# Problems with CSM Codex



## TRU3 CHAOS (May 21, 2010)

Is it me or does it seem like the Chaos Space Marine codex is utter crap? I feel like they have utterly demoted so many things in the codex that made Chaos what it is. 

World Eaters: Hardly effective. I guess you could say they could be a potential unit... but unlikely. I might as well flip a coin.

Obliterators: You must change your damn weapons every turn. WTF? Why? Why would you do that Matt Ward? Why?

Hull Points: Good bye to pretty much every tank in the game. Is it me or has this become a weird game now. I can't use transports to carry my troops across the table because most armies are anti-hoard. No point, unless someone has a fluffy army.

Flyers: I don't hate flyer but the new dragon thing looks stupid! And it completely has taken certain units out of the game.

Slaanesh: Crap.... again. But its okay right? They took care of all the Nurgle fans, so I'm glad my options are so limited.

Mutilators: WTF is this happy whore shit? Since when? I think when people buy stupid models like these, Matt Ward laughs at us.

Why fuck up Furious Charge? Did you have to do that? Really? 

Now bikes are competetive? Praise MATT WARD! YOU SAVED THEM! Like it makes any sense in the first place to have bikes run around a battle like calvary as though they were made out of terminator armor.

Those are just some. But I play a Word Bearers army, and they added a lot of cool looking models, and their new rule book is telling me not to buy them. Instead pretty much forcing me to buy stuff I don't want if I want any chance to play competetively in my community. Whats up with the weapon choices by the way. I don't get it. So you can chose either bolters or close combat weapons? Is this for the whole squad?


Does anyone have any problems with the new codex?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

No point moaning about it, the text in the book wont change, adapt and crack on or box up your chaos marines and find something else to do, is the only choice on the table for you.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

About half of these are 6th edition issues and not Chaos Codex issues. 

I own the codex and have read it a couple times but don't play Chaos anymore. From what a friend of mine (Joe at Screaming Heretic) said the hell Drake is ugly (to me as a painter its too static, no variation in building it) but insanely good on the board. The change to the on lots caught my attention as well. I am not sure why they did it, but to guess it was to match their fluff about always changing etc.


----------



## yanlou (Aug 17, 2008)

For one thing, get it right Matt Ward did not write the current chaos codex.

I havent played with the new dex yet, but from what i understand of the new stuff, and what iv heard they can be quite brutal.

But if you dont like it, then as bits said adept or put them away.


----------



## TRU3 CHAOS (May 21, 2010)

Wow, thats the most useless information I've ever heard. Especially with all the investment I've put into my armies in the past. That really sucks, so pretty much spread the cheeks open or just stop liking them?

And thats said that Dijn doesn't play anymore. Thats just not cool. I'm trying to put in a competetive list here, but this is almost impossible without buying a completely new army.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

TRU3 CHAOS said:


> And thats said that Dijn doesn't play anymore. Thats just not cool.


Not entirely sure how to take this. I sold a majority of my Space Marines, Grey Knights, and my small Night Lord armies to make room for additional stuff moons ago, nothing to do with the new codex.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Usually, in my group, if a codex comes out as utter crap, we get together and come up with ideas to change it. I trust these codex writers (except for Kelly) as far as I can throw them, to come up with sensible books.

However, when I say utter crap, I mean like 5th edition Tyranids, which was a nest of worms and rotten eggs from the get go. We changed a lot in that codex. Then we even made some changes to the 5th edition Imperial Guard codex, mainly because one of our friend's largely storm trooper-based army. He got so raped by GW after collecting hugely expensive throng of white metal models over 6 years only to have a codex land that made them impossibly expensive (among other things) with a silly AP3 gun that came out of nowhere.

And that's ok. Because if we don't do these things, people quit. There's no reason to accept Games Workshop's every whim.

If you have a steady group of gamers you get along with, try to create a system for long-term players of armies to appeal for rules changes. Take control of your hobby. Then vote on it. As long as your propositions are grounded in fluff and logic and not for an obvious advantage, you should be good. If you basically thought your codex would definitely have some way of winning tournaments though, tough luck. Those of us who stick by an army for a long time have to deal with being shafted every now and then. Hell, Tau have never been better than average and I still play and win more than I lose, against experienced players. (This time the codex better be damned good though!)

I don't find the Chaos book as bad as some though. I hate the new models, especially the god-awful (both in concept and representation) Heldrake and Mauler/Forgefiend. I always liked bikes so I'm glad they're better. But Ork Nob bikes are still better by comparison. Thousand Suns are if possible even more boring on the board than they were. Lords are lost for options, princes are crap etc. Raptors and Havocs seem decent now. It's not a terrible codex but it lacks an outstanding unit or two. I think you're expecting every codex to have a broken unit in them which just won't happen every time. We can't all have Doom Scythes, Vendettas, IG Veterans, War Walkers and Venom+Trueborn, and fortunate we are.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Most of what you are complaining about is 6th ed changes as others pointed out. They are things everyone, not just csm is dealing with.

The codex is fairly balanced to 6th ed rules. If the DA codex comes out and is the same way expect all future codex launches to be similar to csm. I honestly hope it comes to be that way. It will remove the cookie cutter netlist crap and make it so you can play lists you want. Not lists you have to run to win.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Seriously. You just lumped War Walkers in with Vendettas and Night Scythes? That's... laughable. On so many levels. If you can't deal with AV10 vehicles with 2 HP apiece, you need to rethink your army. Same goes for Dark Eldar - the biggest losers of 6th edition, bar none.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

I have problems with the codex. I personally believe it has destroyed a lot of fluffiness except to Nurgle players.

I also like some of the new models, so I'm pretty much just making a a Khorne and Iron Warrior army out of fluffy and uncompetetive methods. Which I personally think is to bad, but there's nothing I can do. I don't want any megazords in my army.


----------



## Dies Irae (May 21, 2008)

TRU3 CHAOS said:


> Is it me or does it seem like the Chaos Space Marine codex is utter crap? I feel like they have utterly demoted so many things in the codex that made Chaos what it is.
> 
> Are you talking about fielding 2 Daemon Princes in a 1500 points army? Along with 9 Obliterators? Because that does not feel like the way Chaos should be to me.
> 
> ...


I hope this helped.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Honestly if you can't get the author of the Codex right in your rant I really don't put much credence in the rest of what you say. 

Dies Irae has summarised it pretty well I think.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

TRU3 CHAOS said:


> Hull Points: Good bye to pretty much every tank in the game. Is it me or has this become a weird game now. I can't use transports to carry my troops across the table because most armies are anti-hoard. No point, unless someone has a fluffy army.


I think you've completely missed the point here.
1. In 5th ed, transports and vehicles were too good and as a result footslogging armies like Nids were paying the price. Thus a balance needed to be introduced that benefitted footsloggers - hence Hull Points.
2. It's not _just_ CSM who have Hull Points - it's every army in the game. Thus stop whining and you might realise that your opponent's transports are equally as squishy as yours. 

You do make some valid points with certain units like Mutilators, but then every dex has shite units and decent units. Just look at Guard: compare Vendettae to Ratlings. I think you need to change your mindset - it looks like you're stuck in 5th still. 6th ed is an entirely different animal, and one that the CSM dex is actually quite well suited and balanced to.


----------



## kavyanshrike (Sep 10, 2011)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Usually, in my group, if a codex comes out as utter crap, we get together and come up with ideas to change it. I trust these codex writers (except for Kelly) as far as I can throw them, to come up with sensible books.


Kelly is better than matt ward


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

TRU3 CHAOS said:


> Wow, thats the most useless information I've ever heard. Especially with all the investment I've put into my armies in the past. That really sucks, so pretty much spread the cheeks open or just stop liking them?
> 
> And thats said that Dijn doesn't play anymore. Thats just not cool. I'm trying to put in a competetive list here, but this is almost impossible without buying a completely new army.


well thats the way of the world sadly, If you want to be "competitive" as you put it then you will have put your hands in your pockets, its no different to most other hobbys where competition is involved, if you played magic the gathering and a new booster came along you would have to do the same to stay competitive, If you play sunday afternoon football in and the sole came off you boot you wouldnt run around with one boot on for the season?, you would have fork out cash either to fix or replace the boot, you cant expect to move to a new edition and codex and expect not to hand over cash for grey crack if you want to play competitively. 

Also you came into 40k general and ranted about the codex, you never mentioned you were looking for help to get a better army list out of the codex,If you had said "hey fellas, im struggling to switch from 5th to 6th with the new chaos marine codex can you help a chap out with some help, heres a list of the models i have and im trying to not spend a fortune" im pretty sure the forum would have been far more helpful.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

Sethis said:


> Seriously. You just lumped War Walkers in with Vendettas and Night Scythes? That's... laughable. On so many levels. If you can't deal with AV10 vehicles with 2 HP apiece, you need to rethink your army. Same goes for Dark Eldar - the biggest losers of 6th edition, bar none.


Ha! Shows that you've never seen one play out in 6th edition! An outflanking squad of 3 with Scatter Lasers is one of the single most destructive and guaranteed-to-make-points-back one-turn-wonders in the game since 6th + FAQ's....

Next you're going to tell me Rangers aren't godly...

...Go play the game some



kavyanshrike said:


> Kelly is better than matt ward


That's what I said 

To restructure the sentence:

-I trust the writers as far as I can throw them
-Except Kelly
-Because I actually trust Kelly

The reason people complain about Kelly codices from time to time, is because not all codices are written by Kelly. Kelly has perspective for both balance and fluff, and is not just throwing shit at the wall. Where the other writers seem to swing the power needle like mad, making some way too good units and some completely useless, Kelly almost never does that. He aims for average. The other writer's efforts have made Kelly "raise the bar for average" though, and I still hold firm that the Dark Eldar codex was the single best written thing in the entire Games Workshop history. It literally only had 1 rubbish thing in it (Kheradruakh the Crappy Spectator) 2 unwanted things but mediocre (Scourges and Mandrakes) and the rest were consistently good across the board without making huge waves. He also left Dark Eldar with an incredible variety of army builds comparatively, just like he did with Orks in it's time (though it's showing it's age now)

His only problem is a tendency to put in too much competition in the same FoC slots. For the DE codex to be perfect, the Razorwing and Void Raven would be Fast Attack, and the previously mentioned 3 units better.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> Ha! Shows that you've never seen one play out in 6th edition! An outflanking squad of 3 with Scatter Lasers is one of the single most destructive and guaranteed-to-make-points-back one-turn-wonders in the game since 6th + FAQ's....
> 
> Next you're going to tell me Rangers aren't godly...
> 
> ...Go play the game some


I've been playing with Eldar since 2nd Edition. 15 years of continous play with the army.

