The Chaos Space Marine Unit (Troop) in 9th

[Relic]

So at 14 points a pop in 9th the standard Chaos Space Marine is looking pricey compared to their Space Marine Primaris distant cousins. I think the initial knee jerk is to go minimum on troops in Chaos lists as not needed as much to generate CP. 

 

Where CSM Marine squads got some point drops in 9th is in the weapon options such as melta, combi weapons and lascannons. Not enough in most cases to offset the base increase in costs but is something if you do want to equip your squads - note though: in 8th a lot of people just ran some bare bones marine squads to fill slots. 

 

I thought it might be valuable to challenge my perceptions on them as 9th is a new edition and I do want to have actual chaos space marines in my army. Cards on the table - I was an 8th player who took cultists or bare bones CSM squads to fill troop tax slots. 

 

At this very initial stage of 9th I think the argument you could make for standard CSM is that they are MSU objective secure units who can run about and play the mission. That has value in 9th I think.

 

I am not sure you want to go down the weapon options route but if you do, they get some nice options a bit cheaper then before now. A five man squad with a combi melta and meltagun for 90 points is not exciting, but not terrible in the grand scheme of 9th points. Currently I am considering a few squads in that setup in Rhinos for playing the mission and putting wounds on the table that opponents have to chew through. 

 

An argument against that approach may be that our Marine cousins play the troop game much better and so CSM should concentrate on bringing those hard hitting armies that run a min amount of troops. 

 

I think now is a time to reconsider what is good and bad in the codex in light of 9th missions and rules. Why not start with a discussion on our most iconic unit in the army?

 

 

 

 

[Doom Herald]

Honestly, I've never had ObSec matter in 8th. It was my unit was destroyed or their unit was destroyed and usually the former happened from a range before the enemy could claim the objective. If I'm not mistaken, the big thing Primaris troops (most used troops, really) lack is reliable long range weaponry and I think that'ssomething CSM squads can do. Lascannons got a nice point drop and I believe Missile Launcher did too in addition to the blast rule. With the meta likely going towards troops and vehicles/monsters, both this will be good in my opinion for killing transports and big models, and the frag missiles will be good against enemy troops.

 

Personally, I'll be playing Creations of Bile so I'm quite happy with the versatile CSM squad that +1M & +1S gives me. 7" move, S5 (S10 with powerfist), and an autocannon for range. Hopefully new Legion Traits will be upgraded to a similar level and assist in deciding loadouts.

[Sonoftherubric21]

For my basic CSM the 5 man MSU's and a smattering of Cultists are how they will go. 

 

Both for my Irons and Night Lords. It will be the bare minimum points in troop slots needed + filling the rest with of the list with elites/heavies for Irons, and Fasts/terminators in Night Lords. 

Rhinos I think will feature with us. I have a feeling they will be important given our troops limited capacity for survival. 

 

Given we know for a fact that Night Lords are getting reworked I think that down the road we will expect some degree of multi-tiered tactics such as our current opposition has. That will probably be the standard across the board moving forward. 

Edited July 18, 2020 by Sonoftherubric21

[Doom Herald]

For my basic CSM the 5 man MSU's and a smattering of Cultists are how they will go.

 

Both for my Irons and Night Lords. It will be the bare minimum points in troop slots needed + filling the rest with of the list with elites/heavies for Irons, and Fasts/terminators in Night Lords.

 

Rhinos I think will feature with us. I have a feeling they will be important given our troops limited capacity for survival.

 

Given we know for a fact that Night Lords are getting reworked I think that down the road we will expect some degree of multi-tiered tactics such as our current opposition has. That will probably be the standard across the board moving forward.

How do we know NL are getting a rework?

[Excessus]

I'll be going for 10-man dual plasma + combiplas squads in rhinos...because they're cool and I'll make them work :P

[Varizel]

I only tried 9th ed once, and was not with CSM, but i found out that ObSec for me works if my troops assault objectives on their area or when you fought for middle zone supremacy. Meaning you gotta be pretty aggressive with your troops.

 

You have to remember that in 9th, scoring is done at the end of YOUR command phase, so you have to have a squad in good enough number to stand the punishment that is going to come its way. MSU just didn't work when i tested it for me. My opponents use some MSU for their backfield, and i used 2 rhinos with Tacticals to sweep his back field and contest midzone with my killy units and 1 MSU Tacticals (hiding) and hold it for a while, before the leftover tacticals comes in for the rescue with assault doctrines on.

 

Granted this is loyalists, so you got doctrines to amp up bolter's & melee weapon's prowess, but i think it should work the same for chaos. 

 

Edit:  It seems my expalantion was a bit contradicting when i said MSU didn't work and i used it to contest midfield... that MSU Tacts never survive turn 2

Edited July 18, 2020 by Varizel

[Drudge Dreadnought]

CSM are at a big disadvantage, but we have yet to see what CSM will be getting when their rules update finally comes. I doubt they'll be brought up to the level of primaris, but even just a trait rework would take them from bad to just sub optimal compared to loyalists.

 

From all the discussion I've seen of how 9th plays, not bringing troops just doesn't work out. So we should be looking at it as how to make the best use of our troops tax.

