edition
Guardian... 10
Marine... 14? (I'm honestly not sure, but I think that's what people have said)
Guardsmen 5. The old baseline human cost.

Weird, right?
Coincidence, of course. GW stopped using those formulas years ago.

Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

Would you rather have them pay 15 ppm despite not having doctrines, super-doctrines and inferior chapter traits?

To me, having large units of CSM feels like a proper representation of a chaos LEGION that should vastly outnumber the marines of a single CHAPTER you are fighting. These days, 40k is a unit vs unit game, not a model vs model game.

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

Would you rather have them pay 15 ppm despite not having doctrines, super-doctrines and inferior chapter traits?

To me, having large units of CSM feels like a proper representation of a chaos LEGION that should vastly outnumber the marines of a single CHAPTER you are fighting. These days, 40k is a unit vs unit game, not a model vs model game.

No, I'd rather csm had rules that represented them being ancient veterans of millennia of bloodshed and war, not a horde of "inferior marines". Csm should be better than tacticals, they need their veteran abilities back.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

Would you rather have them pay 15 ppm despite not having doctrines, super-doctrines and inferior chapter traits?

To me, having large units of CSM feels like a proper representation of a chaos LEGION that should vastly outnumber the marines of a single CHAPTER you are fighting. These days, 40k is a unit vs unit game, not a model vs model game.

No, I'd rather csm had rules that represented them being ancient veterans of millennia of bloodshed and war, not a horde of "inferior marines". Csm should be better than tacticals, they need their veteran abilities back.

You have to remember that none of them have been fighting for ten thousand years. They fight briefly, then retreat into the Warp which is timeless, then eventually come out again. They only have the typical Marine lifespan and, even now, ships full of Chaos Marines fleeing Terra after being defeated are showing up, having travelled through the maelstrom to the modern day because that's just how the warp works sometimes.

If you were born ten thousand years ago, but you only got to be out of stasis for ten years out of every thousand, well, you wouldn't be just Mr. Amazing either, you know?

There are a couple of exceptions but, in general, a Chaos Marine has no more experience than any other marine. The flow of time is just weird for them.

Rounding up to the nearest five for models over 100 pts is something that I like, but making every option cost the same 0 or 5 pts makes the new system too much like power level for my liking.

Wakshaani wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

Would you rather have them pay 15 ppm despite not having doctrines, super-doctrines and inferior chapter traits?

To me, having large units of CSM feels like a proper representation of a chaos LEGION that should vastly outnumber the marines of a single CHAPTER you are fighting. These days, 40k is a unit vs unit game, not a model vs model game.

No, I'd rather csm had rules that represented them being ancient veterans of millennia of bloodshed and war, not a horde of "inferior marines". Csm should be better than tacticals, they need their veteran abilities back.

You have to remember that none of them have been fighting for ten thousand years. They fight briefly, then retreat into the Warp which is timeless, then eventually come out again. They only have the typical Marine lifespan and, even now, ships full of Chaos Marines fleeing Terra after being defeated are showing up, having travelled through the maelstrom to the modern day because that's just how the warp works sometimes.

If you were born ten thousand years ago, but you only got to be out of stasis for ten years out of every thousand, well, you wouldn't be just Mr. Amazing either, you know?

There are a couple of exceptions but, in general, a Chaos Marine has no more experience than any other marine. The flow of time is just weird for them.

They're not in stasis while in The Eye, they're fighting each other while they're in there, along with daemons and anything else that pops up. These are also the veterans of The Great Crusade. They fought at Ullanor, participated in the Rangdan Xenocides, and countless other campaigns. They also fought in the Heresy itself, from Isstvan to the gates of Terra and everywhere in between. And they didn't all run straight for The Eye either. The Night Lords remained in real space on Tsgagulasa, bleeding the Imperium of the Corpse Emperor until they were finally dug out by the combined forces of the Ultramarines and all their successors.

The average Chaos Space Marine has far more experience than some thin blooded loyalist. That's why they're called the Veterans of The Long War. And they should have rules to represent that, just like they did in the 3.5 codex.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

Would you rather have them pay 15 ppm despite not having doctrines, super-doctrines and inferior chapter traits?