I routinely run 9 Walkers with Scatter Lasers. Because they're the best thing we have in heavy support since the holofield nerf and introduction of HPs, not because they're overpowered.

Rangers and Walkers are not "Godly". They're squishy and need Psychic support to work, adding 80+pts to their price tag.

I can't believe you're seriously lumping Eldar units in with Necron and IG Flyers. Do you even play with the same rules as everyone else? Have you played against flyer lists (read: 4 or more of them)?

A unit of Rangers hits ~7 times, wounds ~3 times, and might get lucky enough to allocate an AP1/Rending hit to a specific model that still gets cover saves. And they're static, T3, fold in assault, and die to a single model with a flamer. For 190pts.

A unit of Warriors in a Scythe costs 165pts, can score anywhere on the table, is effectively immune to all firepower that isn't another flyer, and puts out 5.5 Autocannon HITS per turn on average. Is highly mobile, immune to assaults, and is effective against all targets.

One of these units is extremely good. One is mediocre. A glance at tournament lists will tell you which is which.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

did you literally just pick up the Chaos dex? because the codex is such a vast improvement over our last codex.

the downside to the improvement is that everything needs to be rethought, not just copied & pasted from codex to codex.


----------



## MetalHandkerchief (Aug 3, 2009)

You just sound jaded. They are up there amongst the cream, you comparing it to the very, utterly, far-beyond best things in the game is just unrealistic. Holding something up to impossible standards does not stop them from being fantastic.

In fact, a lot of players where I am have started allying Eldar in for tournaments. Specifically for Farseers, Rangers and WWs. And the occasional Warp Spider squad.



Fallen said:


> the downside to the improvement is that everything needs to be *rebought*


Fixed that for you :grin:


----------



## neferhet (Oct 24, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Dies Irae has summarised it pretty well I think.


btw no one is keeping you from playing with the 4th ed rules. if your pals accept this, you are free to go.


----------



## Keen4e (Apr 19, 2010)

I personally... like the new CSM codex. After a brief glance at it, I am even considering to collect a Chaos army. I like the lot of options you get there. I find the different marks and devotions to gods quite fascinating and finally I really love all that randomness in it, which corresponds to my idea of Chaos to be pretty much unpredictable. 
As I am not really a competitive player, I do not care that much for perfect balance, which might explain why I appreciate it more than others do.
As a matter of fact, I am considering to collect a Slaaneshi army...


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

MetalHandkerchief said:


> We can't all have Doom Scythes, Vendettas, IG Veterans, War Walkers and Venom+Trueborn, and fortunate we are.





MetalHandkerchief said:


> You just sound jaded. They are up there amongst the cream, you comparing it to the very, utterly, far-beyond best things in the game is just unrealistic. Holding something up to impossible standards does not stop them from being fantastic.


_You're the one comparing War Walkers to Flyers and pretending they're equally good. That was the root of my objection in the first place._

Are Walkers a passable choice? Yes. That's why I'm taking them instead of Grav Tanks. Do they stack up favourably to current power units such as Flyers? No, not really.

Are Rangers a mediocre choice? Yes. Sometimes they perform well, sometimes they're a giant waste of points. Do they stack up favourably to things like Grey Hunters, Platoons, Vets, Gants etc? No, not really. But it's either that, Guardians, or Jetbikes, and they all suck, so pick whichever you hate least.

Eldar have probably the least competitive codex out there right now. The boatload of nerfs they got seriously outweighs the few buffs. Not a single unit in the codex is the equal to an equivalent unit from a more recent book in terms of points efficiency, damage output or survivability. The only reason to ally them in is for Runes of Warding, and even then, a Space Wolf Rune Priest does the same job almost as well, and you get to take Grey Hunters and Long Fangs instead of Rangers and Walkers.

If your local players want to take Warp Spiders (22pt T3 jump infantry with a 12" range gun), they're welcome to. Everyone else is loading up on Manticores and Vendettas, so we'll see how they compare. Just because you or your local club find a unit overpowered doesn't make it so. An examination of global tournament results will give you a better idea - and not a single winner so far in 6th took Eldar either as Primary or Allied detachments.

Back on track, the Chaos Codex is fine. Lacking in imagination perhaps (how many entries have been copy/pasted with slight points changes?), but at least you have good units in every slot, and often more than one, so you can build different looking lists and still do well.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

Fallen said:


> did you literally just pick up the Chaos dex? because the codex is such a vast improvement over our last codex.
> 
> the downside to the improvement is that everything needs to be rethought, not just copied & pasted from codex to codex.


Dude... no way. Thats really your opinion, which is fine. I am one of those people who understands he can't change his army without getting models I don't really like, so accept the fact my army is not competetive as much as I accept the new codex. Because obviously we have to, but by no means would I say its an "improvement." Its nerfed so much of the Chaos muscle, like bezerkers and Daemon Princes which have always represented chaos very well. 



neferhet said:


> btw no one is keeping you from playing with the 4th ed rules. if your pals accept this, you are free to go.


I agree. You should go ahead and ask them. As for tournament games... I honestly, don't know what to say about that. I would say its more infantry based game, and you could do some creative things with that. Just take what you can get and use it.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

Last time I checked the author(s) of the codex are stated in the inside cover. 

if you can't correctly identify who wrote the codex then it's fairly clear that you are an unimaginative by the book sterile cut and paste player who throws a fit because their chaos space marines are no longer powerful.

6th ed has plenty of breathing room especially in the allies department. If you're army is failing in one sector chances are allies can take up the slack.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

Sethis why arnt jetbikes as far as I can see there up therev with the best of oponents troops just curious as to someone elses opinions 
As for chaos just because you couldn't make a cheesy list on the first flick through doesn't mean there bad


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

Sethis why arnt jetbikes as far as I can see there up therev with the best of oponents troops just curious as to someone elses opinions 
As for chaos just because you couldn't make a cheesy list on the first flick through doesn't mean there bad


----------



## flankman (Jan 26, 2009)

id like to point out that the prince nerf was justified, he costs a quarter thousand points but his stats are so high its kinda hard to lose in melee with him and most units need 5+ to hit thanks to ws9

im mostly dissapointed that the only cult marine that really got buffed was already the best one. as for khorn zerkers. i did notice that game design no-no of double dipping nerfs.....going from 4-3 attack to 4-2 attacks lose of initiative on charge that let them win fights with no casualties, transport nerfs multi charge nerfs and so on


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

flankman said:


> i did notice that game design no-no of double dipping nerfs.....going from 4-3 attack to 4-2 attacks lose of initiative on charge that let them win fights with no casualties, transport nerfs multi charge nerfs and so on


This happened to every codex that used those, this is not a new CSM only thing.


----------



## flankman (Jan 26, 2009)

i meant they did not need to nerf the codex entry when every other rule made them sub par to begin with, talk about kicking them while they're down.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Tru3 Chaos, I sympathize with your frustrations about the new codex... unfortunately though what's done is done. 

Your best bet is to try playing another army or adapt your play style with your current one. There are plenty of players here who would be happy to help show you how to get in some wins with your current models. 

Thankfully with 6th ed if you feel that it's not working out you can use the ally system to take things you like from other codex and leave what you don't. You could for example run a Chaos army with just a couple troops and an HQ and then use the Imp Guard flyers and do very well if they suit your tastes better. 

Good luck in the new edition.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

My feelings toward the new codex are...complex.

On the one hand, points and equipment tweaks on most units make a lot of sense: plague marines, noise marines, oblits, basic CSM, sorcs, etc. Spawn have been made a creditable choice and Helbrutes have a role in more lists than they used to as Dreadnoughts—if only as bait to protect other units. Even Daemon Princes and their wings going up in price is fine—FMCs got a massive boost, after all (though I do object to the loss of Eternal Warrior).

There are some decided pluses: bikers, FNP on Slaanesh, the Black Mace on Princes, the BBoS, the AoBR, how the Hellturkey plays (if not looks), Huron Blackheart, dirge casters, etc.

Certain fluffy decisions make sense and I welcome them: the expansion on the biomechanical theme, elite cult troops unless you have a properly-marked HQ, FNP for Slaanesh (again), having basic CSM less costly and less disciplined than loyalist marines but massively more customizable, and so on. Cultist support is very fluffy and adds an immense amount of list-building options, and that's even before you count Typhus's Zombies.

But it also has its flaws, and that's just dead honesty. A bucketload of super-expensive yet AV12 walkers? Defiler, Forgefiend, Maulerfiend, Helbrute—ouch. No transport flyer or assault vehicle, leaving Chaos stuck with soggy-cardboard-armored Rhinos and their craptastic, over-expensive variant of Land Raider? That sure is a nice way to treat the first assault army list released in 6e; I have gotten utterly sick and tired of seeing my army shot to fragments by the time its ragged fragments reach the enemy line in T3.

A number of units added or tweaked that are utterly rubbish: Mutilators, Possessed, Fabius Bile, the Dark Apostle. Some units aren't terrible but have other obvious flaws: Warp Talons (too expensive), Berzerkers (fearless WS5 marines after the first round of combat, ooh laa laa), Thousand Sons (far too expensive; can't Overwatch; die too easily to small arms fire), Raptors (why would you ever take them compared to bikers?)...

There are flaws, and the army has suffered from the advent of 6e's shooting and flyer centric rules, but the codex is a definite improvement overall. Perhaps it erred too far in the favor of caution than radical change, with the army's core staying virtually the same, and perhaps it didn't incorporate the changes 6e brought about as wholly as I'd like, BUT... it's a step in the right direction, especially if the next several codexes to come out are balanced to a similar degree. The mold of the old dual lash cookie-cutter list has been broken, an Chaos has been given a wide variety of fun, albeit not über competitive, toys with which to play.

TL;DR: Sure, I sulk that there's no "guaranteed win" combos like certain 5e codexes have to offer, but all in all I'm pretty content with the book. I'll only start crying foul if the DA codex is a return to the form of the 5e codexes; hopefully we're in for a hard reset with less codex creep this time around, like WHF got in 8e.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

It's better than the last Chaos Codex.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

There's no crying in Warhammer. Dig the sand out of your vagina and deal with it.

Or play Grey Knights like all the other Douches in the world.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

ckcrawford said:


> Its nerfed so much of the Chaos muscle, like bezerkers and Daemon Princes which have always represented chaos very well.


zerkers got nerfed because of 6th ed, not the new codex, infact they are actually deadlier in the new codex i feel.(i still do not like the loss of the extra base attack but thems the breaks)

DPs were perhaps THE most broken MC in the entire game with the last codex, the only dislike i have with them now is that there are no stat differences between the gods.



flankman said:


> im mostly disappointed that the only cult marine that really got buffed was already the best one. as for khorne zerkers. i did notice that game design no-no of double dipping nerfs.....going from 4-3 attack to 4-2 attacks lose of initiative on charge that let them win fights with no casualties, transport nerfs multi charge nerfs and so on


again this is another nerf mentioned due to the changes of 6th, rather than new codex.



