Dark Angels Rumors and Chaos Faildex...

[Polaria]

Funny little story: My primary army is Necrons and the only army I've so far lost against during 6th edition play is this "totally crappy" new CSM Codex.

 

Oh, did I also mention that my Necrons have the "terribly underpowered" CSM allies?

[derpasaurus]

wow, Hatey McHaterson and his entire spite-filled family are here.

 

i must be like the only person in the universe that likes my new dex and thinks the fiends and drake look cool.

 

i'm running mostly the same fluffy night lord build as before , just swapped one of my generic lords for huron, which i had been considering for ages anyway. 2 plas marines with rhinos, raptors with meltas, havocs, chosen kitted to kill big kids and then assault leftovers, vindicator, and i lost points, even after adding all the new upgrades. by adding some marks i hadn't used before i came out (considerably) better for the same points totals as 5th. and you'll get no argument from me, 5th sucked. i perform better with the 6th tweaks, too. i'm about to add some new units: bikers finally, a drake, some cultists to actually hold objectives.

 

my list is fairly solid, (i take it as a compliment that probably the best player i face at my flgs tells me so) but yes the rules could be better. i hate losing a whole squad on occasion in cc, but i love 41 rerollable attacks from 10 models on the first turn of assault. i hate having to challenge &$*@ing dreadknights, (seriously, wth) but i love when my champion is the last model in a unit standing and rolls 66. i hate that warp talons suck, but i love that my list in general can take even GK builds and beat them to within a few models of tabling. i lose a lot, but i don't care, because most of my meta is guard and ward, so i'm used to it.

 

i'm not scared of the DA dex. well, maybe those stupid knights with the S10 AP2. that's gotta be clarified, sounds waaaay too good to be true and/or reliable.

[Hazath]

Power levels and watered fluff aside, this codex has too many stuff that seems unfinished or absolute nonsense: icon of despair, mark of tzeencth, Fabulous Bile, Key, Murder Sword, Scroll, Dark Apostle, Warp Smith, Possessed, Warp Talons, Rending on Slaanesh DP...

[Brother Ambroz]

Some people are more bitter than others.

 

This can go back and forth until we get a new codex (if we ever do). You can claim to lose to chaos with OTT codex books but at the same time I can claim your list was flawed or a tactic was (not that you are, just making a point).

 

Hazath - Yeah, there's alot in our book that makes you look at it like "Wait....that's it?".

[Vesper]

I don't like new codex 'cause it's boring, but I'm completely satisfied with "power level".

 

I'm more or less in the same boat. Yet, I know for sure that in two or three 6ed codices, we'll end up with only a few builds viable. And I've had a codex like that once, called the gavdex. It already has its in-built flaw : blandness all over the place.

[Agent Purple]

Funny little story: My primary army is Necrons and the only army I've so far lost against during 6th edition play is this "totally crappy" new CSM Codex.

 

Oh, did I also mention that my Necrons have the "terribly underpowered" CSM allies?

 

How many nightscythes do you take in your necron list?

[Kol Saresk]

This can go back and forth until we get a new codex (if we ever do). You can claim to lose to chaos with OTT codex books but at the same time I can claim your list was flawed or a tactic was (not that you are, just making a point).

Except when you combine this fact of an OTT Codex losing to what some "teh internet" consider to be one of the worst Codices in print right now combined with the impossibility of there actually being more than one build(suboptimal means it has a chance of winning and is therefore a build since in Gavdex we only had one suboptimal build and no optimal builds and the suboptimal was considered a build), well that says that the crappiest Codex is actually doing better than what "teh internet" says. It's still not OP or on the same power level as say, the SW or BA, but the fact that it's already doing more then what people are saying it can do, means there is something more to it. Of course, that's just my opinion and since I'm always wrong there's absolutely no reason to listen to it.

[Brother Ambroz]

Except when you combine this fact of an OTT Codex losing to what some "teh internet" consider to be one of the worst Codices in print right now combined with the impossibility of there actually being more than one build(suboptimal means it has a chance of winning and is therefore a build since in Gavdex we only had one suboptimal build and no optimal builds and the suboptimal was considered a build), well that says that the crappiest Codex is actually doing better than what "teh internet" says. It's still not OP or on the same power level as say, the SW or BA, but the fact that it's already doing more then what people are saying it can do, means there is something more to it. Of course, that's just my opinion and since I'm always wrong there's absolutely no reason to listen to it.

