# 3++ is the new black says that CSM is one of the weakest lists in the game for comp.



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

http://kirbysblog-ic.blogspot.com/2...nQZc5DT6JKEoHyvTmeBqyi9w#c5569877009857117810


So. On 3++ is the new black, there is a long article about how CSM is one of the weakest lists in the game and is vastly inferior to all loyalist army lists.

I for one think that this is totally false.

He (kirby) also claims that the fact that chaos does well in tournaments is not grounds for arguing against him. 

So what are your thoughts on this?


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

My thoughts are as follows:

Who the hell is this guy playing against? Probably not a competant CSM player.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Eleven said:


> So what are your thoughts on this?


He's totally right. Chaos sucks balls in either variety be it Marine or Daemon.


----------



## coke123 (Sep 4, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> He's totally right. Chaos sucks balls in either variety be it Marine or Daemon.


Now I know that you're much more learned in these matters than me, so could you please show your working? I understand the inherent problems with the Daemons list, and realise that CSM are perhaps underpowered next to Space Wolves, but I don't know that they suck balls. Explain?


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I dont know about them being totaly poor, certain Chaos builds are pretty strong. To be fair the codex is getting on a bit compared to the latest codexes, which can be quite overpowering. 

There are certainly worse codexes about.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Chaos is certainly far from the strongest armies out there, but to say that they're the worst? Definitely not, although I will admit that competitive tournament lists lack variety.

But... again the worst? Necrons... Tau... c'mon!


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

I'll be the first to say that chaos lacks variety. but that's not what we are talking about. we are talking about strength.

I find that the cookie cutter chaos lists are quite strong.


----------



## Hooobit (Dec 5, 2010)

I wouldn't say they are the worst, but they certainly are lacking in some areas.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

coke123 said:


> Now I know that you're much more learned in these matters than me, so could you please show your working? I understand the inherent problems with the Daemons list, and realise that CSM are perhaps underpowered next to Space Wolves, but I don't know that they suck balls. Explain?


Chaos Marines don't actually suck balls, they're just not all that great and can find it difficult to compete with 5th edition armies. There are lots of reasons for this and I really don't want to write an extensive post on it, so I'll just sum it up.

Pros of the Chaos Marine Codex (from a gaming standpoint only):
- Good (but not great) Troops choices.
- Cheap Rhinos (compared to say Black Templars or Witch Hunters).
- A good (but not great) HQ choice in the form of the Daemon Prince.
- Very cheap Terminators.
- Cheap Land Raiders (though admittedly without the Machine Spirit).

Cons
- Troops are either expensive in points (Cult Marines) or prone to being scared away (Chaos Space Marine squads). Then there's Lesser Daemons but I'm not even going into those.
- Horribad HQ choices outside of the Daemon Prince and Kharn.
- Terrible Fast Attack choices. Like... seriously, it's shocking how awful they are.
- Two decent Elite choices in the form of Terminators and _maybe_ Chosen. Maybe.
- Predators and Havocs cost more than they should (Predators and similar cost 10 points more than loyalist ones for no reason and Havocs pay too much for their heavy weapons).
- Crappy psychic powers except for Warptime. Yes, including Lash. If you're playing against someone that knows how to play in 5E, Lash really isn't any good.
- No psychic defense which is really awful when you have incredibly nasty powers like Doom, Blood Lance, Living Lightning, Paroxysm and so on being throw around left and right.
- Rhinos have only one fire point. This doesn't sound like much but in 5th when disembarking from your Rhino usually leads to death it's a big deal.

This is really just the tip of the iceberg. There's plenty more to it like how Chaos Dreadnoughts are fail with legs, how Obliterators are nowhere near as good as people say and so on. Kirby does a much better job of explaining it than I do.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Chaos is one of those armies that fly in the face of 'theory-hemmerists'. You can complain about them all you want, and say they're not competitive, but you can't change a simple and undeniable fact: they win a LOT of tournaments. From what I've seen, they win at least twice as often as vanilla Space Marines do in competitive settings, and 'three times as often' is possible.

That said, it's true, a lot of their units are a bit lackluster. So why do they win so much? Five reasons:

1. Daemon Princes with wings. Lash is indeed great with Daemon Princes, but warptime is also great, and makes them less of a target. They're a lot cheaper than the Chaos Daemons version, to boot.

2. Obliterators. The ability to change weapons on a whim makes them fantastic. 

3. Fantastic troops. Regular chaos space marines are so-so, but plague marines, berserkers, noise marines, and deep striking 'objective grabbing' lesser daemons are fantastic. 1000 sons are fun, but admittedly a bit expensive. Still, give the sorcerer warptime, and you have quite a solid unit.

4. They can present 'competitive' lists with things they don't have a way of defeating. Lash, land raiders filled with berserkers, noise marines hiding in a rhino (with blast master and havok launcher), fully decked out terminators, and entrenched obliterators to name a few. These units are some of the most difficult in the game to deal with effectively, without wasting a lot of time and resources.

5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, since most tournaments have a point system, where different levels of victory gain you different amounts of points, Chaos does well because they're very good at massacring opponents. They don't always win, but when Chaos wins, they usually win 'big'. This is also what gives many Ork lists an advantage at tournaments.

Oh, and I have to call shenanigans on the claim that 'their success at tournaments doesn't make them a competitive army'. 

Being competitive means doing well at tournaments, so the OP is effectively saying that 'their success at tournaments doesn't make them successful at tournaments'.

P.S. We've always been at war with East Asia.


----------



## ROT (Jun 25, 2010)

This is such a horrible topic - it's so interesting: but it's made up of 2 sides. 

-Whining Chaos Players
-Gloating loyalists.

The CSM players sit and moan about the shit army and codex - Then the Loyalists start saying: 'Oh great, more crying chaos players'.

It's a never ending debate; loyalists will never admit that we have it shit, because that'll hurt their ego when they lose to us.


But for the sake of arguing - I'm strongly agreeing with Kirby - CSM are probably low-mid band: Only better than Tau, SoB and Daemons. (maybe necrons)


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

mynameisgrax said:


> From what I've seen, they win at least twice as often as vanilla Space Marines do in competitive settings, and 'three times as often' is possible.


Are you talking about your local area? If not, I'm going to have to ask to see some data on this.



> That said, it's true, a lot of their units are a bit lackluster. So why do they win so much? Five reasons:


1. Most people suck at 5th edition and still play it like it's 4th.

2. Most people aren't any good at the game.

That's only two, but that basically explains it.



> 1. Daemon Princes with wings. Lash is indeed great with Daemon Princes, but warptime is also great, and makes them less of a target. They're a lot cheaper than the Chaos Daemons version, to boot.


Lash really isn't that good. Please understand this. Lash can be effective against Tyranids, jump pack heavy Blood Angels, Loganwing Space Wolves and other armies that don't mech up.



> 2. Obliterators. The ability to change weapons on a whim makes them fantastic.


Being instantly-killed constantly is less than fantastic.



> 3. Fantastic troops. Regular chaos space marines are so-so, but plague marines, berserkers, noise marines, and deep striking 'objective grabbing' lesser daemons are fantastic. 1000 sons are fun, but admittedly a bit expensive. Still, give the sorcerer warptime, and you have quite a solid unit.


Chaos Space Marines are okay. Plague Marines are good for holding objectives and not dying and little else. Berserkers can beat the crap out of most units when charging but aren't great at anything else. Noise Marines..? Uh okay, if you say so. I have to laugh at Daemons and Thousand Sons though. There's nothing remotely solid about Thousand Sons.



> 4. They can present 'competitive' lists with things they don't have a way of defeating. Lash, land raiders filled with berserkers, noise marines hiding in a rhino (with blast master and havok launcher), fully decked out terminators, and entrenched obliterators to name a few. These units are some of the most difficult in the game to deal with effectively, without wasting a lot of time and resources.


lol what? Please know what you're talking about before making statements like this. I'm trying to think of a competitive army that's vulnerable to Lash and has no means of dealing with it and I'm drawing a blank. Land Raiders filled with Khorne Berserkers are far from impossible to deal with when using a good list and knowing how to play the game. Noise Marines in Rhinos can do decently sure, but decking out Terminators and taking tons of Obliterators..?



> 5. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, since most tournaments have a point system, where different levels of victory gain you different amounts of points, Chaos does well because they're very good at massacring opponents. They don't always win, but when Chaos wins, they usually win 'big'. This is also what gives many Ork lists an advantage at tournaments.


Yeah... margin of victory and so on.



> Oh, and I have to call shenanigans on the claim that 'their success at tournaments doesn't make them a competitive army'.
> 
> Being competitive means doing well at tournaments, so the OP is effectively saying that 'their success at tournaments doesn't make them successful at tournaments'.


You need to realize how inept most players are at 40K. Hearing about Chaos armies winning local tournaments is completely different to hearing about Chaos armies dominating the big events.




ROT said:


> This is such a horrible topic - it's so interesting: but it's made up of 2 sides.
> 
> -Whining Chaos Players
> -Gloating loyalists.
> ...


What are you talking about? Nobody's said a word about whining Chaos players. In fact, it feels like the majority of people in this thread think Chaos is a fine book. As for loyalist Marine players and ego... I have no idea where you're getting this idea.




> But for the sake of arguing - I'm strongly agreeing with Kirby - CSM are probably low-mid band: Only better than Tau, SoB and Daemons. (maybe necrons)


This is correct except for the Tau who are far and away superior to Chaos Space Marines.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

And Sisters of Battle only weakness is their expense, currently. Bringing the current codex in line with 5th Edition for weaponry, points, and special rules, they have the basis of being everything that's strong in 5th - namely Templates, Mech, and Melta.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

What Kirby is saying is that if you took 2 people, of the same skill level and had them play against each other Chaos doesn't measure up against some of the other codexs.

The codex has issues is all Kirby is saying. At no point was he making the point of "The 'dex the worst in the game and everyone that plays it is an idiot, that should be shot and killed on sight."

A dex that has one (general) build isn't a great dex, it's ok at best.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> This is correct except for the Tau who are far and away superior to Chaos Space Marines.


Please tell me you're joking.

Chaos Space Marines, who arguably have the two best troop units IN THE GAME (PMs and KBs), obliterators (which in fact are fucking awesome), and flying Warptime Princes for under 200 points, are worse than Tau, who I have only ever seen one competitive list per edition (FoF in 4th, Battlesuit Spam in 5th), a terrible mandatory troop choice (Fire Warriors) and some of the worst units in 40k (Ethereals, Vespids, Fire Warriors, Skyrays, Kroot, etc)....

Look, I know everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but 3++ isn't ALWAYS right.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out Lash can make a comback with the rise of Loganwing, Blood Jumpers, and other popular foot armies nowadays.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

just ignore what you read on 3++, its written by something that doesn't even vaguely resemble a human being, with opinions more biased towards bandwagon armies than.....well actually the bias is so great you can't actually compare it to anything in equality.

basically ignore because its codex bashing flame loving crap.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

KD: I have had a decent track record with my CSM army against anyone I've played against, without the usual lash DP spam. Now, it is incredibly zerker heavy with Kharn, but just establishing the 'hey I can has win' factor.

Now, yes, most people I have played have been a little, well, stupid which has helped. That's how I managed to pull an objective win over someone that did not adhere in anyway to the FOC, because he was stupid. But many of the games I have played against semi-competent opponents have still been weighed heavily in my favor.

With minimal tournament experience, I honestly can't attest to the viability of the codex against 'actual' players. However, I think it is still fairly effective if played correctly. Is the codex out of date and in need of some love to face the newer power builds? Absolutely. But I think it is still in the middle of the pack incomparison to the current availability of armies.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Scathainn said:


> Please tell me you're joking.


