# Some More Bad News for Berzerkers (A 40k PSA)



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Well, if they weren't already dead to me after the assaulting from transports changes, they definitely are now.

_*Rage does not work with Counterattack*_. I've seen a lot of people mention that they will always get +2 attacks during the first turn of combat. I assumed it was correct but it is not the case. Counterattack now gives +1 attack until the end of the phase rather than the unit counting as charging. I'm sure a lot of people knew this but I just wanted to put it out there.

Here's some more reasons Berzerkers are terrible:
-They are no cheaper than a Vanilla CSM with the Mark of Chaos, Icon of Wrath (split among 10 models) and extra CCW. The Berzerkers only advantage is WS5 because at this point they have the exact same special rules! They don't however have a Bolter nor do they have access to heavy or special weapons.
-They can't assault the turn they leave a Rhino. Huge!
-Chainaxes are fairly pointless, especially at 3 pts/model
-They are actually worse in close combat than Plague Marines.

If you're including Berzerkers in your army it should be for _fluff purposes only!_ It's really sad actually because Zerks were the very first unit I bought for 40k back at the end of 3rd and the whole reason I started CSM.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> The Berzerkers only advantage is WS5 because at this point they have the exact same special rules!


+ Fearless, 
+ the Icon-bearer can die
- no rerolls on charge range unless they buy the Icon of Wrath for the squad, despite the fact they already have the other ability

As soon as I got the codex, I checked out that counter-attack/rage thing in the rulebook, so it doesn't exactly come as a surprise to me. Yeah, 'Zerkers aren't that great.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Mossy Toes said:


> + Fearless,
> + the Icon-bearer can die
> - no rerolls on charge range unless they buy the Icon of Wrath for the squad, despite the fact they already have the other ability


Even Fearless can be given to a CSM squad if you attach a Lord  Also the Icon of Wrath is only 5 points cheaper for the Zerks even though they already have Furious Charge. Weak.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

To be fair, old 'Zerkers were a bit nuts for what you got. They're much more balanced when compared to the current codex as a whole (sure they "suck" when you compare them to what you had, but look at what you have NOW before saying they're unusable first. I think they're more than usable if they suit your play style or army build). I have a feeling GW is pushing 6th Edition to be like 8th Edition Fantasy. Everyone works on roughly the same level and choices in armies trade benefits (essentially turning like units into side-grades).

A lot of the rules show this already. We're moving to a game where you can really pick and choose and get down into the options you want for your army without being shoehorned into one unit or another. Sure there will still be internet meta (which is always ridiculous but that's beside the point), but in reality (which is where the internet meta is very rarely grounded as it's always X trumps Y all the time) the game is moving to giving you a wide range of options, but not making any one option REALLY better than the others.

Now could we see more power-dexes come out of this eventually anyways? Sure. But I'm hoping to see more codexes that really take advantage of the rules and give us interesting armies that aren't filled with "take X to win" options and really give you the ability to fill an army with the kind of character and choice that you prefer rather than what is considered to be "best".

Of course I fully expect to see GW bork this up from time to time in an attempt to sell new units/models but I'll take what I can get.


----------



## Word Bearer 81007 (Aug 5, 2012)

the only thing that I find to truly be lacking with the zerkers is the fact they nerfed them down to only 1 base attack. I guess with rage you make up for it but after the first turn of combat you are just as reliable with your attacks as standard CSM. Minus of course the WS5. damn zerkers should be fucking beasts in combat at all times, not just the charge.


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Zion said:


> To be fair, old 'Zerkers were a bit nuts for what you got. They're much more balanced when compared to the current codex as a whole (sure they "suck" when you compare them to what you had, but look at what you have NOW before saying they're unusable first.


zerkers were definitely not 'nuts' before. They were middling, even weakish. At 21 points per model, they were very unimpressive. But that's all irrelevant, because comparing the old to the new is not the best way to go.

I have to say that berserkers are definitely not competitive, but since they are fearless, you pretty much have to take them if you want a world eaters army. 

Sure you can make your joe shmoe marines fearless with a lord, but in my opinion it's not good to have a lord just walking up the board like that. 

I prefer the juggernaut lord rolling with bikes.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Word Bearer 81007 said:


> the only thing that I find to truly be lacking with the zerkers is the fact they nerfed them down to only 1 base attack. I guess with rage you make up for it but after the first turn of combat you are just as reliable with your attacks as standard CSM. Minus of course the WS5. damn zerkers should be fucking beasts in combat at all times, not just the charge.


I don't know, from what I've read about Kharne (other than he's a nice guy) is a bit of fluff that basically describes him charging a group of people, murdering them, then charging his fellow Chaos Marines and murdering them too. Charging into combat and murdering things and then doing it again the next turn seems pretty Bezerker to me.

Also before this gets too silly I'd like to point out that in addition to that one base attack the 'Zerkers have 1 attack base + 1 for having a pistol & CCW + 2 on the charge for rage. This puts them at 4 for the charge, and 2 for any rounds following that.

Additionally they can also get Chainaxes which make those attacks AP4. This means you can tool up a squad of 'Zerkers to charge into a mob of Guardsmen, Eldar (save Striking Scorpions who have a 3+ and Banshees who go at I10), Tau, small Nids (and some of the bigger ones too), Orks and Necrons (namely Warrior blobs) and just go to town. Many of these are T3 which means you remove models on a 2+ to wound. Against T4 you remove them on a 3+ (it gets a little worse the next turn, but it's still very effective when they don't get saves).

This makes 'Zerkers the premier unit to lock up blobs of models, kill lots of them without allowing saves and then (if they're not fearless) chasing them down and finishing the job. Against Fearless units they stay around a turn longer and finish the job. 

'Zerkers aren't BAD, they're DIFFERENT. Hell, I've yet to see anyone who was TRULY thankful that they don't run around the board chasing empty Rhinos like they did in 5th (and don't pretend they couldn't have gotten that as a rule). 

The fact of the matter is that 'Zerkers aren't you're go to unit for killing Marines, that's just a fact. To be fair since 6th Edition started they weren't anyways. They're still good at killing a lot of things on the board that aren't Marines.

In the end the only reason not to 'Zerkers is if you don't want too. They're not longer a mandatory CC requirement in your army (they're a number of things that can fill that role for you now in fact!), but if you like them or want to use them for a particular theme I'd say use them. Play around with how you equip them and what you do with them. 

Just stop bitching about how badly they were "nerfed" just because they don't steamroll their way across the table like you want them too. They're better balanced now than they were before and they aren't your only unit that can do close combat, and are designed for punching the squishier models in the game (or more specifically hitting them with an axe). Either play them or don't. Because in the end no one wants to hear people cry about how their shiny new codex isn't as shiny as they wanted it to be. It's here, it's not changing and it'll be here until 7th Edition at least. So get used to it, and learn to either play with the 'Zerkers as they are now, or pick one of the other many CC options you can use instead.

Just leave the whining at home, because no one wants to hear it and it doesn't do the 40K community any good to entertain it.

EDIT:
Got Ninja'd while I was posting.


Eleven said:


> zerkers were definitely not 'nuts' before. They were middling, even weakish. At 21 points per model, they were very unimpressive. But that's all irrelevant, because comparing the old to the new is not the best way to go.
> 
> I have to say that berserkers are definitely not competitive, but since they are fearless, you pretty much have to take them if you want a world eaters army.
> 
> ...


