HQ choices

[minigun762]

And to add something practical to the discussion: MoT is also bad, because it adds survivability which isnt that usefull. You can get a 4+ cover save very often, which renders MoT situational. If you compare it with MoN: you can get a T6 and a 4+ cover save which is clearly superior to T5 and 4+ cover/invulnerable save.

 

While I often find myself in agreement with you Zhukov, I can't say that I agree that Mark O' Tzeentch = bad.

 

Its true that you can get a 4+ cover save some times and T6 >T5 but both of those benefits have limitations.

 

1) Cover saves don't apply in HtH combat, which is where we all hope to get our DPs. Also to claim the cover save, you either have to have a screening unit of sufficient size or be hugging terrain. If you are packing your own 4++ save, you have more flexibility on where you move.

2) Anything S3 or S8+ doesn't care about the difference between T6 or T5. While the S3 is fairly minor to be fair, S8 represents a wide variety of weapons from the Missiles, Meltaguns, Power Fists, Thunder Hammers, Lascannons etc. All of these are very common choices for a wide variety of armies.

 

In the end, I think they're equivalent choices and the choice should be decided more on modeling/painting/theme/metagame etc then any significant tactical advantage.

 

Of course I'm weird and run Undivided DPs so maybe that biases my opinion somewhat.

 

EDIT: Oh and on the psychic power issue, I've pretty much dropped mine entirely. Too much anti-psyker gear out there to worry about it on a unit that tends to die anyway.

[Hiro_Protagonist]

The benefit I'm finding with Mark of Tzeentch is that it greatly increases the chances that you'll get that warptime off. Two attempts really help to get around that psychic hood!

[Zhukov]

1) Cover saves don't apply in HtH combat, which is where we all hope to get our DPs. Also to claim the cover save, you either have to have a screening unit of sufficient size or be hugging terrain. If you are packing your own 4++ save, you have more flexibility on where you move.

2) Anything S3 or S8+ doesn't care about the difference between T6 or T5. While the S3 is fairly minor to be fair, S8 represents a wide variety of weapons from the Missiles, Meltaguns, Power Fists, Thunder Hammers, Lascannons etc. All of these are very common choices for a wide variety of armies.

Well actually you explain here why I favour MoN over MoT any time. Why? I want those S8+ to be fired at my Princes! Thats the fire which kill my Plague Marines and/or rhinos and/or Obliterators most efficiently. (depending on the type of weapon. Lasscanons for example are effective against Obliterators, Missiles against Plagues/rhinos)

I make him harder to kill for weapons I do not want him to be killed by. (that is anything below S8, with S4 being the most hatefull). Bolters/Shootas and S4 attacks in CC for example all drop 50% in effectiveness against MoN Princes. Thats really really huge.

 

Thats why I find MoT to be less usefull in an actual battle. Its of no use against 'low quality fire', and thats in my opinion what we should fear the most for our Princes.

 

Of course your Prince will benefit sometimes from MoT, but in my experience and opinion nowhere as much or guaranteed that it warrants taking it. All other marks (or no mark) are superior.

 

With the example of 4+ cover save I point out that the benefit of MoT can even be obtained in other ways sometimes. You cant obtain T6 with a T5 MoT prince.

Sure, T6 might not always be usefull (although that drawback is not very significant at all as I pointed out), but that goes for a 4++ too.

 

Of course I'm weird and run Undivided DPs so maybe that biases my opinion somewhat.

 

EDIT: Oh and on the psychic power issue, I've pretty much dropped mine entirely. Too much anti-psyker gear out there to worry about it on a unit that tends to die anyway.

Thats not weird tbh, it depends on the point level if I take MoN or not. If it doesnt fit, it doesnt fit. Its not a must-have upgrade in my opinion either, I run with 'naked' (only wings) Princes a lot. Same with psychic powers. So we actually have the same view here. Something which you didnt pay for, cant be wasted points in the first place ^^

[Legatus]

Loyalist Librarians pay 50 points just to be able to use two psychic powers per turn, btw.

[Zhukov]

Loyalist Librarians pay 50 points just to be able to use two psychic powers per turn, btw.

And thats one of the worst options of their codex.

[Xeonic]

You mean loyalist -players- don't pay 50 pts to cast two powers per turn. MoT is a super fantastic deal when you compare it to the Epistolary upgrade. Of course in the loyalist codex you can field another fast multimelta in the form of an attack bike for 50 pts, so it really compares unfavorably on that note.

 

On the note of "The One True List":

While I believe that list optimization can help out a lot, ultimately this game comes down to skill of the player(and I'm an admittedly average general at best!), and fortune with the dice(I'm on the poor edge of the dice rolling bell curve) more than "optimization". I personally like to try new things and surprise my opponent occasionally, especially with my loyalist Ultramarines where there are multiple viable builds that are really to semi-competitive. Of course I could also argue that in terms of pure "competitiveness" you should be using a new codex with all the shiny competitive bells and whistles rather than the outdated "piece of tripe" that is the chaos 'dex.

While I personally feel the chaos 'dex is a little restrictive compared to some of the newer codices, it offers a variety of powerful selections in troops and even HQ choices, as well as unique and powerful HS selections that give it a nice fantastically chaosey flavor. I've somewhat regretted since I started playing chaos that I never had the chance to use the 3.5 codex in all it's Chaos Glory, but I find that I can do fairly well even if I use some of the "less than optimal" choices(I use autocannon havocs on the odd occasion for instance, and find them very useful in my local mech-heavy environs).

 

There is no One List to Rule them all IMO, it's a myth perpetuated by the internet, there are lists that can do well against most opponents(referred to as "all comers") and those that do well against some opponents and poorly against some others, but this varies from local metagame to local metagame and from opponent to opponent. Even with a couple "sub-optimal choices" a good general will be able to do well on the table, and even with a "fully optimized list" a person rolling poorly can fail miserably. A "fully optimized" list may give you the best chance against the majority of opponents but it also may lack flavor, fun, or depth of tactics and will never ever by itself win you a game.

 

Some of my best games have been against lists that were a hodgepodge of all the models somebody owned.

 

Still, I don't play "competitively" though I do play to win, so that may color my perceptions a lot, I'll admit it. I play games(all games, not just this one" for fun first, and then to win. Winning is afterall important, but so is BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! I mean having fun. ;)

 

EDIT: I'll admit that I've fielded an Epistolary in Terminator armor more than once, despite saying it's a poor choice. It's an amusing and interesting choice that allows for some silly-cool combos such as gate and Vortex of Doom, or allowing you to use either your force weapon and Might, or Quickening and Might...or Nullzone and Might. :thanks:

It's suprised me on more than one occasion as well, both pleasantly and...otherwise. But that's the nature of the dice.

 

EDIT2: Somewhat on topic now: Of course my point of view is probably why I don't include a daemon prince in every single one of my lists. Or maybe because I'm used to dealing with the weaknesses of IDable T4 ICs and their various foibles(including overpriced wargear and options) from playing loyalists as well.