I'm not.



> Chaos Space Marines, who arguably have the two best troop units IN THE GAME (PMs and KBs), obliterators (which in fact are fucking awesome), and flying Warptime Princes for under 200 points, are worse than Tau, who I have only ever seen one competitive list per edition (FoF in 4th, Battlesuit Spam in 5th), a terrible mandatory troop choice (Fire Warriors) and some of the worst units in 40k (Ethereals, Vespids, Fire Warriors, Skyrays, Kroot, etc)....


Yeah that's all nice, but fact is the Battlesuit heavy 5th edition Tau lists can and usually will annihilate the shit out of just about any decent CSM build more often than not. It's not to say that Chaos is the worst 'Dex in the game or anything like that, it's just not as good as the 5E ones. Tau might have only one decent build, but that build kicks ass.



> Look, I know everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but 3++ isn't ALWAYS right.


You're absolutely correct. I disagree with Kirby and friends on lots of things, but in this case I think the pink is spot on.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Are you talking about your local area? If not, I'm going to have to ask to see some data on this.


What about 2010 UK GT

number 1 general was CSM with 2 lash and 6 oblits.

Number 2 general was CSM with 2 lash and oblits.

Number 6 general was CSM with a mono khorne army.

That is a pretty big win for chaos right there right? I mean, surely you won't buck the validity of the UK GT?

And about the tau, the suits army you are talking about is the kind of army that makes lash seem so OP. These guys are gonna get hurt by the oblit lash combo.


----------



## StalkerZero (Oct 3, 2010)

I read just about everything on that site. I don't let it sway my opinion of the game too much but the site has a lot of information, is updated regularly, and is sometimes fairly humorous. 

That's more than I can say about just about any 40k blog I've read.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

CSM still placed 3 in the GT in Vegas 2008. Mind you we are on the decline, but seriously I will only start caring about nah saying about chaos when we stop placing in the top 6 of GT's

Also has anyone played against a suit heavy list? I have its not that scary when handled right, I even switched places with my friend and used his list, and damn if its not a hell lot harder on the tau side of things.


----------



## Krymson86 (Nov 9, 2010)

I've got to agree with MyNameIsGrax here. IF you're complaining about how 'competitive' an army is, then using their tournament results is a perfect way to get a rough estimate of their competitiveness. 

People haven't even mentioned things like the various Chaos Marks. Dealing with CSM's that have Mark of Slaanesh who have Initiative of 5 can be a pain in the ass if you have an army that is suited more for assault than shooting etc. 

Also, you have to consider that their weapon and ballasitic stats are even with vanilla marines, but have the possibility of retreating because they don't have know no fear, but just from a stats perspective they're fine. 

CSM I think is a pretty good example of a "balanced" army to be honest. Yes, they have some problems (weak/lame fast attack), but they also have some things that offset their limitations if the player decides to play them in an intelligent way. Things like the various Chaos Marks can give your units advantages in varying types of combat to minimize the risk of your units breaking and retreating. 

There are far worse and far less balanced armies out there. Tau anyone? Personally, I love the Tau fluff and the whole aesthetic of the Tau firewarriors, Stealth suits and hammerheads etc. But the army itself is just about unfieldable, even in a friendly game. 

As has been said, to field a competitive list of Chaos Marines you may not be able to use a lot of variety in your units, but it is very possible to make competitive armies from CSM


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Eleven said:


> What about 2010 UK GT
> 
> number 1 general was CSM with 2 lash and 6 oblits.
> 
> ...


The one GW ran? I dunno why people over there constantly get dominated by lash. Here in America its considered an entry level tournament army. Most of the time I have played against chaos in tournaments it has been an utter massacre. Thats playing with nids, loganwing, jumper blood angels, and mech eldar.

I will spell out the entire issue here for you guys.

Here is the problem. Its a simple grammatical one. Some people are saying chaos is good, or even great, some people are saying that chaos sucks. Both of those groups are, to a large extent, correct. Its the language game they are playing. Words dont have any kind of set meaning outside the context they are used in. The ground the plant grows out of for instance. 

So Kirby said chaos sucks. Is he correct? Well yes, but it deserves clarification. It should say something like "at the top levels, where every army is mechanized, chaos cannot compete with mech blood angels, wolves, guard, and nids." Because thats where he is talking from. From his angle thats how it looks, and he is correct. Chaos frequently loses to the best armies. I am also assuming that skill between players is roughly the same. 

So a lot of people are saying that chaos wins their local tournaments. Thats fine, and against 90% of players a good player with chaos can win. But if that good player comes up against another good player he will probably lose. 

Heres a good metaphor. Assume you have a local football team. And it does well on the local to semi local circuit. Well someone says "team x is great". Someone else says, no they suck. Because they arent as good as the teams Germany or Spain sent to the world cup. Well both people are right. The first guy is talking about the local region, the second is looking at it from the absolute best. 

Its like saying you dont hit hard if you dont hit as hard as a professional boxer.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I disagree about the CSM dex being crap. One argument that keeps cropping up is that the dex only has one competitive build. Well a lot of old dexes have only one decent competitive build. Eldar crop up as an example of this since they only win tournaments it seems by being mech heavy. Yet they don't attract a bad press and you know why? People like to pick on the CSM dex because they like and remember the old one which blew all kinds of chunks out of this one but did present some armies that definitely had an advantage over others and was hard to understand and relied on the other guy trusting you if he also did not play CSM. That is the main reason behind it.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

No the marine reason I outlined above. Eldar are so bad it doesnt deserve mention. And when you tell eldar players that mechdar isnt very great they just nod their heads and agree.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Stephen_Newman said:


> I disagree about the CSM dex being crap. One argument that keeps cropping up is that the dex only has one competitive build. Well a lot of old dexes have only one decent competitive build. Eldar crop up as an example of this since they only win tournaments it seems by being mech heavy. Yet they don't attract a bad press and you know why? People like to pick on the CSM dex because they like and remember the old one which blew all kinds of chunks out of this one but did present some armies that definitely had an advantage over others and was hard to understand and relied on the other guy trusting you if he also did not play CSM. That is the main reason behind it.


Uh no, I'm pretty sure the argument keeps coming up because so many people say that Chaos is awesome. Nobody ever says that Mech Eldar are the best thing since sliced bread, so nobody needs to disagree.

-----

In high-level play against high-level lists, Chaos is bad. Sorry if it sucks to hear, but it's true.


----------



## Archnomad (Dec 6, 2010)

The amount of s-

No, not gonna hate on the thread. Basically what quite a few posters here have said (prominently KD) already. Chaos suffers for a few main reasons:

It's HQ choices are so-so (lash is so good vs mech it hurts). All the chaos AT is in Heavy Support. If you want your troops or elites to go tank hunting you have to sacrifice them to the enemy. This isn't good. Chaos also plays without fast attack, for no reason other than they're awful. Finally, everything in the chaos book is a wee bit too expensive for what you're getting.

As my friend Phil (Chuggindathaterade) said, Chaos doesn't "suck". It just can't compete at the highest level of play.


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

if marines that used to be cannon fodder to old CSM, i don´t wanna imagine how uggly the new Chaos Space Marines Codex would be! tremble mortals and pure.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Who actually cares what 3++ says? He thinks its crap, good for him and whoever agrees. If your winning games or tournaments with your chaos, keep on chuggin.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Interesting topic. Though I'm not familiar with that Tau battlesuit list and Loganwing (the Wolves here play Long Missle+Thundercav), so if someone could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. 

From what I've seen and heard, the CSM army in itself is right in the middle of the mid-tier. The Codex is strong enough that you have some measure of faith in it, but not so much that you're allowed to stay on your current player level. Thus, it provokes dedicated and cunning CSM players to perfect their technique, which is made a lot easier thanks to the Codex having only one or two competitive builds. In comparison, the loyalist codices don't require much brainpower *on the surface*, since they're handing out firepower and protection like candy. 

This leads to what Katie Drake said: people aren't good at the game, let alone 5th ed. That is why a few CSM players keep winning, because during the tournament they kept getting opponents whom they could outsmart, and they managed to make player skill the decisive factor in the battle, not the relative Codex power level.

The point isn't that the CSM Codex is bad, only that when player skill is no longer the decisive factor of the given game, the Codex has a hard time handling more powerful codices without the help of the Dice Gods, the third potential decisive factor in the game. This is also the reason why tournaments don't make any difference (regarding this particular argument at least): if you take a close look at the games of these tournament-winning CSM players, you can see that most of the time they either outsmarted the opponent or the Dice Gods favoured him, and just rarely his Codex being plain better than the other's (Oblits tend to be the hammer for everything thats a nail in a world where everything is a nail except for anything with a Storm Shield).


----------



## angelXD19 (Feb 11, 2010)

wow some arguments are pretty funny. ok here is my 2 cents on this

yes I do agree that CSM codex is showing its age. But to say they suck well that is just wrong. they are mid tier. yes they still have some nice combos but nothing to OP anymore. people have found ways to beat what they have but still they manage to do pretty well in tournaments. people do have there own preferences on the book but give the book some credit. considering it's really easy to say any book sucks. like for example my opinion most loyal marine books are pretty crappy. see easy


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Ok so most of the loyal marine books suck. Yeah that was easy. Now go and do your homework, read the link, and provide us with lots of evidence for loyal marines sucking.

I could say "I have reduced all mathematics to pure logic" but the claim is meaningless if I dont provide arguments.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

I think he was saying that Kirby says Chaos sucks, its his oppinion. An oppinion is just that, *yours* so he was saying its as easy as me saying Loyalists suck. which is true, its that easy.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> I think he was saying that Kirby says Chaos sucks, its his oppinion. An oppinion is just that, *yours* so he was saying its as easy as me saying Loyalists suck. which is true, its that easy.


Yeah but an opinion isn't worth shit if no data is provided to back it up, or at least an explanation of how the opinion is formed. Kirby spends hours on his site and meticulously explains everything he posts.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Yeah but an opinion isn't worth shit if no data is provided to back it up, or at least an explanation of how the opinion is formed. Kirby spends hours on his site and meticulously explains everything he posts.


Pretty much.

If its lacking proof, its an opinion. If it has lots of proof, its a fact. Welcome to the 21st century.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Oh Noes Teh Scientific Methods

That whole integration and derivation process was just like some guys opinion


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

So we finally got some consensus that Chaos sucks? Good. Eldar suck too. Neither suck as much as Orks, and nothing sucks as much as Necrons. If you think otherwise then you are too much better than your opponents, unless you aren't the one running these...'uber'... armies, in which case you suck at competitive play. Which is fine if that's not your intent.

Also, the 2008 GT results are hardly valid pertaining to the current game, as it would require wiping our memories of the last 5 (6?) Codexes. You literally may as well talk about 4e, or indeed Fantasy.

As for the ToS...well, PoS is more accurate. 1500 points is a level at which Chaos and Orks are massively stronger, because it doesn't expose the weaknesses as much...oh, and virtually every IG player in the UK sucks, not least because they are Military Fanbois and try to construct armies based on archaic military formations.

[Obviously, not ALL players fit that description, but enough to make ANY results suspect. Of course, the odds of a CSM list even hitting a semi-proper list in last year's GT were very small indeed, which you would know if you checked the reports.]


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> not least because they are Military Fanbois and try to construct armies based on archaic military formations.


:rofl: 

I am so happy that somebody bothered to mention this.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Strangely enough I kinda know what ya mean.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

When I read this kirby article, I went into the thing thinking, "This guy knows alot about the game and what he's talking about." That's until I saw the chaos list that he created at the end of his post.