 

Now now no words in my mouth there Kol. I never said it was one of the worst codex books or that it is the crappiest codex. It isn't horrible right now just bland. When the next couple of OTT codex books come out though, then we're going to be in the exact same boat as the Gavdex. Especially when people understand our codex like we now know C:GK, SW, Crons etc.

 

Most of the time it turns out that the OTT ones are the ones with multiple optimal builds.

[techsoldaten]

So techsoldaten, could you sum that up as it's just a matter of actually learning how to use the new Codex instead of simply math-hammering at it against specific units we may or may not face and then saying ti's unviable in the same way that AP3 weapons are unviable because they don't go through the armor save on Terminators even though normal PA is still vulnerable?

That's one way to look at it. Seriously, there are right and wrong ways to look at the book.

 

For people who are user-competitive players looking for a ready-made list that overpowers all opponents, the Codex is going to be seen as weak and unappealing. Their perspectives don't mean much, they have a hard time seeing past the math and are not willing to invest the time and energy it takes to build, test and optimize a list to the point where it's going to be competitive. They are looking for Ferraris in a parking lot full of Chevys and walking away, saying all the other cars suck - even though they have V8 engines.

 

For other people, there are different ways of looking at the book that may actually lead somewhere. You have to be thoughtful and creative with how you construct your army and look for synergies that go beyond simple psychic buffs and rules exploitation. I have been experimenting with the 6th edition since it came out and have 4 viable builds I am toying with, centered around the following:

 

- Noise Marine spam + bikers (my favorite)

- Dual Daemon princes + Heldrakes + lots of shooty infantry

- Abaddon + plasma Chosen

- A Warpsmith, an AGL, 10 small CSM squads and their Obliterator pals

 

There are very different benefits / drawbacks to each, and I am just beginning to understand the results each list can achieve. I try to play at least once a week against a different opponent, and I have faced just about every current army except Black Templars and Necrons. I am also playing a lot of different opponents, ranging from complete noobs to the game to some ultra-competitive GK / SW guys. I have been tabled a couple times (both times against Tau), but I hold my own even in bad situations. I don't look at opponents and say my forces are inferior, I look at them as a puzzle that needs to be solved through a combination of selection and tactics.

 

But it's a process of experimentation. Numbers don't tell the whole story, nor does luck or any other factor. You learn by doing with this Codex, and by analyzing other people's experiences against your own. It requires you to talk with other players, which is a lot different from calculating statistical averages and comparing simple costs with other books.

[Hellios]

My main problem is that this codex is boring... Better than the last codex but still bland. As for power-level, maybe this is the new standard but if that is so they need to do some better fixes to older codices until they are replaced. I agree that this codex isn't weak in the scheme of things but it does lag behind some codices which have had issues since they came out (again GW should fix things). The big problem is blandness and flexibility when it comes to competitive builds.

 

Do I think it is so weak that it will auto-lose against any list? No. Although I think very few lists would auto-lose against anything. Can you beat strong lists? Sure... This game has luck at its core. Am I still bored? I didn't even play with my chaos army much in 3.5! I played against them a lot and had some of my best games against them. This new codex didn't even inspire me to buy any new models; although I will confess I'm thinking about getting a Drake to convert.

[derpasaurus]

They are looking for Ferraris in a parking lot full of Chevys and walking away, saying all the other cars suck - even though they have V8 engines.

 

this.

 

you have to know what you're doing. you have to build balanced and counter other weaknesses or holes your other choices leave. you have to know what you're going up against and build lists accordingly.

and this is as it should be.

[Kol Saresk]

I wasn't saying you specifically said it was the crappiest Tanith, don't put my words in my mouth :P. Otherwise I would have said you, not "teh internets." And it's been what, four, five months since publication? If everyone else is as devoted to math hammering as a decent number of Chaos players are, then the Codex should have been cracked wide open by now. The other problem is, if it is bland and it is weak, then learning how to deal with it on the field should be no problem at all. How long did it take Chaos Players to learn what they could and couldn't do against SW, BA, GK and 5th Ed Necrons after they first came out? Seems like no time at all.

 

Also, you are assuming that the next few Codices will be OP. Granted, the fact that Plasma is a common 6th ed theme combined with the fact that DA have an affinity for plasma means trouble, even if it turns out to be worse than ours. Right now, we only have rumors of what, a few stats and maybe one or two special rules? That's not the whole Codex. We won't know the whole Codex until it is released. Just like we didn't know the entirety of our Codex until after its release. Chances our, it'll be just like ours. One or two things here and then nothing.