In fact I find it amusing whenever someone points out the IDability of the normal characters when pointing to the draws of the Daemon Prince, because most other armies are lead by IDable multiwound T4 ICs. Being an MC is a blessing and a curse though, on the one hand he's a lot harder to kill, especially in CC, but on the other he's got a big sign on his head that says "shoot me, I'm a scaaary mooonster". ;)

[Captain Idaho]

I wondered how a thread which was made with the question what the best HQ choice is can become so extensive haha.

 

Maybe no surprise but I agree with pretty much everything Jeske says. While a list which is non-optimised should still do well, I'm afraid this doesnt really apply to our Chaos Codex... I'm really of the opinion that as soon as you change anything major, the list falls apart. Yes thats sad... While the performance of other armies might drop from 100% to 95% for example, I have the idea that ours drops way more substantial, from 100% to 85% for example. I could try to explain carefully what I think causes this, maybe I'll do this later. But trust me, I dont say this without reason. I also dont only say this from a theory point of view, I got it confirmed when playing with 'non-optimised' builds. (yes I played with bad builds, its true!)

 

Taking my above reasoning for granted, you get the next thing:

When you play with a non-optimised Chaos list against someone else who uses for example the Space Wolves codex, you are at a disadvantage. You'll get the 85% versus the 95%, simply said. (yes I already assume here that when both armies use a their optimal build, that is the '100%' build they will be equally strong. This might not even be true, maybe when you rate our best build as 100%, the best SW build would be 110% for example.)

 

 

That's only if you believe in the optimal list build for each army. I have seen some very impressive performances from some lists many would consider "sub-optimal". It's the way you build a list to play a certain way and counter the things that would hurt the army list's ability to win games, whilst maintain your control on the game and you're performance that really wins 40K.

Your reasoning has a flaw in it: Even optimal builds have weaknesses. There is no 'perfect' army. Every model has a certain statline/rules/wargear with a point cost for example.

 

The next thing follows from this: With optimal builds you also need to work around weaknesses of your army, you also need to 'exploit' weaknesses of your oponents army. This also explains why I hate it when competative players get attacked by other kind of players, they sometimes seem to imply that optimised builds dont require any skill. Nonsense.

 

All the above are underlying reasons why I play with an optimised list:

I want games which are as balanced as possible. Because when its as balanced as possible, it has the best chances of being a close game. You know, a game where even small things can have such an exciting impact. Games which are decided by a few choices or even a SINGLE DICE ROLL. Awesome games and thats when I (so this doesnt need to apply to everyone) love this game the most.

 

In my opinion the highest chance of getting this is when both armies play with optimal builds. Why? Because when you both take a list as good as possible, you both have a '100%' build, simply because thats the maxium you can take. On the other hand, when you both take a weaker/non-optimised build, how can you know if they are still roughly of the same quality? What if when build A is suddenly at 80% while B is at 50%? Then its not balanced anymore.

 

You could still say 'but not all codexes are equally strong!'. True, but thats irrelevant because that applies to the balance of both 'a battle of optimised builds' and to 'a battle of non-optimised builds'. The spread just gets larger for non-optimised builds: you could suddenly get 85% for A and 45% for B which is even worse than initial.

Actually, balance has less influence when playing with optimised builds, because of the thing called 'metagame'. If a certain codex would be stronger than some other, then the other codexes will take that into account when making their builds. All lists will make itself a little weaker against each other, while getting a little stronger against that 1 particular list/codex. All these little changes people make to their armies in an attempt to keep their list as good as possible against any possible army/build settles 'the metagame'. This mechanism is beautiful, because it makes the game pretty balanced even while the codexes at themselves are not balanced.

 

With this in mind, it is also explainable while there are only a few codex which are truly underpowered: Dark Angels, Grey Knights and Necrons in my view. Dark Angels simply because there are other codexes better than theirs in pretty much every respect. So even while they can somewhat adapt to the metagame, they'll end up with a list which Vanilla Marines do cheaper.

Grey Knights and Necrons simply cant succesfully adapt to the metagame. Their choics are not only overpriced, but they also lack many choices. They are stuck with a limited set of overpriced units.

This is why I say 'hooray' to the fact that all the recent codexes have so many options. Althought they might be 'unecessary' from a fluff points of view, it means that the change is bigger that a codex will be able to adapt to the metagame for a longer period of time.

It is still possible that something is really overpowered. This would be the case when it simply takes too much 'adaption' to counter a certain thing or when its simply not possible to defend yourself or counter a certain list/unit.

Fortunately this hasnt really occured in the last years it seems. Nob Bikers and Lash came closest to it I think....

 

It seems that I pretty much explained my view on 40k, although unintended.

 

I dont deny the fact that you can win with a bad list against a good list btw. Thats not the point of my story. I purely gave my view on army lists in 40k and what I think makes up for the best game in theory. You can win of course with a bad list against a better list because of skill or luck.

 

Am I still talking about 40k here with this maybe somewhat scientific ramble? Yes. Normally I would never think about the things I wrote down here, but these are nonetheless underlying reasons which I now simply wrote down. Things which explain why I seem to prefer to play with optimised lists. The sad thing thing, while a lot of codexes dont have a clear 'best build' or which have a lot of builds which are close to an optimised build (so for example; 3x 98% + 2x 100%), Chaos doesnt have this.... I would love to play with a lot of different builds with Chaos, but that goes against my gut feeling, which I tried to explain above. Its unnatural for me to play with a 92% build. But I dont want to play with the same build either, so I simply dont play with Chaos anymore.

 

I hope my ramble is somewhat readable and hopefully even interesting to some people at least :lol:

 

And to add something practical to the discussion: MoT is also bad, because it adds survivability which isnt that usefull. You can get a 4+ cover save very often, which renders MoT situational. If you compare it with MoN: you can get a T6 and a 4+ cover save which is clearly superior to T5 and 4+ cover/invulnerable save. That plus the fact that taking psychic powers (especially 2) is questionable already.... makes it truly sub-optimal. Not even close to optimal ;) And that goes for almost all non-standard choices: the normal choices are just substantial better in pretty much all cases. I suddenly realize this is in short the reason while our best build loses so much in effectiveness when taking worse choices!

 

Ha, actually I kind of agree with you! It's our definitions that confuse the matter!

 

I don't believe in the perfect list, while I do believe the optimised list is the list that is optimised to achieve it's aims in the face of opposing game play from the other side of the table. This leaves alot of room for variance.

 

Our main disagreement comes from the army lists capcity to build different optimised lists (using the term optimised how I refer to it). I generally have a broader view of how many we can produce from a specific Codex than you.

 

But our principles are the same.

 

We digress, so back to the topic in hand.

[Grey Mage]

The next thing follows from this: With optimal builds you also need to work around weaknesses of your army, you also need to 'exploit' weaknesses of your oponents army. This also explains why I hate it when competative players get attacked by other kind of players, they sometimes seem to imply that optimised builds dont require any skill. Nonsense.