Mossy Toes said:


> TL;DR: Sure, I sulk that there's no "guaranteed win" combos like certain 5e codexes have to offer, but all in all I'm pretty content with the book. I'll only start crying foul if the DA codex is a return to the form of the 5e codexes; hopefully we're in for a hard reset with less codex creep this time around, like WHF got in 8e.


:goodpost:


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

DeathKlokk said:


> There's no crying in Warhammer. Dig the sand out of your vagina and deal with it.
> 
> Or play Grey Knights like all the other Douches in the world.


Hey DK, many of us were playing GK when it was called Daemonhunters and people laughed at us for being antiquated. My GK army is 80% pewter.


----------



## shaantitus (Aug 3, 2009)

First the changes between 5th ed and 6th need to be discarded. ie I was disapointed about the reduction in effectiveness of zerks, and i was very concerned that kharn copped a whipping with the rules for the power axe before the new dex arrived.

Years ago i went on a road trip to the nearest games store and bought the 5th ed chaos dex. I ended up sitting on a seat in a shopping centre and as i read it through i had this vague feeling of dread settle over me as i realised how bland it was. That was a few years ago and there was none of that with this dex, there is so much more we can do with it. I am particularly glad that i can combine my csms and demons in a meaningful way now. I am happy. Apart from the fact that i have been so busy i have not been able to have any meaningfull games yet. But really looking forward to it.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

DeathKlokk said:


> There's no crying in Warhammer. Dig the sand out of your vagina and deal with it.
> 
> Or play Grey Knights like all the other Douches in the world.


If only that were true... I've seen so many cry babies. Shit son.

Thats actually a good idea about the Grey Knights thing. I might try a "counts as" army again.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

I think we have found the problem: (empasis mine)



Mossy Toes said:


> TL;DR: *Sure, I sulk that there's no "guaranteed win" combos* like certain 5e codexes have to offer, but all in all I'm pretty content with the book. I'll only start crying foul if the DA codex is a return to the form of the 5e codexes; hopefully we're in for a hard reset with less codex creep this time around, like WHF got in 8e.


I have yet to hear people complain about *any* 'dex that has not been anything more than whining that they do not have an "instant win" button. 

My take is pretty much summed up by DethKlok: Take a midol. 

Players need to recognize that your problems with winning are not caused by your list, they are caused by your lack of skill.


----------



## Cato Sicarius (Feb 21, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> I have yet to hear people complain about *any* 'dex that has not been anything more than whining that they do not have an "instant win" button.
> 
> My take is pretty much summed up by DethKlok: Take a midol.
> 
> Players need to recognize that your problems with winning are not caused by your list, they are caused by your lack of skill.


:goodpost:

That is all.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

The only thing I was disappointed they didn't do was make Chosen able to join squads like wolf guard, and Abby make terminators troops. Even without those two things the dex is still pretty awesome and from what I've seen nothing looks too broken. 

Chaos players (myself included) have just been butthurt since we lost the 3.5 ed dex.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

seermaster said:


> Sethis why arnt jetbikes as far as I can see there up therev with the best of oponents troops just curious as to someone elses opinions


22pt T4 3+ saves that are Ld 8 and have a 12" range bolter, no significant weapon options, and are WS/BS/S 3? Their only plus is mobility.

Compared to a Grey Hunter (Probably the best Troops choice in the game - 7pts cheaper) that has a Boltgun and two CCWs, Counter Attack, two special weapons per 10, WS/BS/S 4 and ATSKNF?

Jetbikes got a buff with Jink saves, but a nerf with reserve rules as they can no longer feasibly hide until turn 3-4. A unit of 3 on a table that has Line of Sight blocking terrain can be useful for last turn Objective grabs, but if they don't have anywhere to hide then they crash and burn as soon as the enemy looks at them. Random game length means that if the game goes on for another turn, you're screwed, because most enemies can kill 3 space marines pretty easily in one turn.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

Can you guys get back on topic and perhaps start a "what's so good about Eldar" thread?

Arcane, I said "all the Douches play GKs" (usually purchased off funds from their DE army they sold), I did not however say "all GK players are Douches". There is a striking dichotomy in GK players. Some who've stuck with them through the old shitty book and others of the more feminine hygiene variety.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> Players need to recognize that your problems with winning are not caused by your list, they are caused by your lack of skill.


I play nids. There are book issues that take a lot of skill to overcome at times.

Though, in regards to the new chaos codex, it is well balanced and hopefully is a move in a new direction for 40k. Otherwise, chaos just got shafted again.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> The only thing I was disappointed they didn't do was make Chosen able to join squads like wolf guard, and Abby make terminators troops. Even without those two things the dex is still pretty awesome and from what I've seen nothing looks too broken.
> 
> Chaos players (myself included) have just been butthurt since we lost the 3.5 ed dex.


That piece of shit was more broken than any book Ward has *ever* written and I'm glad it's dead.

Yes I get it, it has customizability, but it was poorly balanced (for good reason, because so much was crammed inside it) and was more abused than most people's caps lock key.

For everyone person who misses it for the incredible depth and cool ideas it had there are at least 20 who miss it because they could bend their opponent over the table with the damned thing.

The fact is GW isn't going back that way. They've pretty much killed the pure legion list in the canon and left us with using Count-As to cover some of the more interesting ideas. So I think we should be thankful we got the book we did. It was 100 times better than most of us were expecting.

Everyone else who was expecting a 3.5 Redux, or keeps using 5th Edition as your measuring stick, well you're just going to have to keep being disappointed because this isn't what you wanted and nor will it be.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

I think the DA book will determine how good the CSM book really is.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

DeathKlokk said:


> I think the DA book will determine how good the CSM book really is.


Is it just me or does anyone else think the DA Codex as leaked has a real Grey Knighty feel? Elite Terminators and all that?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> Is it just me or does anyone else think the DA Codex as leaked has a real Grey Knighty feel? Elite Terminators and all that?


Deathwing has always been a thing for the Dark Angels, so it only makes sense that they'd go a little bit bigger on it.

I'm just waiting to see the Vanilla book get a basic Terminator list option now. No elite 2 wound Terminators or anything, just a way to build an all Terminator army for those who want to field the 1st Company proper.


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

TRU3 CHAOS said:


> Is it me or does it seem like the Chaos Space Marine codex is utter crap?
> 
> Matt Ward?
> 
> ...


Sorry about the obtusely edited quote. That's what stood out most about it however.

One would think if Matt Ward was in charge of this then his name would be somewhere overleaf of the cover, instead of Phil Kelly. Matt Ward's name isn't even mentioned in the special thanks.

One would also think that if Matt Ward had done this codex that we wouldn't have that wonderful picture of the Chaos Terminator Lord robbing one easily downed Ultramarine of his twin hearts. Sarc/ such an atrocity would never happen on Ward's watch. 

Finally, if Ward was in charge of either of these first 6th codexes I suspect we'd have Ultramarines as poster boys a third edition running.



TRU3 CHAOS said:


> World Eaters: Hardly effective. I guess you could say they could be a potential unit... but unlikely. I might as well flip a coin.


As for this, don't chainaxes confer the World Eaters AP4? That's a plus, aye? But I'll only really side with you partially on the Mutilators. The models are horrible.

Otherwise, the only thing that would've made me think Ward was the background fluff of the Blood Disciples. The Emperor's Wolves turn to Khorne because they get covered in blood on a bad year? I could get behind this a bit better if they added a sentence or two more that gave some hint to the raw power of the Blood God there.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Zion said:


> Deathwing has always been a thing for the Dark Angels, so it only makes sense that they'd go a little bit bigger on it.
> 
> I'm just waiting to see the Vanilla book get a basic Terminator list option now. No elite 2 wound Terminators or anything, just a way to build an all Terminator army for those who want to field the 1st Company proper.


I was meaning more the Deathwing Knights = Paladins


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> I was meaning more the Deathwing Knights = Paladins


I haven't heard about any rules stuff other than the "huddle to improve your save" option and that just makes me think of the old Roman Tortoise formation.

But it's not beyond the realm of possibility I suppose.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Really hoping it is as blandly balanced as CSM. If that is the route GW is going then it will help make the game more how you play and less 'run this list or lose'. If DA are the next GK then I will agree CSM got shafted.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

scscofield said:


> Really hoping it is as blandly balanced as CSM. If that is the route GW is going then it will help make the game more how you play and less 'run this list or lose'. If DA are the next GK then I will agree CSM got shafted.


Even if it is in 6 months someone will have the "perfect" list to use to slap people in the face with their dick.

Sadly this is the thing I feel that occurs with GW's. They write a rules to give us the tools to make our own fun (hence that "crap" about forging a narrative, that thick section on story based campaigns and the like) and some people can't have fun unless their gaining a sense of superiority by doing this.

And then GW gets blamed for not making the ruleset better despite it being what they want it to be: a set of tools.

In the end I'm beginning to think blaming GW is like blaming the snow for someone making a giant cock out of it. It's pointless because the real culprits are the ones who think the only way to have fun is by being a giant dick about everything.


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

Zion said:


> Sadly this is the thing I feel that occurs with GW's. They write a rules to give us the tools to make our own fun (hence that "crap" about forging a narrative, that thick section on story based campaigns and the like) and some people can't have fun unless their gaining a sense of superiority by doing this.


Well, there goes all the manly feeling in my body. Personally, I like the stuff like that, win or lose, because it gives the opportunity to add depth and history to your games. I mean, surely those games with a little extra spice will be more memorable? Then again, maybe this is just the affliction of having Aspergers.

But I do agree otherwise, it does throw balance horribly, horribly off. And no matter how GW tries, there'll always be imbalance and loopholes in their system.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Blackwire said:


> Well, there goes all the manly feeling in my body. Personally, I like the stuff like that, win or lose, because it gives the opportunity to add depth and history to your games. I mean, surely those games with a little extra spice will be more memorable? Then again, maybe this is just the affliction of having Aspergers.
> 
> But I do agree otherwise, it does throw balance horribly, horribly off. And no matter how GW tries, there'll always be imbalance and loopholes in their system.


I wasn't taking a shot at anyone who likes campaigns or narrative games, but rather the ideas that we should overlook what the game is designed for: having fun.

40k makes me think of a table top RPG in some respects (other than it being 40k's roots) in that the core of the game has always been, and will always will be, having a fun game with your friends that you can tell stories about, not some kind of ultra-competitive rule set designed around who can be the manliest with dice.

