Expanding CSM – where to go from here?

[Ceranidian]

So after being in a bit of a 40k lull for a while the new CSM releases gave me a big burst of hobby motivation and I've been quickly (by my standards...) building and painting a small 1000pts army. I'm almost done (just finishing up some characters over the next week or so), and obviously that means I have to figure out what to get next!

 

This is what I have so far: 

Daemon Prince

Sorcerer (magnetized jump pack/backpack)

2x5 CSM (with plasma and combi-plasma)

10 Cultists

3 Obliterators

1 Venomcrawler

 

This to me feels like a solid core that I could take in many different directions while building towards 2000pts. I think 2 or 3 DiscoLords are definitely on the to buy-list, but apart from that I have a few different ideas:

 

TIME TO GET LOUD

I think Don Hoosons idea of using Masters of Executions as chaff clearers supreme sounds really fun (link), so maybe going down the Emperor's Children route could be interesting. Add a MoE or two and some noise marines, crank up the bass and get ready to rock the galaxy. 

 

PIRATES OF THE CADIABEAN

Red Corsairs! Get some more CSM, and maybe some units that can benefit from advance + charge (Possessed? Berzerkers? Smashy Helbrutes?). Yarr!

 

DOMO ARIGATO MR... DAEMON ENGINE?

Venomcrawlers, Maulerfiends, Defilers, maybe even a Heldrake or two? Blood slaughterers for maximum carnage? Full on monster mash, baby!

 

 

What do you guys think? Any of the above sound like a good direction to go, or maybe there is something completely different I haven't even thought of? I like to play at least semi-competitively, but not on the level where I can't squeeze one or two slightly suboptimal but fun choices in. Hit me with your wisdom, fellow heretics!

[Syrakul]

What legion/renegade chapter do you paint it as? I like the look of some of the renegade chapters detailed in vigilus book 2. If you wanted to go daemon engine the khorne aligned brazen beasts would be dope but im not happy the renegades advance-charge doesn't apply to those.

 

Red corsairs definitely! Get a big dirty mob of CSM that can move up the table quick with warptime and turn two either advance/charge OR use 3cp strat to redeploy if they were shot and charge (khorne+Icon is a must here)

 

Also some CC contemptors can get traits (adv.+charge)

I would still get some more cultists if you can to bulk out your numbers. Consider Cadian models, traitor legionnaires, necro gangs, lots of options can represent them.

[Ceranidian]

I've painted them in a custom colour scheme so I can run them as whatever I want.

I do like the renegade chapters as well, although I think the mark restrictions they added in the FAQ was quite a severe nerf to some of them (like the Brazen Beasts you mention, no more psychic support). The Purge, Red Corsairs and Flawless Host seem to be the standouts.

Good point about FW dreads also getting traits, that could be fun to experiment with!

Got about 15 more autogun cultists lying around (the old Dark Vengeance models) , although I'm not really looking forward to painting those up...

[Doom Herald]

The way the FAQ was done actually just keeps you from taking the renegade faction keywords if you don't have the mark. The section on renegade traits does still say you can take whichever trait you feel works best. This means you just can't use the Warlord Trait, Relic, and Stratagem for those warbands without the matching god.

 

If you do EMPERORS CHILDREN it might be fun to give a Master of Executions Blisgiver and Flames of spite for a little extra beat down power. Using the traitor legions strat, that's 2 mortal wounds on a 5+ wound roll. Plus, a whip on that guy would look cool, my opinion. I like Noise marines personally.

 

Bikers are looking really good now that Bolter Discipline is official. They have all that movement and can fire 4 bolt rounds per bike at full range and that's before you give a combi-bolter to the champ.

 

It might feel a little unfluffy, but you could also split into 2 warbands to give your brazen beasts psychic support.

 

I think EMPERORS CHILDREN would be the most fun, but red corsairs or Brazen Beasts with a second faction dettachments for psykers might work best. Maybe even Brazen Beasts just for your engines and do everything else as corsairs.