 

All the above are underlying reasons why I play with an optimised list:

I want games which are as balanced as possible. Because when its as balanced as possible, it has the best chances of being a close game. You know, a game where even small things can have such an exciting impact. Games which are decided by a few choices or even a SINGLE DICE ROLL. Awesome games and thats when I (so this doesnt need to apply to everyone) love this game the most.

 

In my opinion the highest chance of getting this is when both armies play with optimal builds. Why? Because when you both take a list as good as possible, you both have a '100%' build, simply because thats the maxium you can take. On the other hand, when you both take a weaker/non-optimised build, how can you know if they are still roughly of the same quality? What if when build A is suddenly at 80% while B is at 50%? Then its not balanced anymore.

Ill never say a great list with a bad general will kick ass. A better build gives on an edge, but the general behind it determines how much of a benefit that really is. A good general makes all the difference- wich is why knowing your own playstyle is soooo important.

 

I patently disagree with the idea that there is a single 'optimal build' for the majority of codices that GW has ever produced- including the current C:CSM. There are alot of variables, from the all important playstyle, to terrain, house rules, local interpretations, enemy force makeup, die-success emphasis, scenario, and attitude. All of these impact the game one way or the other, and often times itll take what would in one situation be an 'optimal' build and nerf the hell out of it, or take a 'lower' build and make it very powerful indeed.

 

Example: You prefer the MoN DP over the MoT DP, and it suits your playstyle. You find getting a 4+ save against the big stuff relatively easy based on how you use the model... thats great. Its not the only way to use one, nor is it always going to be the most effective one by any means.

 

I personally detest when those who proclaim to play the 'best lists' and 'optimized builds' declare that there way is the ONLY effective way to run an army, despite the fact that even among themselves the similarities are often only in sweeping generalizations, and other players have good success even in tournaments or versus competitive groups. While good advice is always appreciated, the sheer disdain that comes off the page from many posters for those ideologies that do not link up closely with theirs is insulting to all of those who have found other methods, and brings stagnation into a faction of the game that can ill afford it.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

While good advice is always appreciated, the sheer disdain that comes off the page from many posters for those ideologies that do not link up closely with theirs is insulting to all of those who have found other methods, and brings stagnation into a faction of the game that can ill afford it.

 

Sigged for truth.

[Captain Idaho]

Well said Grey Mage. I too believe whole heartidly that there are many ways to play an optimised list. Remember my definition of the word optimised is a list that is optimised to do what you want it to do, including countering the opponents attempts to prevent you from doing what you want to do. This can mean so many different combinations of units to get the job done.

 

An optimised army is simply one that has been built with synergy in mind, as opposed to the other "optimised army" meaning; a single list that eclipses all others.

 

That is as deep as list building goes for me. There is no one true way.

[Hellios]

Optimised: modify to achieve maximum efficiency in storage capacity or time or cost... woop So basically when I say an optimised list I mean one that can be stored in the smallest case possible.

 

& no an optimised list is not one that has been built with synergy in mind although a optimised list may well have synergy.... then again what would the Mon-keigh know of synergy >.< this is why you all fail! *evil eldar laugh* I can make a list that has synergy but is still inferior.

[Zhukov]

Ill never say a great list with a bad general will kick ass. A better build gives on an edge, but the general behind it determines how much of a benefit that really is. A good general makes all the difference- wich is why knowing your own playstyle is soooo important.

Agree to a great extent. Although really good players should be able to get the most out of almost any list dont you think? 40k in general isnt that complicated. A lot of skills can be applied to almost any army (like 'range guessing' for example). But I dont play with Mech Eldar list for exmple, because it doesnt fit my style. So I think we largely agree here.

 

I patently disagree with the idea that there is a single 'optimal build' for the majority of codices that GW has ever produced- including the current C:CSM. There are alot of variables, from the all important playstyle, to terrain, house rules, local interpretations, enemy force makeup, die-success emphasis, scenario, and attitude. All of these impact the game one way or the other, and often times itll take what would in one situation be an 'optimal' build and nerf the hell out of it, or take a 'lower' build and make it very powerful indeed.

Where have I said that there is a single optimal build for each codex? You can look again at my post, I havent edited anything in it in the meanwhile. I talk about 'an optimal build' or something similar all the time. Nowhere I talk about THE optimal build. There are multiple army lists which I would qualify as optimal! There are also clearly ones which I would qualify as non-optimal.

So again I think we might actually agree more than you think, I'm afraid you just read my words in a way they arent intended.

 

Example: You prefer the MoN DP over the MoT DP, and it suits your playstyle. You find getting a 4+ save against the big stuff relatively easy based on how you use the model... thats great. Its not the only way to use one, nor is it always going to be the most effective one by any means.

Although you are right a little probably, most of my arguments are based on pure logic or facts. The fact that a 4+ cover save can be obtained has nothing to do with my personal playstyle, thats a fact. You can (or even will) claim that cover save sometimes too! Thats independant of playstyle dont you agree?

Same with stating that S4 will be 50% less effective against Princes with MoN, thats a fact!

Sure, how you value those facts is personal.

 

I personally detest when those who proclaim to play the 'best lists' and 'optimized builds' declare that there way is the ONLY effective way to run an army, despite the fact that even among themselves the similarities are often only in sweeping generalizations, and other players have good success even in tournaments or versus competitive groups. While good advice is always appreciated, the sheer disdain that comes off the page from many posters for those ideologies that do not link up closely with theirs is insulting to all of those who have found other methods, and brings stagnation into a faction of the game that can ill afford it.

I think I dont deserve these hard words to be honest, you actually insult me here by saying that I insult others. And its caused by the earlier misreading of my story I'm afraid... If you can admit this, then its not a problem of course!

Because just as I said there are 'optimised builds', instead of 'only 1 optimised build', I also nowhere said that its the ONLY effective way to run an army....

Again I think we might actually agree, but I'm not sure because you attack for things I didnt say in the first place...

 

Language is such a dangerous thing

[Legatus]

I like to play "effective" army lists. How well a squad will do or how beneficial an upgrade will be are important considerations when I create an army list. However, I am also kind of a fluff nut, and I remember a time when Special Characters were not usable outside of friendly matches and when "Monstrous Independent Character Creatures" absolutely dominated the game, as they were not only untargetable by ranged attacks but were also able to kill off the Sergeant with Powerfist first in a combat. Therefor there are just a few things I will not do, even if they were the most beneficial choice. I will not use two Captains, or worse, two Chapter Masters, nor will I use two Hive Tyrants, two Daemon Princes, etc. I will not use Monstrous Creatures in games of 1000 pts or less, and I will not use Special Characters except for rare occasions when I want to have that iconic Calgar or Khârn guy be part of the battle (so far I have used neither since 3rd Edition). Those are what I see as "common courtesy" or "sportsmanship" (as opposed to pure "gamemanship"). If anyone plays in an environment that does not care at all for such self imposed restrictions then by all means exploit the heck out of your army list, that's what your gaming group does. I mind, however, if such positions are presented as common and "the only way" in a public format, because I would rather have a gaming group with more sportsman tendencies rather than pure gamemanship, and I do not like to see pure gamemanship points of view propagated.