I feel that his misunderstanding of a good chaos list sort of, well...invalidates alot of his opinions about chaos in general.

I'll be the first to say I cant wait for a new chaos codex to fix alot of the current dex's problems.

But chaos is constantly winning comps both on a local and a GT level and I feel that you can't call it out for being a weak codex over all.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

Oh yeah, by the way, the list at the end of that article is fucking awful.

2x Chaos Dreads with Multi-Meltas. Summoned greater demon. Seriously? No.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Scathainn said:


> Oh yeah, by the way, the list at the end of that article is fucking awful.
> 
> 2x Chaos Dreads with Multi-Meltas. Summoned greater demon. Seriously? No.


I don't like the Dreads but the Greater Daemon isn't as bad as most forumitis sufferers think.


----------



## angelXD19 (Feb 11, 2010)

greater daemons are horrible if you want a competitive list. they are mostly just for fun


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Why exactly is that XD? they have at base the best invulnerable save a DP can get, high WS and basic T, more attacks, I cant remember if its 4 or 5 wounds, but really, they are quite beastly. Obviously just dont send them through a Chaos lord


----------



## angelXD19 (Feb 11, 2010)

you lose your valuable champions. so you might lose a fist that they need. Plus they lack the armor save, psychic powers, and wings a regular dp gets. don't get me wrong they are beasts and can at times turn around games. But for competitive tournament games they really don't have much a place. sad to say of coarse since I do love the idea


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Why exactly is that XD? they have at base the best invulnerable save a DP can get, high WS and basic T, more attacks, I cant remember if its 4 or 5 wounds, but really, they are quite beastly. Obviously just dont send them through a Chaos lord


They're not bad, it's just so many people look at a unit and consider it in a vaccuum. "Derp it haz bad statz!" The Greater Daemon is so handy for drawing fire it's amazing.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Damn this thread has creaked on for longer then I thought. I mean it is as simple as this. 

1: CSM codex is finally in the last 1-2 years begun to show it's age against the new more in your face armies (Codex creep = get used to it), and will continue to decile till it gets to be back at the top of the heap with a new realese in about 1-2 years. 

2: Its hardly the worst codex out their, although with sub par rules for the army in general, and only a few select power builds (Lack of tactical flexibility) it was just a matter of time till newer codex's started beating back standardized CSM lists.

3: Necrons/tau/GK, and all the rest of the old codex's are still far worse of the CSM's, and even some of the newer books are just slightly better the CSM's (Tactical marines vs CSM's)


Also I got to go with katie in regards to the GD, seriously what the hell do you expect for 125-130 pts hmmm. C'tan stats?


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Chaos Dreads would be better if people played LOS correctly. Yes, I'm still on that. I was right about Stealth, surely it's easier to assume I'm right again? No? Well, there's a whole thread to prove it. /Sigh.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Luke, Tacs are FAR better than regular CSM.

Tau are also FAAAARRRRR better than CSM, as KD said earlier.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Books worse than chaos
eldar, necrons, grey knights, sisters, demons, dark angels, black templars, orks

Its not codex creep. Its the edition change. Lets look at all not 5th edition books, they arent doing so well in 5th. Lets look at all 5th edition books. They are pretty well matched up against each other. HURRRRR CODEX CREEPIN MAH POWER LEVELS


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Eleven said:


> When I read this kirby article, I went into the thing thinking, "This guy knows alot about the game and what he's talking about." That's until I saw the chaos list that he created at the end of his post.
> 
> I feel that his misunderstanding of a good chaos list sort of, well...invalidates alot of his opinions about chaos in general.
> 
> ...


It wasn't his list, if you read it carefully.

And by the way, it happens to be pretty good, if you can see the idea behind it. If you knew how to play CSM you'd understand and I wouldn't have to explain. Not that I would, since that would save you from having to learn to play, and I certainly don't want that.



Scathainn said:


> Oh yeah, by the way, the list at the end of that article is fucking awful.
> 
> 2x Chaos Dreads with Multi-Meltas. Summoned greater demon. Seriously? No.





angelXD19 said:


> greater daemons are horrible if you want a competitive list. they are mostly just for fun


HERP DERP.

Chaos Dreads are great, unless of course if you're into the 2xTL-AC loyalist I Can Win-wankery, since they're just as likely to behave properly as TH/SS terminators surviving a plasma shot. They're great for the 100 pts you pay for them, though I prefer giving them a plasma cannon but I've had good moments with Multi-Meltas. And underestimation is the best smoke launcher in any tabletop game.

Same goes for the Greater Daemon. Even with a 63 point Plague Champ.w/PF, its pretty cheap for what it does. Carnifexes would kill for that statline, especially the 4++ part. Sure, it doesn't fly, but it doesn't have to, since by the time it arrives your champs should be in position, because you know how to play with your list. 

At least thats what that army list assumes.


----------



## Archnomad (Dec 6, 2010)

Folks, as an Envoy from the prosperous Tau Empire.

Can we all stop hatin on Tau in this thread? Tau are sitting (imo) in "Top Tier", due to the stupid amount of firepower they can churn out, and how they can remove cover saves, as well as bubblewrap and block like champs. If you play against Tau, expect do be de-meched by turn 3 if you use cover properly. Anyone disagrees, feel free to play me on Vassal, or if you live in Scotland, real life.

And I mean, Stelek says they're good, so they must be. Amirite?

Thanks.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I played as tau once and swore to never play as them again. I know how the physicists at Los Alamos felt after they detonated the bomb.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

I love the current trend of if you dont like X unit, you suck. or if you dont like Y's strategy you obviously dont know how to play. Arrogance and pomposity at its finest.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> I love the current trend of if you dont like X unit, you suck. or if you dont like Y's strategy you obviously dont know how to play. Arrogance and pomposity at its finest.


In some cases it's simply true. Like taking tons of Fire Warriors in a Tau army. I'm sorry to anyone that I may offend, but it's just a derpy idea to do such a thing.


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> What Kirby is saying is that if you took 2 people, of the same skill level and had them play against each other Chaos doesn't measure up against some of the other codexs.
> 
> The codex has issues is all Kirby is saying. At no point was he making the point of "The 'dex the worst in the game and everyone that plays it is an idiot, that should be shot and killed on sight."
> 
> A dex that has one (general) build isn't a great dex, it's ok at best.


Good for Wusword77 understanding. Fail for others thinking the list at the end of the post is mine. Read again. Fail in general for claiming I said Chaos is one of the worst (Necrons, Daemons, Daemonhunters w/o IG are far worse and Chaos sits on parity with Orks, DA, BT) and even mentioning comp in the OP when my posts had nothing to do with comp.

Good for KatieDrake and others actually explaining what has already been explained and good for TKE pointing our some of the flaws in claiming tournaments are a reliable and valid source of competitive 40k when nearly ever single one operates under a different system beyond the fact battle points and comp are subjective scores which don't actually let the best player win (<3 W/L). 

Here's a post to reply to the majority of the comments here.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

ChugginDatHaterade said:


> Books worse than chaos
> eldar, necrons, grey knights, sisters, demons, dark angels, black templars, orks
> 
> Its not codex creep. Its the edition change. Lets look at all not 5th edition books, they arent doing so well in 5th. Lets look at all 5th edition books. They are pretty well matched up against each other. HURRRRR CODEX CREEPIN MAH POWER LEVELS


lolwut?

Eldar aren't worse. At worst, they're level. Sisters have 2 builds, so they're better than either. Not sure Templars are worse either. They get Preds with Spirit, and Super Smokes. In fact, DA are level, cos they can have about 18 Troops.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> He's totally right. Chaos sucks balls in either variety be it Marine or Daemon.





coke123 said:


> Now I know that you're much more learned in these matters than me, so could you please show your working? I understand the inherent problems with the Daemons list, and realise that CSM are perhaps underpowered next to Space Wolves, but I don't know that they suck balls. Explain?


First off, having seen what my mate's Khorne Daemons army is capable of, I can tell Daemon armies aren't useless.

But to the point, having the article itself the guy has some valid points, but CSM aren't quite that bad. First off they have a contender for best troop choice in the game in the form of Plague Marines. Second Obliterators are an excellent heavy support choice.

True they do have to pay for their champions but so do Orks & Eldar, it's only really with Marines and IG that sergeants are free. Having played a fair number of games with my own Chaos Marines I'm not complaining. Generally they hold their own and I've yet to see any of the cult troops lose to regular marines in combat.


----------



## Archnomad (Dec 6, 2010)

"only really with Marines and IG that sergeants are free."

No they're not. 16pts per marine, 90pts for 5 tacs + sergeant. 10pts for sergeant upgrade. With Guardsmen I'm going to wager the sergeant is 10pt upgrade as well, and a platoon infantryman is 4pts, and a vet is 6pts. Either that or they cost 4.5pts each which is why you can only buy in them in 10s. 

[=


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

TheKingElessar said:


> lolwut?
> 
> Eldar aren't worse. At worst, they're level. Sisters have 2 builds, so they're better than either. Not sure Templars are worse either. They get Preds with Spirit, and Super Smokes. In fact, DA are level, cos they can have about 18 Troops.


You are correct about sisters and possibly templar. I had forgotten about the las/plas super shooty build, and obviously immo spam. I never see these armies fielded. Dark angels im not sold on being as good as chaos. Though all 3 of these books are close. Having played mechdar for some time I feel they arent as reliable as chaos. Though they can still do some nasty things to people.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Archnomad said:


> "only really with Marines and IG that sergeants are free."
> 
> No they're not. 16pts per marine, 90pts for 5 tacs + sergeant. 10pts for sergeant upgrade. With Guardsmen I'm going to wager the sergeant is 10pt upgrade as well, and a platoon infantryman is 4pts, and a vet is 6pts. Either that or they cost 4.5pts each which is why you can only buy in them in 10s.
> 
> [=


Okay, fair point. 

Back to the subject, the topic seems to have devolved from simply the umpteenth moan about the CSM codex to people discussing how bad most people suppossedly are at 40k. While I've not played in many tournaments (throne of skulls in January will only be my fourth) I've seen enough good players using 'bad' armies to know a lot of what I'm hearing is bollocks.

As mentioned above a mate of mine plays Khorne Daemons and I've seen his army take apart far more numerous forces with contemptuous ease, my Orks amongst them. Shock horror, but that same mate also plays Tau, an army whose manuverability is something he capitalises on.

Ultimately I'd say that personal experice is biasing opinion towards certain armies. I've seen armies that I didn't think would be a challenge rip mine to pieces and I've won quite easily against armies I expected to struggle against.

It's the nature of any competitive activity that sometimes they are upsets, just ask Manchester United. They lose 4-0 to bottom of the league West Ham, then go onto beat Valencia and Arsenal.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Got to admit when I actually took the time to read kirby's post I had to agree with a lot of what he is saying. Mind you the concept that CSM dex is mid range has been going around for a while, but it is nice to see someone break down the failure points of the codex in a concise, and not overly opinionated way. 

Still to all my fellow CSM player out there take heed. If you are winning a lot compared to your enemies it may not be that they suck, you may actually just be good enough to overcome the weaknesses of the codex. In other words he is not attacking CSM players, he is just pointing out the weaknesses in the codex's. I myself trump DE, and Tau players all the time (Mind you I will slightly adjust my lists accordingly) so keep a stiff upper lip, and keep perfecting your craft, since things will get worse before they get better (GK, Necrons, Tau) so steal yourselves and prepare for a storm.