To me, having large units of CSM feels like a proper representation of a chaos LEGION that should vastly outnumber the marines of a single CHAPTER you are fighting. These days, 40k is a unit vs unit game, not a model vs model game.

No, I'd rather csm had rules that represented them being ancient veterans of millennia of bloodshed and war, not a horde of "inferior marines". Csm should be better than tacticals, they need their veteran abilities back.

Isn't that what Veterans of the Long War is for? And it's not like shooting another four thousand years suddenly makes you a better shot than a guy who has been shooting for fifty years.
And as I said before, you are trying to argue for aligning models to the fluff in a game that is about units.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

Would you rather have them pay 15 ppm despite not having doctrines, super-doctrines and inferior chapter traits?

To me, having large units of CSM feels like a proper representation of a chaos LEGION that should vastly outnumber the marines of a single CHAPTER you are fighting. These days, 40k is a unit vs unit game, not a model vs model game.

No, I'd rather csm had rules that represented them being ancient veterans of millennia of bloodshed and war, not a horde of "inferior marines". Csm should be better than tacticals, they need their veteran abilities back.

Isn't that what Veterans of the Long War is for? And it's not like shooting another four thousand years suddenly makes you a better shot than a guy who has been shooting for fifty years.
And as I said before, you are trying to argue for aligning models to the fluff in a game that is about units.

Veterans only works on one unit at a time, and requires cp. Csm should have legion traits that actually do something. And most of the rules in the game are based on fluff. If Salamanders can be extra good with flamers and meltas, Iron Hands can be extra tough with their 6+++, and Ultras can always count as not moving, then the legions can have rules that represent them without needing to spend cp on one unit at a time.

Heresy, also jid, i am sorry but combat experience and training are 2 diffrent things.

there are things to be learnt, especially for infantry, that you only do in real combat.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Heresy, also jid, i am sorry but combat experience and training are 2 diffrent things.

there are things to be learnt, especially for infantry, that you only do in real combat.

It's not like loyalist marines are fresh out of training. Most of them have already decades or centuries of combat experience, I'd argue that there are some sort of diminishing returns on learning new things when you have fought longer than most humans live.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Veterans only works on one unit at a time, and requires cp. Csm should have legion traits that actually do something. And most of the rules in the game are based on fluff. If Salamanders can be extra good with flamers and meltas, Iron Hands can be extra tough with their 6+++, and Ultras can always count as not moving, then the legions can have rules that represent them without needing to spend cp on one unit at a time.

And your point is? You drifted from discussing how CSM should be represented on the tabletop to complaining about marines.

One of my armies is DG, you don't need to tell me what legion traits are not.

Right now, at the moment of the publication of these points, tacticals are model by model better than CSM and therefore rightfully taxed with an additional point per model. I'd even argue that the tax should be even higher, but tacticals are hot garbage compared to primaris anyways.

It's not like loyalist marines are fresh out of training. Most of them have already decades or centuries of combat experience, I'd argue that there are some sort of diminishing returns on learning new things when you have fought longer than most humans live.

Experience matters most when you fight specific adversaries, their tactics etc.
CSM legionaires, are legionaires, they know how SM Fight and how to fight SM's. Normal SM's rarely do so comparatively speaking.

But yeah there are diminishing returns, especially if you don't use that experience well, f.e when you fail to make veteran squads, setup training facilities, etc.

But it's disingenuous to pretend that units aren't balanced around fluff. They are.

Custodes should have a higher stat line that guardsmen, why? Yeah, it's fluff.

So it's a fairly reasonable request imo to ask why, when they're badasses in the fluff, and their loyalist brothers are badasses in the fluff and on the table, they can't also be badasses on the table.

 Jidmah wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Veterans only works on one unit at a time, and requires cp. Csm should have legion traits that actually do something. And most of the rules in the game are based on fluff. If Salamanders can be extra good with flamers and meltas, Iron Hands can be extra tough with their 6+++, and Ultras can always count as not moving, then the legions can have rules that represent them without needing to spend cp on one unit at a time.