 

I do have a World Eaters Daemon Prince (on foot though), mainly because I had a nice conversion idea for the metal model, but I will generally use a World Eaters Lord instead. For Night Lords, which I play more often, I have not had any aspirations to build a Daemon Prince for them yet, as that is not quite their theme. I usually go with a Sorcerer, based in the interresting things he can do. He either gets Wind of Chaos to hurt MEQs, or he gets Gift of Chaos to threaten Squad leaders or Characters. (Night Lords are about intimidation, and nothing worries the opponent quite as much as his Characters being offed by a single dice roll without the chance to do anything about it.) I do not even use a Tzeentch Sorcerer, even though that one would be much more effective.

[Hellios]

One thing I will say for DPs... watch out for implosion missiles... although it is the nids who really have to worry...

[the jeske]

I mind, however, if such positions are presented as common and "the only way" in a public format, because I would rather have a gaming group with more sportsman tendencies rather than pure gamemanship, and I do not like to see pure gamemanship points of view propagated.

yes , because using vulkan or a DP or two is totaly un sports man like :D . whats next , saying that using more then one cult unit ina BL list is unsportsman like too ? or how do people play with nids in your enviroment . No MC till 1500,so they take a prime as HQ , walk in to the world of melta/RL and mulit shot weapons with their no/low on MC builds and get wiped out ?

 

 

An optimised army is simply one that has been built with synergy in mind, as opposed to the other "optimised army" meaning; a single list that eclipses all others.

show me the chaos build at 1500 pts that has better inner list synergy and does not run DPs or oblits . I would realy like to see that list[oh and would it be a LR rush ?].

 

While good advice is always appreciated, the sheer disdain that comes off the page from many posters for those ideologies that do not link up closely with theirs is insulting to all of those who have found other methods, and brings stagnation into a faction of the game that can ill afford it.

same show me the 1500 build for chaos that has different game play then a 3 troop 2 dps oblit list , that plays better in a standard enviroment . I can see it with IG , I can see the different builds with BA or SW . I do not see different or more optimal builds with chaos . Everything that is different from the norm works worse [speaking about 1500 now] and when chaos tries to build other lits[speaking about 1850+ here] it suddenly runs out of options . BA/IG or SW [or even the much weaker nids] have more options extra slots , stuff that would never work or fit in to a 1500 pts list can be used at more points . chaos has the option to A add LR[like every meq list only , loyalist LR work better ] B spam stuff that was used at 1500[which makes the list easy to read and sometimes doesnt help that much ] .

you speak about local meta . lets say the local meta has no eldar players[or no good eldar players] and only few IG[too high cost army] , there is the normal 60% meq saturation and oddly some nids and orks . terrain is spare [aka not more then 25%] , there is glass plains or lava boards to play on [if someone is unlucky]. gunlines are strong and hth armies are weaker . meq and IG go gunline or razor spam .there are rifle dreads used and more AA bikes [few terrain so easier to hide then LS] and drop sternguard [the 10 man version that combat squads to pop 2 with 1 unit and give 3 targets] .

BA run VV with melt set up , or sternguard + their fast transports +scout baals give them a nice edge [nothing broken]. SW play the razor spam or LF are a nice support unit [easier to hide , split fire , not overcosted], just like the wolf scouts .etc etc. what can chaos do ? play AC/plas 10 man csm units with oblits support ? it wont deal with the gunlines and moves away from the short range style of chaos lists [what would we run in a list like this in HQ slots MoT demon weapon lords ?] . it would be like playing a weaker version of loyalist gunline [because we cant realy do razor spam with havock backs].

Then maybe we do something else , are chaos bikes suddenly a better options or maybe raptors ??? nope they still suck .

[Legatus]

yes , because using vulkan or a DP or two is totaly un sports man like dry.gif

Yes. Especiaolly if it does not really suit the theme of your army.

 

 

or how do people play with nids in your enviroment

I haven't seen others play under 1500 points, and at that level they take a Hive Tyrant. I personally do not use a Tyrant in 1000 pts games, and have used Warriors instead with the previous Codex. It has usually been lurking (or outflanking, since 5th) Genestealers that have done the heavy lifting in such small forces.

[Grey Mage]

While good advice is always appreciated, the sheer disdain that comes off the page from many posters for those ideologies that do not link up closely with theirs is insulting to all of those who have found other methods, and brings stagnation into a faction of the game that can ill afford it.

same show me the 1500 build for chaos that has different game play then a 3 troop 2 dps oblit list , that plays better in a standard enviroment . I can see it with IG , I can see the different builds with BA or SW . I do not see different or more optimal builds with chaos . Everything that is different from the norm works worse [speaking about 1500 now] and when chaos tries to build other lits[speaking about 1850+ here] it suddenly runs out of options .

Sure, in a local meta thats nothing but PA, at 1500, a sorceror and 3 Thousand Sons squads with rhinos, a Vindi, and a Landraider with tzeentchi terminators will clear boards fairly quickly. Ive seen that one happen.

 

Not to mention your putting alot of qualifiers on there- sure some builds will be better than others at different point values, but that fact in and of itself shows that there is no one way, and that different playstyles can work just as well. In fact despite your dual demon princes, plague marines, oblit spam advising you play a balanced noise marine force last you told me.

 

 

BA/IG or SW [or even the much weaker nids] have more options extra slots , stuff that would never work or fit in to a 1500 pts list can be used at more points . chaos has the option to A add LR[like every meq list only , loyalist LR work better ] B spam stuff that was used at 1500[which makes the list easy to read and sometimes doesnt help that much ] .

There are other options- Terminator units and Chosen squads can be more viable at higher point levels, Raptors have more rolling cover to help them get to the enemy, cult troops can be mixed in a little easier, or take options they might normally not- like plasma pistols on zerkers.

 

you speak about local meta . lets say the local meta has no eldar players[or no good eldar players] and only few IG[too high cost army] , there is the normal 60% meq saturation and oddly some nids and orks . terrain is spare [aka not more then 25%] , there is glass plains or lava boards to play on [if someone is unlucky]. gunlines are strong and hth armies are weaker . meq and IG go gunline or razor spam .there are rifle dreads used and more AA bikes [few terrain so easier to hide then LS] and drop sternguard [the 10 man version that combat squads to pop 2 with 1 unit and give 3 targets] .