I agree they weren't some kind of uber-god unit. But there seems to be this persistent whine on the internet that claims they were. It's not just here, I've seen this pop up all over the place. Hell, no one seems to notice that for all their "nerfs" (many of which where already there in the old book thanks to the rules change) that the 'Zerkers went DOWN by 4 points a piece.

'Zerkers are competitive if you want something that mauls it's way through blobs of low saves things. It may not work in everyone's local meta but it doesn't mean it's not an option.

A World Eaters army doesn't need to be all 'Zerkers. It could easilly be regular CSM (done up in a suitable Khorne fashion, namely brass and red) and a unit or two of 'Zerkers to help mop up what the CSM shoot up. Themes aren't restricted to a specific model or unit but instead to what you want to do for the army. After all, even new 'Zerkers need time to be trained and equipped properly (and it's not like you can't get CCW + Bolt Pistol on your CSMs to make it match even further). The only thing restricting people in a themed army is themselves.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Berzerkers are generally a tactically weak choice in most builds however my reasons are different.
-Chain axe is worthless and is only useful when min maxing (Lets be honest the difference between ap4 and ap3 is incredible considering that 50%> of enemies are Mech)
-Shooting is stronger now then ever so realistically even if they had their old stats they should have been cheaper (as even guard have a small chance of dropping 1-2 depending on the unit you assault).
-Even fearless on fearless units they suffer as most often you will be trapped in CC for more then 2-3 turns depending on the unit your fighting).
-Unless your taking a khorne lord they are generally not worth the elites slot as chosen can be made to be substantially better at killing crap infantry and don't require the charge to due so (Mind you they are more expensive, but the ability to have multiple power weapons means that a tooled up chosen unit could probably kill a entire berzerker unit if they got the charge, while retaining the ability to use bolters).
-No assaulting out of vhicles meaning that they will either be running into pie plates, and plasma fire or will have to jump out and hope your oppenents stupid enough to not figure out a way to reduce the squad to 3 men before you can charge.

Yah so its not a good unit overall when compared to what they will often be thrown up against in your own codex or in the bastard children of ward (GK, Necrons). I mean they really have no role in the army as it is. Chosen are better at fighting MeQ, and regular CSM, can be kitted out to do almost as well against all the other enemies that don't require a power weapon (what the difference between 4 dead gaurdsmen and 8? You standing in front of the enemy gun line like a idiot after your 200+ point unit killed a entire 100pt unit in a single turn, that what). Hell even the argument for fearless is less then impressive as plague marines tar pit units better, and even noise marines when taken with a doom siren and CCW's have more tactical flexibility due to the ability to remove entire marines squads at close range without having to charge.

Keep in mind this is the tournament perspective, I mean when compared against the remaining 4-5th edition books they are a damn good unit, but this is a idiots argument as the realistic meta involves necrons, GK's, and better designed CSM lists. Meaning that a dedicated assault unit that will either not see combat or will just give a free kill is redundant.

CSM's aren't eldar everything in the book is good at CC. Better to save your points for devastating ap3 flamers, and laz cannons then idiotically perusing slow moving dedicated assault units. However I am not complaing for the sake of complaining as I always avoided them for their tactical weakness, if the changes upset you then don't take them anymore and laugh at your idiotic opponents as they waste their points on over prices CC units that will never reach combat).

PS: Warp talons are still a good idea, and can easily out kill berzerkers against the vast majority of opponents.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

LukeValantine said:


> Keep in mind this is the tournament perspective, I mean when compared against the remaining 4-5th edition books they are a damn good unit, but this is a idiots argument as the realistic meta involves necrons, GK's, and better designed CSM lists. Meaning that a dedicated assault unit that will either not see combat or will just give a free kill is redundant.


I'd argue that yours is a national tournament perspective (which to be honest seems to be about 95% netlists and then the top tables being people who say "screw all that, I'm playing the stuff I like" and then thrash the net lists because they know how to use their army better). Local tournaments aren't on the same bar as national ones. 

Heck locally we've got two Sisters players now (counting myself), an Ork Player (who also has Guard and a bike Marine army), a Dark Angels player (uses a primarily Vanilla Marine based army when he's not playing Ravenwing), a Dark Eldar player, a single Necron army (soon to be two, but only based on codex, not models for my part of that, and even then I've hardly got a Flying Circus going on with a whole 2 Night Scythes as the only flyers in the army), a Tyranids player (who also plays Tau), a Blood Angels player, two Guard players, an Eldar player (mainly Wraithguard), a couple Chaos Marine armies (started back in 5th) and a Dark Eldar army. 

In total we have 4 MEQ armies. Everything else is something different and because of that the local tournaments are incredibly interesting and varied. Very little Marines punching Marines here.

And I've heard of other local scenes like this too. National Meta =/= Local Meta.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Well if that is your experience with your your local meta, the tournaments then I can appreciate your perspective, but where I live the people that branch out and use unconventional armies typically get swept from the table (Constantly, and across a huge selection of gamers). Note that no one was suggesting net lists, as I personally don't take them because they often are to tactically inflexible, but almost every army needs to play to the strengths of its codex, and the current rule set if it wants a realistic crack at winning. Its kinda like how even the most friendly ock player knows better then to take large units of grots in a tournament. 

See list optimization and net listing/min maxing are two different things, and a relatively sound unit like berzekrers is just doesn't make the cut when making most competitive lists. Now there are ways to run them competitively, but this generates CC themed armies that many competent generals can deal with. Also 95% of the placings in GT and other events don't involve people that say screw it and run their own thing. In fact most of the armies you see involve strong unit selection built around a specific tactical plan. So even though you may not see it they are doing the exact same thing I am, but rather then thinking in general terms optimize their army towards overwhelming the enemy in a specific way rather then smashing them with a generally strong army that can respond to many threats.

Now berzerkers are just a unit that no longer has a place. Warp talons are one of the best mech hunters in the entire book, and regular marines do the job of killing junk units just as well for 4pts cheaper.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Unfortunately I think all of the Cult Marines fall through the crack of "Not cheap enough to be Troops, but not good enough to be Elites".

I get that people want to take Cult lists where every model is a Zerker or something, but I honestly think locking Cult Troops into Elites and making them a little better (even if only via points efficiency by dropping their values 1-2pts per models) and letting people take as many marked Troops as they like would have been a better option. That way you would have had truly "Elite" Elite choices. As it stands (and has been pointed out) the only difference between a tooled up CSM unit and a Cult unit is Fearless and 1-2 special rules/wargear choices. If Plague Marines/Zerkers/Tsons/Noises were better, they'd be all you'd ever see. But if they couldn't ever score? Then they might be taken in proportion.


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 15, 2012)

Zerkers got considerably worse at assault in the new codex, and assault as a whole got considerably worse in general in the 6e core rules. As a result, berzerkers just aren't very good at all.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Malisteen said:


> Zerkers got considerably worse at assault in the new codex, and assault as a whole got considerably worse in general in the 6e core rules. As a result, berzerkers just aren't very good at all.


Sums up my feelings pretty well. 

To expand on AP4 weapons, they're all more or less useless because there are so few close combat focused units that don't have either a 3+ armor save, a decent invulnerable save, or feel no pain. The only exception are hordes with 5+ or 6+ saves, but the way to beat them is through shooting templates/blasts, not close combat.

I don't want to discourage people from using assault focused units though, as it's often the only way to force units off objectives, which is especially vital late in the game, and as a way to counter your opponent's best shooting units. 