[Polaria]

Funny little story: My primary army is Necrons and the only army I've so far lost against during 6th edition play is this "totally crappy" new CSM Codex.

 

Oh, did I also mention that my Necrons have the "terribly underpowered" CSM allies?

 

How many nightscythes do you take in your necron list?

 

Depends on how I feel. My "usual" setup is AV13 spam with little to no fliers. In that specific game against CSM I had AV13 spam augmented with two Nightscythes.

[Brother Ambroz]

I played the "underpowered" Thousand Sons legion in 3.5 and I had a blast and still won as a teenager. That said I have a pretty decent idea of what I'm doing.

 

That's great that you're experimenting with Noise marines or someone is experimenting with daemon engines and a warpsmith to repair but it doesn't change the fact that there are alot of complete crap builds like zerkers. I love Khorne, he's my favorite, but right now the way the rules are and the way their special rules are they're just not worth it. That's just one example.

 

I am assuming that because that's been GW's trend for a long time. It makes them more money which is also very important for them. If I am wrong about this, then I willy gladly admit it when they do come out.

[Kol Saresk]

Tanith, out of curiosity have you been to the Throne of Skulls forum? The guys over there are pretty confident they have come up with workable Khorne lists.

[Brother Ambroz]

When there are people actually posting there yes I am. You should know, we've been posting in the same thread over there this morning....

[Kol Saresk]

The Forum, not the sub-forum of BnC.

[Brother Ambroz]

No, it's blocked for me at work thus I don't use it.

 

Edit: Kol, they've also got a bit more rumors over there other than a few stats. Have you seen their thread?

[Agent Purple]

This can go back and forth until we get a new codex (if we ever do). You can claim to lose to chaos with OTT codex books but at the same time I can claim your list was flawed or a tactic was (not that you are, just making a point).

Except when you combine this fact of an OTT Codex losing to what some "teh internet" consider to be one of the worst Codices in print right now combined with the impossibility of there actually being more than one build(suboptimal means it has a chance of winning and is therefore a build since in Gavdex we only had one suboptimal build and no optimal builds and the suboptimal was considered a build), well that says that the crappiest Codex is actually doing better than what "teh internet" says. It's still not OP or on the same power level as say, the SW or BA, but the fact that it's already doing more then what people are saying it can do, means there is something more to it. Of course, that's just my opinion and since I'm always wrong there's absolutely no reason to listen to it.

 

No one has said its impossible to take games of off other OP codexes with the chaos codex, but if SW/GK are running optimized builds, and you aren't running 'the' chaos build, it isn't too hard to see that you're going to have a rough time against an equally skilled opponent.

 

Here's a challenge - try to write a non-nurgle CSM list with no drakes or bikes, and then write the equivalent list using codex SW (or GK/BA, but I think SW is the most easily compared). Ask yourself which list you would rather take, and which army you think you would do better with on the field. By doing this kind of comparison, the gimmicky nature of the faildex (monobuild) and relative power level become painfully apparent without even needing to put any models on the table. This is because the MEQ core of the army is weaker (and hence, the army as a whole, when based around that core, is weaker).

 

I agree that there is more than just looking at points costs. If we had readily available buffs or force multipliers (like BA,SW,or GK do with sang priest/prescience psykers) then this would help even the odds. If our core had more tactical or strategic options (like GK with deep strike/warp quake, or BA/SM with combat squads / combat tactics), then we could play to those as well (but we don't). The chaos core has less tools in the box, and the units aren't much cheaper when you look at the army from a tactical / strategic perspective as well.

 

Chaos lords provide AP2 attacks at initiative, which is something that other MEQ do not get, excepting quicksliver deamonhammer RAW argument (mark in our corner), as well as fast T6 HQ for a reasonable price (again, mark in our corner since it is difficult to get this kind of resiliency anywhere else), as well as an AP3 torrent flamer template (again, can't get this from any other codex), and a flying monstrous creature, albeit at a ridiculously high point cost. Hell drake provides an AP3 flamer template that can pretty much hit anything on the board thanks to being mounted on a flier, which is pretty powerful and something you can't get in other MEQ dexes. Oblits provide some ranged versatility, as well a deepstrike capability, and with MON are pretty hard to kill, which is something you can't really get in other MEQ dexes. Mauler as a cheap, fast, melee walker is somewhat unique as well, but it's placement in the heavy slot limits is usefulness. Chaos also gets the added benefit of getting cheap, large footprint units for board control (culitsts) without burning up an ally slot (leaving it open for tzeentch deamons), but unless you make use of a non-IG ally, cultists are basically like a much crappier IG blob squad that most other MEQ dexes get as battle brother.