BA run VV with melt set up , or sternguard + their fast transports +scout baals give them a nice edge [nothing broken]. SW play the razor spam or LF are a nice support unit [easier to hide , split fire , not overcosted], just like the wolf scouts .etc etc. what can chaos do ? play AC/plas 10 man csm units with oblits support ? it wont deal with the gunlines and moves away from the short range style of chaos lists [what would we run in a list like this in HQ slots MoT demon weapon lords ?] . it would be like playing a weaker version of loyalist gunline [because we cant realy do razor spam with havock backs].

Then maybe we do something else , are chaos bikes suddenly a better options or maybe raptors ??? nope they still suck .

If you need speed and good saves, yeah chaos bikers become a better option. Other good options are things like mark of tzeentch terminators and demon princes who can deep strike closer to the enemy and hit them with with combis and psychic powers. Oooh... or you could take alot of rhinos and screw over your opponent with target saturation with 6 CSM squads. There are options.

 

I personally detest when those who proclaim to play the 'best lists' and 'optimized builds' declare that there way is the ONLY effective way to run an army, despite the fact that even among themselves the similarities are often only in sweeping generalizations, and other players have good success even in tournaments or versus competitive groups. While good advice is always appreciated, the sheer disdain that comes off the page from many posters for those ideologies that do not link up closely with theirs is insulting to all of those who have found other methods, and brings stagnation into a faction of the game that can ill afford it.

I think I dont deserve these hard words to be honest, you actually insult me here by saying that I insult others. And its caused by the earlier misreading of my story I'm afraid... If you can admit this, then its not a problem of course!

Because just as I said there are 'optimised builds', instead of 'only 1 optimised build', I also nowhere said that its the ONLY effective way to run an army....

Again I think we might actually agree, but I'm not sure because you attack for things I didnt say in the first place...

 

Language is such a dangerous thing :tu:

Nothing personal Zhukov- if it doesnt apply to you it cant be insulting. Indeed, only the first to parts of my reply were actually aimed at what you said.

 

Of course, your free to feel insulted if you want, I dont follow your posts enough to know if your normally one of the posters I was talking about in my last paragraph. Of course, I can say Jeske here is one of the ones Im talking about- but he knows I disagree with him on most everything.

 

Example: You prefer the MoN DP over the MoT DP, and it suits your playstyle. You find getting a 4+ save against the big stuff relatively easy based on how you use the model... thats great. Its not the only way to use one, nor is it always going to be the most effective one by any means.

Although you are right a little probably, most of my arguments are based on pure logic or facts. The fact that a 4+ cover save can be obtained has nothing to do with my personal playstyle, thats a fact. You can (or even will) claim that cover save sometimes too! Thats independant of playstyle dont you agree?

Same with stating that S4 will be 50% less effective against Princes with MoN, thats a fact!

Sure, how you value those facts is personal.

On the other hand someone whose playstyle leads them to deep strike their DPs, or use them as snipers with a counter-assault ability will have different mileage.

 

Heh, or those who play against alot of air cav lists.

[Captain Idaho]

Tyranids can be competetive, I've faced and witnessed a powerfully built list that was well rounded too. We are talking trio of Trygons/Mawlocs (trial for a game), Genestealers outflanking with re-rolls to hit and wound, Zoanthropes and the like. The player used them very well and garnered an impressive string of victories against very different lists.

 

Which brings me to an important reflection on Codex Chaos Space Marines (see, I wasn't going off topic with Xenos!). I admit I don't know the army very well, so can't just up and build lists for this challenge, but I'm pretty sure there are others out there with a Chaos Space Marine list that isn't the usual net list yet still successful. Seahawk is one who likes to buck the trend, I know that for sure.

 

I will go away and look at a list that takes the units I enjoy and see if I can post it up for review, but remember I'm no expert on Chaos Marines.

[Zhukov]

There are other options- Terminator units and Chosen squads can be more viable at higher point levels, Raptors have more rolling cover to help them get to the enemy, cult troops can be mixed in a little easier, or take options they might normally not- like plasma pistols on zerkers.

Those options you list there are still overcosted. Although they might be more viable, because you can implement them easier into your list without having to cut on necessary things, they wont improve your list as much compared to other armies. I mean, other Marines/Eldar/IG whatever can also add more units to their list which are not overcosted and therefore their list effectiveness increases more than ours.

 

If you need speed and good saves, yeah chaos bikers become a better option. Other good options are things like mark of tzeentch terminators and demon princes who can deep strike closer to the enemy and hit them with with combis and psychic powers. Oooh... or you could take alot of rhinos and screw over your opponent with target saturation with 6 CSM squads. There are options.

Same as above, the units/options we have other than our usual stuff will still be worse than other armies their options. This doesnt change. You'll end up with playing an effective 1700 points army against their 1850 for example. We just cant take many other units without just making our list relatively weaker.

 

Nothing personal Zhukov- if it doesnt apply to you it cant be insulting. Indeed, only the first to parts of my reply were actually aimed at what you said.

 

Of course, your free to feel insulted if you want, I dont follow your posts enough to know if your normally one of the posters I was talking about in my last paragraph. Of course, I can say Jeske here is one of the ones Im talking about- but he knows I disagree with him on most everything.

Nah, although you might insult me that doesnt mean I feel insulted. No worries, go ahead I can take it.

I still have the idea that a lot of people always misunderstand things which Jeske says or just dont want to agree with him (denying the truth, because the reality hurts: our codex sucks for things), I just see him saying things which are true about the game. And the funny thing is, people who disagree never seem to come up with actual real gaming examples. Jeske uses good examples all the time! Try to prove him wrong with actual gaming examples or something similar.

 

I dont know. When people like you, Grey Mage, keep defending the in other people eyes 'bad units and ideas', then I'm interested in your performance. This might sound like a bit of a lame question then, but how do your ideas fare in real? Can you point us out to good performance on large tourneys with lists which includes bikes and other 'bad' units like that? 'We' represent ideas which we not only give arguments for, we also say why it works and why other things dont work. Can you tell us why your ideas work? (against good openents with good lists)

 

You can justify everything in the end with theory. I mean you can never be sure about what you face. But then its impossible to discuss things. Its obvious that you shoulld assume general things like:

-balanced terrain

-different armies

-normal rules

when you discuss the effectiveness of things. If people want to discuss tactics for their 'local metagame', then thats fine. But then you should make that clear, because when people are discussing tactics then you should assume that they assume a general 40k environment. And yes, thats common sense.

[Shas'o R'Vre]

Sure, in a local meta thats nothing but PA, at 1500, a sorceror and 3 Thousand Sons squads with rhinos, a Vindi, and a Landraider with tzeentchi terminators will clear boards fairly quickly. Ive seen that one happen.

Might try that against the almost PA exclusive community I'm going to be playing against soon. That'll put the hurt on their day!

[Grey Mage]

There are other options- Terminator units and Chosen squads can be more viable at higher point levels, Raptors have more rolling cover to help them get to the enemy, cult troops can be mixed in a little easier, or take options they might normally not- like plasma pistols on zerkers.