I just think people lose sight of this and decide that 40k is crap because it doesn't fit what they want it to be despite it fitting what it was made to be.


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

Zion said:


> I wasn't taking a shot at anyone who likes campaigns or narrative games, but rather the ideas that we should overlook what the game is designed for: having fun.
> 
> 40k makes me think of a table top RPG in some respects (other than it being 40k's roots) in that the core of the game has always been, and will always will be, having a fun game with your friends that you can tell stories about, not some kind of ultra-competitive rule set designed around who can be the manliest with dice.
> 
> I just think people lose sight of this and decide that 40k is crap because it doesn't fit what they want it to be despite it fitting what it was made to be.


Yeah, that actually does about hit the nail on the head. I have friends who can't stand losing, argue about the most mundane little additions to the rules, and even those that can't stand the idea that chance would come into a game. I long ago adopted the mindset that any game could be enjoyed, whether the triumphs came from you or your opponent.

And nice referral to the GW origins. I can't quite imagine, despite having seen photos of the first store, GW being anything other than the designers of these miniature wargames. Had D&D not come out, however, GW may well have ended just being like any other family-based toy store.

Back on-topic though, pity some people view change, however small, as the devil.


----------



## lokis222 (Mar 14, 2009)

Zion said:


> 40k makes me think of a table top RPG in some respects (other than it being 40k's roots) in that the core of the game has always been, and will always will be, having a fun game with your friends that you can tell stories about, not some kind of ultra-competitive rule set designed around who can be the manliest with dice.


as long as things keep being balanced, people will be able to do both. 

it is GWs own fault that the 'hyper super must have' army thing occurred. if the rules were well written, you could take any army and have fun with it. i will hold up warmachine as an example. i play two fluffy/fun armies and i do well. it is because the units and different factions are for the most part, on par. some units are better then others, but it really comes down to player skill because it is really well balanced.

if the next codex comes out power creeping, well, fuck GW. if they say one thing (lets have fun) and create the opposite (stupid unbalanced rules), then even the most oblivious person will start to smell bullshit.

having a even playing field is more fun than taking the army you like and getting stomped by the newest netlists. lets make a story does not make up for that bullshit.

not being a dick, but DA will show us what we have ahead of us in 6th and considering 5th, i can see this going either way.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Zion said:


> Sadly this is the thing I feel that occurs with GW's. They write a rules to give us the tools to make our own fun (hence that "crap" about forging a narrative, that thick section on story based campaigns and the like) and some people can't have fun unless their gaining a sense of superiority by doing this.
> ...
> It's pointless because the real culprits are the ones who think the only way to have fun is by being a giant dick about everything.


Some people have fun by playing narrative storylines and make explosion noises when they blow up a vehicle, and make whooshing noises when their flyers arrive. They make decisions in-game and during list building that they think "are cool", regardless of efficiency or practicality.

Other people have fun by playing a tight game, using optimal tactics and list design, against an opponent of equal caliber. It's a test of skill, and you have something invested in winning or losing, just like any other competitive sport or game.

It's the difference between having a kickabout in the garden, and playing on a team in a league. Both are perfectly fine ways to play football and have fun. One is not inherently "more fun" or "better" than the other.

The problem is that GW can't (or won't) write rules that are balanced enough to stand up to seriously competitive play. They leave loopholes for months or years on end, don't FAQ/Errata properly, don't write clean rules with clear definitions, and leave (in some cases) almost a decade and a half between army books.

This results in rules and units in the game that are "exploitable" (due to rules issues or simple over-efficiency). If neither person "exploits" them, that's fine. If both players "exploit" them, that's also fine. The friction arises when someone who *does* plays against someone who *doesn't*. Then both players have a bad game. The person who plays to win feels bad for crushing someone by turn 3. The person who plays for giggles feels bad for being crushed by "cheese".

This is why I have taken to asking before every single pick-up game "Casual or competitive?" and then I write a list on the spot based on how they reply.

The Chaos codex *can* be used to write competitive lists. Heldrakes, Havocs, Bikers, Lords and Sorcs plus Troops makes for a pretty nasty list if you're a "casual" player. It can also make some awful, awful, lists if you want it to, but so can *any* codex - barring Necrons.


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Not trying to open another can of worms here, but, are you (Sethis) say Necrons can't write an awful list? Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## returnoftheclown (Mar 14, 2012)

Sethis said:


> It can also make some awful, awful, lists if you want it to, but so can *any* codex - barring Necrons.


Come on now. Any Necron list with Flayed ones and Szeras is on the verge surely?


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

Yeah, but thats like literally trying to lose almost.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

No, seriously. Write the worst 1850pt list you can with Necrons and it will still be capable of beating "casual" strength lists from most other codices when played competently. Even with 30 Flayed Ones - that's still 30 ASM (the core of most BA lists minus the scoring part) that have better-than-FnP as standard without the drawbacks of Priests. Destroyer lists took a hit compared to last edition, but you can still run a list around them without auto-losing every game.

Write an awful list with Necrons, and then a poor-to-middling list with most other books. The Necrons can beat it. But this is drifting even further off topic so... :laugh:


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Sethis said:


> Some people have fun by playing narrative storylines and make explosion noises when they blow up a vehicle, and make whooshing noises when their flyers arrive. They make decisions in-game and during list building that they think "are cool", regardless of efficiency or practicality.
> 
> Other people have fun by playing a tight game, using optimal tactics and list design, against an opponent of equal caliber. It's a test of skill, and you have something invested in winning or losing, just like any other competitive sport or game.
> 
> ...


I was with you up until the last sentence. Any codex can be good or bad depending on who plays it. There is no codex that can just walk up to a table, get out some models and win without someone being there.

Now are Necrons pretty durable? Sure. But even a strong Necron list isn't unbeatable.

Or did 6th Edition mean we forget target priority, finishing off a unit before moving onto the next and the fact that unless someone gets luck or has loaded dice that on average only half of the Necron casualties will get back up, and none of them will if the unit is all dead.

The same thing can be said about any codex honestly. During 5th the "unstoppable codex" shifted from Guard, to Blood Angels to Space Wolves to Grey Knights to Venom Spam DE, and then 6th came along and now we're starting off with Necrons.

Necrons only have an early advantage this edition unless you play Forge World in your area. And even if you don't, once you pull back that curtain of bullshit the internet erects, you can see that it takes more than a few models and owning a book to make you win, and even then it's no promise.

</rant>

Sorry, I get tired of people acting like owning a book is all it takes to make you win.

That aside, I was thinking today and I'd best equate 40K to a game like D&D 3.5: there are a lot of exploitable rules, and a lot of options that aren't always the best choice, but nothing is truly invalid if you want to find a way to make it work. It all takes creative playing and by working with other people at your table you create something fun. That can be something with the most balanced of options, or the most majorly min-maxed set up, but in the end it is was you make it. And if you find yourself hating it, then you're probably playing with the wrong people, or not playing it in the right way to let you enjoy it.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

scscofield said:


> Really hoping it is as blandly balanced as CSM. If that is the route GW is going then it will help make the game more how you play and less 'run this list or lose'. If DA are the next GK then I will agree CSM got shafted.





Sethis said:


> No, seriously. Write the worst 1850pt list you can with Necrons and it will still be capable of beating "casual" strength lists from most other codices when played competently. Even with 30 Flayed Ones - that's still 30 ASM (the core of most BA lists minus the scoring part) that have better-than-FnP as standard without the drawbacks of Priests. Destroyer lists took a hit compared to last edition, but you can still run a list around them without auto-losing every game.
> 
> Write an awful list with Necrons, and then a poor-to-middling list with most other books. The Necrons can beat it. But this is drifting even further off topic so... :laugh:


Sad, but true. I could see private leagues banning Necron armies. The one next to my apartment tried banning 5th edition chaos.


----------



## The Sturk (Feb 3, 2012)

returnoftheclown said:


> Come on now. Any Necron list with Flayed ones and Szeras is on the verge surely?


I actually made a list with those 2 in it and won.

However, both me and my opponent purposely made terrible lists (Tau friend fielded the Ethereal Hero), so its not like its a major accomplishment.

Even then, it was kinda hard to make a "terrible" list, as those two units (and maybe Praetorians) are the worst in the codex. The rest of my list was 2 minimal squads of Warriors and a bunch of Spyders and Scarabs, hardly bad at all.


On topic however, Sethis and Zion have very strong points here. The list is only part of the battle. You can make the best list in the world with X army and still lose if you play poorly on the field (and I don't mean by dice rolls either). A good player can potentially make any list viable.

Any besides, we are playing for fun now, aren't we guys?


----------



## Jace of Ultramar (Aug 2, 2011)

Playing for fun? Absolutely. That's the case with my monthly 40K game. 

Zion, I get the D&D analogy... completely. That is by far my favourite group game.

Sethis, I'm curious to see that play out with a local 'crons player.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Zion said:


> I was with you up until the last sentence. Any codex can be good or bad depending on who plays it...
> 
> The same thing can be said about any codex honestly...
> 
> Necrons only have an early advantage this edition unless you play Forge World in your area. And even if you don't, once you pull back that curtain of bullshit the internet erects, you can see that it takes more than a few models and owning a book to make you win, and even then it's no promise.


I agree that it's probably only temporary, but I've played with every army (barring Templars and Dark Angels) in the game during my time collecting and Necrons are by far the easiest to win with. I've never felt so much like I was "auto-winning" as when I've been running Necrons under 6th Ed. Even when I started using the BA codex early in 5th I never felt like I had a free pass to every game (maybe because I never took Mephy? :laugh: ). I hate the concept, and I normally seriously disagree with anyone who claims such a thing, but Necrons are the closest thing to a point-and-click army I've ever used. I'm selling my army because local players simply can't compete with it, and the games are actually not fun any more. That isn't a testament to my ego, or "leet skillz" but a reflection on the book at this point in time.


----------



## seermaster (Feb 22, 2012)

and yet when it came out in 5th everyone thought ward had finally written something balanced


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

seermaster said:


> and yet when it came out in 5th everyone thought ward had finally written something balanced


showed us to never underestimate Ward.


----------



## Ravner298 (Jun 3, 2011)

I agree at first I was disappointed in the codex, but after playing with it a few times its not as underpowered as the Internet masses will have you believe. Bland, sure ill give you that. Running normal marines, ac havocs, and double drakes I've had great success vs a few different flavors of necrons and sw. 

The big thing to watch for as was mentioned is the da codex. If its another gk ill probably walk from the hobby for a while and sell off some extra stuff. If its on par with csm that's a good sign, however it's still annoying that ig, necrons, gk and the like will remain on top for a damn long time.