 

Everything else?

Broken unit (mutilators, warp talons, posessed, thousand sons) with internal balance problems right of the bat,

Bad MEQ knockoff (CSM, Chosen, Terminators (terminators can do combi-suicide, but WG/SG can do drop combi-suicide as well), land raider, hellbrute).

Par for the course MEQ unit (Havocs)

Unique but not really outstanding (fiend (FF is basically a psyfleman knock off), defiler)

 

Berzerkers can be cost effective, but foot melee only units in this edition are undesirable across the board, unless they have access to decent assault vehicles (chaos dosen't).

 

Build around NM seems interesting at first glance, but GKSS with psycannons puts out more firepower, is more mobile, and has better strategic options (deepstrike), so if going for a torrent of fire build, why pick NM or GK?

 

Cheap predator and bikes are nice now, but it remains to be seen if chaos will remain with these costs or if they are just streamlined for 6th ed changes and reduction will be carried across the board in the future (like 50-35 point rhino drop in 5th ed).

 

So outside of PM/Drake builds with biker lord/oblit support, why choose the chaos codex to make your army? The units aren't cheap enough to provide an appreciable numerical advantage over other MEQ builds. The units don't provide any additional strategic or tactical flexibility. The units do not have better offensive or defensive capabilities point-for-point (which means the army as a whole will not have better offensive of defensive capabilities). The army also suffers on-the whole from randomness (bad boon rolls can lose you the game), being required to challenge, and unreliability (failed LD roll can cripple an expensive unit for a turn or kill the unit outright), so the list is inherently more vulnerable to a few crappy dice rolls than other MEQ builds.

 

Sun Tzu tells us in the Art of War that by looking at the way, the weather, the terrain, the leadership, and the discipline, we can predict the outcome of battles before they take place. The way is a measure of the harmony of the people and the leader, and doesn't translate well to Warhammer 40k. The weather and the terrain could be considered analogous to the terrain set-up and other battlefield conditions (like night fight). The leadership is analogous to a player's ability, while the discipline could be considered analgous to the quality (or power level) of the troops being fielded.

 

The first considerations when making a comparison are who is the more enlighted ruler and the more able commander. A better player will always have an edge over a talentless noob, regardless of any other factors. However, when making comparisons between codexes and builds we generally need to assume equivalency on these points.

 

The third consideration is which army is able to better utilize the weather and the terrain. This is an interesting point - both players have the opportunity to place terrain in 6th ed, but we again have to assume that both players make the right decisions for advantageous placement. We also have the opportunity to buy fortifications (terrain), but do not gain any additional benefit from this over other MEQ armies (except for cultists, which benefit more from terrain, but MEQ with IG allies evens this out). Other MEQ's with shrouding, stealth, or the ability to take cover with them (runepriest/ BA lib) have advantages in either being able to better utilize cover, or being more reslient to cover by virtue of 'brining the terrain with them.' Where chaos scores points is that baledrakes / burning brand can completely remove any benefit of cover to opposing MEQ armies. Other MEQ's have t-fire cannon, poding flamers etc... to ignore cover, but these fail against MEQ armour, where the baledrake and burning brand do not. Being able to deploy by pods or by deep strike (loyalists, GK), also help take advantage of terrain in trying to set up flanks, concentration of force, etc.. that would be difficult to accomplish otherwise.

 

I also like to group the mission conditions (location and number of objectives etc...) into this category as well, although it is not directly analogous. They represent factors that occur on the field that are not directly under the player's control. Many loyalist MEQs have the option to use combat squads, which helps either claim objectives, or deny kill points, both of which are good. The mobility to either claim objectives (rhino is rhino) or hide scoring units is probably an even point, although loyalists get pods or deep strike to gain a strategic mobility advantage, although chaos can use MoD infiltrate in a similar manner. Overall, SM/BA/GK have advantage of being more flexible in their ability to adapt to mission specific goals.