Those options you list there are still overcosted. Although they might be more viable, because you can implement them easier into your list without having to cut on necessary things, they wont improve your list as much compared to other armies. I mean, other Marines/Eldar/IG whatever can also add more units to their list which are not overcosted and therefore their list effectiveness increases more than ours.

Thing is, I can tell you from experiance that there are a number Eldar units that feel 'overcosted' to the majority of eldar players. In fact alot of my old discussions on Eldaronline were about exactly that, and the number of people who felt mechdar was the only option they could be effective with was staggering.

 

If you need speed and good saves, yeah chaos bikers become a better option. Other good options are things like mark of tzeentch terminators and demon princes who can deep strike closer to the enemy and hit them with with combis and psychic powers. Oooh... or you could take alot of rhinos and screw over your opponent with target saturation with 6 CSM squads. There are options.

Same as above, the units/options we have other than our usual stuff will still be worse than other armies their options. This doesnt change. You'll end up with playing an effective 1700 points army against their 1850 for example. We just cant take many other units without just making our list relatively weaker.

Again, it all depends on how you compare a unit. A tactical squad is often compared to a grey hunter or CSM squad and noted to suck at close combat. *spreads hands* on the other hand, a grey hunter squad cant reach out and touch someone with a missile launcher, and a CSM doesnt get such things as ATSKNF and free heavy/specials....

 

I for example, have seen some people pull of wonders with Raptors- a unit I constantly see derided. By hugging cover to get into assault while taking few casualties and packing a pair of meltaguns to pop transports Ive seen them rip into mech units and preform some decent counter-assaults to unbog the Plaguemarines the guy usually runs as his mainstays. Why? Primarily its the iniative five, allowing them to hit before the majority of their enemies and reduce return attacks, et all. They make their points back, partially in kills *and meltashots on occaision* and partially by unbogging the real workhorses of his force.

 

I still have the idea that a lot of people always misunderstand things which Jeske says or just dont want to agree with him (denying the truth, because the reality hurts: our codex sucks for things), I just see him saying things which are true about the game. And the funny thing is, people who disagree never seem to come up with actual real gaming examples. Jeske uses good examples all the time! Try to prove him wrong with actual gaming examples or something similar.

Thats the thing though- I give out gaming examples of what Im talking about all the time. Example- just above this quote. The thing is, their often discounted entirely, thrown out as 'well your opponents are stupid', or 'well you just got lucky' because they dont agree with the consensus of a few. I dont walk into discussions like this often because of that. Its not like I dont play against chaos players on a regular basis, or that I dont have the codex sitting in front of me or 13 years of 40k under my belt.

 

And I often point out- there are different metagames. Examples of some things that might be different from yours- due to space restrictions, most battles are fought on 4x4 boards until you get to 2k per person on the field. Tournament sizes range from 750 to 2k, and from 4 guys to 20 *again, capped due to space restrictions, though once or twice a year theres larger*.

 

Indeed, I play on average 2 or 3 games a weekend. While I primarily stick to my SWs and Eldar, we do army swaps- Ive tried out a number of my theories on chaos, and learned 2nd, 3rd and 4rth from a chaos player.

 

I dont know. When people like you, Grey Mage, keep defending the in other people eyes 'bad units and ideas', then I'm interested in your performance. This might sound like a bit of a lame question then, but how do your ideas fare in real? Can you point us out to good performance on large tourneys with lists which includes bikes and other 'bad' units like that? 'We' represent ideas which we not only give arguments for, we also say why it works and why other things dont work. Can you tell us why your ideas work? (against good openents with good lists)

 

You can justify everything in the end with theory. I mean you can never be sure about what you face. But then its impossible to discuss things. Its obvious that you shoulld assume general things like:

-balanced terrain

-different armies

-normal rules

when you discuss the effectiveness of things. If people want to discuss tactics for their 'local metagame', then thats fine. But then you should make that clear, because when people are discussing tactics then you should assume that they assume a general 40k environment. And yes, thats common sense.

Its interesting that you should bring this up, because Ive seen alot of it myself. A different idea is brought up and a number of things are brought up to counter it, in theory. Lists that people dont see played are brought up as the achilles heel, or the inclusion of a single unit is determined to be the end of the world. Heck, Ive even seen people throw out statistics like their best lists winning all of 60% of the time. Wich I think is funny, since 60% wont even get you to the final tables in my experiance......

 

Ill also note that Balanced Terrain is not assured, and in fact its often brought up as one of the horrors that stops certain units from working- glass plains and magma boards were mentioned in this thread for instance. Again, in my experiance, tournaments often have some rather random tables thrown into the mix- jungles, cities, and barren ice plains crop up regularly.

 

But yes, I can point out reasons why my ideas work. Perhaps I have not done so as well as I should have in this thread, though I think I did get some points accross on the actual subject at hand- HQ choices, and my opinion on the viability of the Sorcerer.

 

For kicks though, heres some reasons why I believe Raptors, and Bikers, can be better choices in larger games, or alternative tables.

 

Raptors- Relatively speaking, arent much more expensive than a CSM squad once you look at the total price for a squad. They lose out on long range firepower they wouldnt be using anyways *as they should be moving every turn theyre not in assault*. The kicker though is that a highly mobile squad like this can be given I5, wich in my experiance exponentially increases the damge their 30ish attacks will do on the charge, and helps keep them alive by crippling enemy units early on. My friend craig combines them with a flying slaaneshi sorceror, to lash enemy units in close, supported by a pair of boliterators to try and keep the artillery off them. These support the majority of his army- standard CSMs and a unit or two of plaguemarines, with a pair of vindicators and a Nurgle DP.

 

My friend John on the other hand has six chaos armies, black legion, each cult, and iron warriors. His Tzeentch centric list uses MoT terminators as a hard hitting assault squad, and their 4++ often makes the difference between having an effective squad or being crippled as he takes out an enemy assault specialist. He equips 4/5 of them with lightning claws, the other with a chainfist just in case. Sometimes they deep strike behind his rhinos, and move out the next turn, sometimes he loads them up in possessed raider... but they do better than tac terminators, and theyve got more punch than the 5xTH+SS assault termies I yawn over when facing most squads and when trying to hurt heavy armor like Raiders.

Hes also where I learned to love the idea, and loathe facing, combi-meltas on rhinos. Theyre rather inconspicuous, and people often miss them in a casual glance over the army. Even when you do know theyre there, its only a in 6 chance on any damage result that I can remove them. In return Ive seen them add the extra punch to let him pull of some rather nice stunts- like using the combi first to try and blow up an enemy transport so his plasma toting CSM squad can rip into the squad, or assault as he prefers. Its pretty effective for the 40pts it costs him to equip most of his rhinos, and yet when I brought it up on the chaos boards a year ago I was told it was a horrible idea to make your rhinos more expensive, and only a fool would give them any upgrades they didnt have to and that the gun would be gone before it could even be used. This has not been the case in my experiance, and I still hold that its a solid tactic.

