Making Chaos Space marines (and troops) more viable

[Iron_Within]

So this is an of shoot thought of another thread that I've been thinning about. As an iron warrior's player I've always tried to take regular chaos space marines troops choices, but, as times gone on, I can't, they are rubbish measured up against cultists. It's a shame as well because they're the iconic model/unit. If I play against Astra Militarum etc. With a chaos space marine list I'm playing to lose. I'm not talking super competitive either, and neither is this isolated issue either, space marine tactical squads have this issue as do Aeldari Guardians. So, what could GW do to alleviate this situation?

 

Imo what they could do is below, one are specific to chaos space marines:

- reduce points costs of csm (and havocs? By 1).

- create new specific "unit only" strategems for troops choices.

- further limit strategems unit use in matched play (?)

 

What I'll do is ill give this thread a week or so then collate intro a feedback email

[Panzer]

I think removing ObSec from Horde type units would already go a long way. Without having to compete with Cultists as much and being able to hold objectives against other horde type units the basic Chaos Marine would be a lot more viable already.

 

Introducing more unit specific Stratagems sounds like a bad idea to me. The viability of units is constantly shifting with point adjustmens from GW and other Codexes/units getting introduced to the game so the viability of such Stratagems would be constantly shifting as well. It would prevent GW from buffing Chaos Marines properly because they might end up too strong with the wrong kind of Stratagem while being too weak without using that Stratagem.

Unit specific Stratagems can be fun and fluffy but I'd much rather prefer Stratagems based on keywords. If you want to make the Stratagem a good pick for basic Chaos Marines then make it one you'd want to use with them based on their battlefield role (objective capturing with lots of ablative wounds for few special/heavy weapons). That'd be a smarter way of Stratagem designing imo.

[totgeboren]

Reducing their cost by 1 pts means you get a massive say 20-30 pts extra in your army using CSM instead of cultists. That is simply not enough to swing the balance in any meaningful way.

Creating Troop specific stratagems would mean that an army using CSM would have less CP available for the heavy hitters compared to the same army using Cultists, if CSM were balanced that way. So the end result is still that a cultist-based army is strictly better.

 

The big problem is that they need something they do well. Lets say you have 100 pts to spend. You can spend it on one unit of CSM or Cultists. The cultists are likely both more resilient and they definitely do more damage, while they can be taken in small cheaper units, allowing for better table control and especially allows for more detachments, and therefor more CP.

 

Taking CSM means much less CP, so they need to compensate for that by being noticeably better than Cultists for the points.

 

Or, what they need to do is rethink the CP and Detachment system. You should be rewarded with more CP if you take a cumbersome army with few but large units (who are harshly penalized by the moral rules).
For example, a suggestion. You start with CP equal to the points played divided by 100 (rounded down). You then lose say 3 CP per detachment you field, and 3 pts per codex used (should probably be based on number of faction keywords in your list instead).

CSM/Tactical/Raptors/Havocs/Devastators/Chosen and so on should have a rule called something like 'Tactical adaptability'. If the unit is 10+ strong, you should get +1 CP.

[Aothaine]

I disagree that CSM squads are bad or even worse than cultists. They fill a different role. Something I've seen Ork players do is really interesting and I think it would work really well with a CSM list. Maybe not specifically with Iron Warriors, but it will work pretty well. What they do is build half their squad for ranged combat and the other half for close combat. You remove the ranged guys as your unit races up the field to assault.

 

Please don't misunderstand me. Cultists are good. With Iron Warriors they are even better. But CSMs are good too. It just depends on what you want them to do. I feel that too many people focus on the lists that rank high in tournaments they will never be apart of. There are ways to use almost every unit in every dex effectively. Centurions are most likely the best example of a unit that is almost completely useless. CSMs are really good. 

 

Try having a 40 man cultist blob backed up by your warlord giving them auto-pass morale, then you can have 5 squads of 5-man CSM squads with a lascannon each. This allows you to look at other options for heavy support or go into a fast attach approach with your list. 