[Ceranidian]

I'm aware of the renegade factions rules interaction you mention, but feel like it might be a bit of an unintended loophole so I'll probably stay away from it for the time being. 

 

I also think Emperor's Children sounds like a lot of fun. I like the idea of a MoE with Flames of Spite just mowing down 1-wound models with VotLW and Excess of Violence. 

 

So many options... That's what's fun about Chaos I guess!

[Syrakul]

I agree that even when you have a custom chapter and are ‘taking the trait you like best’ for proper rules intents your army is replacing the LEGION keyword with the keyword of that legion. At least RAI. If that legion then states it must be khorne only you would be bound to that rule as well no?

[Verbal Underbelly]

Good paintjob there pal.

[CMDR_Welles]

I've had to readjust what I recommend to someone starting a new army/coming into the hobby. With previous editions, I always recommended starting with

an HQ choice and two Troops choices. Things have changed a bit with 8e, but the same core principle is the same. Start with the bare minimum for a

Battalion Detachment. For this, you need two HQ, and 3 troops choices. I feel that a Battalion is the best starting point as it will give you the most

bang in games. It can also be used as a guide to expand out from. Once you have a solid core, you can pretty much go with whatever else you like. I

cant speak to what is "optimal" as I am not a competitive player, my armies are made from what I think are cool, and what I want to paint.

 

I'm "starting" a "new" Black Legion army currently, so this is my planned core for my Battalion:

 

Chaos Lord

Master of Possession

 

Chaos Marines x10

Chaos Marines x10

Cultists x30

 

From here, I can already add Raptors and Spawn for Fast Attack, and for Heavy Support I've got a Forgefiend, 2 Obliterators, and a Defiler.

I've got a Helbrute for Elites, and a Heldrake as a Flyer.

 

I'd still like to add some Rhinos, maybe a Chaos Landraider, and some Havocs. All that can be added once I have my core done however.

[Doom Herald]

I agree that even when you have a custom chapter and are ‘taking the trait you like best’ for proper rules intents your army is replacing the LEGION keyword with the keyword of that legion. At least RAI. If that legion then states it must be khorne only you would be bound to that rule as well no?

Myself and many others would argue no. The relics, warlord trait and strat are designed specifically to interact with a keyword and make no mention of choosing whichever fits best. Renegade traits however say, in the second paragraph, "If your chosen renegade chapter does not have an associated renegade trait, you can instead pick the trait that you think best represents your army." The faq says, I'm the example of the PURGE, "all PURGE units must have the NURGLE keyword..."

 

So, for example, I could call my example renegades KHORNEY COMPANY, all with KHORNE keyword. Because they have no associated renegade trait, I can choose any renegade trait I feel fits best. I choose Bringers of Oblivion, the trait associated with the PURGE. I can do this because the second paragraph in the renegade traits rules says I can pick any trait for a warband not listed and there is no qualifier about which god keyword I have. So, does this mean I'm just taking a semantic back door to use PURGE rules? No. Because in exchange for being able to take the PURGE associated renegade trait with KHORNE units, I lose access to the PURGE warlord trait, strat, and relic because these are all dependent on the PURGE keyword being present and unlike renegade traits, they do not have a section saying you can pick any warlord trait, strat, or relic for warband that lacks one.

 

Legion traits also lack any rule saying you can take which ever trait you feel best represents your <LEGION> and instead say they use renegade traits if they don't have a propper legion. This is why you don't see Slaanesh marines using Butchers Nails, because there is no extra paragraph saying you can choose any Legion Trait.

 

I actually discussed this occurrence with a Tau player friend of mine and he tells me that the way Renegade Traits are written are more inline with the way their corresponding traits rules are written than Legion Traits are. From what I hear, the rigindness on Legion Traits is a bit odd.