Khorne berserkers are not the way to go though. The best option Chaos seems to have, at least from my experience, are Plague Marines, which are insanely durable for their cost. That or allied Chaos Daemons are the way to go. Spend the rest of your points on shooting and troops.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

LukeValantine said:


> Well if that is your experience with your your local meta, the tournaments then I can appreciate your perspective, but where I live the people that branch out and use unconventional armies typically get swept from the table (Constantly, and across a huge selection of gamers).


Getting swept happens (one of my early games in 5th resulted in me getting table THREE times in the same game with my CSM army), the thing is you can't just fold and say "well that doesn't work, better shelf this and NEVER play it again". Tweak it, adjust it, find ways that it DOES work and then use it that way. It's the same way people play old or weak codexes effectively. You find what works for you and run it. And you keep tweaking it until you get the most bang for your buck. 



LukeValantine said:


> Note that no one was suggesting net lists, as I personally don't take them because they often are to tactically inflexible, but almost every army needs to play to the strengths of its codex, and the current rule set if it wants a realistic crack at winning. Its kinda like how even the most friendly ock player knows better then to take large units of grots in a tournament.


No one was suggesting net lists, but I was pointing out that a majority of armies that go to those big tournaments ARE net lists. 

Playing to your strengths and preferences is just as important as playing to the strengths of the codex. I can't even count anymore the number of things I've killed with Repentia (back in 5th when Rage sucked and Fearless caused you to die harder) but the internet swears up and down that they were nothing but a points sink and worthless. Until they wrecked a Land Raider, or a Venerable Dread, or that Tactical Squad on an objective... And Repentia aren't even an uber-killing force in and of themselves (FnP and a 6++ save at T3 and swinging on I1. On paper they don't look like they're worth 17 points each, but in the right hands and with the right mindset they're able to be worth even more)



LukeValantine said:


> See list optimization and net listing/min maxing are two different things,


Agreed.



LukeValantine said:


> and a relatively sound unit like berzekrers is just doesn't make the cut when making most competitive lists.


Again, I agree. MOST lists don't have a place for Berserkers. But take the right player with the right mind set and they become worth their points and then some. 



LukeValantine said:


> Now there are ways to run them competitively, but this generates CC themed armies that many competent generals can deal with.


I disagree. Not every use for Berserkers revolves around CC themed lists. Somtimes you need a capable, but relatively cheap CC unit for clean up duty, or to get in there and tie up a shooting unit for a turn or two. Hell, tie up a blob of Guardsmen. They can't shoot, won't likely win (pending good rolls for the Guardsmen, and poor ones for the Berserkers), the characters will be forced to move forward to engage under 6th edition rules meaning that in time those Sergeants and Commissars will die, and the squad won't get to hold an objective because it'll be contested. Optimal strategty? Maybe not to you, but to someone it's not a bad plan.



LukeValantine said:


> Also 95% of the placings in GT and other events don't involve people that say screw it and run their own thing.


I disagree. MANY people who make those top brackets run lists that don't fall into the internet's definition of "good"....until they win. They utilize strategies and synergies that are based around the player's play style and preference.



LukeValantine said:


> In fact most of the armies you see involve strong unit selection built around a specific tactical plan.


Sounds like doing your own thing if you're not copying the internet and you're planning around your own play style and unit choice.



LukeValantine said:


> So even though you may not see it they are doing the exact same thing I am, but rather then thinking in general terms optimize their army towards overwhelming the enemy in a specific way rather then smashing them with a generally strong army that can respond to many threats.


Some armies do that. I usually find most of those to be 1 trick ponies that suffer greatly once you find that lynchpin and pull it. A good "all-comers" list written to play the mission (not the opponent) can and usually does beat the trick list designed to play the opponent instead.

Besides, not everyone needs an ultra-optimized list to play the game. Even in tournaments I've seen less optimal choices taken because people wanted to field a unit they like for the sake of fielding something they liked.



LukeValantine said:


> Now berzerkers are just a unit that no longer has a place. Warp talons are one of the best mech hunters in the entire book, and regular marines do the job of killing junk units just as well for 4pts cheaper.


I disagree. EVERY unit has it's place. It's place just might not be in YOUR army.



Sethis said:


> Unfortunately I think all of the Cult Marines fall through the crack of "Not cheap enough to be Troops, but not good enough to be Elites".


Cult Marines are largely unchanged (yes there where small changes, but realistically they were NOT world-shaking. It's just that a new book comes out and suddenly the overpriced option from last edition that got CHEAPER is suddenly shit) from last edition save for the ways USRs work and most are actually cheaper (I think Plague Bearers actually got more expensive, but then again they gained poisoned close combat attacks so I'm not surprised).



Sethis said:


> I get that people want to take Cult lists where every model is a Zerker or something, but I honestly think locking Cult Troops into Elites and making them a little better (even if only via points efficiency by dropping their values 1-2pts per models) and letting people take as many marked Troops as they like would have been a better option.


I disagree only based on the principle that I like seeing varied armies and this allows people to make those varied armies. Restricting options never feels like the way to go to me. This still allows those big fluffy Cult armies, the mixed armies and even the armies without any cult units. It's legitimately very well thought out and nowhere near as bad as this knee-jerk reaction from the community is claiming it is.



Sethis said:


> That way you would have had truly "Elite" Elite choices. As it stands (and has been pointed out) the only difference between a tooled up CSM unit and a Cult unit is Fearless and 1-2 special rules/wargear choices. If Plague Marines/Zerkers/Tsons/Noises were better, they'd be all you'd ever see. But if they couldn't ever score? Then they might be taken in proportion.


From the whinging I've been reading online apparently cult units where WAY better back in the worse codex when they cost more and often they had other issues.

Have they been tweaked? Yes. Have their points been adjusted to more fairly represent their current rules? VERY much yes. Old cults were NOT that good (save for Plague Marines and they were only really good for their cost because you could get two meltas at 5 models allowing you to MSU them up and get 12 Meltas into your Troops choices).



mynameisgrax said:


> Sums up my feelings pretty well.
> 
> To expand on AP4 weapons, they're all more or less useless because there are so few close combat focused units that don't have either a 3+ armor save, a decent invulnerable save, or feel no pain. The only exception are hordes with 5+ or 6+ saves, but the way to beat them is through shooting templates/blasts, not close combat.


I disagree. Why? Because most units that have a poor armor save have a poor invulnerable save. And with Feel no Pain working on a 5+ realistically you're looking at a 5 or 6++ and a 5+ to not die.

And there are plenty of non-close combat units to throw Berserkers into with those Chainaxes (A prime example would be Necron Warriors. They fall down without a save, you can then force them to break, run them down and they don't stand back up again. That is a LOT more effective than getting into a shooting match with them). 

Berserkers aren't the unit you throw against Genestealers or Banshees. Their the unit your throw against a blob squad of Guard (oh look, they can't shoot you to death, hold objectives and given time will lose their characters since the characters HAVE to move forward and swing AFTER Berserkers do), a unit of Inquisitorial Henchmen, Space Marine scouts, Long Fangs, or generally anything you need to deal with but don't want to throw more expensive, killier units (AKA Warp Talons) who should be focusing on those dedicated CC units.



mynameisgrax said:


> I don't want to discourage people from using assault focused units though, as it's often the only way to force units off objectives, which is especially vital late in the game, and as a way to counter your opponent's best shooting units.


This is something many people overlook when it comes to CC units. They've actually got a strong role in a list that people forget about.



mynameisgrax said:


> Khorne berserkers are not the way to go though. The best option Chaos seems to have, at least from my experience, are Plague Marines, which are insanely durable for their cost. That or allied Chaos Daemons are the way to go. Spend the rest of your points on shooting and troops.