Also to kirby: finally someone realizes how wasteful it is to spend 50+ pts two give a single model 2 str power weapon attacks. (Plague marine champs being a even worse option for PF's)


----------



## DestroyerHive (Dec 22, 2009)

Every army is the best so long as you have an excellent plan.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

What happens when both players have excellent plans, but one has a better army?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

I sincerely hope that was a rhetorical question.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> I sincerely hope that was a rhetorical question.


To some degree. It was a response to



> Every army is the best so long as you have an excellent plan.


Im not seeing the point to his statement. For a few reasons. The first being that it reduces to "the better player will generally win games". I could run necrons, and beat some brand new player running mech space wolves. Thats not an argument for necrons. 

The second is that planning is a small part of winning games. Being able to react to setbacks quickly is in many ways more important.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Khorothis said:


> It wasn't his list, if you read it carefully.
> 
> And by the way, it happens to be pretty good, if you can see the idea behind it. If you knew how to play CSM you'd understand and I wouldn't have to explain. Not that I would, since that would save you from having to learn to play, and I certainly don't want that.


lol...ok buddy. Tough guy on the internet coming my way. pretty easy to tell me to l2p when you will never have to play against me.

You can keep playing with your greater daemons, dreadnoughts, and autocannon/assault nilla csm. I'll let you show me how AWESOME they are.


Also, chaos bikers? Get out of here.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

i will agree that Chaos are not the best codex but there are not the worst by any stretch. I would say that Tau, Dark Angels, Necrons all have a chance at that as well as they need a sertain build to work. As a Chaos player (and other 5 other armys) i don't think they are bad at all, they are fun and thats all i want from a game....jsut looking at my signature will show how much fun i have with my Sorcerer. :laugh:


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

after reading this thread & Kirby's blog posts (that are linked, too lazy to read the other parts - sorry Kirby) i agree with the fact that the CSM book is the in the "low" to "middle" sections of the mid-tier.


usually the only reason why CSM is so dominant @ the local tourneys is because they have just enough of a wrinkle to them that they can f#ck over people who dont have either the experience against CSM, or had bad dice rolls/luck through out the game.


i gotta admit that Chaos has issues with high end Smart & Competitive gaming (can someone post the results for adepticon from the past year?) since i wanna see where the CSM players standing end up. i dont care about where they are for "best general" thats like "best paint job", biased at best, and weve already come to the conclusion that to be a CSM general @ these high end tourneys HAVE to be a good general.


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

Tired of people bitching about Lash being nerfed all the time.

"Lash is useless in 5th because everybody runs mech lists".
- The words of an inexperienced Lash user.

Seriously, Lash is still good, its just that people don't know how to use it.

People run their DP out in the open to Lash shit on the first turn, then bitch about not being able to Lash units in transports, then their DP goes down on turn 2-3.

The strength of a Lash list ISNT bunching up units or dragging them towards you.
The true strength of a Lash list is dragging units off objectives on the last turn.

I mean fuck, people run them out in the open and wonder why they die.
Keep them hidden for the first couple of turns, then Lash shit on turn 4-5.

If you haven't managed to pop open their transports with Oblits and Melta by turn 4-5, then you fail as a player anyway.

Sorry for the rant.
Just tired of people copy/pasting lists with no idea what the fuck they are doing with them, then bitching about not being able to auto-win with them.
Then the general public assumes that these people that bitch are so-called "experts" in the game.

Not targeting anyone in particular, just a general observation of "newer" players Ive seen.
Kirby and KatieDrake are right to an extent. CSM are less powerful than some of the newer codices, but most of the negative views about Lash is because people simply don't know how to use it properly.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Eleven said:


> When I read this kirby article, I went into the thing thinking, "This guy knows alot about the game and what he's talking about." That's until I saw the chaos list that he created at the end of his post.
> 
> I feel that his misunderstanding of a good chaos list sort of, well...invalidates alot of his opinions about chaos in general.
> 
> ...





Khorothis said:


> It wasn't his list, if you read it carefully.
> 
> And by the way, it happens to be pretty good, if you can see the idea behind it. If you knew how to play CSM you'd understand and I wouldn't have to explain. Not that I would, since that would save you from having to learn to play, and I certainly don't want that.
> 
> ...


The list isn't that great, sure it's got enough troops, but one good vindicator or looted wagon shot and those Plague Marines are gone, because against a good shooting army such as Tau, or even a decent one like Space Marines those Rhinos won't last to long (especially if your opponent has targeted the Plague Rhinos as a priority).

Plague Marines need to be in squads of at least seven or eight to have an effect. As for the Dreads, sure they're cheap, but they need to get there, which due to our lack of drop pods, means walking across the table drawing a shitstorm of enemy fire. Having used massed Ork Dredds, I can tell you now you're likely to lose both by turn 3 against any decent list.

And while I'm moaning, who the frak said Plague Marines are for holding objectives? Sure they've got staying power but they lack the guns to be a real nuisance while holding objectives. Leave the Noise Marines on the objective, Plague Marines should be big game hunting by using meltas on enemy tanks.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Eleven said:


> lol...ok buddy. Tough guy on the internet coming my way. pretty easy to tell me to l2p when you will never have to play against me.
> 
> You can keep playing with your greater daemons, dreadnoughts, and autocannon/assault nilla csm. I'll let you show me how AWESOME they are.
> 
> ...


Internet tough guy? Me? :laugh: And you're telling me to get out? That you'd probably beat me to a pulp if we played just once? Aren't you the internet tough guy instead? *sigh* Look, this argument is pointless, lets not ruin this thread. PM me if you wish, just lets stop being personal. This thread is too good to be wasted like that.



KingOfCheese said:


> Tired of people bitching about Lash being nerfed all the time.
> 
> "Lash is useless in 5th because everybody runs mech lists".
> - The words of an inexperienced Lash user.
> ...


Quoted for Wisdom and Truth.



The Sullen One said:


> The list isn't that great, sure it's got enough troops, but one good vindicator or looted wagon shot and those Plague Marines are gone, because against a good shooting army such as Tau, or even a decent one like Space Marines those Rhinos won't last to long (especially if your opponent has targeted the Plague Rhinos as a priority).
> 
> Plague Marines need to be in squads of at least seven or eight to have an effect. As for the Dreads, sure they're cheap, but they need to get there, which due to our lack of drop pods, means walking across the table drawing a shitstorm of enemy fire. Having used massed Ork Dredds, I can tell you now you're likely to lose both by turn 3 against any decent list.
> 
> And while I'm moaning, who the frak said Plague Marines are for holding objectives? Sure they've got staying power but they lack the guns to be a real nuisance while holding objectives. Leave the Noise Marines on the objective, Plague Marines should be big game hunting by using meltas on enemy tanks.


Well "great" might not have been the best word. I should have said "it has great potential, though some playtesting is in order". But this thread isn't about discussing lists so I would rather not analyse it. Not to mention I'm not even qualified for high-end stuff.


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Of course you should have opened Transports by T5 with CSM.

Unless, as is NORMAL the enemy outguns you, and demechs you first, neutralising the PMs Melta, and insta-kills the Oblits, or even just whittles them down. While they're still semi-Mech'd, they then shoot the princes, if even necessary. OR, you could try Sorcerors since they are much better for using Lash. But still not good.


----------



## Syko515 (Jan 22, 2008)

this thread hurts my head. i'm shocked its gone on this long.i just sat here reading this thing in its entirity and its interesting to see that half of heresy is split on this.

to weigh in, i too am starting to feel the age of our "gave Thorpedo'd" dex. it was great back in 4th when we where king thanks to the inherent monobuild of lash, oblit, {fill in space with favorite cult troop". but since the advent of 5th and the rise of over powered, under costed codeci's dominating my local meta aswell as the global meta, i can tell you that the ability to be competative vs. the vast bulk of 5th edition dex's is waneing. sure for now we're squeeking out wins and solidifying draws, but seriously? its not as easy or as fun as it used to be. with the advent of 5th we saw and influx of mech, that while not stopping lash, deffinatly added another obsticle, and now lately with each new dex from space wolves on having a plethora or psychic defence, GW put the final nail in the coffin. lash is dead. so now we look for other builds, which for some in their local scenes works due to an unevolving meta, or a lack of experianced players, or god forbid beating up on ....the younger players, but in reality wont do squat agenst even a down trodden and fluffy wolves/IG/BA list, let alone a competative one.


----------



## Lucian Kain (Jul 19, 2010)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> I love the current trend of if you dont like X unit, you suck. or if you dont like Y's strategy you obviously dont know how to play. Arrogance and pomposity at its finest.


A weakness to be exploited:smoke:


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

I think that in the hands of a skilled player (and with a little luck) any codex can still win.

As for the Chaos Codex. Yes it's showing it's age, but it's not so bad as to make it unplayable. A few units such as spawn and Bikers are broken or overpriced, but the vast majority of units work in given situations. For example Thousand Sons may be overpriced or not the most competitive choice, but against space Marines they handle themselves very well, if you use them correctly.

I think the problem with all codices (newer ones especially) is people spam units.

I've talked about this before, but if people basically stopped comparing each unit in each force organization slots to the point were certain units just get spammed, then alot more codices would be viable, and dare I say it, more fun to play with and against.

As it stands people always go "I can get X unit for Y points, so why would I ever bother taking Z unit?"

Well because it's supposed to be a fun game and also allows better modelling options.

But as it is ATM, with every new codex that comes out, people immediately rule out vast swathes of the codex as 'unplayable', even though they are, its just that they are sometimes a little more specific in their use and their points might be a little bit extra.

Basically that's a long way of saying, people ruin codices with their asshole spamming tendancies.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> I think the problem with all codices (newer ones especially) is people spam units.


If people stopped spamming units, we'd have tons of really crappy army lists.



> I've talked about this before, but if people basically stopped comparing each unit in each force organization slots to the point were certain units just get spammed, then alot more codices would be viable, and dare I say it, more fun to play with and against.


Personally I don't have fun playing against someone that has a poor list because there's no challenge in it.



> As it stands people always go "I can get X unit for Y points, so why would I ever bother taking Z unit?"
> 
> Well because it's supposed to be a fun game and also allows better modelling options.


I dunno, I and plenty others have lots of fun with 40K while avoiding Z unit.



> But as it is ATM, with every new codex that comes out, people immediately rule out vast swathes of the codex as 'unplayable', even though they are, its just that they are sometimes a little more specific in their use and their points might be a little bit extra.


True. But there are just plan awful units too.



> Basically that's a long way of saying, people ruin codices with their asshole spamming tendancies.


B'aww, do we mean power gamers hurt your fluff bunny feelings? :laugh:


----------



## MagicJuggler (Nov 8, 2010)

Spam only works for a very small set of lists. Space Wolf Razorspam is the most extreme example, though mech Marines tend to copy-paste a single unit into their FoC as well (3 Rifledreads/3 Dakkapreds/3 Typhoons/Razorbacks). Arguably Meltavets armies too, though I would advocate that Hybrid Guard works better than mech in the long run.

As for Chaos, spamming units doesn't exactly work for them. 9x Obliterators means you don't exactly have much of an army left afterwards, and using Plaguemarines for melta means you're suiciding your troops. Realistically, if you were still doing Chaos, since you have a ton of Rhinos anyway, and you *need* long-range firepower to shake/stun enemy vehicles, I would do this as my Heavy Support:

-2 Autolas Preds w/ Havoc
-2 Obliterators

Is it as efficient as 3 Rifleman Dreads? Nope. Is it good for Chaos? Sadly yes. If anything, it gives you slightly more durable AT suppression (since you will have Rhinos, chances are you can get a 4+/3+ cover on the Predators), while freeing up points for the rest of your army.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Wow, this topic exploded! Apparently, people have very strong feelings on the subject, one way or the other. I'd like to think I'm at least relatively impartial, since I don't play Chaos, but play against them a lot, in both casual and competitive play.