And your point is? You drifted from discussing how CSM should be represented on the tabletop to complaining about marines.

One of my armies is DG, you don't need to tell me what legion traits are not.

Right now, at the moment of the publication of these points, tacticals are model by model better than CSM and therefore rightfully taxed with an additional point per model. I'd even argue that the tax should be even higher, but tacticals are hot garbage compared to primaris anyways.

I was just listing army traits that represent factions lore well while also being good. Sorry I just listed loyalists, it's just what popped into my head. I'm not arguing that csm should be more expensive with their current rules, I'm saying that the reason they need to be cheaper than tacticals is because gw has dropped the ball on their rules so badly that that's the only option right now, and that isn't right. Instead of just making csm cheaper they should give them better rules instead. It may or may not be balanced, but it doesn't feel right and isn't what most csm players want out of their armies.

Balance isn't always what's important. Armies should be relatively balanced while playing like they should according to their fluff. There was an entire thread about that recently.

 grouchoben wrote:
But it's disingenuous to pretend that units aren't balanced around fluff. They are.

Custodes should have a higher stat line that guardsmen, why? Yeah, it's fluff.

So it's a fairly reasonable request imo to ask why, when they're badasses in the fluff, and their loyalist brothers are badasses in the fluff and on the table, they can't also be badasses on the table.

it is indeed, with the grain of salt called simplification for game balances sake.
Granted, GW fethed that idea over quickly with certain supplements (cough COUGH )

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Balance isn't always what's important. Armies should be relatively balanced while playing like they should according to their fluff. There was an entire thread about that recently.

I think then we just have to agree to disagree. Fluff doesn't make for fun game at all, otherwise I would just drop Mortarion and declare that my opponent's entire army withers and dies as soon as he casts plague wind, because that is what would happen in the fluff.

There simply is no way to have a fun game when a legion should both outnumber a single chapter and have each individual more powerful than the loyalists.
And I'm not even convinced of that, most of the fluff seems to portrait chaos marine rank and file troops just as powerful as tactical marines. When CSM are vastly more powerful than regular marines, they are usually cult troops, possessed, chosen or other CSM represented by characters on the tabletop - which are more powerful than tactical marines.

hence i think the focus lies on relatively in gadzillas comment.

Not Online!!! wrote:

It's not like loyalist marines are fresh out of training. Most of them have already decades or centuries of combat experience, I'd argue that there are some sort of diminishing returns on learning new things when you have fought longer than most humans live.

Experience matters most when you fight specific adversaries, their tactics etc.
CSM legionaires, are legionaires, they know how SM Fight and how to fight SM's. Normal SM's rarely do so comparatively speaking.

I think this is well represented by death to the false emperor is which kind of is the one thing the heretics have over the loyalists.

But yeah there are diminishing returns, especially if you don't use that experience well, f.e when you fail to make veteran squads, setup training facilities, etc.

I think this is probably the big one. Even in the Death Guard, who are by far the most organized bunch of the CSM, still create warbands that are usually - but not always - drawn from the colonies of one plague fleet. The colonies themselves vary vastly in size and role, so in reality it's more like a strong leader gathering whoever happens to be in the area under one banner.

DG the most organized?

but yeah csm and leader seem to be an issue for nearly all CSM legions, beyond maybee word bearers and Iron warriors.

Well and Alpha legion is like allways WTF in their organisational structure and coordination...


But back to the points, i seriously fail to see common sense in them, take an havoc rocket launcher f.e. it got cheaper and has now blast. (god' i'd love to take a rhino with 4 of them or as rapier havoc rocket laffettes...)
Meanwhile handflamers went up?
Flamers at 5 is also a slight improvement for the flamer until the weapon has to compete with others for the same ammount of slots and the others are called melta and plasma, which is hardly fair...

The 'average' Chaos Space Marine at this point is just as likely to be a recent Renegade than an ancient terror from millennia ago.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The 'average' Chaos Space Marine at this point is just as likely to be a recent Renegade than an ancient terror from millennia ago.

also true, i'd still have liked to get the "build a trait" for warbands.

