Misconceptions About CSM

[happybounce]

Making the MoN really good for Lords, and PMs like CSM only better does not really promote none-spam. But that is more of a problem with the core rules (using modified T for ID calculation).

 

Anyway, for my WB, I have simply changed the word "Mark" to "Blessing". So my Dark Apostle can give my units a "Blessing of X" before the battle, giving a nice buff. My lord is often Blessed by Tzeentch, one of my CSM squads have the blessing of Khorne, my Possessed have the blessing of Slaanesh and so on.

 

But using cult troops is still a blasphemy to vile for an old conservative Word Bearer like me! Good thing cult troops are sort of sucky as elites.

 

True enough--not to mention the Helldrake with Baleflamer.  Just goes to show, nobody can ruin a good thing quite like wargamers ; )  Honestly it's hard to avoid stuff that someone is going to spam at some point.  There are a few mistakes in the CSM codex I think (at least in that regard), but at the same time what's "good" (and thus spammed) is also culturally constructed to a large extent.

 

I really like the blessing idea.  My buddy runs Word Bearers, I'll loot your idea and pass it on to him.  Fluff for the fluff god!

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

Kol use the one from your DV set if you lost the Asp champ axe.

 

Vesper, you ignoring me now?!

I'm thinking about it. I just liked the axe that came with the AC mini so much.

 

Ferrum, thanks for the offer though.

 

Any time buddy.

[Vesper]

 

 

 

but all of this is working on a level of tyfus or ahriman . own fleets , being able to take whole planets in the eye , garnisons . we are talking about sized w40k is not played and how many chaos lords like that exist in the warp and what is most important how many of such lords the realy powerful ones like abadon or the primarchs can accept to live ?Which is why I dont understand the new chaos fluff. If abadon was real , he would have never allowed huron to gather such a force , neither would lorgar . It would be as if Stalin allowed a member of old central commity to live .  alliances of course do happen , but  can  only work when both sides are huge and cant wipe out the other one in an instant or one side is a buffor , but then its dead after the whole action , so for that to work all the time there would have to be a steady flow of renegade marines .

 

 

Actually, it's the exact opposite of Lords on that level. There's infinite scale and room for fluctuation, as detailed in that long post, but it begins, carries on, and ends as an average Word Bearer army all the way through, with options for smaller or larger incidents, allegiances, and circumstances. That's the point. There are dozens and dozens of rises, falls, growths and shrinkages there, at every level from the personal to the planetary. That, again, is the point. It's not saying all of that happens to one warband. It's saying they're all equally likely possibilities that could happen to almost any average lord and/or his warband.

 

You forgot my post on the Black Legion, Y you no like me ? ! sadface.

 

No, it's just... the reply threatens to be as long as the first post, and I am a weak creature. I keep promising myself I'll reply, then remembering the other one took me two hours.

Well AD-B, you know, if you don't want to put two hours into an aswer, I can also understand something shorter. Even more so if you think I'm right !

I'm 

[Vesper]

 

 

 

but all of this is working on a level of tyfus or ahriman . own fleets , being able to take whole planets in the eye , garnisons . we are talking about sized w40k is not played and how many chaos lords like that exist in the warp and what is most important how many of such lords the realy powerful ones like abadon or the primarchs can accept to live ?Which is why I dont understand the new chaos fluff. If abadon was real , he would have never allowed huron to gather such a force , neither would lorgar . It would be as if Stalin allowed a member of old central commity to live .  alliances of course do happen , but  can  only work when both sides are huge and cant wipe out the other one in an instant or one side is a buffor , but then its dead after the whole action , so for that to work all the time there would have to be a steady flow of renegade marines .

 

 

Actually, it's the exact opposite of Lords on that level. There's infinite scale and room for fluctuation, as detailed in that long post, but it begins, carries on, and ends as an average Word Bearer army all the way through, with options for smaller or larger incidents, allegiances, and circumstances. That's the point. There are dozens and dozens of rises, falls, growths and shrinkages there, at every level from the personal to the planetary. That, again, is the point. It's not saying all of that happens to one warband. It's saying they're all equally likely possibilities that could happen to almost any average lord and/or his warband.

 

You forgot my post on the Black Legion, Y you no like me ? ! sadface.

 

No, it's just... the reply threatens to be as long as the first post, and I am a weak creature. I keep promising myself I'll reply, then remembering the other one took me two hours.

You know, if you don't want to spend two hours writing something, I can fully understand a shorter answer to my interrogations.

I'm a poor victim of procrastination too (and a grown man) so I can forgive you for not delivering us another wall of awesomeness for the Black Legion (I cried a bit last night, thinking about it. About that awesomeness we'll never have and... I chose to let it behind. I... I forgive you, AD-B.)

