Why are we being hyped as ‚strongest army‘?

[DuskRaider]

GW is primarily a model and hobby company. The models come first, the rules come afterward. That being said, Primaris still hold their own quite well and have literally everything else in the C:SM codex to lean on to make sure of it. They're also made to work with Guilliman as well... that's kind of the whole ridiculous and shoe horned plot point behind them in this edition.

[Commissar K.]

With the recent two additional SM Codex there is much more flexability if you mix SM chapters for lists. Somehow though many seem to not do that nor be willing to do that.

 

On the other hand CSM players do this. There is no reason to mono Chapter build, not for SM or CSM IF you want to have all the options and strongest synergies.

[Stross]

You're comparing Chaos to Astra Militrum - a fantastic Codex.

 

I was comparing them to Codex: Space Marines

 

I comparing them to the SM Codex as well. 

 

Let's just say my opponent have 2 Stormtalons and 1 Stormraven. Aside from mortal wound from psykers (which is not relayable, since flyers move around the board and smite can be casted only on the closest unite) what can beat this combo? 

I can tell, that Obliterators are not our guys in this with their range, hitting on 4+ (and we can get full reroll only from Abaddon and no one else) and their damage rolls. Three squads indeed can kill one Stormtalon or even Stormraven, will be able to do this, but this is 585 pts. And how these birds costs? Not like this I presume.

Predators? Yes, maybe, but it is still 4+, 3+ to wound and D6 damage roll.

Vindicators have the same problem as Obly - small range.

Daemon prince? Only two of them. With warptime. If not die on Overwatch. Maybe they can.

This is all what we have. Because Havocs will be killed in one blow.  

[Panzer]

 

Should it?

A codex should be able to stand alone. This is GW's intent, especially with them pushing mono detachment bonuses.

 

I've always thought some of the Chaos forum members can be a bit immature or unreasonable, and it's a shame it appears that was true. I've seen a complete lack of ability to see things from other people's point of view, unreasonable comparisons, and now I'm seeing forum users passing opinions on as facts.

 

Let's be more reasonable when it comes to debating the merits of a codex.

 

Seriously? Come on, they're a business. Of course they want you to buy more "allied detachments". Why do you think the Keywords work like they do? It's more revenue. 

 

Actually them being a business is a good argument against it.

It just doesn't sell good to new player if they are confronted with a "if you add this completely different army on top of the army you actually want to start then you are just as strong as this mono army over there!" ^^

[Commissar K.]

Actually them being a business is a good argument against it.

It just doesn't sell good to new player if they are confronted with a "if you add this completely different army on top of the army you actually want to start then you are just as strong as this mono army over there!" ^^

If that new player follows the GW narrative of Imperium armies being mixed armies I see no reason to assume a particular dislike of mixed armies.

 

Better put mixed armies are the most common narrative driven armies. Even the HH books are full of those forces.

[Panzer]

 

Actually them being a business is a good argument against it.

It just doesn't sell good to new player if they are confronted with a "if you add this completely different army on top of the army you actually want to start then you are just as strong as this mono army over there!" ^^

If that new player follows the GW narrative of Imperium armies being mixed armies I see no reason to assume a particular dislike of mixed armies.

 

Better put mixed armies are the most common narrative driven armies. Even the HH books are full of those forces.

 

For narrative GW introduced narrative play. For balanced games we have matched play. So narrative is really no argument for how things are in matched play.

[DuskRaider]

The past two editions (at least) have focused on allied armies. It's 100% a business decision and it's been paying off quite well as we have seen in various places... just like adding in Chaos Daemons, for example, into the Chaos Space Marine codex also lends itself well to getting the player to buy into a Chaos Daemon army.

[Commissar K.]

 

 

 

Actually them being a business is a good argument against it.

It just doesn't sell good to new player if they are confronted with a "if you add this completely different army on top of the army you actually want to start then you are just as strong as this mono army over there!" ^^

If that new player follows the GW narrative of Imperium armies being mixed armies I see no reason to assume a particular dislike of mixed armies.

 

Better put mixed armies are the most common narrative driven armies. Even the HH books are full of those forces.

For narrative GW introduced narrative play. For balanced games we have matched play. So narrative is really no argument for how things are in matched play.

Its there as an argument as to why new players would dislike it.