Plague Marines aren't a CC unit in the normal sense of the term. With Poisoned attacks they wound high toughness things like MCs or Wraithguard, but not T4 or less more effectively. This makes them a better tarpit unit against your average army than a way of wrecking things. Plague Marines always have been and continue to be your way of locking down an objective and keeping it. Bubble wrap them with 35 Plague Zombies for extra holding power.

Besides, for their costs the Berserkers do something else people have been forgetting (and they did this in 5th too): they distract opponents. You can be aggressive with them without fear as the more aggressive you are with them the more they feel they need to deal with them NOW. You'd be amazed how DEAD some people will make things when they're in their face (it's called controlling the tempo (always important in a game) and distracting the opponent with what seems to be a scary thing that you honestly don't expect to have next turn in an effort to open them up to even nastier things).

And if they choose to ignore them you can use these boys to start dealing with those ranged threats (Predators, Rifle dreads, Long Fangs....).

But maybe I just see a unit that's being unfairly judged without being tried out. 

And yes, I know Overwatch exists, but considering that these are Marines, most if not all of them will usually make the combat.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Zion said:


> Again, I agree. MOST lists don't have a place for Berserkers. But take the right player with the right mind set and they become worth their points and then some.


Zion, I feel like you are just playing Devil's Advocate. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and build a top tier CSM list using Berzerkers as the core of the army. Then we'll all rate it. If you can build a list using Berzerkers as the core and the majority agree that it can contend against other top tier tournament lists, then you win. Argument over. If you can't then just agree that Berzerkers are terrible.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

They aren't terrible. They have a very unique place. They are no longer the gods of close combat with the nerfs to furious charge and assaults in general, however used correctly still have an awesome place in an army. I just bought a box and then the upgrade pack from FW along with Lord Zhufor to be the allies in my Guard army, because I have always liked Beserkers and still find them quite good, just not great against other marines, but they tear other guard and anything that isn't MEQ a new one. Are they a tournament unit? Probably not but that doesn't make them terrible by any stretch. Tournaments are boring now with all the "I win" codices spawned by Mat Ward anyways.

If your meta is really so saturated with marines then I feel bad. We have 2 marine players in our group out of 14. Some of us have secondary armies as marines but all our primaries are something else...it's great.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Taggerung said:


> They aren't terrible. They have a very unique place.


Please, all of you, quit saying this. They have a unique place in fluffy armies and that's it.



Taggerung said:


> They are no longer the gods of close combat with the nerfs to furious charge and assaults in general, however used correctly still have an awesome place in an army.


They're Berzerkers!!! They should be gods of close combat. 



Taggerung said:


> I just bought a box and then the upgrade pack from FW along with Lord Zhufor to be the allies in my Guard army, because I have always liked Beserkers and still find them quite good, just not great against other marines, but they tear other guard and anything that isn't MEQ a new one.


Everything tears Guard a new one.



Taggerung said:


> Are they a tournament unit? Probably not


Thank you!


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Zion, I feel like you are just playing Devil's Advocate. I'd like to see you put your money where your mouth is and build a top tier CSM list using Berzerkers as the core of the army. Then we'll all rate it. If you can build a list using Berzerkers as the core and the majority agree that it can contend against other top tier tournament lists, then you win. Argument over. If you can't then just agree that Berzerkers are terrible.


I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, I quite seriously think people are overreacting to the level of power the Berserkers have and hate seeing people claim that you MUST write off a unit if you want a chance of winning. Doing so quite seriously ruins people's fun. You're telling people not to play units they may like and find good use for just because you don't like them. That's not fact, that's opinion, and it's one that sucks. The whole damn internet has whole ARTICLES on "take X" to win, but if they were half as valid as they claim then the only armies that would exist would be net lists. 

The plain truth is this whole thread is full of whinging and whining. I don't see people TRYING to think outside their tiny boxes on how to make something they like work, instead I see too much bitching about how a unit they probably didn't even use in 5th Edition go "so much worse" and was "horribly nerfed".

Secondly you're asking me to build an army, which would then have to be proven. So to prove my point I'd need to spend a few hundred dollars building a Chaos Marine army, then spend money to go to a National Tournament *just* to prove my point that Berserkers aren't completely broken in an unusable manner and people can still use them if they want to? With all respect: get bent. That is not a reasonable request and you know it.

And I never said you needed to build an ARMY out of Berserkers, in-fact a lot of my ideas of using them have had to do with using 1-2 units (I'm quite frankly not a fan of spamming 6 of anything for the sake of spamming 6 of anything). Quit trying to put words in my mouth.

Instead I've got a better idea: build a CSM army with 1-2 units of Berserkers and actually TRY to make them work for you. Legitimately try. Use them as distractions. Bait your opponent to shoot them instead of your more expensive units. Tie up their gunline(s) with them. Give them a legitimate shot then come back and tell me if they really feel underpowered. 

Use your brain and play the damn game instead of crying about it on the internet. Besides, you can't legitimately claim a unit doesn't work unless you use it. A lot. And with the codex being only a month old I doubt you've played enough games to be a legitimate expert to say that they never work and they should never be taken by anyone.

EDIT: Well here's your problem:



Iron_Freak220 said:


> They're Berzerkers!!! They should be gods of close combat.


Fluff does not make rules. Or else 10 Marines would table an Ork army in 3 turns. Get a realistic expectation in your silly little game with the silly little plastic men.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Zion said:


> I'm not playing Devil's Advocate, I quite seriously think people are overreacting to the level of power the Berserkers have and hate seeing people claim that you MUST write off a unit if you want a chance of winning. Doing so quite seriously ruins people's fun.
> 
> Ok, obviously you disagree which means other people disagree which means those are probably the people who are taking Berzerkers and are thus, not having their fun ruined.
> 
> ...


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

I seriously considered writing up a rebuttal to your nonsense and how list writing doesn't prove a damned thing, but at this point I'm done. I'm tired of playing games with people who refuse that a unit can have a place in a person's army and claim the only good army will never use them.

You want to complain about the unit that shares the same rules the previous version did while being 4 points cheaper is somehow suddenly worthless and broken in the worst possible way? Fine. Have fun. I'm not going to be party to this nonsense anymore. I've got better uses of my time than arguing with someone on the internet and I should have realized that sooner. That's my fault though and I can't blame anyone else for me wasting my time. But I can keep from continuing to do so.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Zion said:


> list writing doesn't prove a damned thing


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Zion said:


> I seriously considered writing up a rebuttal to your nonsense and how list writing doesn't prove a damned thing, but at this point I'm done. I'm tired of playing games with people who refuse that a unit can have a place in a person's army and claim the only good army will never use them.
> 
> Giving up that easily? Just when this was getting interesting too!
> You want to complain about the unit that shares the same rules the previous version did while being 4 points cheaper is somehow suddenly worthless and broken in the worst possible way?
> ...


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 15, 2012)

How do 'zerkers tie up gun lines? That implies that you're getting to them before the rest of your army, but zerkers are infantry speed slow, with really no good transport options. They really don't warrant a land raider.

I mean spawn, bikes, those can tie up a gun line, but zerkers? I'm not saying you can't win with them, but you're certainly making things harder for yourself than if you just spent those points on something else, like basic chaos marines, or plagues, or sonic-less noise marines, or bikes (especially bikes), or terminators, or havocs, or just ... whatever.