 

Chaos Bikers Ive seen used effectively as melta-delivery squads, at 129pts for some survivable fast moving melta. In larger games *around 2k* Ive seen them used as an aggressive tarpit unit against heavy weapon squads *5 with meltas* with good success- the 3++ gained from turboboosting helps protect them from the heavy weapon squads own weapons, and the enhanced toughness helps against small arms fire... and if the HWs ignore them, the size of the model usually ensures cover saves for the rest of the army even when in open terrain.

 

Chosen have been doing well in an ongoing cityfight campaign- 5 guys, 2 flamers and 3 meltaguns, runs a measly 130pts, but in the short ranged battles and significant cover have been able to inflict alot more casualites than most of craigs other units- popping out of sewers to rip apart a unit, reliably destroying vehicles, and beating down squads with good flamer-spreads. That theyre often close enough to assault afterwords doesnt hurt against the infantry that are everywhere.

 

The Slaaneshi lord has also been making a comeback in my area with a couple of the chaos players, well see how long it lasts, but with the increase in nid players, and the increase in furious charge loaded assaults from blood angels, the I6 lord with his excellent weaponskill and instant death abilities as been doing very well- equiped with wings and put into one of those raptor squads I mentioned above. Hive tyrants give him a run for his money, but most of our nid players have been bringing tervigon heavy lists, supported by trygons and mawlocs- against wich hes been scarily effective. Often makes both his and the squads points back in two assault phases.

[Zhukov]

Thing is, I can tell you from experiance that there are a number Eldar units that feel 'overcosted' to the majority of eldar players. In fact alot of my old discussions on Eldaronline were about exactly that, and the number of people who felt mechdar was the only option they could be effective with was staggering.

You seem to bypass my real argument, instead you kinda step away from the main point and focus on 1 word; Eldar. My argument was not only the word 'overcosted', I say that other armies their effectiveness increases more than ours in higher point games. But as for Eldar, you can much more easily fit a full kitted Seer Counsel, without hampering the rest of your list. Or they can just add more redundancy which they kinda lack in lower point games.

What can we do? We can field everything we need in the 1500-1750 if we want. Which builds get better for us? Which real possibilities opens higher point games for us? The only thing we can and seem to do, is to try and not make our list weaker, by adding more troops + rhinos or maybe some extra 'anti-whatever' in the form of termies/chosen/raptors etc. There is no real plan behind it if you get what I mean.

 

An example which maybe illustrates better what I mean: normally when somebody asks help to make his 1500 point list into a 1700 list, I would give the advice that you cant just add 200 to the existing list. Because it simply doesnt work, you should make a 1700 points list and not a 1500 + 200 points list. But the funny thing is, by Chaos it actually does tend to work! No need to rethink the entire list at all. Adding those extra 2 Obliterators and a powerfist is fine for example. It makes me sad...

It isnt necessarily true all the time, but I think it is the truth to a certain degree at least...

 

Thats the thing though- I give out gaming examples of what Im talking about all the time. Example- just above this quote. The thing is, their often discounted entirely, thrown out as 'well your opponents are stupid', or 'well you just got lucky' because they dont agree with the consensus of a few. I dont walk into discussions like this often because of that. Its not like I dont play against chaos players on a regular basis, or that I dont have the codex sitting in front of me or 13 years of 40k under my belt.

Allright then we think the same about this. Arguments like 'well your oponents are bad then' are equally worthless, without pointing out why. This of course applies to both 'camps'.

 

Its interesting that you should bring this up, because Ive seen alot of it myself. A different idea is brought up and a number of things are brought up to counter it, in theory. Lists that people dont see played are brought up as the achilles heel, or the inclusion of a single unit is determined to be the end of the world. Heck, Ive even seen people throw out statistics like their best lists winning all of 60% of the time. Wich I think is funny, since 60% wont even get you to the final tables in my experiance......

Again, then we agree. We think the same about this. And yes 60% wont bring you to the final tables in my opinion either haha. Then I can savely assume you dont say things without knowing when you can qualify something as effective or not.

 

Ill also note that Balanced Terrain is not assured, and in fact its often brought up as one of the horrors that stops certain units from working- glass plains and magma boards were mentioned in this thread for instance. Again, in my experiance, tournaments often have some rather random tables thrown into the mix- jungles, cities, and barren ice plains crop up regularly.

With balanced terrain I mean overall balanced. So assuming you face all kind of terrain. And not only near-empty boards because somebody his local club hasnt got any terrain.

So again we agree, you also seem to assume that armies need to take a mix of tables into account.

 

But yes, I can point out reasons why my ideas work. Perhaps I have not done so as well as I should have in this thread, though I think I did get some points accross on the actual subject at hand- HQ choices, and my opinion on the viability of the Sorcerer.

 

For kicks though, heres some reasons why I believe Raptors, and Bikers, can be better choices in larger games, or alternative tables.

Awesome then we can discuss things now, instead of discussing the way of discussing things ^^

 

@Raptors and or Slaneeshi lord: The problem I have with these is not really the units itself. I dont think Assault squads who can equip 2 special weapons + the ability to take I5 are bad at themselves as a unit. More or less the same for Lords, in itself its a fast unit which works against quite some targets. No, this is not the reason why I dislike these units.

 

I got a problem with how these units work with the rest of our list. The reason why our 'standard' list works is mostly because of the fact that there is enough target saturation in it. In your average list you got 2 Princes, 4 rhinos and 6 Oblits for example. All of those are pretty immune to small arms fire and are just enough in my experience to qualify the list as 'tough'. Enough to make sure the enemy has problems taking them out too quickly, or even at all. (the basic 40k idea of providing many problems, while he only has a few things which can be used a solution)

Now, if you take out one of those units and replace it with Raptors/Lord you already lose 1 rhino + 1 prince for example. Suddenly you run with a list which offers less tough targets, while it gives more soft targets in return. Assuming most lists run with a mix of weapons to be able to deal with both, what you now do is making their list work more efficiently!

And I also got this confirmed on the actual gaming board. When I switched out my both Princes for 2 Lords instead (which costs MORE than princes, and I therefore had too take out an additional Oblit too), my list suddenly felt like totally falling apart. Suddenly he (a good player against who I play a lot) could focus on my rhinos without the normal penalty of letting those 2 Princes come at you. He didnt have to choose at all anymore.

 

This works of course the same when you include non-High Toughness/non-rhino using units to your list in higher point games. While 3 rhinos, 2 Princes and Oblits + Plagues might be enough 'tough targets' for 1500, its not for 2000 points. Thats what I mean with 'trying not to weaken our list' in higher point games.

How do you look at this?