 

There are a ton of really good lists that have the potential of winning games and tournaments. But people just see one list that was used well and think that is the only way to do things. Break the mold. You'll find there are a lot of really cool things in the CSM codex alone.

[Panzer]

 

Or, what they need to do is rethink the CP and Detachment system. You should be rewarded with more CP if you take a cumbersome army with few but large units (who are harshly penalized by the moral rules).

For example, a suggestion. You start with CP equal to the points played divided by 100 (rounded down). You then lose say 3 CP per detachment you field, and 3 pts per codex used (should probably be based on number of faction keywords in your list instead).

 

CSM/Tactical/Raptors/Havocs/Devastators/Chosen and so on should have a rule called something like 'Tactical adaptability'. If the unit is 10+ strong, you should get +1 CP.

 

Yeah or what I said in the other thread, removing the CPs from detachments and adding it to the Datasheets of each unit. Horde type units giving only 0.5, basic units 1, expensive elite units 2 and so on (of course just random numbers since I don't plan to re-write the rules for real lol).

I disagree that CSM squads are bad or even worse than cultists. They fill a different role.

 

Unfortunately tournament players  (the ones who really care about min-maxing their armies to win and not to have fun) and more importantly results on tournaments disagree with your opinion.

[Iron_Within]

Reducing their cost by 1 pts means you get a massive say 20-30 pts extra in your army using CSM instead of cultists. That is simply not enough to swing the balance in any meaningful way.

Creating Troop specific stratagems would mean that an army using CSM would have less CP available for the heavy hitters compared to the same army using Cultists, if CSM were balanced that way. So the end result is still that a cultist-based army is strictly better.

 

The big problem is that they need something they do well. Lets say you have 100 pts to spend. You can spend it on one unit of CSM or Cultists. The cultists are likely both more resilient and they definitely do more damage, while they can be taken in small cheaper units, allowing for better table control and especially allows for more detachments, and therefor more CP.

 

Taking CSM means much less CP, so they need to compensate for that by being noticeably better than Cultists for the points.

 

Or, what they need to do is rethink the CP and Detachment system. You should be rewarded with more CP if you take a cumbersome army with few but large units (who are harshly penalized by the moral rules).

For example, a suggestion. You start with CP equal to the points played divided by 100 (rounded down). You then lose say 3 CP per detachment you field, and 3 pts per codex used (should probably be based on number of faction keywords in your list instead).

 

CSM/Tactical/Raptors/Havocs/Devastators/Chosen and so on should have a rule called something like 'Tactical adaptability'. If the unit is 10+ strong, you should get +1 CP.

I really like the idea that units/ models grant Cp rather than detachments, or at least detachments give much less. My own meta has AM give buckets of Cp.

[DreamIsCollapsing]

Cultist shoudnt get Legion's Tactic (but Daemonic vehicules should, or at least their god bonus). 

 

I agree with more specific units stratagem. 

[Halandaar]

The problem for me is that "horde" troops are not significantly weaker than "elite" troops like Astartes on a directly comparable basis.

 

I mean, a cultist is just a chav with an ASBO you've given a basic firearm and/or piece of lead pipe to. He should not be hitting things with 75% the success rate of a 10,000 year old genetically modified warrior monk, and his basic firearm (or lead pipe) should certainly not be causing fatal damage to that warrior monk a third of the time. It's nonsense.

 

Horde units (as a whole, across the game) need nerfing so that they are properly crap on an individual level, and the sheer number of them is their only strength. I'm talking Cultists only hitting things on 6s, having strength and toughness 2, never allow them to hold objectives against units with a higher leadership than them. Stuff like that. 

[Panzer]

Eh, it's better than having a unit that basically never hits and never wounds fighting against a unit that basically always hits and always wounds. The way it currently is may not be super logical in-universe but it's better for the game aspect. Nobody wants to play a unit that feels useless and is just there to die, even if it's just Cultists.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Eh, it's better than having a unit that basically never hits and never wounds fighting against a unit that basically always hits and always wounds. The way it currently is may not be super logical in-universe but it's better for the game aspect. Nobody wants to play a unit that feels useless and is just there to die, even if it's just Cultists.