 

Basicly, you give up 3/4 things that make up a warbands rules in order to take the warband trait with a different god alignment. This sounds like a fair trade-off to me. The reason you can is because an added paragraph on Renegade traits says you can and the restrictions on god aligned warbands only give a restriction to that keyword and no mention to warband traits. I do believe it was intentionally done this way. That said, I suppose it is POSSIBLE that it was not given the way GW bumbles through CSM rules.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

 

I agree that even when you have a custom chapter and are ‘taking the trait you like best’ for proper rules intents your army is replacing the LEGION keyword with the keyword of that legion. At least RAI. If that legion then states it must be khorne only you would be bound to that rule as well no?

Legion traits also lack any rule saying you can take which ever trait you feel best represents your <LEGION> and instead say they use renegade traits if they don't have a propper legion. This is why you don't see Slaanesh marines using Butchers Nails, because there is no extra paragraph saying you can choose any Legion Trait.

This paragraph is actually incorrect. The codex states that "If your Chaos Space Marines are from a Renegade Chapter, or if they do not otherwise have an associated trait, use the Renegade Chapters trait opposite."

 

So for example: Lord Arkos from the FW Index comes with both the ALPHA LEGION and FAITHLESS keywords but his aura only affects FAITHLESS. Ergo, you must take FAITHLESS as your <LEGION> keyword on units to benefit from his aura. The Faithless are an Alpha Legion warband, however; they use Alpha Legion colors and Alpha Legion tactics and claim to be members of the Alpha Legion, and Arkos himself was FAQed to hold both keywords simultaneously. Ergo, instead of being pigeonholed as Renegades, they are associated with the Alpha Legion and can use the Alpha Legion's "associated" trait.

 

Because they lack the ALPHA LEGION keyword though, they can't use the relic and only Arkos himself (who has both keywords) can use the Warlord Trait.

[Doom Herald]

 

 

I agree that even when you have a custom chapter and are ‘taking the trait you like best’ for proper rules intents your army is replacing the LEGION keyword with the keyword of that legion. At least RAI. If that legion then states it must be khorne only you would be bound to that rule as well no?

Legion traits also lack any rule saying you can take which ever trait you feel best represents your <LEGION> and instead say they use renegade traits if they don't have a propper legion. This is why you don't see Slaanesh marines using Butchers Nails, because there is no extra paragraph saying you can choose any Legion Trait.

This paragraph is actually incorrect. The codex states that "If your Chaos Space Marines are from a Renegade Chapter, or if they do not otherwise have an associated trait, use the Renegade Chapters trait opposite."

 

So for example: Lord Arkos from the FW Index comes with both the ALPHA LEGION and FAITHLESS keywords but his aura only affects FAITHLESS. Ergo, you must take FAITHLESS as your <LEGION> keyword on units to benefit from his aura. The Faithless are an Alpha Legion warband, however; they use Alpha Legion colors and Alpha Legion tactics and claim to be members of the Alpha Legion, and Arkos himself was FAQed to hold both keywords simultaneously. Ergo, instead of being pigeonholed as Renegades, they are associated with the Alpha Legion and can use the Alpha Legion's "associated" trait.

 

Because they lack the ALPHA LEGION keyword though, they can't use the relic and only Arkos himself (who has both keywords) can use the Warlord Trait.

My statement was not incorrect. It states if they are not from the named Legions, they use renegade traits. What I was saying is that it does not say you may choose any Legion Trait on a <LEGION> fill-in that you like.

 

In regards to FAITHLESS, strictly speaking nothing identifies this keyword as a qualified fill-in for <LEGION> anyway. This means that per RAW, changing <LEGION> to FAITHLESS would be akin to changing <LEGION> to ULTRAMARINES, or better yet changing <LEGION> to RAPTORS and expecting Haarken to buff RAPTORS cultists. By RAW, Arkos only buffs himself since no other unit has FAITHLESS, unless you change another keyword to the same word, which is then treated differently by rules.