Well, I wouldn't say that Eldar CW has lost much in the new ed. and you didn't say so in general terms.
I think an army with Serpents, Falcons, support vehicles (batteries, Warwalkers) and many small units would be competitive.
And Eldar has always been competitive - in each edition.

Not Online!!! wrote:
DG the most organized?

They still are organized as if they still were a space marine legion, have a fleet, a home planet where they recruit new marines into their ranks and have factoriums building vehicles and daemon engines.
Except they basically have organized pretty much everything in numbers of 3 or 7 because nurgle math and Mortarion and Typhus hate each other's guts without acting on it.
It's a bloated and corrupted version of what space marine legions used to be, just like each plague marine is a bloated and twisted version of a space marine. Basically Nurgle's meta-humor


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, I wouldn't say that Eldar CW has lost much in the new ed. and you didn't say so in general terms.
I think an army with Serpents, Falcons, support vehicles (batteries, Warwalkers) and many small units would be competitive.
And Eldar has always been competitive - in each edition.

What's your thoughts on wraith constructs? My arch-nemesis is already happily dusting off all his wraithboneheads in anticipation of 9th.

I generally feel that basic CSMs should be on par with basic loyalist Marines. Then Chosen and Cult Marines can be on par with Primaris.

Veterans of the Long War with millennia of experience (Chosen) versus genetically superior but experientially inferior new-Marines (Primaris) feels like a good mirror match. Similarly, Chaos Marines amped up with Chaos god energy (Cult Marines) being equal to Primaris also seems a good match.

Basic CSMs would still feel like a horde when fighting Primaris even if they had the same stats as loyalist Marines. Having all the Chaos Marines be not only inferior to their loyalist counterparts, let alone Primaris, feels wrong.

Remember the crappy Ultramarines movie? Remember how lame it was having CSMs zerg rushing the protagonists and dying in droves? That's kind of what CSM seem like on the table right now. And it sure makes the renegades that turn to Chaos for the power and glory it offers look like chumps.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Tactical marines are 15 ppm in 9th, scouts are 14 ppm. Csm are 14 ppm, same as loyalists scouts, because apparently the experience gained from 10 millennia of fighting in literal hell only makes a veteran of the Heresy equal to a neophyte of a thin blooded chapter from founding #18726 under gw's current horrible rules writing for csm.

Except that's not the case for 99% of Chaos Space Marines. The Chaos legions are constantly stealing geneseed and kidnapping people, and creating new recruits to plus up their legions. So the aspiring champions, sorcerors, and Chaos Lords might be 10,000 year old veterans, but hardly any of the other CSM are.

We are currently in a situation where all the biggest, baddest, most elite factions in the game are all universally "the good guys"

Nobodys general rank and file comes close to even equalling all the various marines, be they primaris, custodes, or the remaining special snowflake marines like gk or dw whose shtick was always that they were superior marines anyway.

That leads to a profound level of inescapable Saturday morning cartoon boredom.

Of course Skeletor is going to lose to He-Man, were on He-Man episode 153, and skeletor has lost 152 times before this. Obviously Conan the Barbarian isnt going to lose to the Mad Mage Mazzlehar, youre on book 57 and you can see Conan is right there on the cover of book 58.

You can represent this narrative in sociething like a childrens cartoon show and it's fine, but the conceit of a board game with two players is "ooooh, whos gonna win? Is it gonna be the space marines or the - nah, who are we kidding it's gonna be the space marines. You know. We know. It always is."

It has always amused me to no end how gw has failed to grasp how much this creates the "only marines sell" situation theyre in. Everyone who doesnt like marines has to continuously read how much better marines are than their guys and how the marines are gonna kill their stuff even in the starter boxes of the goddamn game. Hey timmy we finished building these models from the aobr set, do you want to read the fiction that comes with it that talks about how your stupid orks get slaughtered, or should we play a game with your 350 points of orks vs my 500 points of marines?