 

Plasma is still good, and with closer ranges and a lot more primaris likely to be on the board, is still a solid go to. 5 man plas+combi plas will do fine. Meltas are still not worth using over plasma, and flamers aren't likely to be necessary (and also aren't dangerous enough vs hordes to really be worth losing the plasma.)

 

Our heavy weapon selection is actually also really good. Autocannons were always a solid options due to being cheap. They aren't really great against anything, but they also aren't bad against anything. They are nice vs primaris too. Lascannons went down 10pts for infantry. Hard to go wrong with them either. Missiles launchers used to be inferior to ACs due to frag missiles being bad, but now that they've got blast, the math about averages out. And kraks will kill primaris. And of course the Reaper Chaincannon is one of the nastiest weapons in the game still. Good old LasPlas will work well, or single long ranged heavy weapon while holding backfield objectives. I wouldn't run them naked as if you're going to pay for the 5 bodies, at least let 4 of them be ablative wounds on a nice weapon.

 

It may also be necessary to take 10 man squads. In that case, triple plasma or double long range heavy weapon, depending on where you intend to put them on the board.

 

4 5 man squads in 2 rhinos is probably good for grabbing objectives.

[Khornestar]

I think the mentioned 5-man plasma+combi-plasma sounds as good as they can get. What I ponder is whether I’d prefer to keep boltguns on the remaining 3 goons or swap to pistol+chainsword.

 

3 rapid-firing bolters aren’t terrible, and allows the remainder of the unit to do more than nothing at range, but if CSM end up getting astartes chainswords one day (I make no assumptions, I’ll believe it when I see the words in official rules), I feel like the versatility to have SOME close combat ability at -1 AP might be worthwhile. Maybe?

[Drudge Dreadnought]

I think the mentioned 5-man plasma+combi-plasma sounds as good as they can get. What I ponder is whether I’d prefer to keep boltguns on the remaining 3 goons or swap to pistol+chainsword.

 

3 rapid-firing bolters aren’t terrible, and allows the remainder of the unit to do more than nothing at range, but if CSM end up getting astartes chainswords one day (I make no assumptions, I’ll believe it when I see the words in official rules), I feel like the versatility to have SOME close combat ability at -1 AP might be worthwhile. Maybe?

 

You'll usually get to fire several bolter shots before ending up in melee. If you get to fire the bolter before ending up in melee, then that will outweigh the extra AP. And with bolter discipline and the high likelyhood that you'll be sitting still on an objective, the bolter comes out way ahead.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Drudge Dreadnought

[Khornestar]

Yeah that makes a lot of sense, good point.

[MegaVolt87]

I am looking at AC + combi melta actually for going up against primaris forces. You get the multi dmg AC on infantry, the melta when they bring the invictor suits/ redemptors, which are great walkers IMO. Double plasma sounds good too, I was only thinking of the classic las/plas myself for plasma. Also, I think I will only be taking 20 CSM's in MSU instead of my usual 30. Drooping a squad, quick maths, should have enough for two rhino's. We can still battle bus multiple units in rhino's? 

[Drudge Dreadnought]

I am looking at AC + combi melta actually for going up against primaris forces. You get the multi dmg AC on infantry, the melta when they bring the invictor suits/ redemptors, which are great walkers IMO. Double plasma sounds good too, I was only thinking of the classic las/plas myself for plasma. Also, I think I will only be taking 20 CSM's in MSU instead of my usual 30. Drooping a squad, quick maths, should have enough for two rhino's. We can still battle bus multiple units in rhino's? 

 

Plasma outdamages the melta because it will get more shots off. Only reason to take the melta is if you're super worried about overheat. And at that point, you're probably better off taking nothing and putting that 10pts somewhere else. Combi meltas do not perform well except within 6", and even then it's really quite underwhelming for the cost.

[MegaVolt87]

Yeah, forgot about overcharge. I'll save the melta for bikes/ raptors I guess. 

[Relic]

Whilst I get the maths behind the plasma, sometimes I prefer the extra AP of the melta itself vs traditional units with no invulnerable save. The half range bump is clearly nice but not often relevant.

[techsoldaten]

CSM are not all bad.

 

Ask yourself this: at 14ppm, are 2 CSM better than 1 Terminator for the same points?

 

Terminator is more survivable in every case except D2 weapons. CSM, OTOH, have ObSec.

 

For a 9th edition game, which is better? Objectives matter a lot more than they did in previous editions.

[Captain Incompetence]

Terminators aren't just more survivable though, they got better damage output and have the ability to deepstrike.

 

I get what you're trying to say, but I still think 14ppm for a single wound model with no AP on it's bolter is a mediocre deal at best, and a terrible choice at worst. Even with ObSec, I wonder if we'll see many of them on the table over cultists. A lot of people think blast weapons will ensure that we don't see hordes all that much, but I honestly have my doubts about it. Even a Leman Russ with a battle cannon is on average going to kill 6 cultists with it's main gun. That's not actually that many, and with the way morale works, they'll stick around a lot longer than before anyway.