 

Arkos and similar are kind of the epitome of GW/FW ignoring problem rules. It was obviously originally intended as a suitable <LEGION> fill-in, but they never actully SAID IT was. Legend even holds that FW once sent an e-mail to people who asked saying that FAITHLESS would use renegade traits until a later publication expanded on them. It could even be argued, now that Arkos has been eratad to have both that there is less reason to view FAITHLESS as a viable <LEGION>. It could be argued, as you say, that FAITHLESS come from the ALPHA LEGION and should there for benefit from their LEGION trait, however nothing in any 8th edition game publication actually says this or even that they are from ALPHA LEGION.

[Iron Father Ferrum]

That's a ridiculous argument. Look at Huron. Huron has the RED CORSAIRS keyword and it's never explained that it's a <LEGION> keyword but no one claims that it's not.

[Doom Herald]

That's a ridiculous argument. Look at Huron. Huron has the RED CORSAIRS keyword and it's never explained that it's a <LEGION> keyword but no one claims that it's not.

In the strictest sense, no, but it is listed alongside <LEGION> and other fill-in words on pg. 162 under Chaos Space Marines Units & then again under Legion Traits on the next page we are explicitly told that having RED CORSAIRS makes a unit renegades which would use the renegade Legion Trait. This coupled with 118 under <LEGION> [as a section title] mentioning that <LEGION> is filled in by the Legion or Renegade Warband they belong to makes it clear that it is a <LEGION> stand in. FAITHLESS is literally only mentioned in rule books in Arkos' special rules entry and his Keywords, which already have an established <LEGION> stand-in. I honestly believe the FAITHLESS is intended as a <LEGION> fill-in, the issue is other people fight this notion for the reasons I've given you. Try asking how FAITHLESS works on the FB community page, when I did I had several people telling me FAITHLESS is a dead keyword and that Arkos only buffs himself. They claim that it was intended to be expanded on but never was and absent clarification that it was not even a <LEGION> word. On top of this, the wording under the <LEGION> rules says you would replace <LEGION> either with their Legion or Renegade Warband name, this could be interpreted as saying if you aren't using a proper Legion it defaults to Renegades since you are given two options. As is often the case when people tell me I'm being absurd in rule interpretation, I am not arguing for how I personally believe the rules should or were meant to work, but rather what others argue and how it is supported by RAW.

 

That said, we seem to have gotten on a tangent. There is a thread, albeit an older one, that is on the topic of FAITHLESS and how they would work as a keyword. That is perhaps a more appropriate place if we would like to keep this topic in discussion so we do not detract from the OPs question. I hope no one mistakes this suggestion as anything other than a courtesy to the OP.

 

Personally, I would rather enjoy using a FAITHLESS Host Raptorial and dropping Warp Talons and a jump Lord with the +1 to charge warlord trait on top of Arkos to have Warp Talons with +2 charge. Whether I could though can and has been challenged and there is no solid ground to argue on. If you are playing with a local game group and everyone agrees on how FAITHLESS should work, there's no issue but outside of that there might be.

[Syrakul]

Well the FW indexes are a dumpster fire so I agree that faithless was likely an un-developed idea. If he already has ALPHA LEGION then FAITHLESS is likely a subfaction meant for unique AL under his unique warband.

If you look at the Blackstone Fortress Black Legion its sort of the same thing. They are BLACK LEGION but they have a keyword SERVANTS OF THE ABYSS. This allows them to have a second keyword along side human and monstrous models in the same group (traitor guard, beastmen etc)

[jkoczan42]

As far as expansion for your forces go, I'd highly suggest more CSM bodies. Having larger troop choices for a base to work from means you'll have an easier time holding objectives, and at the same time they will be less vulnerable. It's easy to wipe 5 models off the table, getting enough dice to do so to 10 requires a bit more effort and firepower. All vehicle or vehicle armies are highly viable, but they are less flexible and harder to effectively move around the table if the terrain isn't in your favor.