Not possessed, though. Or thousand sons. Or maybe warp talons. Berzerkers are probably better than those things (assuming the zerkers are troops).


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Iron_Freak220 said:


> Please, all of you, quit saying this. They have a unique place in fluffy armies and that's it.
> 
> Totally not true, they are awesome shock troops. They perform a similar role to rough riders. Hold them back and use them react to the other persons strategy
> 
> ...


In the end it doesn't matter. You don't like them and certain people do. As a guard player, they terrify me. Mods...lock the thread please?


----------



## Eleven (Nov 6, 2008)

Taggerung said:


> In the end it doesn't matter. You don't like them and certain people do. As a guard player, they terrify me. Mods...lock the thread please?


As a guard player they....what? Guard is one of the armies that absolutely irrevocably will crush berzerkers down flat. 

You should have screened the unit with 10 guardsmen. lose 50 points and then fire with your 40 man unit point blank. vaporized.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Mods lock the thread? Sure I don't agree with people here, but good points have been brought up on both sides. In all honesty calling for a thread to get locked because you don't agree with it is childish in the extreme. Now I do think the debate has gotten unnecessarily heated, but generally both parties are trying to present their arguments in a more or less reasonable fashion.

Also berzekrers terrify you as a guard player? One would think melta guns and or bikes would be far greater problems for your army. I know you may be just trolling this thread, but generally the idea is to shoot them once they wipe a units, its easy and will most often more then make up for the >100pt infantry platoon you lost.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

LukeValantine said:


> Mods lock the thread? Sure I don't agree with people here, but good points have been brought up on both sides. In all honesty calling for a thread to get locked because you don't agree with it is childish in the extreme. Now I do think the debate has gotten unnecessarily heated, but generally both parties are trying to present their arguments in a more or less reasonable fashion.
> 
> Also berzekrers terrify you as a guard player? One would think melta guns and or bikes would be far greater problems for your army. I know you may be just trolling this thread, but generally the idea is to shoot them once they wipe a units, its easy and will most often more then make up for the >100pt infantry platoon you lost.


I play Death Korps of Krieg (Did you even read the post before commenting on it?) why in the world would I be afraid of melta guns? At most I will have a single leman russ (very rarely 2) hiding in the back. Bikes? Why are bikes an issue? I have powerfists in my squads to deal with things just like that, but those bikes can't get inside of an armored transport can they? Nor throw out nearly as many attacks that ignore my armor straight up.

Locking the thread has nothing to do with being "Childish" it is because it's just turning into an argument based upon opinions and ones own experiences. This thread isn't going anywhere.



> You should have screened the unit with 10 guardsmen. lose 50 points and then fire with your 40 man unit point blank. vaporized.


As for screening the blob...what do you think the blob was there for? (See above about reading that I play DKOK so my squads are not 50 pts, 60 base, then add another 10 for vox and special weapon))They were the screen for my artillery which then proceeded to obliterate those berserkers. Could I have played it differently? Maybe, but 10 men really isn't a screen as a good round of bolter of fire takes them out of the pictue, but is that what we are talking about? No, not in the slightest. The entire point was to give an example of a unit which up until last week had never been wiped out to the man, let alone by 10 dudes in 2 turns.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

There are two things that piss me off about Khorne berzerker and the new CSM in general:

1 - The Mark of Khorne nerf. It was really, really unnecessary, Khorne wasn't broken in 5th and CC in general already got a nerf in 6th, +1 Attack would've really been better, especially because it would avoid really dumb shit scenarios such as Spawns only gaining _half_ the benefit from MoK since they already have rage, or the Axe of Blind Fury requiring MoK and then giving you Rage which you already have unless you're a Daemon Prince, therefore suggesting it's only good on a DP (and is only valid post-errata due to stupid wording).

2 - They can no longer assault out of transports, which means you either get a Land Raider (and the Chaos version got a point increase for zero benefit and still no PotMS equivalent, I just don't get this) or they have to foot slog across the board. The problem isn't just that it's slow, it's that the first AP 3 pie plate will either nuke the unit or force you to assuredly worse cover saves, and moving in cover means you're even slower, that's not really a great deal with what they cost, and if you spend in upgrades (including chainaxes) they get even more expensive than in 5e.

I mean, I wouldn't consider a unit consisting of models that cost about 17 to 20 points each "expendable", I would be a bit disappointed if they either didn't kill their point cost back or draw enough fire to distract my opponents for long enough.

But... Really, for what they inevitably end up costing, I'd rather get a squad of 10 bikes with a tooled up bike lord, they'd be more durable, hit harder, move faster and shoot farther and better. If I didn't have enough points to field both, the zerkers would sadly be the ones to bite the dust and go back in the shelf.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Taggerung said:


> In the end it doesn't matter. You don't like them and certain people do. As a guard player, they terrify me. Mods...lock the thread please?


I don't currently think this thread needs locking. A good debate about uses of a new codex is always going to cause a little friction, and thats not a bad thing on a discussion board, as long as we avoid trolling and insults there is still plenty of life to be had on this subject.


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 15, 2012)

Taggerung said:


> Bikes? Why are bikes an issue? I have powerfists in my squads to deal with things just like that, but those bikes can't get inside of an armored transport can they? Nor throw out nearly as many attacks that ignore my armor straight up.


Did you know that chaos marine bikes cost exactly _one_ point per model more than berzerkers? _Two points less_ than berzerkers with chain axes? Did you know that bikes are virtually guaranteed to be in combat by turn two, and get a nice cover save along the way for turbo boosting, while berzerkers, due to the changes to transport rules and casualties coming from the front, are lucky to be in combat by turn 3, and more likely won't get there until turn four?

Yeah, it's nice that you have power fists to deal with bikes, but those fists deal with berzerkers just as easily - even easier, actually, since on guard they need 3s to wound bikes instead of twos, and you get more bikes for the points than berzerkers once you start giving the latter chain axes.

And if you're taking a large unit of bikes, then for a nominal price they can have the mark of khorne and have just as many attacks as berzerkers and pick up the FC + charge reroll banner. Or the mark of slaanesh, which lets them take the feel no pain banner.

And unlike zerkers, bikes are an excellant delivery system for a melee character. Undivided or khornate bikes tend to include a lord with the axe of blind fury, while undivided or slaaneshi bikes might be boasting a slaaneshi sorcerer on a daemonic steed, offering them psychic buffs and outflank.


Bikes, can actually get to your gunline fast enough for their 'tying it up' to be meaningful. They buy attached melee characters and extra 2+ phases of beating on your guys. They're tougher, they come with a cover save, they can thin you out with bolter fire before charging, they can take meltaguns to threaten tanks and transports, they generally take considerably more effort to down than a rhino, And they're not really meaningfully more expensive than berzerkers.

Only downside is they aren't troops, but basic chaos marines are nearly as effective in close combat as zerkers, while being considerably cheaper and more versatile. Plus, using them doesn't require you to try and force 5e tactics to work in a 6e environment.


Look, fielding berzerkers doesn't make you lose automatically. You can field the unit you want and still do ok, due to how much luck and dice rolling is involved in this game. But that doesn't mean that berzerkers are good, because they're not. They're cool, and that may be excuse enough to run them, and if you're good and lucky enough you can win with them anyway, but you'd win more if you applied that same amount of luck and skill to a unit that didn't have so much going against it right out of the gate.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I play Death Korps of Krieg (Did you even read the post before commenting on it?) why in the world would I be afraid of melta guns? At most I will have a single leman russ (very rarely 2) hiding in the back. Bikes? Why are bikes an issue? I have powerfists in my squads to deal with things just like that, but those bikes can't get inside of an armored transport can they? Nor throw out nearly as many attacks that ignore my armor straight up.