Really? Because that's exactly what I use Cultists for. They're chaff, they're disruptions, they exist to be expendable and muck about with the enemy's plan. None of those tasks require them to be exceptionally tough or accurate with their weapons...yet they're still useful.

[Redtoof]

As someone who loves playing with loads of cultists/Termagants/boyz, I'd find it a massive kick in the balls if those units were terrible (again).

 

For me, a few points adjustments here and there should make marines more usable.

[Panzer]

 

Eh, it's better than having a unit that basically never hits and never wounds fighting against a unit that basically always hits and always wounds. The way it currently is may not be super logical in-universe but it's better for the game aspect. Nobody wants to play a unit that feels useless and is just there to die, even if it's just Cultists.

Really? Because that's exactly what I use Cultists for. They're chaff, they're disruptions, they exist to be expendable and muck about with the enemy's plan. None of those tasks require them to be exceptionally tough or accurate with their weapons...yet they're still useful.

 

 

Maybe I should've said almost nobody. ^^

[Iron Father Ferrum]

Apparently. Going back to the old "Troops question" thread in which I waxed eloquently on the uses of CSMs and Cultists, Troops choices have always played second fiddle to other org slots in the damage department. Too many times, war gamers focus solely on a units lethality rather than its support functions. Troops fill up table space, blocking maneuver and deep strike; they hold objectives better than anyone thanks to the various incarnations of OBSEC; and while their lethality is less compared to Elites and Heavies, they can be geared to provide backup to those other more heavily-armed unit types that invariably draw heavy fire.

[Marshal van Trapp]

If you took away chaff units ability to hold objectives I think that'd be enough, however there is a big discrepancy we aren't addressing, what counts as a chaff unit? Orks don't really have elite troop selections, boyz and Gretchen are equally chaff but serve different purposes. And then you have eldar and marines, both don't really have chaff units, guardians and dire avengers are both equally good and serve different roles. Same goes for scouts and marines. Honestly it comes down to, what is and is not a "horde" unit and does it's status as a horde make it more or less desirable over other more "elite" troops

[Skaorn]

I think modifying rules can be done to effect the divide between horde and elite units can be done without drastically changing rules of the units. Some things of the top of my head would be horde loses obsec when under 50% but elites don't or horde units get 1/2 CP if the unit is half the size of their maximum squad size. Both would push big mobs over several cheap little units so at least the horde would be more fluffy.

[Panzer]

That's the problem. Taking ObSec away from horde units only works for armies that have something else than those. Orks and AM are armies that only have hordes and vehicles basically so that would kinda ruin them on the spot.

[Marshal van Trapp]

I think a big issue with pushing larger horde units is they suffer dramatically from morale. If you have say a 40man horde squad, if it doesn't have a way to circumvent morale it just dies if it takes half of its models in losses. Orks being the exception (their ld is tied to # of boyz in the squad) most horde units have low morale already so making them take larger squads just makes them more fragile. I honestly think the answer is to buff the more elite troops to a point where it's a choice of personal taste rather than "well these units are better"

 

Edit: unfortunately this is also a slippery slope where the elite units need to be balanced around not just the horde units, but also the other units in the book, AS WELL AS units from other factions

[Halandaar]

Eh, it's better than having a unit that basically never hits and never wounds fighting against a unit that basically always hits and always wounds. The way it currently is may not be super logical in-universe but it's better for the game aspect. Nobody wants to play a unit that feels useless and is just there to die, even if it's just Cultists.

 

I would counter that a great many people in a large number of factions play units whose entire job is to die while being as annoying as possible. Nobody is taking Nurglings for their damage output are they? The entire nature of Cultists (and indeed Conscripts in Guard armies) is that they are expendable screens for things that are better than them.

 

Apparently. Going back to the old "Troops question" thread in which I waxed eloquently on the uses of CSMs and Cultists, Troops choices have always played second fiddle to other org slots in the damage department. Too many times, war gamers focus solely on a units lethality rather than its support functions. Troops fill up table space, blocking maneuver and deep strike; they hold objectives better than anyone thanks to the various incarnations of OBSEC; and while their lethality is less compared to Elites and Heavies, they can be geared to provide backup to those other more heavily-armed unit types that invariably draw heavy fire.