 

For both narrative and matched play mixed armies are confirmed to be a good thing to do.

 

If any player wants to play Chaos 'mono marines' it becomes their choice to not use daemons or cultists. This self restricting choice unsuprisingly comes with several disadvantages too.

[Panzer]

 

 

 

Actually them being a business is a good argument against it.

It just doesn't sell good to new player if they are confronted with a "if you add this completely different army on top of the army you actually want to start then you are just as strong as this mono army over there!" ^^

If that new player follows the GW narrative of Imperium armies being mixed armies I see no reason to assume a particular dislike of mixed armies.

 

Better put mixed armies are the most common narrative driven armies. Even the HH books are full of those forces.

For narrative GW introduced narrative play. For balanced games we have matched play. So narrative is really no argument for how things are in matched play.

Its there as an argument as to why new players would dislike it.

 

For both narrative and matched play mixed armies are confirmed to be a good thing to do.

 

If any player wants to play Chaos 'mono marines' it becomes their choice to not use daemons or cultists. This self restricting choice unsuprisingly comes with several disadvantages too.

 

Well I wasn't specifying Chaos as the mono army. There are others who simply don't have allies as well like T'au and Necrons.

Also you used that argument even before my post above when it wasn't about what players would dislike so yeah.

[BoomWolf]

Question is, IS csm actually better than codex marines by any meaningful margin?

 

Because every explanation why "csm are awesome" I've read somewhere includes morty, magnus, renegades or daemons getting involved, and these are NOT CSM, but chaos, and such interactions shouldn't be compared to codex marines but IoM as a whole.

 

Yea, CSM got a few toys loyalist don't, but that goes both ways, and as far as inner synergy goes loyalists have CSM beat with a wide array of aura characters, transports, role dedicated and "silver bullet" options, and plain generic varaity.

 

Show anything resembling data showing pure CSM being meaningfully stronger than codex marines, and THEN an argument can start about why.

But arguing why CSM are far better without any evidence they actually are is odd.

[Commissar K.]

 

Well I wasn't specifying Chaos as the mono army. There are others who simply don't have allies as well like T'au and Necrons.

 

Also you used that argument even before my post above when it wasn't about what players would dislike so yeah.

 

As this debate started as a SM to CSM comparison I don't really see how Xenos having less allies is relevant here. In addition there are only a few codex available to them and yes some armies have more trouble working without a Codex altogether.

 

What we objectively can state is that Games Workshop most certainly wants SM players to mix up chapter armies aswell is even seen in their design. 

 

So comming back to the Codex Blood Angels and Codex Dark Angels, not using them soon to your advantage is a choice. Just like it is a choice to play Chaos Space Marines without say Cultists (any) or Daemons (any). Going that more restrictive route will only lead to more tactical restrictions. Again this is logical and again we see that the most competitive lists actually do not restrict themselves in that manner, be it a Space Marine army or Chaos Space Marine army.

 

Giving examples of how any mixed army, be it Space Marine or Chaos Space Marines lead to "stronger" tactical variance can also be easily read from the recent Stratagems revealed to us: 

 

Want improved melee? Use Blood Angels.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Forlorn-Blood-Angel.jpg - A stratagem that is basically Warptime, want to reach melee consider using Blood Angel units.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/BA-Stratagem-1.jpg - Guarantee your charges.

 

Want improved ranged attacks? Use Dark Angels.

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/weapon-from-the-dark-age.jpg

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/deathwing-assault.jpg

 

 

Does Games Workshop want us to not mix armies? No, not at all, DO MIX!

http://pro.bols.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/lion-and-the-wolf.jpg

 

So what this boils down to is that the choice to make a competitive army often includes combining the strongest facets or adding tactical variance (by adding several chapters to your armies) in order to get a stronger effect (thanks to Stratagems). 

 

What seems to be the constant case in these discussions is that there are some players who refuse to thake a particular choice, despite it possibly being better. The moment you do this it might fit your narrative but can certainly lead to a weaker tactical depth overall.

 

Ways to not create a competitive army are:

1. Use one book (be it Codex or Imperial Armour) exclusively

2. Use one Legion or Chapter exclusively for your army

3. Exclude any non-marine units because you want to create a full marine army

4. View several of your 'left over' choices as dead weight

 

The prime reason as to why I believe Chaos Space Marine players do not resent mixed armies, where some Space Marine players do comes from the fact that Chaos for years has not been able to present a mono-Legion or mono-Chaos God competitive army anyway.