Ok now I am thinking you just lack experience with your selected army. Firstly no one will ever take chain axes so bikes actually throw only 1 less attack that can ignore armor (Bike champs with mark of khorne throws out just as many attacks). Also considering marine bike units are often 6-10 man strong these days your 2 str6 power weapon attack won't do much considering they hit on4+ then wound on a 3+ (and the bikes will have 18-30 attacks on the charge). Hell I am really doubting your credentials in this edition as your champ will also either be forced to the back of the unit (Check your book he is a character now) or you will accept the challenge and take your chances with the biker champ that strikes before you. and even if you win the challenge your unit will still get overrun by the bikes when they drop 7 gaurdsmen.

Also since you may just not know anything about chaos at all and may just be assuming stuff I should inform you about what CSM bikes are. 2 base attacks, able to buy 4 A on the charge for less then 6pts. For one more point then a berzerker. They also have krack grenades across the unit, and can get a 4+ cover save while reliably setting up a turn 2 charge. Also why the hell do you care about things ignoring your save in the first place, its a 5+. That's like orcs caring that they are getting hit by grey night force weapons. The more you talk the less experience I think you have in playing against the new chaos.... or the old chaos for that matter (Oh noes you have 2 power fist attacks at str6 even my 10 regular marines would still cause enough wounds to sweep a 20 man gaurd unit in combat even considering your average 1 armor save ignoring wound). 

Your guard if a unit gets into combat it is generally a wright off, and a sign you screwed up. I mean what world do you live in where you expect 5+ armor and T3 to win any combat against anything in the CSM book? In fact considering your lack of fearless you should be well aware that 7 CSM's making the charge is just as terrifying as 15 berzerkers on the charge, as both are typically hopeless situations even for a 15-20 man guard unit.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

I lost internet for 24 hours so couldn't respond in a timely fashion. By now Zion may have stopped reading but I think my point was missed slightly.



Zion said:


> Cult Marines are largely unchanged ...
> 
> I disagree only based on the principle that I like seeing varied armies and this allows people to make those varied armies. Restricting options never feels like the way to go to me. This still allows those big fluffy Cult armies, the mixed armies and even the armies without any cult units. It's legitimately very well thought out and nowhere near as bad as this knee-jerk reaction from the community is claiming it is.
> 
> From the whinging I've been reading online apparently cult units where WAY better back in the worse codex when they cost more and often they had other issues.


I'm not talking about "in comparison to last edition". I'm talking about in general. Cult Marines just feel underwhelming, and I think that it's because they're straddling a line between Troops and Elites. They had this problem in the last codex as well.

Take Terminators vs CSM. What changes? Better armour, better weapons, more attacks, higher cost for the Terminators. On the other hand CSM are cheaper, score, and are relatively disposable and generalist.

Terminators, compared to CSM _feel elite_. They are deserving of your Elites slot. They accomplish different things to CSM, and do different jobs better/worse. Chosen, although not very different apart from the 2A base, have a zillion and one options to make them specialists at anything, from quad-melta Rhino-bunker to demi-Death Company CC specialists. Again, they do something regular CSM can't do.

What do Zerkers do? They're CSM with Fearless and WS5. That doesn't feel "Elite". It feels "same old". CSM can fill exactly the same role for exactly the same cost, and both can score. If Zerkers had had Chainaxes as standard, they could have had a niche as "CC anti-horde unit". As it is, you just think "What's the difference between a Zerker and a CSM painted red?" and the answer is "not much". And that's a shame. I think the team writing the codex were resting on their laurels a bit regarding the cult marines. They could have got some new toys/abilities etc to take advantage of the new edition and instead got copy/pasted from the old dex with barely a change, and that's just a little disappointing. It doesn't make them unplayable, or terribad, just a bit "Is that all?".


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Yah I agree with sethis in wishing they took more liberties with the design. I mean all the cults have only been mildly tweaked from last edition, and some are almost virtually unchanged. It would have been nice if they shook up some of our expectations. Like make berzerkers WS 3 but with 4 attacks base with chain axes built in, or thousand sons being able to deep strike, you know break the mold and set up more eldar like symmetry within the army.

However we all know that the book is a bit lacking in parts and over developed in other. Why doesn't a hellbrute have any options besides its weapons? While the lord has more options then any other unit in the entire game. I mean don't get me wrong I love this current book (I play renegade marines), but the division in labor in designing units is really odd.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

Nah nevermind, you know what I just don't care. Beserkers are still awesome.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Wow never seen someone miss the point that badly before in my life. Its like you have some sort of vision blinder on so you can only see pointless little factoids instead of the core arguments. Personally I also feel its no longer worth talking to you anymore, not because of any point you brought, up but because you have some weird belief that anyone on the internet thinks you know what your talking about. I only started arguing against you because you make weird hypotheticals just for the sake of arguing. (This thread is about the place of bezerkers in CSM armies not your private army and your distaste for people talking about the army they love and how to play it)

Me and others posters on this thread are trying to talk about the place of the unit as a whole and have no concern in how your specific army does against them and CSM's in general nor does anyone care.


----------



## Taggerung (Jun 5, 2008)

:goodpost:

Oh wait. Nevermind. :bye:


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> Like make berzerkers WS 3 but with 4 attacks base with chain axes built in, or thousand sons being able to deep strike, you know break the mold and set up more eldar like symmetry within the army.


See, both of those ideas are neat takes on Cult Marines. Likewise Noise Marines would have been a prime candidate for Acute Senses and some nasty short range weapons (melta/flamer equivalents), giving you a nice Outflanking unit. Plague Marines as always would have been nails to kill but could have had things like Poison 2+ Flamers (not 2 per 5 though - broken) or Poison 4+ bolters or something. Anything other than copy-paste with some slight points adjustments. That's not a complaint about the power level, just the missed opportunity to shake things up a little.

The Eldar comparison is something I'm actually worried about. Everyone keeps muttering about Aspect Warriors as Troops but I hate the idea. 6 units of Fire Dragons isn't fun. It's boring. Aspect Warriors should be very killy/effective but never scoring, which means you need to balance out your army to have a good mix of Troops and Elites/FA/HS choices, instead of just taking Karandras and 60 Striking Scorpions (or whatever).



LukeValantine said:


> However we all know that the book is a bit lacking in parts and over developed in other. Why doesn't a hellbrute have any options besides its weapons? While the lord has more options then any other unit in the entire game. I mean don't get me wrong I love this current book (I play renegade marines), but the division in labor in designing units is really odd.


Some units do seem very, very thrown in with no thought or development. 1 dedicated transport? Still? Marines get a minimum of 3, in the case of BA - 6. Would a Chaos Pod or crazy Daemon-thing that carries infantry been too much to ask? Again, it's not the power level or lack of army building options I'm slightly annoyed by, it's the fact that they really had an opportunity to relaunch CSM in the same manner of DE, Necrons and GKs, but somehow missed the ball. What we got instead was a mishmash of increasingly dated units (Cult Marines, vehicles) with the new units who don't change the flavour of the army at all and range from terrible in every regard (Mutilators) to middling (Dragon) to awesome (New Raptor sculpts, Spawn rules). Maybe we all just have unreasonably high expectations following the revamp of some incredibly dated and limited books. Who knows?