Edited March 2, 2013 by Vesper

[minigun762]

Even though the post by A D-B was awesome, and made a huge amount of sense, the scale is still a bit odd. No one (ok, there is always someone) doubts that even the organised legions have internal conflicts, meaning for example WB on WB battles, nor is there any doubt that there are inter-legion alliances and cooperation.

There is nothing wrong with mixed-legion warbands, but then again there is nothing wrong with mixed-chapter armies at the 40k scale either. Or to be honest, most or at least many conflicts involving loyalist space marines have marines from more than one chapter joining the fray. In the case of crusades there can be a dozen chapters even.

 

But I have yet to see a mixed-chapter army. And it's quite obvious why we don't see mixed-chapter armies. It's called the rule of cool. People like mono-chapter armies better than mixed ones, even if everyone is free to make their tacticals UM, their Devastators Mentor Legion with some White Scar bikes and Mortifactor Sternguards.

 

I just don't understand why GW tries to push mixed-legion warbands when they at the same time understands that mono-chapter armies are really popular? Do they assume there is some fundamental difference in psychology between SM and CSM players?

 

The problem with the scale is that 40k battles are just too small. The standard warband makes more sense as a mono-legion force, though if people want to mix, they should feel free to do so. On the other hand, I'm massively in favour of a single SM codex too, so I might be biased. If CSM can mix Berzerkers and Noise Marines with Iron Warriors and Alpha Legion, why should not loyalists not be able to field Ravenwing bikers covering the advance of Thunderwolves, with Ultras holding the line?

 

One thing to consider is that Loyalist Marines are actually the oddball here compared to the rest of the races in 40k.

Think of the differences between Dark Eldar Kabals, Eldar Craftworlds, Necron Dynasties, Ork Clans, IG Regiments etc etc.

In all of these cases, we see differences that are at least as large as the difference between Chapters but they're pushed into a single book and given the choice to mix & match the various sub-factions.

The fact that Loyalist Chapters are separated they way they are is primarily a business decision, and has little to nothing to do with the actual background.

[totgeboren]

 

 

One thing to consider is that Loyalist Marines are actually the oddball here compared to the rest of the races in 40k.

Think of the differences between Dark Eldar Kabals, Eldar Craftworlds, Necron Dynasties, Ork Clans, IG Regiments etc etc.

In all of these cases, we see differences that are at least as large as the difference between Chapters but they're pushed into a single book and given the choice to mix & match the various sub-factions.

The fact that Loyalist Chapters are separated they way they are is primarily a business decision, and has little to nothing to do with the actual background.

 

Yeah, I understand that, but I still think it is strange that the mixed-Legion approach is the one GW tries to promote, as their mono-chapter approach to SM clearly shows that they understand that is what their consumers want. If SM players really want mono-chapter armies, and Ork players want mono-klan armies, and Eldar players want mono-Craftworld armies why would CSM players want mixed-legion warbands? It makes no sense at all. Neither from a business standpoint nor from a background standpoint.

 

The codex should allow players to mix, just like you can mix klans or Craftworlds if you want to, but the rules should be constructed so that a mono-theme is the default position, as that is what people in general want just by looking at for example B&C, Warseer, Dakka and The-Waaagh to name but a few.

[happybounce]

Yeah, I understand that, but I still think it is strange that the mixed-Legion approach is the one GW tries to promote, as their mono-chapter approach to SM clearly shows that they understand that is what their consumers want. If SM players really want mono-chapter armies, and Ork players want mono-klan armies, and Eldar players want mono-Craftworld armies why would CSM players want mixed-legion warbands? It makes no sense at all. Neither from a business standpoint nor from a background standpoint.

The codex should allow players to mix, just like you can mix klans or Craftworlds if you want to, but the rules should be constructed so that a mono-theme is the default position, as that is what people in general want just by looking at for example B&C, Warseer, Dakka and The-Waaagh to name but a few.

I don't know, I feel like they did a pretty good job of letting us run (even favoring) mono-cult armies in the codex without shackling themselves to it.  I remember the days of the 3rd edition codex, and while you COULD run a mono-cult army, everyone just abused the hell out of the rules--I saw a whole hell of a lot of Iron Warriors, simply because they could get four Heavy Support and pick Imp Guard tanks.  I feel like this codex is a nice compromise between the 3rd and 4th edition books.  There are awesome HQ slots that unlock the cult troops, there are fantastic special characters for each god that also unlock the troops, you can put any mark on any unit--I guess I don't really see the issue.  The only things that don't get Marks are vehicles, and they don't really need em.