 

@Combimeltas on rhinos: I think I agree here too, that the upgrade at itself is not bad. Those 40 points have 4 chances in total to do something very worthwhile. But are there not better ways to spend those 40 points? Cant you add more targets on the field instead? In this case those 40 points are invested into a transports vehicle. My experience is that Rhinos are almost always THE priority target. Taking away your oponent their mobility and protection for their troops is so immensively important. But on the other hand, once you've dropped your troops and princes/oblits start doing things too the rhinos which are still alive might have chances to fire. If you believe it or not, I lately thought about this too. In the end, you do get another 4 melta weapons (although 1 shot) spread through your army on units which you already use. I'm undecided at the moment. You would trade 2x Mark of Nurgle/Mark of Tzeentch on your princes for it, or something similar. Its 1 powerfist champion.

 

@bikes. 119 points seems quite a lot for a unit which loses its effectiveness so quickly. Losing 1 of the 2 melta guys already makes your units 50% less effective at their main job. Only 2 bikes wont be able to kill even a small camper squad in many cases. Its not really necessary to kill the whole unit to make it more or less useless in this case... But on the other hand you do add some more T5 models in this case. So this might have allright 'synergy' with the rest of the list.

But another problem I see is how this unit acts on the board. Its way faster that the rest of our list. We dont have Droppods or fast vehicles, the rest of our list moves about 12". In any case nowhere 24". So if you turboboost them forward (which is one of the things which should make this unit good), you split your forces up a little. You give the all the short ranged units from the enemy a target for example. So I dont see how this would work... But not sending them forwards takes away the uses for which you took this unit right? How do you look at this?

[the jeske]

@Combimeltas on rhinos: I think I agree here too, that the upgrade at itself is not bad. Those 40 points have 4 chances in total to do something very worthwhile. But are there not better ways to spend those 40 points? Cant you add more targets on the field instead? In this case those 40 points are invested into a transports vehicle. My experience is that Rhinos are almost always THE priority target. Taking away your oponent their mobility and protection for their troops is so immensively important. But on the other hand, once you've dropped your troops and princes/oblits start doing things too the rhinos which are still alive might have chances to fire. If you believe it or not, I lately thought about this too. In the end, you do get another 4 melta weapons (although 1 shot) spread through your army on units which you already use. I'm undecided at the moment. You would trade 2x Mark of Nurgle/Mark of Tzeentch on your princes for it, or something similar. Its 1 powerfist champion.

plus you could add the same combis to your asp champions and you wouldnt have to fear that you will never use them because they get stuned.

 

 

How do you look at this?

I know its not a question for me . But for sm it works like that. they do a gunline [we could technicly do that too with AC/plas sm] . this makes us more reactive and lets say we scratch a DP to get the bikes [so we dont lose oblits . our fire power now is for one turn higher then that of a normal chaos list] . now as you said we cant do what sm do [send in bikes and pods at the same time giving 2-3 targets to kill each with a possible stun/shake/destroy effect on a tank + flamers on dreads for anti horde] , but oblits make us more flexible . this means our opponents will try to come to use which means that maybe the bikes wont need to turbo boost to work [or they can be used in tandem with our DP as counter]. Problem is against a gunline build we are dead. IG and razorspam are top tier lists , so a bike using army having 2 bad match ups with 2 top tier lists becomes not viable[unless there is a place were both are not played]. more we could do the same tech with terminators [even better as we buy combi weapons instead of melta/plasma not named combis , make it possible to switch them depanding on opponents]. and it would be cheaper .

 

 

Thing is, I can tell you from experiance that there are a number Eldar units that feel 'overcosted' to the majority of eldar players.

are dire avangers overcosted ? are serpents overcosted , is eldrad over costed ? yes harlis do suck unlike in 5th ed , but what eldar had is nothing compering to what happened to nids . eldar still have more then a single playable option for each slot and specias that can actualy be used . even stuff that like warp spiders or baneshes that may be not point balanced works ok. But you cant compare it to icons sucking compering to cult units [and while I know it doesnt realy matter game wise . that double sucks for those who dont use cult units because of legion fluff]. I can imagine someone using jet bikes or war walkers . I cant imagine anyone using spawn or possessed in a working list.

 

 

The kicker though is that a highly mobile squad like this can be given I5, wich in my experiance exponentially increases the damge their 30ish attacks will do on the charge, and helps keep them alive by crippling enemy units early on.

only we aint BA and raptors are non scoring . would you like chaos to play with 2 troops ? + check the BA forum what do they think about JP armies or JP units . they dont realy work , it is too easy to drop their effectivnes[and chaos can drop realy hard if a fist or icon guy dies before charge] . But that is not all . Chaos does have problems with certain unit set ups in hth [TH/SS termis +HQ to make one example] . taking a raptor unit means taking a lord to baby sit them and as Zhukov told it before , it means fewer targets so easier focusing of fire [and our guys can actualy run of the table unlike loyalist sm] and the lord having a good chance to die due to fist.

Chosen have been doing well in an ongoing cityfight campaign- 5 guys, 2 flamers and 3 meltaguns, runs a measly 130pts, but in the short ranged battles and significant cover have been able to inflict alot more casualites than most of craigs other units- popping out of sewers to rip apart a unit, reliably destroying vehicles, and beating down squads with good flamer-spreads.

only how many tournaments or pick up games use city fight rules . non scouting chosen cant get in to shoting range [as in effective range for flamers and melta] on turn 1 and they get punished by SW builds runing RP with chooser. yes one can try to run a 5 plasma 5 dudes build , but then we run in to cover problem/overheating and they still die or get tarpited on turn 1 . + the unit costs points it aint free so we either play with 1 HQ or fewer oblits . oblits work always and DPs at least technicly are harder targets.

[Daeghrefn]

I am shocked at the casual disregard displayed against the CSM sorcerer. He is superior to the loyalist librarian in every respect minus the hood and there are other ways to deal with psychic powers. It has never been a significant issue in my CSM army. Furthermore, the only thing he can't kill is someone else who causes instant death striking at a higher initiative. Not a lot of that running around, so it's easy to avoid. What's not to like about a guy with SM captain stats, access to warptime and causes instant death?

 

The DP, on the other hand, rarely survives past turn 2 unless he cowers behind a sufficiently large piece of terrain such that LOS is blocked from every enemy unit. The moment he's in view a hail of krak missiles, lascannon fire and massed bolter shots take him down very quickly.

[Khestra the Unbeheld]

I am shocked at the casual disregard displayed against the CSM sorcerer. He is superior to the loyalist librarian in every respect minus the hood and there are other ways to deal with psychic powers. It has never been a significant issue in my CSM army. Furthermore, the only thing he can't kill is someone else who causes instant death striking at a higher initiative. Not a lot of that running around, so it's easy to avoid. What's not to like about a guy with SM captain stats, access to warptime and causes instant death?

 

The DP, on the other hand, rarely survives past turn 2 unless he cowers behind a sufficiently large piece of terrain such that LOS is blocked from every enemy unit. The moment he's in view a hail of krak missiles, lascannon fire and massed bolter shots take him down very quickly.

 

I would sincerely love for you to outline exactly what in the current Chaos Codex is a way to "deal with" psychic powers, with the notable exception of a single character model who harms his own team?