First let me say that King of Cheese has added a very good point. Lash is fantastic for pulling opponents off objectives, especially if lash is wielded by a sorcerer buried in a unit, so they can't be easily singled out and killed. With all the rhinos and troops as well, Chaos is very good at claiming objectives. 

Second, I keep track of both the large and more competitive tournaments as well as the smaller ones, and the only times I usually see vanilla Space Marines do well is in tournaments where sportsmanship and army appearance are a factor in scoring. Occasionally a Salamanders list wins, but that's about it.

Third, Chaos Marines definitely do well at all levels of play, from small tournament to official GT events. That's just a fact. We can argue the reasons for this, but to deny it is pointless. Chaos Marines win at least as much as any other army these days, besides possibly the Imperial Guard.

I think many people get stuck in thinking only in terms of 'what everyone on the internet thinks is the best', but the results in reality are often very surprising. For example, this year there were three Ard Boyz final events, one on each coast and one at the battle bunker. This resulted in 3 Ard Boyz champions: Imperial Guard, Chaos Marines, and Chaos Daemons.

The Imperial Guard is no surprise, but whereas the internet often suggests that only Space Wolves and Blood Angels can win besides IG, neither army won a championship, and remember, Ard Boyz has no sportsmanship or army appearance scoring at all.

The only armies that really can't compete in tournaments right now are Daemonhunters, Dark Angels, Necron, and Tau.


----------



## MagicJuggler (Nov 8, 2010)

Ard Boyz uses Battlepoints. The tournaments become more about lucking out and drawing a bad opponent/good matchup, rather than the best players pairing off against each other. In the tournament where CSM won, Space Wolves were second. They didn't play against each other.

This represents validity of an army how?


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> If people stopped spamming units, we'd have tons of really crappy army lists.
> 
> How about this for a counter argument ... no we wouldn't.
> 
> ...


There you go.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Eleven said:


> CSM is one of the weakest lists in the game and is vastly inferior to all loyalist army lists.


Oh, yeah easily. Everything about CSM is fucking terrible garbage from a writing standpoint. And from a list standpoint it hasn't aged well much at all. I mean with all the long fangs and ig that pay less for better cars, CSM can't measure up, especially without the lash working anymore.
So yes. I entirely agree. At the top tier competitive setting CSM is one of the weakest lists in the game followed by necron, tau, and dark angels.

Now at low competitions, CSM is a walk in the park. Dandelions as far as the eye could see.



Eleven said:


> He (kirby) also claims that the fact that chaos does well in tournaments is not grounds for arguing against him.


This is herpderp autism logic. But it does hold true, not every tournament is all razorwolf missilewolf spam followed back-to-back by vendettatriplemeltvetspam ig


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> Yeah but if you didn't spam all the (so called) power units, and both players took more fluff based/less 'competitive' options, then the game would be balanced and therefore alot more fun than lists that basically play themselves and the same way everytime.


Maybe _you_ would have more fun if people played fluffy all the time. I personally wouldn't. As it stands right now, only a couple good lists can be played on auto-pilot. Competitive players are often accused of point and clicking, but it's incorrect.



> (Sound of me clapping) Good for you.


B'aww, thanks!



> There are very few units that are utterly worthless in all situations.


In _all_ situations? Absolutely correct. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that no unit is totally worthless in all situations. But there are units that are worthless in enough situations that they aren't worth their points.



> Aaaww so you consider yourself a 'power gamer'? Does that mean you have to win with your little plastic figures all the time so you can feel special?


I consider myself a competitive 40K player. Some people call it power gaming or whatever else. Frankly the name doesn't bother me. The rest is funny, though. I play to win, but I don't need to win to have fun and I certainly don't base my self-esteem on how well I do at 40K.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Eleven said:


> What about 2010 UK GT
> Number 6 general was CSM with a mono khorne army.


You might want to review that last statement before you make everyone's opinion of UK very very exceedingly low. Monokhorne isn't very good at all.
There really should be a rule up to reduce the following as a valid sentence: "X is just complaining" 
X also made a valid argument and to not acknowledge it and disprove it yourself is both lazy and aspergersy.

In short this thread is displaying all the tendencies of raegquit so some people might want to step back and breath a moment before they ruin the delightfully thought-provoking ideals of this podcast for the rest of us.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

> In short this thread is displaying all the tendencies of raegquit so some people might want to step back and breath a moment before they ruin the delightfully thought-provoking ideals of this podcast for the rest of us.


Quoted for truth.



D-A-C said:


> Yeah but if you didn't spam all the (so called) power units, and both players took more fluff based/less 'competitive' options, then the game would be balanced and therefore alot more fun than lists that basically play themselves and the same way everytime.


So if I played a White Scars biker army, or a Salamanders Vulkan army, or a Blood Angels jumper, my army isn't "fluffy" (though it very much is) because it's competitive or because I spam units?

Or should 6th edition change the FoC to force players to take 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Fast attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Elite?

Really, your argument boils down to "Well take units that are out of the blue, just cause." Taking Assualt Marines or bikes in a Salamander army isn't overly fluffy, taking tac squads and no bikes isn't fluffy for White Scars, taking BA with no jumpers is not fluffy.

And what if I write my own fluff for an army, something to match my army build? What if I wrote in my own chapter, using Blood Angels rules, but they suffer a hormone inbalance as a result of prelonged combat giving similar effects to the Black Rage and Red Thrist?

Or I make a chapter that is an off shoot from the Iron hands, who forge superior equipment compaired to some other chapters? A capitan of the 3rd company has been gifted with an Adamantite mantle, a Master Crafted Relic Blade (call it Excailber for arguments sake) and a very powerful hand flamer gifted from the Blood Angels in times long past.

Those examples aren't offical "fluff" but they would explain my count as units. So I make my own fluff to explain why my army works a certain way and everybody wins.

Granted everyone wins as long as all you're looking for is a fluffy background for my army when we play and it's not an issue if you lose.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> So if I played a White Scars biker army, or a Salamanders Vulkan army, or a Blood Angels jumper, my army isn't "fluffy" (though it very much is) because it's competitive or because I spam units?
> 
> Or should 6th edition change the FoC to force players to take 1 HQ, 2 Troops, 1 Fast attack, 1 Heavy Support, 1 Elite?
> 
> ...


What are you talking about?

My point was as follows :

People look at the Elite Slot of the Space Marine Codex which contains,

Terminator Squad
Terminator Assault Squad
Sternguard Veteran Squad
Venerable Dreadnought
Dreadnought
Ironclad Dreadnought
Techmarine/Servitors
Legion of the Damned

So that is 8 different options. But what some people do is math hammer this sh*t out of everything and argue that X unit is more valuable for it's points cost/what it can do ratio.

So X unit can do Y better for the points I'm paying for it. 

So rather than go, well one Dreadnought is always pretty cool, backed up with some Terminators in a Land Raider and some Sternguard Drop Podding in. (nobody bitch about this BTW, it's just a frickin example).

They go, like some sort of math hammer robot, X unit is point 7.36 pts more efficient at task Y therefore all other units are always obsolete. 

Therefore when they are creating a list they condemn entire swathes of codices to the scrapheap as unit X is points Y more effecient at task Z than all other options, so all other options are _never _worth taking for task Z.

That's the type of bull crap that goes on when people talk about certain codices, and that's what I'm arguing against. If everyone didn't take the absolute most effecient unit and spam the sh*t out of it, then alot more lists might be viable.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> That's the type of bull crap that goes on when people talk about certain codices, and that's what I'm arguing against. If everyone didn't take the absolute most effecient unit and spam the sh*t out of it, then alot more lists might be viable.


So if everyone took crappier lists more bad lists would do well? That's genius.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> Terminator Assault Squad
> Sternguard Veteran Squad<--these are the only two you'll see in competitive play beyond maybe a dreadnought.
> That's the type of bull crap that goes on when people talk about certain codices, and that's what I'm arguing against. If everyone didn't take the absolute most effecient unit and spam the sh*t out of it, then alot more lists might be viable.


But it'd be the death of the competitive area of the game which is a draw for many people including myself. Yes I'd love to play fields of possessed and lords but when they hit the board they just are not good. The daemon prince survives longer and does more, while the berzerkers and plague marines always get the job done I assign them.
Inherently there would be no problem whatsoever to banning taking multiples of the same unit but that triple melta vet squad could now have a sergeant with a melta bomb. There's just no way to enforce this without making the game more complex, which at last count, was not the direction the game was going in.

Honestly I think we'd see a lot more varied lists if we took unit options down and gave every single one of them 0-1. Like 0-1 plague marines on foot, or 0-1 plague marines in a car. As an example, it'd need work but yeah, example.

Point being they're simplifying the game down more, so that would never work, so we'll have to wait for next edition to make these noncompetitive choices better.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> So if everyone took crappier lists more bad lists would do well? That's genius.


I'm just going to be blunt ... are you retarded?

I've explained it many times and in depth, yet you fixate on the notion that taking a unit that is perhaps not as absolutely cuthroat points efficient as another unit (but which can still perform the task well), but say for ten points more, somehow the list is now crappy?

This basically goes along with this other bizarre thinking of 'making your points back'. Not every unit needs to make its points back entirely, in terms of killing another unit, to be part of a competitive list.

Your idea of what constitutes a 'crappy' list must be pretty broad from the way your acting.

Basically what you've said so far, and please do correct me if I'm wrong, is :

"X unit is the best in that slot, so take three of them. If you don't, your list sucks and I won't play it, because if it's not competitive then it's no fun for me."


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

MagicJuggler said:


> Ard Boyz uses Battlepoints. The tournaments become more about lucking out and drawing a bad opponent/good matchup, rather than the best players pairing off against each other. In the tournament where CSM won, Space Wolves were second. They didn't play against each other.
> 
> This represents validity of an army how?


That's only true for the first day of the Ard boyz, and even then, the odds are still against it. Only the first round of the first day (the 1st match out of 9) is truly random. The second match is assigned by how well you did in the first. So if you got an easy opponent and massacred them, you'll be fighting the other person who got a massacre in the next round, and so on. The odds are against playing against two really easy opponents at the same tournament.

This only gets less likely in the 2nd and Final Ard boyz event, with each event comprising only of people who placed in the top 3 of the previous event. Even though the first round at each event is random, its randomly selected out of a pool of players that are going to include far more good than bad players.

If you honestly believe that someone could somehow manage to fight an easy list in the majority of the rounds of the tournament, including the rounds that only contain players that did very well in the previous rounds, and ultimately in events that only include people who did well in previous events, than you need to brush up on your statistics. ^_^

Again, I'm not trying to say that Chaos is a great army. I believe they're an average one. Still, they're well above almost half the armies in the game.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

D-A-C said:


> I'm just going to be blunt ... are you retarded?


:laugh:



> I've explained it many times and in depth, yet you fixate on the notion that taking a unit that is perhaps not as absolutely cuthroat points efficient as another unit (but which can still perform the task well), but say for ten points more, somehow the list is now crappy?


Taking one sub-optimal unit doesn't make your list crappy. Taking a list with lots of sub-optimal units, no redundancy and with poor upgrades makes a crappy list.



> This basically goes along with this other bizarre thinking of 'making your points back'. Not every unit needs to make its points back entirely, in terms of killing another unit, to be part of a competitive list.


Making back a unit's points is a dated concept. Like... 4th edition dated. Back when Victory Points were still used.