 

The fourth consideration is the army's ability to carry out regulations and instructions (reliability). Chaos units on the whole are more unreliable than other MEQs due to lack of ATSKNF, meaning they can become crippled or dead when failing a morale check throwing a wrench into your plans. Outside of fearless units, chaos clearly loses on this front across the board.

 

The final considerations are which army has stronger troops and better trained officers (power level). This has already been discussed above. Most chaos units clearly lose to their loyalist equivalents on an overall power level basis, outside of things like the baledrake and bike lords.

 

So it is ignorant of people to say that when someone looks at the chaos codex as says it is dogcrap compared to loyalist armies it is down to unit v unit point efficiency calculations only. It is also ignorant to think that an experienced player with knowledge of the rules and what other MEQ armies can field cannot draw a meaningful standpoint about the competitiveness of the chaos dex without extensive play testing.

 

No one is saying you can't win with alternate chaos builds, but outside of bikelord/baledrake/pm/oblt armies, why play chaos, when you would get more advantages making a similar build with another MEQ dex?

 

I don't contend to be the best 40k player, but I have faith enough in my familiarity with the game, other MEQ codexes, and the CSM codex to think that my judgment of the codex is correct. I don't need to play 50+ games with various builds to confirm. It's possible that there is some hyper competitive build or buried synergy somewhere in the codex that I missed, but I doubt it.

 

DA codex will shed some light on where the chaos codex may rank in the future (as will deamons codex, by virtue of ally ability). But even if DA is more in line with chaos, chaos will still need to compare against SM/SW/GK/BA for what will probably amount to the entire lifespan of 6th edition. In otherwords, even if DA codex is more balanced with chaos dex, chaos dex will still suck because SW/GK/BA exist, and outside of the monobuild, every build the dex can do will either be worse than the monobuild, or could be done better with SW/GK/BA.

[Agent Purple]

They are looking for Ferraris in a parking lot full of Chevys and walking away, saying all the other cars suck - even though they have V8 engines.

 

this.

 

you have to know what you're doing. you have to build balanced and counter other weaknesses or holes your other choices leave. you have to know what you're going up against and build lists accordingly.

and this is as it should be.

 

In most competitive (or even casual) settings, you don't get the chance to see your opponents army and the terrain set-up before you write your army list, so you don't get to 'build your list accordingly.'

 

You think SW/BA/SM/GK can't build balanced armies and cover weaknesses? In reality, they have a much easier time (IMO) of doing this than chaos does.

[Kol Saresk]

If that's true then why does everyone look at tournament listings to see what does or doesn't work and what it did or did not work against when put up to the other tournament lists from other Codices?

[techsoldaten]

In most competitive (or even casual) settings, you don't get the chance to see your opponents army and the terrain set-up before you write your army list, so you don't get to 'build your list accordingly.'

If winning a game depended on these factors, then GK and SWs would win every game. It's doesn't and they don't.

 

You think SW/BA/SM/GK can't build balanced armies and cover weaknesses? In reality, they have a much easier time (IMO) of doing this than chaos does.

Sure, they can build balanced armies, and so can we. Just because it's easy for them does not mean it's impossible for us, there are other factors that go into list building and performance on the board. Your point does not invalidate anything else that has been said in this thread.

 

Here is what I mean: the list I play most often is 2000 points and has 2 squads of Bikers and 4 squads of Sonic Noise Marines in Rhinos, along with an assortment of heavies that keeps changing. I don't really shoot for balance with it, and like to tell people my imbalance can throw off your balance most days of the week.

 

I am 9 for 15 with this list, and 3 of those losses are to Tau (who I just suck against). I am 4 for 6 against GK and SWs, with one loss to a Blood Angel player who got very lucky with a Death Company unit. Some of these games were happening while I was still learning the rules for 6th edition, against players who consider themselves competitive. And, trust me, everyone knows what Noise Marines and Chaos Bikers can do at this point, no one is getting surprised when I show up to play.

 

The reason this list works is because it screws with the rules of the game in ways only a Chaos list can. I move up all the Rhinos into a wall of mobile cover and station my Noise Marines behind it, waiting for someone to pop the Rhinos (letting me shoot at them with 100+ shots that ignore cover), charge between the Rhinos (which doesn't always work, and gives me a lot of overwatch shots), or get tank shocked by the Rhinos when I break the wall. There are no good options against this tactic, it forces opponents to make some hard decisions about what to do and there are consequences to whatever they decide on. Meanwhile, my Chaos Lord is charging in on bikes with his black mace, generally winning a challenge in one round and sending opposition units fleeing. He tends to slaughter MEQ and TEQ very quickly and is usually assaulting turns 3 - 7. I usually have lascannon havocs in the backfield, shooting up anything that my other guys can't deal with. They tend to one-shot vehicles and soften up larger units.