----------



## DivineEdge (May 31, 2012)

I think that they might be trying to do to the 40k codices in 6th what they did/are doing to the fantasy armybooks in 8th - balancing them out, cutting some different stuff, trying to give more internal structure and all - and things like that. Eliminating cookie-cutter lists and must take units. 

Thing to note - strongest fantasy armies are all from 7th - high elves, dark elves, lizardmen, skaven, daemons. 

This could be how 40k turns out - 5th ed. armies - knights, wolves, and necrons, remaining the strongest in the new edition. 

I'd say we will know if this will happen once the DA codex hits, but it will take more than 2 to judge GW's new direction.


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

DivineEdge said:


> I think that they might be trying to do to the 40k codices in 6th what they did/are doing to the fantasy armybooks in 8th - balancing them out, cutting some different stuff, trying to give more internal structure and all - and things like that. Eliminating cookie-cutter lists and must take units.


It is funny you say that because if you take a quick look it seems they are still making must take units to drive models sales.

Flyers, Daemons-flamers and screamers, a lot of the new Necron stuff (although wraiths are still considered one of the best), etc. Although I guess mostly it seems flyers fit this the best since they are the newest model type and newish across all armies.

I do think some of this actually does go on inside GW, but only to a small real degree does it really affect the game.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Suijin said:


> Flyers, Daemons-flamers and screamers, a lot of the new Necron stuff (although wraiths are still considered one of the best), etc. Although I guess mostly it seems flyers fit this the best since they are the newest model type and newish across all armies.
> 
> I do think some of this actually does go on inside GW, but only to a small real degree does it really affect the game.


Necrons came out in November 2011, while strong at the moment they are not a 6th edition release. In fact they haven't had anything come out since the edition started.

I'm not going to keep harping on why players are the problem, not the codex, or that the internet is almost always wrong as a whole because honestly I'm starting to feel kind of like a broken record.

Instead I'm going to point something else out:

8th Edition Fantasy is levelling the playing field (so far at least) with books that fall right about in the middle of the power curve. They have strengths, they have weaknesses, but generally speaking there aren't any instant power builds for any of the armies that have been updated since 8th started.

On the flip side there are a number of armies that are way ahead on the power curve due to the way the rules work in their favour (Dwarf Gunlines, Skaven in general, High Elf Magic Spam, ect). If 40k follows this trend we'll see the same thing. Armies that are released that piss people off for not having immediate "I Win" buttons (strangely it seems everyone is getting pissed off about this from both the competitive and non-competitive sides since in comparison the newer books seem lack luster and less powerful when really they're a more solid and better book overall). We're already seeing it with the Chaos Space Marines, but that could just be a fluke.

I don't think we'll be able to judge where 6th Edition goes based on the CSM, or the DA, or even the book after them. I think it'll be at least a year from now and maybe the 5th or 6th release before we can really go "This is 6th Edition and what it's like".

I say this because the books that are coming out right now where started over a year ago, before 6th Edition was finalized and sent to the printers, maybe even longer ago than that. We need to be looking at later books to see what will really be tapped into what the writers are trying to do with this most recent rule set.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

DivineEdge said:


> I think that they might be trying to do to the 40k codices in 6th what they did/are doing to the fantasy armybooks in 8th - balancing them out, cutting some different stuff, trying to give more internal structure and all - and things like that. Eliminating cookie-cutter lists and must take units.
> 
> Thing to note - strongest fantasy armies are all from 7th - high elves, dark elves, lizardmen, skaven, daemons.
> 
> ...


Which is a great idea and I'm all for it if they do it consistently... but it leaves the previously powerful codexes as the only powerful codexes for the forseeable future. Unless we're expecting a new codex or FAQ to nerf the existing books, then there's a real power imbalance.

This isn't a huge problem for me - I play tyranids, so we're pretty underpowered as it is; more races around a central baseline works out ok... I play friendly games, and it looks like most of this year will be around a narrative campaign, so power levels aren't such a big deal. I do feel a bit sorry for anyone who wants to play competitively and gets no chance of a reasonably level playing field, though.


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

Fallen said:


> showed us to never underestimate Ward.


Very... very dangerous man.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

seermaster said:


> and yet when it came out in 5th everyone thought ward had finally written something balanced


It was relatively balanced in 5th. Then 6th came out, letting tanks with hull points get raped by Gauss and upgrading Night/Doom Scythes to Flyers for no points upgrade.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

To be fair though I think the necron codex was practically written for sixth, I mean it had a lot of things which were made universal such as haywire and the command barge was practically screaming to be a chariot

But just going back to the original post for a second



TRU3 CHAOS said:


> Obliterators: You must change your damn weapons every turn. WTF? Why? Why would you do that Matt Ward? Why?
> 
> That doesn't make them all that bad (ok it is annoying), if anything though they are better than they were because they can have marks now so they can't be IDed by S8, have the demon special rule (because Fear does so much) and have assault cannons too
> 
> ...


To be honest I'm surprised the lack of the old demon weapons hasn't been mentioned or that the Mark of Tzeentch is pretty awful now if you don't already have an invun, or that you need a marked HQ to take the cult marines as troops. 

And your forgetting some of the good things like the availability of flack missiles or good units such as warp talons and raptors have got better too, with the availability of specialist weapons.

To be honest I think we can't really judge until we have seen the DA codex to see what that is like, if it is loads better then we can probably agree that the CSm codex isn't that great (which I doubt) but if it is similar then that is good because GW are balancing out the armies to make games as fair as possible so that games are about how you play and what you put in your list not what army you play and whether you have the money to buy all the powerful units


----------



## ckcrawford (Feb 4, 2009)

Necrons are the rape train without breaks.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

Zion said:


> 8th Edition Fantasy is levelling the playing field (so far at least) with books that fall right about in the middle of the power curve. They have strengths, they have weaknesses, but generally speaking there aren't any instant power builds for any of the armies that have been updated since 8th started.


That's not a fair comparison. GW erratad or FAQed everything for 8th edition so it would all balance out and work well. They didn't do that for 40k for whatever reason... they couldn't even be arsed to add flakk missiles to most armies so they could sell more flyers and make bank. We are talking about two different games and seemingly two different companies since the philosophy of management between the two doesn't run parallel.


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

Arcane said:


> That's not a fair comparison. GW erratad or FAQed everything for 8th edition so it would all balance out and work well. They didn't do that for 40k for whatever reason... they couldn't even be arsed to add flakk missiles to most armies so they could sell more flyers and make bank. We are talking about two different games and seemingly two different companies since the philosophy of management between the two doesn't run parallel.


You're taking me a bit out of context there. I was talking about the 8th edition army books, not the edition as a whole. Even in fantasy there are some major balance issues where older armies are steam rolling over others because it hasn't been adjusted into line with the newer ones.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

ckcrawford said:


> Necrons are the rape train without breaks.


Yes that is all.

With the 6th ed thing, you will probably find the reason they didn't do what they did with fantasy for 40k is because of allies and GW want to make you buy an HQ and troops so that you can get anti-air, DA and CSM cover all the armies allies-wise.


----------



## Captain Galus (Jan 2, 2008)

I don't know what people are talking about when they complain about the new Chaos book, especially when you compare it to where we came from last edition. There are so many good options is stupid; the book has an answer for anything.

Going against lots of small arms fire? Plaguemarines.
Going against horde melee? Berzerkers.
Going against MEQs? Melee Noise Marines.
Going against lots of high-strength fire? Thousand Sons.

Everything else is just icing on the cake. Last codex we got had one playable list; Dual Lash Prince, and it was boring for everyone involved. Our Dark Lord Kelly has truly blessed us with this book. Get used to the fact that there aren't any broken units, this isn't a Ward codex.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Captain Galus said:


> especially when you compare it to where we came from last edition.


This is exactly what bugs me, as a 5th edition Chaos player. Would people honestly rather go back to the days of the Daemon Prince being the only HQ choice, and then Plague Marines in Rhinos with Obliterator support perhaps backed up by Chosen/Termicide? One just has to look at the HQ section of the new Chaos book to see the huge improvement that's been made; no one choice is hands-down better than another. The Lord is as viable as the Sorceror is as viable as the Daemon Prince, pretty much.



Captain Galus said:


> Everything else is just icing on the cake. Last codex we got had one playable list; Dual Lash Prince, and it was boring for everyone involved. Our Dark Lord Kelly has truly blessed us with this book. Get used to the fact that there aren't any broken units, this isn't a Ward codex.


It's not just Ward, y'know. Vendettae and Veterans are Cruddace's creations. But I agree, it's a very solid Codex, as was Dark Eldar. Kelly is an excellent lead writer.



falcoso said:


> DA and CSM cover all the armies allies-wise.


Tyranids :laugh:

Midnight


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Not that it's particularly relevant, but this is something I found quite funny whilst reading a tactic article about the new CSMs:

"The Cultist Champion is the most bizarrely overconfident guy in the world; he will challenge ANYONE and basically never, ever win."

I found it quite hilarious.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

I for one am ecstatic we no longer have to face Daemonprince/Oblit lists one after another anymore. In 5th ed one would show up to a tourney and upon facing a Chaos player know it was Daemonprince with lash, 2 Oblit squads, some havocs and a bunch of killy shit in a landraider. Zzzzzz


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

Yep generally 'zerkers too which would make me sad


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> Not that it's particularly relevant, but this is something I found quite funny whilst reading a tactic article about the new CSMs:
> 
> "The Cultist Champion is the most bizarrely overconfident guy in the world; he will challenge ANYONE and basically never, ever win."
> 
> I found it quite hilarious.



Haha yep. My last game saw a Champion forced to challenge an Overlord with a Warscythe, only to be cut down in the same assault phase. My opponent was pretty miffed about being forced to do that.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> Not that it's particularly relevant, but this is something I found quite funny whilst reading a tactic article about the new CSMs:
> 
> "The Cultist Champion is the most bizarrely overconfident guy in the world; he will challenge ANYONE and basically never, ever win."
> 
> I found it quite hilarious.


Whoa now, hey. The cultist champion has a fair shot against a Guard Sergeant or a Shas'ui. And I know a guy whose cultist champion once rose to the great heights of spawnhood.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

I had a cultist become a daemon prince once when he beat down a IG Sargent, mind you I was goofing around at the time and put CCW, pistol on the squad and gave them mark of khorn so he did throw out 5 attack that round, but still. Mind you for this one moment of glory I have had 10 game where he just dies in obscurity. Like the time he alone faced of against a dreadknight. Not because he challenged, but because he was the only member of the squad left alive.


----------



## notsoevil (Nov 30, 2010)

I think that's the best thing about the new codex. We're fat with choices.