 

I don't think that's the case here though; if anything, the point being made is that units like Cultists, Conscripts and the like have too much lethality on top of their other uses as objective-campers / area-deniers / speedbumps, and it's not so much the killing power of CSM that's in question, but rather their staying power.

 

That's the problem. Taking ObSec away from horde units only works for armies that have something else than those. Orks and AM are armies that only have hordes and vehicles basically so that would kinda ruin them on the spot.

 

This is a fair point, but there is some small distinction inside both armies, for example between Infantry Squads and Conscripts, and between Gretchin and Boyz. Maybe The weaker/worse units could have these kind of nerfs while the "better" units can still contest as normal. 

[Skaorn]

That's the problem. Taking ObSec away from horde units only works for armies that have something else than those. Orks and AM are armies that only have hordes and vehicles basically so that would kinda ruin them on the spot.

If this was a response to my post, I meant that they would have to loose 51+% of their numbers to loose obsec, not that you didn't get it if you took them at 50% their maximum unit size.

 

@MarshalvT: I would say what you're talking about is more the problems of the morale system in general than the difference between elites vs hordes. In theory the idea that hordes are prone to loose more guys to bad morale rolls than elites works. Then you add in all the mechanics that modify or ignore these rules on both sides of the aisle and that theory gets throne out the window and set on fire.

[sishuttleworth]

I like the idea of the mainstay unit (from a fluff point of view) providing extra CP. To limit spamming you might impose a minimum unit size. E.g "tactical flexibility - each unit of at least 10 Chaos Space Marines grants one extra command point". Tactical Squads, Guardians, etc would have an equivalent.

[Panzer]

 

Eh, it's better than having a unit that basically never hits and never wounds fighting against a unit that basically always hits and always wounds. The way it currently is may not be super logical in-universe but it's better for the game aspect. Nobody wants to play a unit that feels useless and is just there to die, even if it's just Cultists.

 

I would counter that a great many people in a large number of factions play units whose entire job is to die while being as annoying as possible. Nobody is taking Nurglings for their damage output are they? The entire nature of Cultists (and indeed Conscripts in Guard armies) is that they are expendable screens for things that are better than them.

 

And I would counter that by a great many people using Cultists to increase the amount of Poxwalker (another cheap horde unit) which in return gets buffed to do the damage or using Cultists in combination with VotLW and other buffs to deal lots of damage or using Scouts not just because of the special deployment but also because they are a cheaper source of Bolter and Heavy Bolter than Tacticals.

Conscripts got mainly used for their cheap damage output with orders and being hard to shift with a Commissar around. Now almost nobody takes them anymore.

Nurglings are kinda a special case since the special deployment is already strong enough on its own and they are more durable than they look with their 5++/5+++ so they don't need to do a whole lot of damage. Not every horde unit has such a special deployment rule tho.

 

I'm not saying the main purpose of those units isn't to stand in the way and eventually die. But there's a huge difference between a unit standing around waiting to die but also having a decent chance to damage something and a unit standing around to die without having a proper chance to deal some damage in terms of how a unit feels on the table.

 

 

That's the problem. Taking ObSec away from horde units only works for armies that have something else than those. Orks and AM are armies that only have hordes and vehicles basically so that would kinda ruin them on the spot.

 

This is a fair point, but there is some small distinction inside both armies, for example between Infantry Squads and Conscripts, and between Gretchin and Boyz. Maybe The weaker/worse units could have these kind of nerfs while the "better" units can still contest as normal.

 

That's just comparing the units within the same Codex tho, not comparing them against other Codexes. Elite armies would still have the same problems against those hordes and with the possibility of building soups those hordes would still be a better pick then lets say Tactical Marines.