 

So would you rather have 10 wounds on a better toughness and save for 140 points, or 23 wounds on a worse toughness and practically non existant save for the same points? We also have to take into account that you score many objectives at the end of your command phase, this means your unit has to stick around for an entire round. This makes me think that the more wounds, the better, especially when we consider the abundance of AP-1 and AP-2 weapons we'll likely be facing from the plethora of loyalist marine players.

[Excessus]

In my mind it isn't about comparing CSM to Termies though, it's about using the three mandatory troop slots as good as you can. You can have CSM and Termies at the same time. Sure you could go with three min squads of cultists and treat them as a troop tax, but they will have a hard time to do anything meaningful on the battlefield. Or you can use CSM, and get a more sturdy unit that can actually achieve goals on the battlefield.

 

Personally I will bring 10-man squads, because of several reasons. One is that it's harder to reach the threshold for harder morale tests (below half strength), another is that it's harder to shoot away the shield for characters. Further it's less of a waste to use strategems on them, and for instance I can hide important units behind them more easily with my AL strategem.

 

 

...besides, CSM are cool... :P

[MasterDeath]

The of "To CSM or not to CSM" is imho decided by two factors.

 

1. Are Cultists better?

2. Is it worth it to spent 3 CP on a specialised Detachement?

 

Cultists offer 10 Wounds for 60 p. vs. CSMs 5 Wounds for 70 p. CSM are better at shooting and/or fighting (depending on Loadout), have more weapon options to make them more useful (but also more expensive) and getting shoot and survive. (T4 and 3+ sv). Cultists offer bodies and with "Tide of Traitors" potentialy lots of them. If you have a definitve answer please tell me, I am still undecided.

 

For the second question: Are 3 CP worth ~200 points? (I assume you want the second HQ for a Battalion anyway) Probably not.

[MegaVolt87]

I think a bubble boi DA would still be worth babysitting 20 CSM in msu's over the crown.

[techsoldaten]

Terminators aren't just more survivable though, they got better damage output and have the ability to deepstrike.

 

I get what you're trying to say, but I still think 14ppm for a single wound model with no AP on it's bolter is a mediocre deal at best, and a terrible choice at worst. Even with ObSec, I wonder if we'll see many of them on the table over cultists. A lot of people think blast weapons will ensure that we don't see hordes all that much, but I honestly have my doubts about it. Even a Leman Russ with a battle cannon is on average going to kill 6 cultists with it's main gun. That's not actually that many, and with the way morale works, they'll stick around a lot longer than before anyway.

 

So would you rather have 10 wounds on a better toughness and save for 140 points, or 23 wounds on a worse toughness and practically non existant save for the same points? We also have to take into account that you score many objectives at the end of your command phase, this means your unit has to stick around for an entire round. This makes me think that the more wounds, the better, especially when we consider the abundance of AP-1 and AP-2 weapons we'll likely be facing from the plethora of loyalist marine players.

For this comparions - ObSec is likely more important than damage output in 9th edition. Objectives matter more than nominal increases in bolter shots.

 

Saying this because I don't think CSM will be winning many firefights. A lot of our victories will come on points.

 

That said - Terminators can cap objectives differently from CSM. They have deep strike and better saves. There's different ways you'd want to use each.

[Rune Priest Ridcully]

Any thoughts on a minimum squad with flamer and combi flamer and chain axe? Thinking it could be a cheap way to try and shift enemy msu/barebones troops.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

Any thoughts on a minimum squad with flamer and combi flamer and chain axe? Thinking it could be a cheap way to try and shift enemy msu/barebones troops.

 

Combi-flamers are overpriced for what they offer. You're better off using plasma and firing it without overcharge. Or just stick with a combi-bolter and keep it cheap. The main issue though is that a squad that close ranged isn't going to do a whole lot. You're better off with another loadout and getting to fire more times. You could spent 5 more pts for a single Reaper Chaincannon and accomplish more, even with movement penalties because you'll fire more times.

[Doom Herald]

I've honestly never had ObSec make a difference for taking objectives. I see a lot of people echoing my sentiment that ObSec doesn't really matter, so I will ask how often ObSec has honestly made the difference in you taking objectives? To be fair, I usually take the minimum amount of troops I need.

[techsoldaten]

I've honestly never had ObSec make a difference for taking objectives. I see a lot of people echoing my sentiment that ObSec doesn't really matter, so I will ask how often ObSec has honestly made the difference in you taking objectives? To be fair, I usually take the minimum amount of troops I need.

Yeah, in 8th it wasn't as important. In 9th, holding objectives is harder and they can be worth a lot of points.

 

The question isn't whether it's been useful. The question is whether it wins games.

 

I haven't played a game of 9th and probably won't until late August. Will probably build my lists around objective takers.

[Doom Herald]

I understand holding objectives is more important in 9th, I'm just not sold that ObSec is REALLY going to help with that. I played with objectives in 8th and held several, but ObSec never came into play for me. For me, the question is not is holding objectives important but is rather: does ObSec actually help to hold objectives in any significant way in practice? Edited July 19, 2020 by Doom Herald