----------



## Malisteen (Aug 15, 2012)

We're fat with choices, but many of them are redundant, with obviously better/worse ends. If you play only competitively minded players, then you're going to get as sick of the bikelord/huronorsorcerer/pas armed csmsorplagues/bikes/drakes/havocs/oblits as you were of the 4e book's monolist. And if you don't play competitively minded players, then the last book had plenty of variety, too - five different troops choices, multiple fast, heavy, elite, & HQ options, etc.

Is it better? Yeah, it's better. I mean, I don't know if it's better power-wise. I don't know if its _stronger_. But it does have more meaningful competitive options, especially in HQ section. But the majority of any real build diversity you're likely to get out of it is mostly due to allies, and 6e already added that to the last book.

Yeah, it has more options, but too many of them are terrible. Yeah, it has more units, but too many of them are redundant and step on each others toes. And it didn't really fix the glaring problems of the last book. Thousand Sons way overpriced, not very effective, and not at all popular? Better hit them with a massive nerf, then, apparently. Possessed are still fail. Sonics are still way overpriced. Plagues are still the best cult unit by a wide margin. CSMs have tons of options, but not all that many worthwhile ones.

And it certainly didn't address the changes to the game brought by 6th edition. Hope you like baledrakes, and hope your opponent likes having to play against multiples of them, because flakkhavocs aren't going to help you on the fliers front. Have fun getting those nerfed berzerkers to combat - 20+ point melee specialist marines are totally fine walking to combat at infantry speed, or riding closed top, tinfoil armor transports.


Again, the book is better, yes. But you can be better than 'awful' and still not be 'good'. It's still too dull, it still feels restrictive, it still suffers from too many obvious 'take' or 'don't take' options, and it didn't go anywhere near far enough in rethinking the incredibly unpopular 4e book from the ground up - because it didn't try to do that at all. Its full of overpriced units with half baked rules that frequently either don't work or actively work against you, leading to frustrating list building and tabletop experiences.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Malisteen said:


> Yeah, it has more options, but too many of them are terrible. Yeah, it has more units, but too many of them are redundant and step on each others toes. And it didn't really fix the glaring problems of the last book. Thousand Sons way overpriced, not very effective, and not at all popular? Better hit them with a massive nerf, then, apparently. Possessed are still fail. Sonics are still way overpriced. Plagues are still the best cult unit by a wide margin. CSMs have tons of options, but not all that many worthwhile ones.


Szeras, Praetorians, Obyron, Doomsday Arks, Destroyers, most Lord wargear, Flayed Ones, C'tan Shards, Monoliths. They're all mediocre to awful choices in the Necron book, and it's still heralded as the best in the game. Imperial Guard is the same - their Elites slot is pretty much abandoned at competitive level outside of the odd Psyker squad or Rambo, and most of their Artillery is fairly useless too. All Codices have a bunch of useless options and units, not just CSM. The glaring problem of the last book were that, at competitive level, there were *no* options, and at fun level they had *nothing* fun or interesting. The new book has a lot of poor options, but so do all books. Every book has 1-3 competitive builds, and good books have many more less competitive, yet viable builds. I think the new Chaos codex does this.

Midnight


----------



## notsoevil (Nov 30, 2010)

Not good in comparison to what?

Grey Knights?

We know that book was over the top.

Are CSMs low-tier or mid-tier in the competitive meta? Do you honestly consider them low-tier?

Most other competitive lists for other armies I've noted seem to deviate towards 1-2 builds for the tourney scene. So yeah, our tourney lists might spam baledrakes, MoN bikers and PMs, but look at the sameness everyone else drifts towards as well.

Don't get me wrong, i don't think 40k is balanced by any definition of the term. In fact, I think it is quite obvious that it is extremely unbalanced. So in that environment things will definitely bubble to the top and settle at the bottom. Yet we choose to play the game anyway, eh?


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Malisteen said:


> And it certainly didn't address the changes to the game brought by 6th edition. Hope you like baledrakes, and hope your opponent likes having to play against multiples of them, because flakkhavocs aren't going to help you on the fliers front.


I agreed with everything you said till the part about flakk havoks. They do tend to rip through flier insanely fast especially when on a quad gun. Is it overpriced? Well obviously but considering flier pay a premium for their enhanced survivability it only makes sense that 300pts is needed to buy 8 str 7 anti air shots. I mean down playing how critical flakk havocs are in the current flier heavy environment is silly. Sure you can take helldrakes with the hades, but everyone knows that's a waste of a good baleflammer platform, and the d3 vector strike really doesn't compare to a reliable 5-6 str7 shots from a quad gun camping havok squad. The one thing CSM players have no right to complain about is a lack of anti-air ability. Everything else maybe but not anti-air.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

I am in a very good space with the new Chaos Codex, after initially thinking it was utter garbage, but as i am just a collector and not a gamer i see nothing wrong with it.

I bet once the new DA Codex comes out i bet we'll get our usual group of death riders complaining about it as well.

Can't please everyone.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

Personally, my biggest qualm with Codex: Chaos Space Marines is the back fold out reference page at the very end of the book.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Ooh, that's a pain all right. Its edges creasing...


----------



## Chosen of Malal (Nov 5, 2012)

We play a game that simulates war, where the number one rule is adapt or die, but when a change comes to our book, rather than adapt you get people that want to bitch. Not only do they want to bitch, but they want to do so without knowing where to place the blame, or exactly where what they're bitching about comes from. There are three complaints in the initial post that actually pertain to the codex, if that. Is there really that much concern that they changed furious charge, you may lose a T4 3+ save MARINE when you get it into hand to hand combat WHILE it attacks...you're gonna lose models in a game, it just happens. Slaanesh is worthless now? Bitching about loss of initiative on the charge with World Eaters, because of furious charge change, but I5 marines are a bad thing? Mutilators, sure, they suck, but EVERY codex ALWAYS has units that are worthless. Now, Obliterators, you wanna know why they have to change weapons every turn? Phil Kelly (author of our codex, not Matt Ward) realizes that some things are just a little too damn powerful and can actually write a balanced codex...that's why so many people feel it sucks, it's not overpowered....speaking of overpowered, all that Matt Ward bashing over a codex that isn't overpowered, someone forgot who Matt Ward is, or isn't privy to his previous works.


----------



## Lepaca (Oct 19, 2011)

The biggest problem with C:CSM in my mind is that Kelly tried to make it a close combat oriented book without giving us the tools needed to make a melee army viable (namely assault vehicles or drop pods). This lack leaves us with only very few viable choices to get into melee and they are all clustered in the FA slot. The fact that 6th edition is heavily biased towards shooty units really does not help either.

Furthermore the CoC rule is simply dreadful as it is both unfluffy and another drawback to our melee prowess as our melee characters (which are subpar duelists but great at killing units) will often end up in a challenge that they propably won't win.


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

LTKage said:


> Personally, my biggest qualm with Codex: Chaos Space Marines is the back fold out reference page at the very end of the book.


Oh man that must suck... I mean, I had to cut my codex out of two magazines and insert the pages into transparent binder inserts inside a bulky 3 ring binder, only to have it's authenticity questioned when newbs see it... but damn, that back fold out must be tough... /sarcasm.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Shhh no SoB slash wristing......

That and I agree the fold out creases bad. I love the thing and use it, just wish they had trimmed it so there was a half inch gap or so from the spine when folded.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

Arcane said:


> Oh man that must suck... I mean, I had to cut my codex out of two magazines and insert the pages into transparent binder inserts inside a bulky 3 ring binder, only to have it's authenticity questioned when newbs see it... but damn, that back fold out must be tough... /sarcasm.


- violins - :cray:


----------



## Chosen of Malal (Nov 5, 2012)

Lepaca said:


> The biggest problem with C:CSM in my mind is that Kelly tried to make it a close combat oriented book without giving us the tools needed to make a melee army viable (namely assault vehicles or drop pods). This lack leaves us with only very few viable choices to get into melee and they are all clustered in the FA slot. The fact that 6th edition is heavily biased towards shooty units really does not help either.
> 
> Furthermore the CoC rule is simply dreadful as it is both unfluffy and another drawback to our melee prowess as our melee characters (which are subpar duelists but great at killing units) will often end up in a challenge that they propably won't win.


Unfluffy? I just can't bring myself to comment on that.

No, you can't take a ton of vehicles geared toward assault for this army. What you can take is units of 20 MARINES with CCW and BP with MoK and IoW at a bargain price, you can also take a unit of 35 cultists naked for dirt cheap to screen them. 

Everyone is so focused on what the book can't do, they can't see what the book CAN do. Watch the new banter batrep on miniwargaming.com SW vs. Chaos, 100 cultists, 3 drakes and 2 DPs, it's pretty damn entertaining. This isn't the book you had in last edition, yes it has changed your army, no, you probably can't use your last edition army the way you used to and have it work the same. It's time to adapt to your new rules and get over what you used to have. I'd rather enjoy the army I have rather than moan about it until they get another update...3 years or longer from now since it just came out.

It's ridiculous the amount of complaining people do about how overpowered so many armies are, Necrons, Grey Knights, etc. but then complain when their army is released and it's a pretty balanced book, rather than a Matt Ward powergame special.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

Chosen of Malal said:


> What you can take is units of 20 MARINES with CCW and BP with MoK and IoW at a bargain price


However, the way this edition's shaping up and with the meta, that looks to be a poor plan. One just has to look at the Chaos codex, with two very powerful anti-MEQ guns, and the Dark Angels Codex with it's Plasma-everywhere approach, and see that massed MEQ on foot is probably a bad army plan.



Chosen of Malal said:


> The biggest problem with C:CSM in my mind is that Kelly tried to make it a close combat oriented book without giving us the tools needed to make a melee army viable (namely assault vehicles or drop pods).


This is fluffy, however. Chaos Space Marines use Land Raiders, Thunderhawks, some Rhinos and sometimes Dreadclaws, but not an awful lot else because they do not have the resources to make other things.

I wouldn't say Chaos is close-combat orientated - the Sorceror and Lord can both be shooting-orientated (rare for a HQ), Terminators, Chosen and Dreads are shooty, CSM, Noise Marines, Plague Marines and Thousand Sons are all shooting-based with some combat capability (like Space Wolves, but with more risk due to a lack of ATSKNF). The Heldrake and Bikers are shooty. Obliterators, Forgefiends, Havocs, and Defilers are shooty. That's a large selection of units that are shooting-orientated rather than combat-orientated.

Midnight


----------



## Suijin (Aug 11, 2011)

Magpie_Oz said:


> - violins - :cray:


Hahaha


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

Arcane said:


> Oh man that must suck... I mean, I had to cut my codex out of two magazines and insert the pages into transparent binder inserts inside a bulky 3 ring binder, only to have it's authenticity questioned when newbs see it... but damn, that back fold out must be tough... /sarcasm.