I like the idea of the mainstay unit (from a fluff point of view) providing extra CP. To limit spamming you might impose a minimum unit size. E.g "tactical flexibility - each unit of at least 10 Chaos Space Marines grants one extra command point". Tactical Squads, Guardians, etc would have an equivalent.

 

That's what the Troop tax for the Battalion was supposed to represent. Unfortunately depending on what kind of army you're looking the cheap hordes like Cultists are as much a mainstay unit as the classic Chaos Marines just that they outclass the Chaos Marines.

[Res Ipsa Loquitur]

Make Cultists a 0-1 choice.

 

J.D.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

 

Apparently. Going back to the old "Troops question" thread in which I waxed eloquently on the uses of CSMs and Cultists, Troops choices have always played second fiddle to other org slots in the damage department. Too many times, war gamers focus solely on a units lethality rather than its support functions. Troops fill up table space, blocking maneuver and deep strike; they hold objectives better than anyone thanks to the various incarnations of OBSEC; and while their lethality is less compared to Elites and Heavies, they can be geared to provide backup to those other more heavily-armed unit types that invariably draw heavy fire.

 

 

I don't think that's the case here though; if anything, the point being made is that units like Cultists, Conscripts and the like have too much lethality on top of their other uses as objective-campers / area-deniers / speedbumps, and it's not so much the killing power of CSM that's in question, but rather their staying power.

 

And I would disagree with both of those premises. BS4+ S3 AP- shooting is only a serious threat in absolutely massive quantities, and the harder the target the less of a threat it poses. Sure, you can kill the occasional Marine with Cult blobs, but putting wounds on anthring bigger is generally a statistical anomaly. The lethality of low-quality horde units (I'm not counting Guardians in this; they can be fielded in large numbers, sure, but their skills and weapons are both better in quality than Cultists or Conscripts) only rates because people take them in quantity to abuse them at area denial or OODA Loop disruption. At that point their guns are an added benefit.

 

On CSMs, I feel that their staying power is underrated. Everybody talks big game about how Tacticals and equivalent suck compared to lower cost alternatives. . . But when was the last time you ever tried them? And I don't mean, play one game with one squad. I mean actually built an army around them and played at least 20 games so you've got a good spread of experiences to consider as evidence. Because I regularly win games, and have been since 5th Edition, on the backs of Tactical Squads. There are times when I wish they had better guns or more melee attacks or were faster or whatever, but if leveraged properly and employed in sufficient numbers, they win games. They're not flashy about it, they don't fill the table, but they can get :cuss done if you work to master them.

 

And yes, I did just imply that hordes are "easy mode." Change my mind.

[totgeboren]

 

And I would disagree with both of those premises. BS4+ S3 AP- shooting is only a serious threat in absolutely massive quantities

 

6 Cultists shooting with autoguns at guardsmen should kill about 1.

6 CSM shooting with bolters at a Guardsman should kill about ~1.8. So a CSM is not even two times as potent at range as a Cultist, yet costs more than three times as much.

What this tells us is that CSM shooting also requires pretty massive quantities to be a threat, but they cost way too much to be able to be used in that way.

 

Same with resilience. A boltgun hit to your CSM will lead to on average 2.2 pts losses for you. The same hit to your cultists will lead to about the same points loss, but with the huge difference that powerful guns are not really more potent than that, while your CSM will tremble in their boots at the sight of plasmaguns.

 

And that is the big issue as I see it with the relative power of CSM and cultists. They have less offensive output than Cultists and are much more vulnerable to heavier weapons than Cultists. The only thing CSM have going for them is their access to good heavy and special weapons (not a bad thing at all, but arguable if it's enough.)

But what people use Troops for is to fill out Detachments, to get CP for buffing Elites and such. Spending points on more 'powerful' troops leads to a direct loss of efficiency for your heavy hitters, since you lose out on so many CP.

 

And I think that is perhaps the main problem. Spending points on Cultist Troops makes your heavy hitters better since you get more CP. Spending those points on CSM leads to worse performance of your heavy hitters since you get much fewer CP.

[Panzer]

Make Cultists a 0-1 choice.

 

J.D.

 

Artificial restrictions like that are the worst.