 

That mono-Legion vision in reality was never extremely rewarded for us and it still isn't. The fact remains is that the designers clearly intend for us to come up with mixed armies aswell. Wether or not a player likes this concept is irrelevant, it's proven to be a competitive great choice, it is a great choice because it doesn't dismiss any tactical variance. This in turn allows either CSM or SM armies to be an allround awnser. The allround awnser stops being there if your fixated to mono Legion or mono Chapter.

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Commissar K.

[Panzer]

You seem to be under the impression that I for some reason think that mixing armies is not stronger. I honestly don't feel like continuing this talk with you.

[Commissar K.]

You seem to be under the impression that I for some reason think that mixing armies is not stronger. I honestly don't feel like continuing this talk with you.

With statements like "Guilliman is the only competitive edge Codex Space Marines has" how could I be under a different impression?

 

What I am pointing towards is that all discussions that claim Codex Space Marines to be weaker as Codex Chaos Space Marines come from the same mindset that think mono-Chapter Space Marine armies should be as strong/well preforming as stereo-Legion (chaos soup) Chaos Space Marines armies. 

 

There is no reason to limit yourself to one Chapter or Codex for Space Marines, Chaos Space Marine players have adopted this style with open arms and because of that some percieve it as a stronger army. In reality though mixed Chapter Space Marine armies can be as strong if not stronger on the ranged aspects.

 

My vision on this as such remains simple, Space Marines have several competitive edges available to them next to Guilliman and those edges are available the moment you mix Chapters. It's not difficult to do, it's rewarded by the game and very much the vision Games Workshop has for 8th edition Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines. 

 

-

 

As a result what I believe to be the reason as to why some might hype Chaos Space Marines as the strongest army is because mixed Legion armies are not frowned upon and we don't even expect mono-Legions to be viable because they never really where for Chaos Space Marines.

 

Even the arguable best last Codex we had in 3rd edition still rewarded mixed Gods better because several units could not have the Chaos God mark to begin with. So like then it's actually extremely common (and good) to consider a main Legion/God and a secondary Legion/God for 8th.

 

Like CSM I view a main Chapter and a secondary Chapter choice as a better choice for 8th for Space Marines too. Compairing just Codex to Codex gives an unrealistic vision of what's played at the competitive top anyway. 

 

Cheers, 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Commissar K.

[Panzer]

Yep definitely not getting my point. Like at all. Even after me trying to tell you. I'm done with you on this topic, it's like talking to a wall and that's extremely tedious. I don't feel like I want to put in the efford to make you understand my point...again. So yeah carry on please.

[norngahl]

Shorts answer just for me.

 

CSM got a vere nice and well rounded codex, but most characters suck compared to what SM get. We have nice synergies due to strategems, but overall SM have more good standalone units and a wider varity of tactics due to units with special Rufes availiable. Even if 50% of marine units are dead weight.. we have these subotimal choices with about 50% as well, but with half the range SM have.

 

Worst thing is the flyer game. We have nothing usefull if you do not compensate via FW.

 

SM shouldn't cry because some has a shiny to but they haven't shiny+1. I know it's hard as the Poster boy, but simply deal with it. Look, BA have 2x warptime via strategems, tyranids have some great Chances for alpha strikt too.. we did not keep our tricks for too long.

 

Who cares, it's a game. Adapt and overcome.

[Stross]

CSM got a vere nice and well rounded codex, but most characters suck compared to what SM get. We have nice synergies due to strategems, but overall SM have more good standalone units and a wider varity of tactics due to units with special Rufes availiable. Even if 50% of marine units are dead weight.. we have these subotimal choices with about 50% as well, but with half the range SM have.

 

I could not say better.

 

And anyone, who told about our strong psykers. Good bay to that. But Grey Khight, Tzeench Daemons  or Rubrics feel far worse

[Panzer]

Keep in mind that it's just a Beta thing and the final version could look way different. Plus they could always adjust the rules for GK, Tzeentch Daemons and TSons since the Smite nerf is most likely directed at armies spamming cheap psyker like AM or FW Heretics without it being part of the army design like GK or TSons which already have a weakened smite to begin with.