 

So, basically, I am building traps with my units that opponents cannot ignore and that are hard to deal with. Tell me how you account for that based on a straight analysis of the points.

 

Under 5th edition, I ran a 1750 point list that was centered on running 33 spawn. In 6 games, it never lost and opponents were only able to take out a handful of units. I would have happily put them up against any army, because there were too many units with too many wounds for my opponents to deal with in a 5 - 7 round game. My Spawn squads, OTOH, covered so much of the board it was impossible to run away from them, and they ate MEQ in CC. I only needed a DP or a CL with a Jump Pack to deal with vehicles.

 

Tell me how you account for that based on trying to balance a list.

 

The answer is you can't. Points costs and balance are only one way of looking at a list, the rest is knowing your army and exploiting it's strengths. Knowing what someone else is bringing should be secondary to knowing what to do with your own army. The point where points and balance break down is right there - if you don't know how all the pieces fit together, you're never going to complete the puzzle. You need to understand the affinities between units - like what you actually get when you run dual DPs, or bring Abaddon and 3 squads of Plasma Chosen, or 40 Sonic Noise Marines, or a ton of Spawn, or 10 8 man CSM squads - and you don't get that by looking at a book.

[Agent Purple]

If that's true then why does everyone look at tournament listings to see what does or doesn't work and what it did or did not work against when put up to the other tournament lists from other Codices?

 

That's not the same as tooling out for one specific opponent before the game starts, which is what I assume he is talking about from context.

 

Needing to have an answer for flyer spam/blob IG/Tzeentch deamons/chimera parking lot in your list is not the same as packing meltaguns on every unit that can take them because you know your opponent is playing LR rush black templars, for example.

[Brother Ambroz]

I am 9 for 15 with this list, and 3 of those losses are to Tau (who I just suck against). I am 4 for 6 against GK and SWs, with one loss to a Blood Angel player who got very lucky with a Death Company unit. Some of these games were happening while I was still learning the rules for 6th edition, against players who consider themselves competitive. And, trust me, everyone knows what Noise Marines and Chaos Bikers can do at this point, no one is getting surprised when I show up to play.

 

The reason this list works is because it screws with the rules of the game in ways only a Chaos list can. I move up all the Rhinos into a wall of mobile cover and station my Noise Marines behind it, waiting for someone to pop the Rhinos (letting me shoot at them with 100+ shots that ignore cover), charge between the Rhinos (which doesn't always work, and gives me a lot of overwatch shots), or get tank shocked by the Rhinos when I break the wall. There are no good options against this tactic, it forces opponents to make some hard decisions about what to do and there are consequences to whatever they decide on. Meanwhile, my Chaos Lord is charging in on bikes with his black mace, generally winning a challenge in one round and sending opposition units fleeing. He tends to slaughter MEQ and TEQ very quickly and is usually assaulting turns 3 - 7. I usually have lascannon havocs in the backfield, shooting up anything that my other guys can't deal with. They tend to one-shot vehicles and soften up larger units.

 

So, basically, I am building traps with my units that opponents cannot ignore and that are hard to deal with. Tell me how you account for that based on a straight analysis of the points.

 

Tau are tough this edition, no doubt.

 

I can think of a few ways of dealing with castling noise marines. One, just wait for your lord to get into range and then just shoot him with everything while your NM are behind their wall. Two, get a few assault oriented squads (or just assault squads) to charge in immediately after destroying your rhino. What would you do if you had outflankers or deepstrikers?

 

Under 5th edition, I ran a 1750 point list that was centered on running 33 spawn. In 6 games, it never lost and opponents were only able to take out a handful of units. I would have happily put them up against any army, because there were too many units with too many wounds for my opponents to deal with in a 5 - 7 round game. My Spawn squads, OTOH, covered so much of the board it was impossible to run away from them, and they ate MEQ in CC. I only needed a DP or a CL with a Jump Pack to deal with vehicles.