I know, right? The way you just have to tuck it back into the book and hope that it doesn't fold on itself....it would just totally throw off the army's whole aesthetic. What were they thinking? unish:


----------



## Orionjp (Jan 10, 2013)

Face it, some people play armies because they are easy to win with. Any army dex can win tournaments if you know what your doing. If your willing to put the time, effort, and possibly money into it you can make it a winning army. Some people just want to say "the reason I'm losing is the dex sucks". In reality the reason your losing has nothing to do with the dex.


----------



## Loli (Mar 26, 2009)

All of those that have problems with the current codex, can you tell me honestly that you would prefer go back to the previous one? 

Plus you need to wait and see where the next few 6th ed codices are before you can judge, if this codex is wholly bad. Yes there are things wrong with it, it happens with every codex. My biggest gripe with my Dark Eldar is that my beloved Harlequins are exactly the same as the Eldar one - though presumably when Eldar get done, allies will solve this. Or that vehicles can't use my webway portals. I won't even mention my 'Nids. Every dex has its flaws, how many of you were hoping the new dex would be the new Super dex? Since reading some thoughts here that's what it sounds like.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Loli said:


> All of those that have problems with the current codex, can you tell me honestly that you would prefer go back to the previous one?
> 
> Plus you need to wait and see where the next few 6th ed codices are before you can judge, if this codex is wholly bad. Yes there are things wrong with it, it happens with every codex. My biggest gripe with my Dark Eldar is that my beloved Harlequins are exactly the same as the Eldar one - though presumably when Eldar get done, allies will solve this. Or that vehicles can't use my webway portals. I won't even mention my 'Nids. Every dex has its flaws, how many of you were hoping the new dex would be the new Super dex? Since reading some thoughts here that's what it sounds like.


My thoughts exactly. It seems that the argument for some people should not be "my codex is bad to use" but rather that "my codex is not as broken as I think it shols be".

People really need to wise up to the situation. Luckily most have. But it sounds stupid that people will complain that the codexes of other armies are borken but then moan when their own army's codex is not broken. 

If 40K codexes take the same approach as that taken by the 8th edition fantasy army books (where each of the new ones are really balanced against each other. Naturally some Ogre Kingdoms are slightly better but they all play on the same level) then it can only be good for the game. If my veloved Eldar codex became similar to what the Chaos Marines now have I would be thrilled. Then again I would rather beat an opponent in a game because I was able to tactically outthink my opponent or using some cunning strategy or ploy rather than win because his codex did not stand a chance against me because mine is so much better.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

MidnightSun said:


> Szeras, Praetorians, Obyron, Doomsday Arks, Destroyers, most Lord wargear, Flayed Ones, C'tan Shards, Monoliths. They're all mediocre to awful choices in the Necron book, and it's still heralded as the best in the game.


...But I like the Doomsday Ark...

Back on topic, yes some codexes have bad units, no CSM is not a bad codex or we at least don't know until we see more 6th ed codecies. Also we have to remember, this whole game is based on rolling dice, you could have the worst codex in the game but if you are rolling all 6s that doesn't matter same as if you have the best army and you roll all ones you are going to lose. Blaming a games outcome on a codex isn't really an excuse unless it is really old, such as Eldar because rules will simply be out of date.

And yes that little fold out page is annoying as hell, same with the rulebook ones


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

Ok from looking at DA tacticals alone, CSM looks to be at a disadvantage.

Tacticals are same points, but get a heap load of rules, free sergeants, the option for super-buuble standards full of win.

Then there are terminators which split fire and just pwn (but that's kind of expected from deathwing, cus you know... there deathwing)


----------



## warsmith7752 (Sep 12, 2009)

I have 1 complaint with the dex, and this isn't really specific to the new codex.

a chaos marine should beat a regular marine 1 on 1, chaos marines have all the astartes training that loyalists do but they also have the power of the dark gods on their side. So why do GW insist that csm are weaker? 

while the addition of cultists and the ability to customise your csm with marks does help, i'd still like to see a csm dex where 1 nekked csm beats 1 nekked sm. Oh well heres hoping that 7th ed finally brings me what I want.

Also, at least in my local area the chaos dex seems to be the best one for more friendly games. It's harder to make a bad list with csm because everything in there has a use unlike most of the 5th dex's. hell even spawn have decent applications. Who ever thought that would happen?


----------



## Zion (May 31, 2011)

falcoso said:


> Ok from looking at DA tacticals alone, CSM looks to be at a disadvantage.
> 
> Tacticals are same points, but get a heap load of rules, free sergeants, the option for super-buuble standards full of win.
> 
> Then there are terminators which split fire and just pwn (but that's kind of expected from deathwing, cus you know... there deathwing)


Loyalist Marines tend to have SGTs for free, but DA have to pay for Vet SGTs to get Ld 9 (regular tact SGT are only Ld 8).

Stubborn DA who can't elect to break combat (something they can choose to do with other books), and standards all have different ranges. Longest is 12", shortest is 6" (the Salvo one).

And Deathwing can't combat squad like normal Marines so this works instead. 

I agree with an assessment I saw on 3++: both books have different strengths, and focusing only on what DA does better than CSM ignores the things CSM can do better (like larger squads, more table coverage, marks that alter the statlines, icons that can be easily purchased en masse, ect). If this is where the books are going I'll enjoy this edition a lot.


----------



## MidnightSun (Feb 10, 2009)

falcoso said:


> Tacticals are same points, but get a heap load of rules, free sergeants, the option for super-buuble standards full of win.
> 
> Then there are terminators which split fire and just pwn (but that's kind of expected from deathwing, cus you know... there deathwing)


I may have conveyed you limited information, Brother. Tacticals are indeed the same points, but lower Leadership, may not use Our Weapons Are Useless (the odd Ironclad or Furioso, but it's still a possibility), their Sergeant is LD 8 and one attack (he's just a basic Marine who can take selections from the Armoury), no Autocannon weapon, no Marks, no Icons (Fearless > Stubborn LD8). The Banners start at around 50pts and go up to nearly 100pts and are still, at the end of the day, 5 Marines. They're one Battle Cannon away from extinction and that's almost as many points as a squad of Deathwing just been off the board.

The Deathwing are amazing though. Twin-Linked Storm Bolters and Assault Cannons on the drop, with Assault Cannon being able to shoot rear armour while the Storm Bolters mess up some Infantry.

The Heldrake is firmly better than the Nephilim or Dark Talon. The Baleflamer is fantastic, and the extra armour is very useful. Both Dark Angel flyers are somewhat mediocre, in my opinion, and definitely shouldn't cost more than a Vendetta or Heldrake. Sorcerors are better than Librarians, in my opinion. None of our Relics stand up to the Burning Brand of Skalathrax in pure utility. Our Tacticals are cheap, but not as cheap as Zombies or Cultists. We get a lot of nice stuff, but Chaos certainly has life left in it.

Midnight


----------



## Arcane (Feb 17, 2009)

How is redendancy in a codex a bad thing? So what, you have several options for each roll in an army. Take it from a player who's main army has 1 troop choice and only a couple viable builds. Redundancy is great and if you can't decide what to take, you've only yourself to blame.


----------



## Reaper45 (Jun 21, 2011)

warsmith7752 said:


> I have 1 complaint with the dex, and this isn't really specific to the new codex.
> 
> a chaos marine should beat a regular marine 1 on 1, chaos marines have all the astartes training that loyalists do but they also have the power of the dark gods on their side. So why do GW insist that csm are weaker?
> 
> ...


Look at this this way, CSM's equipment is old and in poor repair. Loyalist marines have high quality gear.


----------



## scscofield (May 23, 2011)

Or you look at it as the fact that they are two different codex's each with their own strengths and weakness.


----------



## DivineEdge (May 31, 2012)

ATSKNF is worth a heck of a lot. Having said that, I like my chaos dex. But I always thought there should be two types of chaos space marines - 1. just marines who are a little naughty and went into the eye of terror so they didn't get killed. 
2. 10,000 year old horus heresy veterans who should be able to take down a whole tactical squad single-handedly. 
3. Cultists - dregs of imperial society who fell through the cracks, but they aren't marines. 


And let us not compare anything to the vendetta. Nothing can come out on top of that one.


----------



## lockeF (Feb 18, 2011)

warsmith7752 said:


> I have 1 complaint with the dex, and this isn't really specific to the new codex.
> 
> a chaos marine should beat a regular marine 1 on 1, chaos marines have all the astartes training that loyalists do but they also have the power of the dark gods on their side. So why do GW insist that csm are weaker?
> 
> while the addition of cultists and the ability to customise your csm with marks does help, i'd still like to see a csm dex where 1 nekked csm beats 1 nekked sm. Oh well heres hoping that 7th ed finally brings me what I want.


But the power of the dark gods is the marks and icons. Now granted, in the old codex CSM had a CCW for free. Which meant a charging unit of CSMs was a lot more deadly then a charging unit of tactical marines. Not to mention many times when I was loyalist facing against CSM, if my sgt died, it was a long assault which usually left CSM on top, seeing that they got 1 additional attack per dude. Sure, now they no longer get that CCW free, they are still just as deadly in CC. And if you add in the favor of the dark gods, specifically Mok or MoN, then the CSM have a greater advantage. Sure they are gonna cost more, but an unmarked squad doesn't necessarily "benefit from the dark gods", while a marked squad surely does and will usually beat out a tactical squad.


----------



## warsmith7752 (Sep 12, 2009)

Im not disputing that chaos marines are better in close combat, but in my expirience, because they aren't fearless (unless you give them a 25 pt upgrade that can be sniped) they just aren't as good on the board.

As i said before, i think marks are indeed a step in the right direction. In fact now that i think about it, the god specific marines are pretty much what i want, just a less rigid and undivided version of them.


----------



## Sothot (Jul 22, 2011)

Model them this way but pay the points for the upgrade. No forgiving player should disallow you getting the most enjoyment out of your army. I don't have a problem with my opponents all Nurgle modeled army who's assault terminators use the mark of Khorne for the extra attack... Why should undivided marines be any different?


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

warsmith7752 said:


> I have 1 complaint with the dex, and this isn't really specific to the new codex.
> 
> a chaos marine should beat a regular marine 1 on 1, chaos marines have all the astartes training that loyalists do but they also have the power of the dark gods on their side. So why do GW insist that csm are weaker?
> 
> while the addition of cultists and the ability to customise your csm with marks does help, i'd still like to see a csm dex where 1 nekked csm beats 1 nekked sm. Oh well heres hoping that 7th ed finally brings me what I want.