[DuskRaider]

That's because GW barely play tests their rules as it is and when they apply "fixes" they usually screw the pooch on that too.

[Stross]

FW Heretics 

 

They finished them, increasing its points to unbearable point. Now we stick to the 100 pts 5 man squad psykers, who is not characters. It is better than just pay 80 for 1 model.

[Panzer]

Yeah I know. It was just an example anyway. They didn't get nerfed for no reason after all. ^^

[Trevak Dal]

I guess while black legion isn't as awesome as it was in that black crusade supplement, (mmm, with the GOOD Decurion Formation for chaos not the narfi Black Legion specific one) it's not as bad as 5th-6th edition times.

[bozo69pd]

Lets not talk about the dark times of chaos... *shudders*

[Trevak Dal]

I memba the Happy days when my Tau were a menacing force of terror. *Sigh*

[Commissar K.]

Times are certainly changing and as has become clear with several interviews the intend of 8th edition really is to balance things out well enough. For sure crazy Stratagem and mixed combos remain and in reality it's these mixes and Stratagem options that lead to the strongest lists. As above and again, mixing is not exclusively strong for Chaos or Chaos Space Marines either.

A trend that does accur and is still very important to remember is that several of the regular Space Marine players are used to (because of previous editions) to play mono Chapter. While there is little to no reason to actually do this, the trend continues well since 3rd edition also really.

In the same vein many, if not all competitive Chaos players have left the same idea that mono Legion is even plausible let alone that they expect they will have their own Codex to attempt something as such, again this is also changing, so it's all for the good.

When we look at the objectively best results since last November we see the following (source: Blood of Kittens): http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/

"Space Marines vs Chaos Space Marines"
13 top 8 Ultra Marines lists
4 top 8 mixed Space Marines lists
4 top 8 Grey Knights lists
2 top 8 Blood Angels lists
1 top 8 Space Wolves list
Total: 24

14 top 8 mixed CSM lists
5 top 8 mixed Daemon lists* (*lists containing any choice from Codex CSM)
1 Death Guard list
Total: 20

So what does this say? Well to me it just shows that SM and CSM are actually very much working on an extremely compairable level. There is still one big exception here and that's that Space Marines are capable to present a mono-Chapter army that is most certainly as competitive as mixed Chaos Space Marines lists but at the same time most Chaos Space Marines lists are mixed which indeed open a larger slew of tactical designs. As before though there is actually nothing stopping SM players from creating mixed lists but objectively speaking they are doing tis much less so as CSM players do.

All in all with the Blood Angel Codex read back and forth and starting with the Dark Angel Codex I can only say that once again these Codex are as strong as we should expect and will continue to see. The moment SM players will mix and profit too they will also have a larger tactical variation available to them as Chaos Space Marines and with the likelyness of more SM Codex showing up as ever CSM Codex will show up it's save to say that SM is still in the lead. Based on what we know will come and Top 8 results.

The latter should absolutely not be an issue for CSM players however as the Daemon Codex is bound to be massive and will lead to another tactical depth that is much rarer for SM players to obtain, which is essentially very cheap, melee killy, summoned/teleporting Infantry. This edge will certainly remain great for CSM and again this is also all the more reason for SM players to consider mixing in Grey Knights for their armies too.

TLDR; 8th's design is fantastic considering the massive ammounts of units and while we will see the strongest combo's dissapear there is still tons and tons of possabilities for all Space Marine, be it following the Emprah or Chaos Gods.

[Stross]

TLDR; 8th's design is fantastic considering the massive ammounts of units and while we will see the strongest combo's dissapear there is still tons and tons of possabilities for all Space Marine, be it following the Emprah or Chaos Gods.

 

It is true, but the possibility to build mono Legion without suffering losing more than 50 percent of capabilites is not so good for CSM. I hope they redone some things for the better balance, but I can't say, they understand things corrently. And it is not about Malefic Lords, increasing the price of special for renegades, but prices on csm. 

Vindicators and Defilers are pretty cheap for what they can do, I agree with them. But Bikes rules need to be changed, I would not run them even for 10 points. Also Mutilators need to be redone. Even for 45 they are not working. And many other units as well. 

It is look like they are not even tested, and for price changes they just looked at the army lists of players and didn't find these units and thought that a small price reduction is going to help. But it is not, when the core rules of the unit are broken.