 

Yeah that was a neat idea you came up with, I remember reading your lists and report about it. It's almost exactly like the armored column IG bring to the table in 6th, nobody expects it. There's always oddball army lists like this though. Sometimes you'll run into the latest bandwagon player who doesn't know the list and ends up losing. Other times you'll run into a really experienced player who just barely squeezes out a win.

 

The answer is you can't. Points costs and balance are only one way of looking at a list, the rest is knowing your army and exploiting it's strengths. Knowing what someone else is bringing should be secondary to knowing what to do with your own army. The point where points and balance break down is right there - if you don't know how all the pieces fit together, you're never going to complete the puzzle. You need to understand the affinities between units - like what you actually get when you run dual DPs, or bring Abaddon and 3 squads of Plasma Chosen, or 40 Sonic Noise Marines, or a ton of Spawn, or 10 8 man CSM squads - and you don't get that by looking at a book.

 

Knowing your army and it's strengths is important for sure. Knowing what your opponent is bringing is not. Knowing what your opponent is bringing and tailoring a list just for that isn't really fair for one.

 

Anyway I do agree you do need to understand what you're bringing. We have people that have tried out most of these though.

[Agent Purple]

You think SW/BA/SM/GK can't build balanced armies and cover weaknesses? In

The reason this list works is because it screws with the rules of the game in ways only a Chaos list can. I move up all the Rhinos into a wall of mobile cover and station my Noise Marines behind it, waiting for someone to pop the Rhinos (letting me shoot at them with 100+ shots that ignore cover), charge between the Rhinos (which doesn't always work, and gives me a lot of overwatch shots), or get tank shocked by the Rhinos when I break the wall. There are no good options against this tactic, it forces opponents to make some hard decisions about what to do and there are consequences to whatever they decide on. Meanwhile, my Chaos Lord is charging in on bikes with his black mace, generally winning a challenge in one round and sending opposition units fleeing. He tends to slaughter MEQ and TEQ very quickly and is usually assaulting turns 3 - 7. I usually have lascannon havocs in the backfield, shooting up anything that my other guys can't deal with. They tend to one-shot vehicles and soften up larger units.

 

So, basically, I am building traps with my units that opponents cannot ignore and that are hard to deal with. Tell me how you account for that based on a straight analysis of the points.

 

You clearly didn't even bother reading my post. No where do I claim that only a straight analysis of points is relevant or that SW/GK will win every game. I disagree that a skilled player cannot read the book, look at it in the context of other similar MEQ books, and make an adequate judgement of balance. To try out every possible build against every possible opponent to 'learn from experience' what the codex has to offer would require substantially more games than most players could feasibly play.

 

As for handling NM's - you still need to get to mid field before you are effective. If I can pop 1 or 2 of your rhinos out of position (not hard to do in 6th ed) it will be difficult for you to concentrate firepower with all 4 of your sonics. If when I shoot your rhino wall, I score wrecked results (more likely in 6th), then your squad behind it will probably not have LOS and need a turn to reposition. Immobilized or stunned results will also screw up your alpha strike. If I am playing a mech or vehicle heavy army, I will just focus fire your LC havocs down and ignore your noise marines. Sonic marines are waste points against most flyers in the game. LOS blocking also cuts both ways. If my assaulting unit can only see 2 or 3 noise marines, your over watch fire probably isn't going to be very effective. Overwatch from even 30 shots isn't likely to kill more than 1 or 2 MEQs - at that point your sonic NM's are barely better than stock CSM.

 

The points you've invested in the NM's just aren't as scary as if you had invested in baledrakes or a brand lord to do the same job instead and brought cultists or MSU PM's to score. There are ways to counter NM - Baledrake with its torrent and move is much more difficult to avoid. Baledrake cannot be locked in CC. Baledrake is way more scary against 3+ save targets. NM require a turn (minimum) to set up before they are in a position to deal damage thanks to stupid salvo rules. This gives your opponent the opporunity to react and mitigate.

 

GKSS has similar firepower output with psycannons and psybolts, but is not crippled by salvo rules. More difficult to react to. GKSS has 30" threat range compared to NM 24 as well, plus can reliably land 1 or 2 S7 shots against fliers, and can blow apart transports and tanks as well. If you want to play this style army, why not take a core of GKSS, and then ally in 2 T-wolf characters and some lascannon fangs as a biker substitute? GKSS also get dirt cheap force multipliers and access to tech that denies infiltrate, deep strike, and can themselves deep strike if it is advantageous to do so.