 

I also wonder if the reason for the "emphasis" on running mixed units in the book (in their fluff and suggestions, etc) is to push the idea that you don't HAVE to play mono-cult for newer players.  People fresh into the game tend to think pretty straightforward, and while there's nothing wrong with that it's also good to let them know they have a lot of options.  

 

I guess I just feel like they went out of their way so that mono-cult armies could do well without forcing the issue.  Chaos being chaos, it's probably even MORE likely in the fluff that there will be random blessings within the army.  I'm glad they didn't make it so that was the expectation--as a Khorne player, I love being able to pick and choose my units and make anything I want into a badass close combat machine (except cultists, of course).

[daveNYC]

I think the issue is that some of the cults don't have good representation outside of the troops slot.  Specifically 1k Sons and Noise Marines.  Noise weapons for anything with a Slaanesh mark and all units in the army being either Slaanesh or unmarked would have been nice.  Something similar involving sorcerer covens for Elite and/or HS and Rubric Termis would have been nice too.

 

For the legions HQ choices like this would be nice:

Iron Warriors - Cover save debuff, something like the Master of Ordinance though, not the Techmarine stuff that the current Warpsmith gets.

Alpha Legion - Cell Leader: Cultists get better gear, maybe some infiltrate mojo and redeploy shenanigans like Lady Malys?

Word Bearers - Dark Apostle: Cultists are Fearless, leadership buff for you and leadership debuff for enemy?

Night Lords - Fear, lots of Fear, and leadership debuffs.  And can see in the dark too.

 

And the above choices would be exclusive, so if you choose a legion HQ, no picking a second HQ from that list for mix and match.  I dunno, the CSM codex is what it is, and it's going to be that way for years to come, so I guess I'll just have to deal.  I just don't like that the cults feel incomplete, the HQs seem like very 'rough' matches for some legion traits, and there's a whole lot of 'counts-as' involving the marks for them to work out for all units (Slaaneshi Oblits taking the MoN which is counting-as Combat Drugs).  I mean it works, but it doesn't work smoothly and involves paying no attention to the man behind the curtain, which makes me a sad panda.

[derpasaurus]

I thought Huron was pretty popular as an HQ choice?  Do people usually pick him because he's a bargain (or his fixed warlord trait), and then only run one mark?

 

I think part of the reason it feels like GW is trying to push the mixed list is because they want to get away from spam-lists, where people take a bunch of one or two things because they are "good".  I think if they were really trying to force mixed lists they would have loosened some of the restrictions on the codex: characters only going with units marked the same, only Lord/Sorcerer unlocking cults, etc.  I feel like they did a pretty good job of letting us do what we want with the codex, whether it's a mixed army, mono-marked, or somewhere in between.  

 

My buddy actually runs Iron Warriors and has a nice setup--Mark of Tzeech on the Obliterators (improved force field), Mark of Slaanesh on his warriors (combat drugs), Mark of Khorne on his Raptors (frenzon).  It is cool as hell, but not enough to steer me away from all Khorne, all the time.  BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD SKULLS ETC

I run Huron pretty regularly with my Night Lords. I do it because, yes, he's a bargain for what he does, and infiltrate fits my warband's build and my personal play style for that army very well. Also, because of fluff, from the time he ran with a group of Night Lords and wrecked the Marines Errant's collective faces. I also have a bit of flavor in my warband, considering in Blood Reaver the ties between Huron and at least Talos seemed to be strained at best. Much like A D-B said, there are so many possibilities.... Does Huron view the group he's leading on my table as trustworthy? Or does he lump them in with the battleship stealing, scavenging rabble that he probably views Talos' warband as, and is simply looking for a battle to feed the poor chumps to and be done with them? Are they actually trusting of him? Are they actively looking for an excuse to get him killed or otherwise incapacitated just to be rid of him? (my last game when he got tangled up with The Emperor's Champion for 8 rounds of combat may suggest the latter... lol) I'm planning on getting some bikes, considering actually painting them up in Red Corsairs colors, as Huron likely wouldn't leave his base to work with another group without a trustworthy(?) entourage of some type...

 

Also, with the 6th ed book I took to using marks, which I hadn't done before. I've mentioned this several times before, but my marks primarily represent wargear or skills learned in service to The Long War, much like your friend's force fields and drugs. Primarily I use Slaanesh and Khorne to represent their rapid, violent, terror inducing strikes. Even that minor change has helped my fluffy army be a bit more competitive. Striking first and rerolling all misses in the first turn of combat is VERY handy.

 

edit: fixed some things.

Edited March 4, 2013 by derpasaurus