> Basically what you've said so far, and please do correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> "X unit is the best in that slot, so take three of them. If you don't, your list sucks and I won't play it, because if it's not competitive then it's no fun for me."


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying.[/sarcasm]

How difficult a concept is this to understand?

"X unit is the best in the slot, so take them over the other ones in that FoC slot _if_ they work well with the army that you're making. If you don't, your list will suffer as a result. For every bad choice you make with your list, it suffers more and more until it becomes a piece of shit. Beating on a piece of shit list isn't fun for me."


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> I've explained it many times and in depth, yet you fixate on the notion that taking a unit that is perhaps not as absolutely cuthroat points efficient as another unit (but which can still perform the task well), but say for ten points more, somehow the list is now crappy?
> 
> This basically goes along with this other bizarre thinking of 'making your points back'. Not every unit needs to make its points back entirely, in terms of killing another unit, to be part of a competitive list.


First let's watch the rage going on in here, I'll be damned if someone gets the honor of being banned before me again.

Second if we have two identical people, with equal generalship and terrain deployment, the deciding win will obviously be dice, first turn, and list. Now seeing as we can't prepare for dice or first turn(One follows the other) we have to resort to list, and the on with -10 points is the one less favoured to win. That's simple mathematics.

Making your points back is simply what most of your units need to do, or they need to do the equivalent in several other things such as board control, threat range, psychological aggro, or simply lucky roles when it absorbs bullets.
The last one we can't prepare for, but take a daemon prince with lash as the prime example. Is he going to flip over 155 points worth of models before going down? Possibly, but his job isn't to solely flip tanks in the back line, he's used as an 18" "Stay the fuck outta here" followed by a 24" "Stay in the car or you're mine". His lashing and high movement value make up for the fact that he probably won't wipe out his weight in terminators or troop choices, but he brings much to the table that the army needs.
And with successful deployment you can assure yourself that a crafty opponent will move his long fangs far and away from that terrible lash machine. Knowing that you can put other things that'll wreck them on the other side.
Same thing with infiltrating chosen. I've now assured my opponent that I've got 21" melta range from either board edge so to avoid a mid-game dicking his land raider needs to stay in the middle. The refused flanks help me beyond the cost of the unit.


D-A-C said:


> "X unit is the best in that slot, so take three of them. If you don't, your list sucks and I won't play it, because if it's not competitive then it's no fun for me."


When you lack the time to explain the infinite intricities of tactical warfare this is what you give as a show of good faith. It's a simple indicator of whether the unit has had a successful run when it's been played more than not. 
Spawn rarely if ever do well and they're tactical prowess is non existent, so I do not advocate them.
The lash prince more often than not wrecks near his points total, and easily makes back the rest by board control and the denied access my opponent had to getting out of a car, placing his longfangs, or coming within 18" of the prince. So I advocated him quite often, as he's quite good and at the end of the day when people ask for tournament help they aren't asking for what felt good, they're asking how to win.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> My point was as follows :
> 
> ...


You were talking about people taking more "fluffy" armies, so I listed some competitive builds that could be considered fluffy.

And people take dreads, sternguard, and assualt termies, which would be 5 out of 8 units.

You call for people to take less effecient units, yet those units would just become dead weight for the army and therefore, a liability. Why should players be forced to take units that are not as good? It doesn't make other lists more viable, as the basic list remains the same and we just have to take a legion of the damned as a points sink.

If I take a biker list, why should I take a Techmarine? He can't repair them, so what good is he going to do me?

Why should I take Vanguard vets, when Assualt marines are so much cheaper? It costs more to equip VVs like TH/SS termies then the termie unit COSTS!

And what about the armies that are stuck with monobuilds? They are already limited in what units could be considered competitive, should we force them to take units that are just bad so they have some "flavor?"

Your point seems to be "Take units because they are there, I don't care if they fit your playstyle, personal fluff, or if they are just points sinks." Well I don't want to play that way, I want to play the game that GW put out.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

I see what your saying LordWaffles about pre-game conditions that can determine victory.

But what my point is, is that if both players don't stick to the 'x unit is best so spam it' rule and take units which are '10pts less effecient' then neither list can be considered as having that pre-game advantage, and you get the benifit of good variety of units.

What really needs to be clear to everyone is that, I'm not saying you can't take certain units, what I'm saying is, instead of taking that second Lash Prince or whatever, why not try another unit which can still be relatively good, but maybe not as good as that original unit.

So instead of x2 Lash or Warptime Daemon Princes. Why not 1 with a Lord or Sorcerer. If your opponent does the same, then you get a variety of units and no-one loses that competitive edge.



Wusword77 said:


> You were talking about people taking more "fluffy" armies, so I listed some competitive builds that could be considered fluffy.
> 
> I have no problem with a Vulkan, Biker or whatever list, what I'm complaining against is lists like this.
> 
> ...


Maybe I'm explaining myself wrong, but alot of people seem to be misunderstanding what I'm trying to say.

So if anyone has read my points over the last two pages or so, and what's to help me out, feel free to chip in lol.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

I think people not understanding what you are trying to say and/or disagreeing with you is a recurring theme with your posts.


----------



## Wysten (Dec 14, 2010)

The only issue is, Chaos is at a inherient disadvantage. In any game, you can't count on your oppoment trying to make a even game as they will want to go all out with the best options of a book. Fluffy or not 

Issue is the Chaos codex does not allow a lot of flexabilty if one wishes to take it to a tourney enviroment. Many of it's units are overcosted vs loyalist equilents or in general. This is not uniusial for older codexes, just rather then being top teir (even with current codexs in terms of play style, costs and other flavours) it is lower teir then those codexes, though it can crank out a list that can rival other codexes in the 5th ed, it's poor costing, stripping of fluffy options and datedness means that spilting from the list makes it rapidly weaker and even at it's best, assuming even skill levels, the Chaos Marine and Demon codexs are at a disadvantage. Often applified by the general opinon in comp, the codex needs nerfing.

The only point where chaos will be an equal is when their codex is upgraded and hopefully given the 5th edition update so it can play in this format, as right now it is short of options that can reliably deal with all sorts of threats in a cost efficent manner.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

D-A-C said:


> But what my point is, is that if both players don't stick to the 'x unit is best so spam it' rule and take units which are '10pts less effecient' then neither list can be considered as having that pre-game advantage, and you get the benifit of good variety of units.
> 
> What really needs to be clear to everyone is that, I'm not saying you can't take certain units, what I'm saying is, instead of taking that second Lash Prince or whatever, why not try another unit which can still be relatively good, but maybe not as good as that original unit.
> 
> So instead of x2 Lash or Warptime Daemon Princes. Why not 1 with a Lord or Sorcerer. If your opponent does the same, then you get a variety of units and no-one loses that competitive edge.


So in a thread specifically about competitive gaming (says it right there in the title...), you're suggesting that people do something that "loses that competitive edge"?

And you're surprised that no one seems to be seeing your point?

I'm not a competitive gamer, and would actually prefer to both play as and against a varied list - but those are friendly few beers over the table games at a friends place/local club. The fact is that optimisation is a big part of making a competition-ready list.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

ITT:










Please?


----------



## Wysten (Dec 14, 2010)

EmbraCraig said:


> So in a thread specifically about competitive gaming (says it right there in the title...), you're suggesting that people do something that "loses that competitive edge"?
> 
> And you're surprised that no one seems to be seeing your point?
> 
> I'm not a competitive gamer, and would actually prefer to both play as and against a varied list - but those are friendly few beers over the table games at a friends place/local club. The fact is that optimisation is a big part of making a competition-ready list.


Exactly. This is how most people should be. I am getting into the game, but in general in my other hobby I can play both casual and competative. This is a competative thread which means the content is relating to optimalisation hence it is only fair that all the content discusses competative play, not about taking the Z weaker choice which indicates causal play, to not play at your best.

I have fun playing competatively, so what is so wrong with that? Boring is not about creating a list with a false ilusion of varity, but encountering a foe who has offered me no challange after traveling a hour and a half to a tourney to have a hard, close game.


----------



## Tossidin (Dec 10, 2008)

Wysten said:


> I have fun playing competatively, so what is so wrong with that? Boring is not about creating a list with a false ilusion of varity, but encountering a foe who has offered me no challange after traveling a hour and a half to a tourney to have a hard, close game.


So true, gotta agree here. 
Actually, in my club, we only play with "the wery best" we can come up with. We have a great time, and our lists are quite balanced (to the point there is balance between codices), so it makes for hard games, which is exactly how we like it.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Tossidin said:


> So true, gotta agree here.
> Actually, in my club, we only play with "the wery best" we can come up with. We have a great time, and our lists are quite balanced (to the point there is balance between codices), so it makes for hard games, which is exactly how we like it.


Wait, hold the phone.

You're saying that all of your players take the best units, make the best lists and put in their best efforts into games and _still have fun_?!

What madness is this?!

:laugh:


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Im with KD here, this is almost revolutionary. Deserving of a Nobel Prize methinks.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Im with KD here, this is almost revolutionary. Deserving of a Nobel Prize methinks.


Uh, to be clear, I was being brutally sarcastic. My post was more intended to make fun of the people that are convinced that competitive players come together to be pissed off all the time and have no fun unless they win.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

As was I KD, as was I.


----------



## Wysten (Dec 14, 2010)

Tossidin said:


> So true, gotta agree here.
> Actually, in my club, we only play with "the wery best" we can come up with. We have a great time, and our lists are quite balanced (to the point there is balance between codices), so it makes for hard games, which is exactly how we like it.


Sounds like my kind of enviroment! Interested in the same army as I. Though I live in England so it's kind of a hike. XD 

Aye, after all, the 5th and 4th ed are only imbalienced vs eachother so far, with most 5th ed codexes having multiple builds. In time Chaos will be updated and will probably be nothing short of outstanding like most of the 5th Ed codexes thus far. Then there will be balience of the purest kind, codex to codex rather then house rules against codex. I much prefer to play no holds bared when possible as it just makes things very exciting for both of us.


----------



## Anfo (Jul 17, 2009)

One army is not more or less overpowered than another. It depends on the people playing. If they know how to use their army properly and how to rape their opponents army; it doesn't matter what army/units are brought.

Also this entire game relies on dice, and dice are random.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Actually Anfo, as has been said many times, if you are in a situation with two players of more or less equal skill levels. and they both take a list, a competetive list, or even a non competetive list, the newer dex will usually win out. And almost everyone will beat chaos marines in this matchup.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Anfo said:


> One army is not more or less overpowered than another. It depends on the people playing. If they know how to use their army properly and how to rape their opponents army; it doesn't matter what army/units are brought.
> 
> Also this entire game relies on dice, and dice are random.


I dont think that the way you described skill and power levels is complete. The 5th edition books are fairly balanced against each other, with nids and dark eldar lagging behind, although not as bad as the 4th edition books. I think too that it does indeed matter what units are brought. As the difference in power level between armies increases, the skill difference required for the guy playing the worse army to win also increases.

I could play generic necron warrior phalanx and beat a good mech blood angels army sure. But the guy playing blood angels is going to have to be a practical beginner for me to win. You also have rock paper scissors. If someone is running foothorde orks, and they happen to run into a guard army with 9 hell hounds and 6 chimeras full of vet squads with 3 flamers they cant win.

There are times when you get "auto-win effect". Where you have somebody who is much more skilled than their opponent, and their opponent brought a significantly worse army. To the guy who lost the game looks one sided, and many a cry of cheese will be heard. You basically have Clarke's third law in place here, only instead of technology you have plastic armies.

Finally dice arent generally as big a factor as people think. And 'the game is randumb' is often a cop out.