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

The real essence of the problem with Berzerkers, as far as I see, comes down to the fact that close combat units no longer belong in rhinos (or other non-assault/open topped vehicles). 

You lose so much tactical advantage from having to spend a full turn outside your transport before assaulting. Plague marines can get away with it because they're much more difficult to shoot to death, and aren't really at a disadvantage when assaulted. 

Berzerkers just aren't a very good close combat unit. For tactical advantage, you're better off with raptors or bikes. For raw power, you're better off with kitted out chosen or terminators. If you want a unit that's distracting and capable of doing a ton of damage, you're much better off with either cultists with mark of khorne and flamers, or deep striking in allied bloodletters. 

Zerks just don't seem to have a niche any more.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

mynameisgrax said:


> The real essence of the problem with Berzerkers, as far as I see, comes down to the fact that close combat units no longer belong in rhinos (or other non-assault/open topped vehicles).
> 
> You lose so much tactical advantage from having to spend a full turn outside your transport before assaulting. Plague marines can get away with it because they're much more difficult to shoot to death, and aren't really at a disadvantage when assaulted.
> 
> ...


A thousand times this. Berzerkers seem to pay a lot of points to get some very minor benefits that are all rendered pretty much useless by the fact there is no effective way to play to their strengths. They're not fast, they're not hardy, they just have a tiny little bit of a WS advantage over troop choices that, for 5 less points per model, have the same damage output and are scoring.

I like this codex, but damn it does lack internal balance. And transport options. Currently, CSM face the same problems SoB do with foot-slogging CC units: no cheap assault transport option, and even assuming a Land Raider, Chaos still pays it out of its nose due to no PotMS.

I still remain that MoK should've been just a flat out +1A, yes I'm still bitter about it, but that's not even the point, berzerkers have apparently been deemed obsolete and had to be taken out of the "competitive" picture in order to promote new toys. Which is hilarious because mutilators are about as bad (still have to try maulerfiends though).


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Lets be frank the whole codex suffers form the whole why would I take X when Y does the job just as well while either costing noticably less, or having fewer weaknesses (Havocs vs predator tanks/defiler). Now if land raiders where 150pts then they would be a reasonable assault unit, but as it is the army is to slow and to expensive to play the game like orcs.

They only way I see them paying for themselves is to run em in uhuge spread out numbers with zero upgrades, but even here you run the chances of getting multi assault which stops you sweeping units. To bad I still like my berzerkers. However bikes and raptors with mark of khorne are still good units, and I will expect them to slowly push them out of play due to being faster...and in the case of raptors cheaper, both get the 4 attacks on the charge with mark of khorne, so they will destroy hordes just as well.....actually that's a lie as last time I checked berzerkers can't take two flamers.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

LukeValantine said:


> Lets be frank the whole codex suffers form the whole why would I take X when Y does the job just as well while either costing noticably less, or having fewer weaknesses (Havocs vs predator tanks/defiler). Now if land raiders where 150pts then they would be a reasonable assault unit, but as it is the army is to slow and to expensive to play the game like orcs.
> 
> They only way I see them paying for themselves is to run em in uhuge spread out numbers with zero upgrades, but even here you run the chances of getting multi assault which stops you sweeping units. To bad I still like my berzerkers. However bikes and raptors with mark of khorne are still good units, and I will expect them to slowly push them out of play due to being faster...and in the case of raptors cheaper, both get the 4 attacks on the charge with mark of khorne, so they will destroy hordes just as well.....actually that's a lie as last time I checked berzerkers can't take two flamers.


Add in Kharn to a blob of beserkers and trust me its scary.....I have had the "fun" of being at the receiving end of that twice so far and both my dark eldar & Guard took a beating that no other cult troop can deal out.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Azkaellon said:


> Add in Kharn to a blob of beserkers and trust me its scary.....I have had the "fun" of being at the receiving end of that twice so far and both my dark eldar & Guard took a beating that no other cult troop can deal out.


I am inclined to disagree. The reason for this being the case is more likely because Kharn is badass. If he were in a unit of standard chaos marines i'm sure the result would have been the same. It might even have been worse for you considering that this options would have been cheaper.


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 15, 2012)

Yeah, kharn is scary (as long as you have a chumpion to eat the challenge), doesn't matter what unit you put him in.

The whole codex is very half hearted, with poor internal balance - both of power level and of available options. Mutilators seem to be put in for no other reason and with no other thought than 'dual kit plastic with oblits', which is hilarious because for some reason said kit wasn't ready so they had to rush out some finecast models that look as fail as their rules. Warp talons are thrown in and it's like 'wooh, blinding jump troops with all rending claws', but then apparently nobody really played them, because they're way overpriced, suffer painfully from lack of grenades, and their deep strike rule just. doesn't. work. Plasma pistols in raptor squads are _strictly worse_ than meltaguns, yet cost five points more. They just _forgot_ that they made the dread's combi bolter an option instead of built in when they printed the points costs for the english language version, and had to issue week-of errata to lower it to match the foreign language editions. Zerkers are pointless, sons are painfully overpriced, the change to salvo seriously hammers the maneuverability of sonic weapons to the point that they might as well be heavy weapons, the dark apostle is just a lord with less options, the god of sorcery has a positively lackluster psychic lore, Raptors despite being an almost decent unit are just completely eclipsed by bikes (far better, only fractionally more expensive - cheaper even if you're just taking a small unit for tank hunting), we're an 'assault oriented' marine army utterly devoid of good assault transports, with several 'assault specialists' that completely lack both ranged attacks and assault grenades, making them just ... just...


Look, guys. There's stuff I like in this new chaos book. Cultists are fun, Chaos Marines have a fair set of options (although why the price hike when matching their old gear and stats? Nobody thought old chaos marines were overpowered or underpriced!), havocs have some decent set ups, bikes are badass, the dragon is a cool concept (I'm not a fan of the model, but that's just taste), and is playable at least.....

Look, there's stuff I like. But this book has _problems_. It feels more like Cruddace's nids or tomb kings than the kind of codex I would have expected from Mr. Kelly. So yeah, there are problems, and berzerkers, with their lack of an effective role to fill, are just one of them.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

I personally see the lesser power of units in the new codex as a good thing. Maybe this is a the start of a rebalancing of the game. Maybe Necrons and GK were found to be wanting in terms of game balance after thier release so a power down of codexes has started with the first official 6th edition book. Only time will tell I guess when we recieve the first of the Imperial codexes.

Interestingly I played a game last night in which my opponent had a unit of 9 zerkers plus Kharn. Now must admit to being scared of Kharn, and when him and his squad charged into my 3 remaining meganobs and mad doc grotsnik I was concerned my premier assault unit was toast. And it probably should have been, but Kharne challenged, mad doc accepted and promptly chopped Kharne to bits (why does he not have enternal warrior?). Admitedly Kharne rolled badly for wounds, and I made a whole load of cybernetic saves but it seemed a little too easy.

But the bezerkers were very poor. The 2+ save and the zerkers lack of good ap weapons means they could do little even with the average rolls they had. They are a good unit but only against certain opponents and just like marine jump pack troops they lack a cutting assault edge to make them a great assault unit. I really wanted them to be great but was disappointed.

And speaking of disappointed, the Forge Fiend was not as brutal as I thought it would be. My big squad of boyz easily weathered the output it had and once I got into combat my power claw made short work of it. Maybe it is better at anti marine work and was not suited to taking out hordes of green skins.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Yeah. While I'm disappointed at the lack of diversity, the lack of innovation, etc, I am also glad--and this is even as a tried-and-true CSM player--that GW seems to have dialed back on the power creep a little bit.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Yeah, combat walkers are terrible against Horde with the exception of the Furioso (still the best walker ever seen bar the Psyfleman). 2A base will do that.