Speaking as a fellow lover of CSM, I'm actually perfectly all right with the current state of affairs. The naked CSM model doesn't necessarily represent the "standard" CSM, because there is no standard. Naked CSM represent the flawed renegades that have fallen from loyalist chapters based on their flaws: the cowardly, the hedonistic, and the arrogant, all of whom too self-absorbed to remain loyal, and who have fallen to Chaos for their weaknesses and lack of discipline. In this regard it makes sense that they're weaker than SMs.

You want powerful CC-based basic CSM? You want god-devoted CSM? You want renegades who have been fighting for ten thousand years who have seen everything and are utterly consumed with slaughtering their loyalist brethren? Go bananas!

The point is that we can really make a spectrum, now, of anything from "craven, inveterate bastards who have just fallen from loyalist chapters and are wallowing in their newfound freedom, and whose sole goal is to stay alive," to "god-devoted veterans of the long war who have seen everything and kill only for killings' sake." The Cult troops represent the apex of worship to each god, but you can make squads from any point along the spectrum in true chaotic form, with all the flexibility you have available to you.


----------



## Achaylus72 (Apr 30, 2011)

warsmith7752 said:


> I have 1 complaint with the dex, and this isn't really specific to the new codex.
> 
> a chaos marine should beat a regular marine 1 on 1, chaos marines have all the astartes training that loyalists do but they also have the power of the dark gods on their side. So why do GW insist that csm are weaker?
> 
> ...


I once asked someone a very good question about the difference between a Chaos Space Marine Codex and a Space Marine Codex.

I wanted to know how a recently turned Space Marine Chapter going over to Chaos seemingly loses so much equipment, like the plethora of Land Speeders, Scouts, Attack Bikes, Infantry Plasma Cannons, Crusader/Redeemer Landraiders and etc. Well the crowd looked on and the fellow could not answer.

I then why Chaos has been deliberately hogtied and considering what Chaos Space Marines were once loyal Space Marines they should be vastly stronger that their Loyalist brothers, considering that the influence of Chaos gives normal Space Marines exponentially stronger power, again the fellow could not answer.

But i knew the answers before i asked the questions, GW's flagship armies are Space Marines and always will be, so in that they'll always get the better deal.

It's our lot being CSM fanatics.


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Mossy Toes said:


> Speaking as a fellow lover of CSM, I'm actually perfectly all right with the current state of affairs. The naked CSM model doesn't necessarily represent the "standard" CSM, because there is no standard. Naked CSM represent the flawed renegades that have fallen from loyalist chapters based on their flaws: the cowardly, the hedonistic, and the arrogant, all of whom too self-absorbed to remain loyal, and who have fallen to Chaos for their weaknesses and lack of discipline. In this regard it makes sense that they're weaker than SMs.
> 
> You want powerful CC-based basic CSM? You want god-devoted CSM? You want renegades who have been fighting for ten thousand years who have seen everything and are utterly consumed with slaughtering their loyalist brethren? Go bananas!
> 
> The point is that we can really make a spectrum, now, of anything from "craven, inveterate bastards who have just fallen from loyalist chapters and are wallowing in their newfound freedom, and whose sole goal is to stay alive," to "god-devoted veterans of the long war who have seen everything and kill only for killings' sake." The Cult troops represent the apex of worship to each god, but you can make squads from any point along the spectrum in true chaotic form, with all the flexibility you have available to you.


Also you can with a bit of creativity you can even represent CSM's well beyond even the best loyalists. I am a fan of making xeno-tech enhanced marines, by using mark of nurgle, fabius bile (Apothecary), to make marines that are T5 St5 and fearless. Or you can make demonically enhanced super CSM with the same bile combo plus mark of khorne and icon of wrath. Both of these are actually somewhat competitive to when you run em in 20 man hordes. Hell using CSM characters with built in traits you have access to more options then any other codex in the game. Sure its expensive to make ultra badass marines, but what do you expect for statlines and abilities typically reserved for elite slot units.

Personally I like running hordes of khornate grunt marines with only pistols and CCWs, with double metla's and melta bombs.


----------



## Blackwire (Sep 9, 2012)

Achaylus72 said:


> I once asked someone a very good question about the difference between a Chaos Space Marine Codex and a Space Marine Codex.
> 
> I wanted to know how a recently turned Space Marine Chapter going over to Chaos seemingly loses so much equipment, like the plethora of Land Speeders, Scouts, Attack Bikes, Infantry Plasma Cannons, Crusader/Redeemer Landraiders and etc. Well the crowd looked on and the fellow could not answer.
> 
> ...


I'm going to try and give you an answer here. Granted, it may not be satisfactory, but here goes. The CSM codex isn't all about the Renegades, it's a mix of Renegades and Traitor Legions. Now, this doesn't explain how Renegades suddenly lose their modern equipment "canonically", but rather aesthetically. You see (and more than probably know) Traitor Legions are the poster boys for CSM as the Ultramarines are the poster boys for Space Marines.

This does lead to one or two answers that lack a complete air of believability. I.e. The Legions had Land Speeders and Attack Bikes in the Horus Heresy and before, why don't they have them now? And for that, I can only guess. Here is my best attempt. During the Heresy Legions had access to equipment that no longer exists, or has passed into legend. The Volkite weapons are a prime example. They were firearms far more devastating than Bolt Weapons, and would've been the standard issue weapon should it have not been for the insane difficulty of upkeeping a supply of them. Due to lack of the right people to maintain and produce Volkite weapons, they slowly fell into disuse. Might it be that the Traitor Legions were lacking the right facilities (resources, I doubt were the case)? Perhaps without the right back-ups, this is how many items of wargear fell into oblivion. One might say, veterans of long war are wanting to keep their numbers high. Maybe that's why they dropped Plasma Cannons.

Now Neophytes don't really seem to be mentioned in the Horus Heresy. The legion army lists in _Betrayal_ do not feature them at all. I have my own theories on this, but that aside, seeing as the Legions don't have Neophytes, then it makes sense that CSM don't, as Traitor Legions are the poster boys. Even if they are horribly fragmented. Moreover, the tale of chaos corruption never seems to happen at the Neophyte stage. It's always later.

Finally, Crusader and Redeemer Land Raiders don't appear in the Great Crusade army list in _Betrayal_. Phobos, Proteus and Achilles Land Raiders do. I guess, simply put, Crusader and Redeemer patterns are too damn new.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Achaylus72 said:


> I once asked someone a very good question about the difference between a Chaos Space Marine Codex and a Space Marine Codex.
> 
> I wanted to know how a recently turned Space Marine Chapter going over to Chaos seemingly loses so much equipment, like the plethora of Land Speeders, Scouts, Attack Bikes, Infantry Plasma Cannons, Crusader/Redeemer Landraiders and etc. Well the crowd looked on and the fellow could not answer.
> 
> ...


I can answer this I have been asked it a few times when players moan about the CSM dex.

Firstly as as been pointed out before te CSM's icons are the traitor legions. This would result in a lot of gear such as LR variants, plasma cannons, drop pods (the CSM's use dreadclaws instead though) etc.

Secondly the CSM's are supplied in a different manner than their loyalist bretren which would further explain why tey do not get the same gear as the loyalist marines. Firstly the dark mecanicum supplies them and just as the loyalist mechanicum has lost te lore for lots of machinery such as imperial jetbikes it is not that much of a stretch to believe that the dark mechianicum is as prone to this hence why traitors do not have attack bikes or land speeders. Secondly the new renegade marines might bring the designs of the new stuff of the imperium when they first go to resupply with the new dark mechanicum. However it is likely that the dark mechanicum might deliberately refuse to use the new stuff or even manufacture it because they believe that it is inferior to their own designs such as daemon engines, reaper autocannon and other technology.

Next you ask why you believe traitor marines are "hogtied" as you put it compared to the loyalist marines. This is a deliberate move by GW (I admit it) to spread some diverstity among the power armoured armies. 

Lets put it another way. Lets assume in your example CSM's get access to everything in the Codex Marines book in addition to their own stuff. Firstly if this was done what would be the point of a basic space marines codex since all their stuff is already in the chaos codex. In short the codecies are kept this way to actually offer some difference between the space marine armies. It explains why Dark Angels do not have access to Sternguard or Vanguard marines or why Blood Angel players do not have access to Stormtalons or why Space Wolves have scouts that behave differently from normal marine ones. To spread some diversity.

Secondly your kind of approach raises many questions about power levels. They would be all over the place. You may say that as a legion marine player you would not want take any of the equipment that comes from the standard marine codex but I can guarantee you would be in the minority. We would end up with World Eaters riding around in Land Raider Crusaders and have newly renegade chapters somehow fully marked and weilding daemon engines within a year of converting to chaos. As an example lets go back to what a lot of Chaos players call the glory days, the 3.5 edition codex. Now I can agree it was a beautifull book with lots of scope for fluffy armies and themed lists different for all the major legions. Now lets ignore stuff like how the book was all over the place and it seemed it required a mensa degree to make sure you did not break any of the codex rules by accident (as an example Death Guard marines could not carry autocannons thanks to the mark of nurgle but terminators could carry reaper autocannons). 

Now lets all go back to those days and remember what armies we faced from this codex. From someone who did not use the codex this is how I remember it. How many players faced Word Bearer armies with lots of marines and daemons? Or how about a Night Lords list that utilised the 4 Fast Attack choices they could use? Or maybe a full Black Legion army that was balanced? Perhaps a full Thousand Sons legion army with rubrics and sorcerors being supported by tzeentchian daemons? I faced NONE of those armies. Meanwhile I faced numerous Alpha Legion daemonbomb lists, Iron Warrior armies using 9 Obliterators and 4 heavy support choices, World Eater armies that had numerous khornate chainaxes so your army had little in the way of armour saves and of course Daemon Princes that had maxed out abilities and were able to ignore all armour saves (and in the case of the three Alpha armies I played back in the day had wings and infiltrated). That edition of chaos marines was broken. No argument can be raised against that because I can assure you that every player who took the book and made an excellant fluffy army there were at least 10 more players who abused the shit out of that book and mande our lives a lot less fun. Chaos had to be reined in a bit after that book as were Eldar players after the Craftworlds supplement.

In short forget dreaming about the "good old days" because they never really happened. Chaos will never go that route again. Quit dreaming and accept it like every other army has.

My bit on the subject.


----------



## falcoso (Apr 7, 2012)

Zion said:


> Loyalist Marines tend to have SGTs for free, but DA have to pay for Vet SGTs to get Ld 9 (regular tact SGT are only Ld 8).
> 
> Stubborn DA who can't elect to break combat (something they can choose to do with other books), and standards all have different ranges. Longest is 12", shortest is 6" (the Salvo one).
> 
> ...


Yeah as I said in the Ward thread you have a point, I won't bother writing again.



MidnightSun said:


> I may have conveyed you limited information, Brother.


...Oh :blush:, and CSM are LD8 base aren't they?


----------