----------



## angelXD19 (Feb 11, 2010)

what do you mean dice aren't a factor? sure you can have the things go the way you plan but if you roll like ass then how is that not random? or vice versa when you make a comeback because you had dumb lucky rolls


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

angelXD19 said:


> what do you mean dice aren't a factor? sure you can have the things go the way you plan but if you roll like ass then how is that not random? or vice versa when you make a comeback because you had dumb lucky rolls


Because good players using good lists can minimize the effect that a few poor rolls have on their chances to win. Obviously rolling all 1's all game is a different story.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Katie Drake said:


> Because good players using good lists can minimize the effect that a few poor rolls have on their chances to win. Obviously rolling all 1's all game is a different story.


Minimizing is not eliminating. Dice still play a large role.


----------



## angelXD19 (Feb 11, 2010)

exactly. yes you will have statistics on your side but there is always the chance you can roll horribly. it's still luck


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

> what do you mean dice aren't a factor? sure you can have the things go the way you plan but if you roll like ass then how is that not random? or vice versa when you make a comeback because you had dumb lucky rolls





Katie Drake said:


> Because good players using good lists can minimize the effect that a few poor rolls have on their chances to win. Obviously rolling all 1's all game is a different story.


What kaytay said is indeed correct. However it answers a question that took what I said way out of context. Let me quote myself 


> Finally dice arent generally as big a factor as people think. And 'the game is randumb' is often a cop out.


Now nowhere did I say that dice
arent a factor
rolling is not random
and that its not possible to make a comeback to lucky rolls.

Everyone here has had games they have won/tied due to lucky rolls. Ive lost games due to my eldar army with 12 fire dragons and 4 lances not hurting a single land raider for 4 turns straight. However that also happens once a year at most. I turned a game around because my pair of tervigons each crapped out 11-13 babies a turn for 3 straight turns. However had my hive guard managed to kill a single tank the game would have ended the same. So my bad dice in one area were compensated for by good rolling elsewhere.

But thats beside the point.

My point was that generally dice average out, as given above. Poor rolling in one area can be countered by good rolling elsewhere, as in the tervigon example. Games that were lost due to dice, like the eldar game, are exceedingly rare. So saying "well its all dice" is, from my experience, a way to discount skill both in list-theory and on the table top. How often do the dice really decide games for you?


----------



## Wysten (Dec 14, 2010)

Anfo said:


> One army is not more or less overpowered than another. It depends on the people playing. If they know how to use their army properly and how to rape their opponents army; it doesn't matter what army/units are brought.
> 
> Also this entire game relies on dice, and dice are random.


There are two problems with that:

1) It does matter what units are brought and what units are accessable. Basic tactics evolve from the rock solid choices in the Codex. Any modern codex would have an advantage vs, say, Grey Knights, Chaos, Demons and Necorns because their choices and costs are not up to date. While a good player could form a good list from those codex's, ultimately there are issues that affect chances.

2) In the same sense, there are some terrible choices in every codex, modern and not so modern. A lot of special charcters are often overpriced, Phoex lords and Chaos specials easpically, but this trend continues across the 5th ed line. Blood Claws in space wolves, techmarines in general... There is a lot out there that reduce the chances if you take them largely because they are ineffienct. Blood Claws take less special weapons, can take less melee perks and are more likely to be hit in combat in exchange for a slight bonus on the charge in a immobile unit? While there are some expensive ways to make it work, it means you end up relying excessively on those blood claws and it weakens the list as a whole because over points is spent making the most of them, when 2 squads of Grey Hunters with meltas in Rhinos provide more builk, more toys for much less.

While this is a game of chance, what you take will alter probility. In a game that is close, you can alter the probabiltys so it is more favourable. More guns mean more opptunities to hit. Taking solid units means they will either take the hits or deal the hits better. Bad dice days can impact your chances, but that does not mean we should not attempt to minimize the effect it has on gameplay. Codexs give us choices to affect this probabilty, just some are more cost effective/flexabile/have more sympth then others and means that as a whole, assuming both players are doing well, that I can edge over or rely on my boys to hold/win that combat. There are many subtles outside the obivous. 

Yu-Gi-Oh is a card game which draws influence what resources you have at hand. A player who has refined his deck to produce fine hands most times has a better time then one who puts 80 cards into a deck that he likes with little reflection of the greater good. The player who refines his deck has a better statistical probablity and will win most (if not all) matches due to the raw consistancy of his list


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

Fuck Yu-gi-oh. Let's look at the game that made odds management the entire point: magic.

Magic has random draws, but the entire point of deckbuilding is to manage that randomness. People started including waaaay more than the 20 lands they used to once mulligans stopped being free, because landfloods are still not that likely, and more importantly are frequently more managable. People include enough removal to see it frequently. Combos make sure they can filter down to their business cards fast. You still get bad luck, but managing the odds makes your deck more reliable, particularly in decks like sligh. Sligh was "explosive" because it was just small creatures and burn. It always had a t1 play and a t2 play, it always drew cards that could kill someone fast. It's removal was also burn, so if you weren't drawing creatures you were drawing things to throw at someone's face or to get creatures through.

The same goes for 40. MSU builds know that units can get wiped out but they'll still have things that can do the job. Redundancy means you've got multiple tries. It's not just about the mean, it's about the curve itself. It's just like Orks (another fucked 'dex) would be MUCH better if lootas each rolled 1d3 rather than rolling per squad. More tedious? Sure. But getting 3 shots per dude isn't *that* much better considering you're basically shooting autocannons, and getting 1 shot per gun is painful.


----------



## Anensenef (May 24, 2010)

I enjoy i good slice of pie from time to time... that being said, why are you talking about ug-lee-ho and magic. so much hate in this topic by the way..

anywhoo... since i've been in quite a few tourney with CSM i would say that the Dex is not crap, it does have a lot of poor choices in there but what dex dosn't. on a ranking systen fron 1 to 10 I give them a 8-7.5. I also read somwhere that someone said crons have a better dex than CSM, I just wanna slap you and make you eat one of your destroyers... oh and im drunk as shit. Mmmmmmmmm........


----------



## Wysten (Dec 14, 2010)

Cyklown said:


> Fuck Yu-gi-oh. Let's look at the game that made odds management the entire point: magic.
> 
> 
> The same goes for 40. MSU builds know that units can get wiped out but they'll still have things that can do the job. Redundancy means you've got multiple tries. It's not just about the mean, it's about the curve itself. It's just like Orks (another fucked 'dex) would be MUCH better if lootas each rolled 1d3 rather than rolling per squad. More tedious? Sure. But getting 3 shots per dude isn't *that* much better considering you're basically shooting autocannons, and getting 1 shot per gun is painful.


I only provided that example because it was one I was familar with though I agree about your point.



Anensenef said:


> I enjoy i good slice of pie from time to time... that being said, why are you talking about ug-lee-ho and magic. so much hate in this topic by the way..
> 
> anywhoo... since i've been in quite a few tourney with CSM i would say that the Dex is not crap, it does have a lot of poor choices in there but what dex dosn't. on a ranking systen fron 1 to 10 I give them a 8-7.5. I also read somwhere that someone said crons have a better dex than CSM, I just wanna slap you and make you eat one of your destroyers... oh and im drunk as shit. Mmmmmmmmm........


If you read the post, I was making a compersion, that a great deck will outpreform a badly designed deck, because while the latter may have combos on a blue moon, the former will have combos all the time. 

Plus we all know that most codexes have threatening units, but the better codexes have threatening units that can work together. Devs in Blood Angels with Assualt Troopers and Sanguard for example. Again, when you have issues with two slots (Elites, Fast Attack and Heavy Support more or less chosen already, since everything else is extremely over costed) issues do emerge in bigger tourneys as that starts to dig in.

That being said, posting while having Alchohol in your blood over the legal posting limit is not recommended. Hehehe, sorry, couldn't resist.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Wysten said:


> That being said, posting while having Alchohol in your blood over the legal posting limit is not recommended. Hehehe, sorry, couldn't resist.


Alcoholism is a very serious family-destroying disease, how dare you make fun of it.
Also I don't think I've ever posted while sober, it might have something to do with me never being sober. Either way we need to clean up this topic as their is a lot of back and forth from people who are really ignorant toward what the claims are.

To this end: *anyone who's never played at a competitive tournament either as or against chaos, pipe down*. And not some local six-person gig either, at least 'ard boyz or some equivalent of thirty grown men and women fighting with toy soldiers in the same room. Otherwise you simply cannot grasp exactly what the arguments are because you have no idea what you're talking about.
And to the people thinking list-building isn't as big a factor as being a good general, you're wildly incompetent and should really consider going to a tournament with blocks of warriors. Big tournaments where people will call you on cheating.


----------



## Wysten (Dec 14, 2010)

LordWaffles said:


> Alcoholism is a very serious family-destroying disease, how dare you make fun of it.


Of course it is. But it was simply a bit of jest, if you post while drunk it is only natural to have a laugh about it. The rest of my post was entirely serious and on topic and, personally, their real life is not my concern unless the subject is about real life and that any commentary I make is relatively light in intention.


Anyways, I've said what I've wanted to say, I just wish people to read though this and understand the sides of both arguements rather then attempting to prove one singlar point.


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

LordWaffles said:


> To this end: *anyone who's never played at a competitive tournament either as or against chaos, pipe down*. And not some local six-person gig either, at least 'ard boyz or some equivalent of thirty grown men and women fighting with toy soldiers in the same room. Otherwise you simply cannot grasp exactly what the arguments are because you have no idea what you're talking about.


We'd get no people discussing anything competitive if we followed this rule. Decent tournaments are few and far between. Think about it, how many tournaments are Comp-free, have good/nonrandom/non army favoring scenarios, actually follow the rules book in terms of cover and don't have some other mindfuck screwing them up? They're few and far between. The winner almost never plays second place, ffs.

I mean, shit, no one has time for a tournament that does things properly. Swiss pairing? Right. Never mind the fact that your average TO seems to prefer battlepoints over W/L or W/L/D with tiebreakers being the W/L or W/L/D ratio of your opponents.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Cyklown said:


> We'd get no people discussing anything competitive if we followed this rule. Decent tournaments are few and far between. Think about it, how many tournaments are Comp-free, have good/nonrandom/non army favoring scenarios, actually follow the rules book in terms of cover and don't have some other mindfuck screwing them up? They're few and far between. The winner almost never plays second place, ffs.


Hence why I included the blanket statement of 'ard boyz as being a legitimate example. It's not about having the perfect tournament data, but having been to one important enough to weed out the weak people so that the poster can say he attended some tournament worth a fuck.
Of all the listings you've mentioned; fuck comp score it has no bearing on this, random scenarios(the ones out of the book) are hard to debate as being unfair but yes Ive seen messed up holiday themed tournaments, cover is stupid easy to follow how can you not follow it?
I advertised a guideline to take out anyone who's never gone to anything worth a damn, perhaps you could bring in the margins to be more easily interpreted? I'd hate to lose this thread, but we're getting swamped by people who've barely played ten games of 40k, but BY THE GODS they have opinions on top-tier chaos.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

LordWaffles said:


> but we're getting swamped by people who've barely played ten games of 40k, but BY THE GODS they have opinions on top-tier chaos.


Hence why I said earlier that the vast majority of people in this thread and in general are fucking awful at 40K.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Ouch. that hurts KD.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> Hence why I said earlier that the vast majority of people in this thread and in general are fucking awful at 40K.


But they wouldn't be so awful if you didn't play so well. If everyone didn't play to win all the time, and played to lose, those awful players wouldn't be so awful.