----------



## Mokuren (Mar 29, 2011)

humakt said:


> I personally see the lesser power of units in the new codex as a good thing. Maybe this is a the start of a rebalancing of the game. Maybe Necrons and GK were found to be wanting in terms of game balance after thier release so a power down of codexes has started with the first official 6th edition book. Only time will tell I guess when we recieve the first of the Imperial codexes.


I so want to believe this is true, but we will only know when the first 6e Space Marine codex will come out. If some writer's pet army doesn't get dialed back up to GK or Necron level of power, then maybe, just maybe, I will actually start to believe they're rebalancing all across the board.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

Mossy Toes said:


> Yeah. While I'm disappointed at the lack of diversity, the lack of innovation, etc, I am also glad--and this is even as a tried-and-true CSM player--that GW seems to have dialed back on the power creep a little bit.



That'd be fine if they had a rule schedule like warmachine, where they release everyone's rules at the same time for a new edition. What we have now is an ugly duckling codex thats weaker than half a dozen or more previous books, that will only turn into a swan years down the road.

I'm trying so hard to like this codex, but as my main opponent is necrons and wolves, I am not enjoying it at all.


----------



## mynameisgrax (Sep 25, 2009)

Walkers are almost always bad against hordes. That's not where they shine. They're usually a mobile gun platform that's just as effective at close range as they are at long. Basically, they're like a Predator tank that can also assault. 

That said, forge fiends do seem to underperform in games, especially against opponents that don't have many tanks/MEQ to threaten, like my beloved Ork hordes. Doesn't mean they're bad, it just means they have a certain niche, and aren't a spammable 'do everything' unit.

It's okay for units to have a niche, which (in an attempt to bring us back on topic) is the problem with Berzerkers. They don't really have one. Cheaper units with templates are better (point for point) against hordes, kitted out Chosen or terminators are better at winning close combats quickly, and Plague Marines are much better at winning drawn out battles.

The only real niche I can possibly see them having is being a troop choice (if you have a Khorne Lord) that can quickly win close combats, but you can achieve the same effect by having a Chaos Marine Lord in virtually any troop unit, or using allied Chaos Daemon Bloodletters.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Ravner298 said:


> That'd be fine if they had a rule schedule like warmachine, where they release everyone's rules at the same time for a new edition. What we have now is an ugly duckling codex thats weaker than half a dozen or more previous books, that will only turn into a swan years down the road.
> 
> I'm trying so hard to like this codex, but as my main opponent is necrons and wolves, I am not enjoying it at all.


Agreed, it's rough being the first real big release codex that gets the non-power creep treatment, but the dialing down has to start somewhere.

Now, if Orks and DA and the like get obscenely powerful codexes, I'll be pissed off.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Now lets not confuse the codecies power overall with the lack luster selection of usfull or powerful units. After all havocs are 171pts for seven of them with 4 las cannons, and bikes are only 5 points more for a marine that moves at double rate and brings his own cover save. So overall I would say its a relatively strong book, just has a weird issue with internal balance and no uber units like necrons, or GK's.

Sad to say, but CSM's are now at there strongest when run in large numbers with a few elite units mixed in. So no the book has no units that are both inexpensive and effective, with almost every major boast coming with large tactical or point costs. In fact the units that got the break this edition are the kinds of units you would expect to see in a loyalist army (Assault marines, bikes), so much so that most CSM armies will probably look more like renegades rather then traitor chapters.


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 15, 2012)

The idea that we're just the 'new normal' for 6e completely ignores the fact that the Necron codex, one of the big boys on the block (if not out and out the biggest) right now, _must have_ been written with 6e in mind.

Also, even if they do start balancing other books down to CSMs level, Grey Knights and Necrons are some of the worst offenders out there right now, and they're also some of the most recent codeces, so a couple years of CSM level books just means a couple years of increasing dominance by knights & robots.

Also, if you're counting on Dark Angels to further the precedent set by this CSM book, just take a moment to remind yourself who's writing it.

_And even then_, fixing the external balance issues by nerfing everyone else won't do anything to fix the painful _internal balance_ problems that wrack the chaos marine codex, with obvious "must pick" or "never pick" options in every force org slot. Neither will it fix the fact that we're a close combat oriented army without the tools to be functional in close combat in an edition strongly biased towards shooting and away from close combat to begin with. Nerfing others won't help the rules and options that _just don't work_ in this codex, like the warp talons blinding deep strike more likely to get them killed via mishap than actually blind anything; or the Dark Apostle's leadership aura - such a small bubble that it's generally only going to affect his own unit, which gets his leadership anyway; or the dimensional key that lets units deep strike without scatter, but that doesn't turn on until most of your reserves have already arrived; or the 'dark ascension' boon table result - supposed to be a moment of supreme awesomeness - but in practice is more often than not a downer, as the unequipped daemon prince is generally less powerful than most chaos lords or sorcerers, and the rules for positioning it mean that as likely as not you'll just lose the character with no prince anyway. It won't fix the problems berzerkers have as overpriced assault units with no good way of getting to combat.


I don't hate this book. I really don't. I like it a lot better than the last one. But it's no Space Wolves, it's no Dark Eldar, it's no Grey Knights or Necrons. And it doesn't just fall short in power level compared to those releases, but also in creativity, ambition, and effort, and no amount of nerfing other armies will fix that.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

Malisteen said:


> I don't hate this book. I really don't. I like it a lot better than the last one. But it's no Space Wolves, it's no Dark Eldar, it's no Grey Knights or Necrons. And it doesn't just fall short in power level compared to those releases, but also in creativity, ambition, and effort, and no amount of nerfing other armies will fix that.


I agree with this. I hope people realize that most CSM players don't hate the new codex as a whole. We are however upset with the lack of creativity and lack of synergy. 

Most CSM players realize that there's no point wishing to be as strong as some of the previous codecies but we have every right to be disappointed when there are a number of units that make no tactical sense. There are a lot of players, myself included, who play the game tactically and competitively as opposed to building cool fluff-based or awesome-model armies. 

It just seems that the competitive player was left hanging with this release. Berzerkers, Warp Talons, Forgefiends, the Dark Apostle, etc., these units have us scratching our heads. What are we supposed to do with them? They just don't have the tactical aptitude that some of the other units have in the book. It actually makes me want to run Blood Angels or some other codex as a 'counts as' army just to be competitive.


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 15, 2012)

This book reminds me of Cruddace's Tomb Kings. It seems to have as little understanding of just what 6e did to assault units as the TK army book had of what 8e did to undead units. Like the Tomb King book, it places a lot of emphasis on some new giant monsters, some of which are ok and some just not. Like the TK book, a lot of the older units are treated haphazardly, with little attention or thought. Like the TK book, a there are several special rules, options, or even whole units that just don't seem to work, leading to serious internal balance issues.

Like the TK book there will probably be a couple viable builds to surface from it, but it will still sit noticeably below the power level of its peers in the long run, because, like the Vamp Counts book learned from the Tomb Kings book, I expect future assault oriented marine codeces to learn the CSM codex's example.


----------



## Boc (Mar 19, 2010)

Yeah... I think I'm going to sell all my CSM and wait for something new to keep my Necrons and I entertained


----------