:laugh:


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> But they wouldn't be so awful if you didn't play so well. If everyone didn't play to win all the time, and played to lose, those awful players wouldn't be so awful.
> 
> :laugh:


Thats entirely true actually. As I said earlier skill is entirely relative. The logical conclusion is that KD is WAAC and single handedly killing the fun in 40k

that face doesnt seem angry enough to show my true anger
:angry::threaten:
:smoke:


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

LordWaffles said:


> Of all the listings you've mentioned; fuck comp score it has no bearing on this, random scenarios(the ones out of the book) are hard to debate as being unfair but yes Ive seen messed up holiday themed tournaments, cover is stupid easy to follow how can you not follow it?
> I advertised a guideline to take out anyone who's never gone to anything worth a damn, perhaps you could bring in the margins to be more easily interpreted? I'd hate to lose this thread, but we're getting swamped by people who've barely played ten games of 40k, but BY THE GODS they have opinions on top-tier chaos.


Well, there are people out there who don't play enough but who can at least fairly grasp the basics, just like there are people who have played a billion games and still suck.

That being said, the rules out of the book aren't that bad. Yeah, they can nerf folks, but it's not as bad as some of the other stuff. Scattering objectives come to mind. As far as cover being stupidly easy to follow, it sure is, but it gets ignored. The LOS rules are bad enough, but the number of tables at tourneys that are shittily set up or that blatantly ignore the 25% rule is staggering.


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

Katie Drake said:


> Hence why I said earlier that the vast majority of people in this thread and in general are fucking awful at 40K.




That's just mean...


----------



## Kirby (May 16, 2010)

Scathainn said:


> That's just mean...


But oh so true =D. Hence why 3++ helps raise the tactical skill of all involved. Increased number of better players = increased number of close and well played games = more competition = more fun.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Kirby said:


> But oh so true =D. Hence why 3++ helps raise the tactical skill of all involved. Increased number of better players = increased number of close and well played games = more competition = more fun.


That is assuming you are good and correct in every case? Skill level is relative to the opposition you play against and the tactics employed vary on that basis. It could be that you all suck, and you're just marginally better than the people you play against. That doesn't make you good, you just suck slightly less than some other people.

I take it everyone one who writes for 3++ has won Major tournies though. Katie? You an Ar'd Boys winner, maybe Adepitcon?

Oh wait, Kirby's description says he's not played any tournaments in 5th. That must be out of date though because otherwise it would be ridiculous to assume you're good at the game.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

Scathainn said:


> That's just mean...


nah, thats just Katie, narrow views and god complex and fucked up ideas on what makes a good/bad player, the kind of person you would give a wide berth in any gaming store.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> I take it everyone one who writes for 3++ has won Major tournies though. Katie? You an Ar'd Boys winner, maybe Adepitcon?
> 
> Oh wait, Kirby's description says he's not played any tournaments in 5th. That must be out of date though because otherwise it would be ridiculous to assume you're good at the game.


Ive done very well at local/semi local tournaments. Ard boys is a joke as far as competition goes. Adepticon is much better, but not by a lot. But you would know this if you were a competitive player. Having lost 2 games and tied 1 out of 40 or so tournament games ranging from 20 to 45 person events, I am by no means the best, but far from a scrub or a big fish in a little pond. 

With all of this established I can say that reading 3++ has definitely upped my game. Dont get me wrong, the blog has its faults. I disagree with Kirby on quite a few things, and strongly. But none the less there is civil discussion. Little to no bitching, and rational analysis of the game. Things that are hard to find in a 40k forum such as this one. The nice thing about a blog like Kirby's is the limited control of who creates information, while everyone can discuss it. So you are less likely to get shit posts about how footdar are a great army, chaos is overpowered and broken, or WAAC players as opposed to anti social neckbeards with shitty attitudes are killing the game.

You might say that a forum is better, as everyone has an "equal" voice. I would disagree here. Information is not something up for debate by the majority. 1 scientist still knows more about science than 10,000 illiterate people. I put what little knowledge and less authority on competitive 40k I have behind 3++. For its consistently good information, variety of topics and authors, and rational and logical discourse method.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

I'm not saying Kirby or Katie are bad players or good players. But they only way to know someone is good or bad in a game is via competitive play results. Their advice could be top notch for the Meta in which they play but that does not always make it right. I use Adepticon and Ard Boyz as example as they are national tournies. And that's the point National Level tournies are the only test of overall player ability, and in their current format I do no believe that 40K has such a tourney. To say someone is a bad player is to be able to recognise a good player, which is pretty much impossible in 40k. 

You've won what 37 out of 40 games in Tournies, sounds good you must be a good player. Wrong you must be a good player in your area. Your area might be a mental hospital for all we know. I used to play a popular card game, I was ranked in the top 10 in the world with the ELO system, but that was because I won a lot of games locally, not because I was literally in the top 10 best players in the world. Meta game matters too much in 40K to really to have generic advice which works in a generic fashion due to the RPS nature of the game.


----------



## Jezlad (Oct 14, 2006)

Aramoro said:


> I'm not saying Kirby or Katie are bad players or good players. But they only way to know someone is good or bad in a game is via competitive play results. Their advice could be top notch for the Meta in which they play but that does not always make it right. I use Adepticon and Ard Boyz as example as they are national tournies. And that's the point National Level tournies are the only test of overall player ability, and in their current format I do no believe that 40K has such a tourney. To say someone is a bad player is to be able to recognise a good player, which is pretty much impossible in 40k.
> 
> You've won what 37 out of 40 games in Tournies, sounds good you must be a good player. Wrong you must be a good player in your area. Your area might be a mental hospital for all we know. I used to play a popular card game, I was ranked in the top 10 in the world with the ELO system, but that was because I won a lot of games locally, not because I was literally in the top 10 best players in the world. Meta game matters too much in 40K to really to have generic advice which works in a generic fashion due to the RPS nature of the game.


Cool thread. I tend to agree in part with both sides of the argument.

I can't really talk much for 5th edition because I detest the direction the game has gone in and refuse to play it. However, I do think local tournament wins aren't worth the paper they're written on.

I've won several locally, infact, back in 4th edition I'd have to travel a fair distance to find a game I could lose. 5th edition not so much, I know the theory and understand the game but the fundamental rule changes ruined it for me. Step up to GT level though and I'd drop down to the top 25, sometimes beating the best, sometimes losing to them.

I guess, what I'm saying is supporting your argument that you're a great player with meaningless wins is pointless. 

On the flip side though, I can tell when someone knows their shit because I agree with them. If I don't they're usually wrong, and in most cases Katie, Kirby and Chug are accurate although the US tournament meta game is very different to the UK. We play smaller points battles over here and it goes without saying that certain armies are weaker at higher points. Chaos I feel are still a top side, last years GT here kind of proves that with double lash coming top two was it? Its an army I feel I could compete with against every other.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

> You've won what 37 out of 40 games in Tournies, sounds good you must be a good player. Wrong you must be a good player in your area


As I said, I consider my knowledge in everything to be extremely limited. None the less my area probably has a higher than normal competitive meta. Lash chaos for instance is considered fairly average in power level. Its not uncommon for players in my area to bring armies like razorwolves, tervigon nids, loganwing, and mech guard to the store on the weekends for friendly pick up games. Are we better than some areas? Probably not. None the less most of us regularly fight against what are generally considered top tournament armies, and we do our best to crush each other. Its done in a friendly manner, but thats how games work in southwest Ohio.



> the US tournament meta game is very different to the UK. We play smaller points battles over here and it goes without saying that certain armies are weaker at higher points. Chaos I feel are still a top side


I agree that chaos are still fairly strong. Not nearly what they were when the current book first came out, or the monstrosity that were iron warriors. And yes the meta over here is generally different, at least from what I hear. Heavily mech/shooty armies I guess arent as popular across the pond. I guess I will have to go sometime and play in a few tournaments.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Aramoro said:


> I take it everyone one who writes for 3++ has won Major tournies though. Katie? You an Ar'd Boys winner, maybe Adepitcon?


I haven't. But then I've yet to attend one. I don't consider myself a fantastic player - I'm still very much learning and getting better all the time. The amount of effort that I put into improving my game, writing new lists and so on keeps me a step ahead of the majority of people. It's gotten to the point now where I don't get much challenge at any of the stores in my general area and I need to travel almost two hours to find someone who'll beat me more often than not.

www.vassal40k.info

I'm not just flapping my gums or engaging in an internet-awesomeness contest. I'm willing to back up what I say.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

Can we get back to the point instead of letting yet another thread devolve into egotists, braggarts and narcissists headbashing each other over who's the most unbeatable?

Chaos Space Marines admittedly are not the best army in 40k, and I'd say its fair to comment that there are elements of the previous codex that we all miss. Nor is any of that a great revelation.

Therefore 3++ saying that few people use them or that Chaos marine lists are amongst the weakest at tournaments or simply wanting to be competitive isn't unexpected.

Furthermore we are talking about a game where dice rolls can have as big an effect on the outcome of the game as tactics.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Tournament results alone aren't always an indication of what armies are, or are not, competitive. Granted, if an army wins a LOT of tournaments (like Imperial Guard and Space Wolves), then it's safe to say they're a competitive army, and if another almost never wins a major tournament (like Necron and Tau), then it's safe to say that it's not.

How good the players are does count for a lot. In fact, it's probably the number one factor when determining likelihood of victory, regardless of what army they're using. That's how mid-tier armies win tournaments. Success isn't just list-hammer, it's also strategy and playstyle. 

Nevertheless, I stand by what I said before: there's no way that Chaos Marines would consistently do so well in tournaments if they were not competitive. If it was always luck, then it wouldn't just be Chaos Marines. Every army would randomly win a large number of tournaments, and this is clearly not the case.

That said, they clearly aren't as competitive as most of the newer codexes. If nothing else, they have no viable fast attack choice, which greatly limits their options. 

They're solidly mid-tier, which roughly translates as: experienced players (both with the army and in general) can use them without a problem. However, Average players (or players not familiar with the particular army) will have a lot of trouble adjusting to the army's unique strengths and weaknesses.

Upper tier translates as: competitive, even in the hands of an average player. Lower tier translates as: almost never competitive, even in skilled hands. 

Chaos Marines certainly belong in the mid-tier.


----------



## ChugginDatHaterade (Nov 15, 2010)

The Sullen One said:


> Furthermore we are talking about a game where dice rolls can have as big an effect on the outcome of the game as tactics.


As was discussed before dice rolls have a small part to play in the game, as they generally even out. The game is probably 50% tactics, 30% list, 15% mission, and 5% dice.



> I'm not just flapping my gums or engaging in an internet-awesomeness contest. I'm willing to back up what I say.


I guess this means I need to get vassal and bring the flesh tearers one step closer to being an extinct chapter:so_happy:


----------



## TheKingElessar (Mar 31, 2009)

Stella Cadente said:


> nah, thats just Katie, narrow views and god complex and fucked up ideas on what makes a good/bad player, the kind of person you would give a wide berth in any gaming store.


Must be why she, and not YOU, is the only person on my 'Ignore' list...oh, wait...

I happen to agree with most of her points...y'know, that if players are at the same level, they have more fun. Stuff like that. 

However, I don't wish to post in the thread without even trying to contribute, so I shall reiterate:


Chaos are middle-of-the-pack.
Every Codex that comes out pushes them further down in relative power.
It takes a good player to beat average players who use better Codexes with Chaos. (Or any army!)
Most players are crap at the game.

In MY area, people less likely to get fun games in are the people who want to try stupid made up rules that no-one else has ever read - like Imperial Armour jank.


----------

