Wh40k 10th Edition Faction Focus - Chaos Space Marines

[BitsHammer]

1 hour ago, sitnam said:

And I like my Mutalith too

 

Except, that's not true. Tzaangors were released into mainstream 40k before Age of Sigmar. Their appearance in Silver Tower predated Wrath of Magnus by a few months. Marked Gors as a concept go all the way back to Rogue Trader too. Beastmen have always been a part of both universes, and the Tzaangors kit was designed with both from the offset

 

I have a hard time seeing how the Tzeentch faction, the followers of the god of birds and mutation, dont mesh well with literal bird mutants. Padding out the boxes is an entirely different issue however

The only issue with Tzaangors is that GW failed to extend that idea to the rest of Chaos. Khorngors, Slaangors and Pestigor are all classic god aligned beastmen in WFB and 40k, plus the unaligned Beastmen as well.

 

Honestly they could all serve as more melee focused cultists for Chaos to go with the squishier mortals without stepping into the same level of combat prowess that CSM themselves live in.

1 hour ago, jaxom said:

Personally, I'd like to see the Cypher Lords Warcry warband get repackaged to be Tzeentch Cultists for 40k. Mix-and-match them with Catachans or something.

Toss in the Kairic Acolytes as well.

[BitsHammer]

As for the Dark Pact, I honestly don't hate it. It trades specificity for being useful against a wider range of targets, though I suspect CSM will get more out of it in melee than shooting.

[Rain]

8 minutes ago, BitsHammer said:

The only issue with Tzaangors is that GW failed to extend that idea to the rest of Chaos. Khorngors, Slaangors and Pestigor are all classic god aligned beastmen in WFB and 40k, plus the unaligned Beastmen as well.

I would have loved Khorngors for World Eaters instead of the pointless generic “Jakhals” that we got. They even released a 40k beastmen Kill Team, instead of giving those sculpts to Chaos armies. Really sucks.

 

So many missed opportunities with the World Eaters release.

[sitnam]

1 minute ago, Rain said:

I would have loved Khorngors for World Eaters instead of the pointless generic “Jakhals” that we got. They even released a 40k beastmen Kill Team, instead of giving those sculpts to Chaos armies. Really sucks.

 

So many missed opportunities with the World Eaters release.

I think the Jakhals are an alright aculpt, but what did they really add that the very fresh Cultist kit doesn't bring along? And if you don't like the cultists, Necromunda has options for you. 

 

I'm honestly shocked you guys didn't get the Slaughterbrute like us TS guys got the Mutalith.

[Indy Techwisp]

58 minutes ago, sitnam said:

I think the Jakhals are an alright aculpt, but what did they really add that the very fresh Cultist kit doesn't bring along? And if you don't like the cultists, Necromunda has options for you. 

 

They've got a kind-of Mad Max vibe that fits more with Khorne than the "Guys in Creepy Masks" basic Cultists have.

[DemonGSides]

I will say I don't think Tzaangor necessarily screams "THOUSAND SONS", it does yell Tzeentch, but it would be cooler if the TSons cult unit was also a little more Psychic-focused, much the way Poxwalkers are disease focused, Jackals are "Rip and tear" focused; Something like Psychic Cultist Cabal, where it's all "humans" but they are also chaos-y and cultist-y.

Will Emp Children get "Harem cultists"?  Idk.  It's cool having both a Cultist unit to represent the random mortals that support a Chaos Legion, but then also having another mortals unit that swings a little closer to the "My God chose ME!" type of cultist, if that makes sense.  I think Death Guard does it pretty much perfect; use Cultists if you want to, but you're almost always better off running with the bespoke cultist unit, the Poxwalker.

Edited May 8, 2023 by DemonGSides

[danodan123]

I believe the detachment will just be chaos marks, like in the 9e codex, which isn't a bad, ties in with marks also. I think they've alluded to as such on the commentary in the article, could lead to an undivided detachment or single god detachments maybe?

 

Hopefully we can take our traitor guard in blobs of 20 (+dark commune and the one off commissar guy).

 

 

[Rain]

4 hours ago, sitnam said:

I think the Jakhals are an alright aculpt, but what did they really add that the very fresh Cultist kit doesn't bring along? And if you don't like the cultists, Necromunda has options for you. 

 

I'm honestly shocked you guys didn't get the Slaughterbrute like us TS guys got the Mutalith.

 

The sculpts themselves are okay, they are just redundant. They don’t bring anything to the table that cultists don’t already, both aesthetically, and in their gameplay niche. And with so many bespoke units they *could* have added but weren’t, like Red Butchers, Butcher Surgeons, and Juggernaut Cavalry, it just feels tone deaf for them to have given us a redundant chaff unit without even making them beastmen or something else a bit more distinct.

[spessmarine]

10 hours ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

The issue with Tzaangors is that they're an AoS model with no reason to be in the TSons, yet they pad out every box with them.

Everyone else got unique Cultist-type guys and we got the Beastmen of Chaos rejects.

 

Tzaangors came out for 40k proper first didn't they? In 2016? Then AoS shortly after with different variants.

[ThePenitentOne]

4 hours ago, Rain said:

 

The sculpts themselves are okay, they are just redundant. They don’t bring anything to the table that cultists don’t already, both aesthetically, and in their gameplay niche. And with so many bespoke units they *could* have added but weren’t, like Red Butchers, Butcher Surgeons, and Juggernaut Cavalry, it just feels tone deaf for them to have given us a redundant chaff unit without even making them beastmen or something else a bit more distinct.

 

I predict WE might get a decent second wave.

 

I'd like to see Beastmen make it into 40k- I really want some Slaangors... They look like little Keepers, and I think they'd really fit my Slaaneshi Daemons. 

[Tokugawa]

3 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

I predict WE might get a decent second wave.

 

I'd like to see Beastmen make it into 40k- I really want some Slaangors... They look like little Keepers, and I think they'd really fit my Slaaneshi Daemons. 

GW already released slaangor in AoS, however it is not the Slaanesh equivalent of tzanngor, it has more elite profile and bigger models.

[mel_danes]

These would make incredible chaos spawn in 40k.

 

[Grendaxe]

17 hours ago, prava said:

 

Yes, I believe your perception is off.

 

This isn't a "roll a dice, if you get a 6, this happens". Nope. This is a "increase your damage capability by 25% AT WORST".

 

In the end, on Marines you have something like 30% of suffereing D3 mortal wounds. In contrast, your damage capability increases by 25%.  On a squad that shoots 18 times you could go from 12 hits to 15 hits. +25%. In contrast, you will suffer d3 mortal wounds every 3 times you use this ability. So, it is very much worth. Even with anihilators it would be worth it if the sargent was alive. After... it would be a gamble.

 

And the ability to autowound on 6's is better than this 25% against some enemies. So worst case you get a +25% increase in damage output. But if you are a cultist you are getting +33%.

 

It is insanely powerful.

Sorry but I think your math is wrong?

If we look at the extra hit option on bolter CSM:

You have a 1/6 chance to gain an additional hit. This is a 16% damage increase not 25% on average.

 

In your example: 18 shots, 12 hits initially and then 2 extra hits. (18×(4/6)×(1/6)= 2).

So 14 hits instead of 12 = 16% increase.

 

On the other hand if you fail the LD check (on average) you lose 2 wounds which means you lose a model. And so you only get 16 shots.

 

(16×(4/6)×(7/6) = 12.4 hits. So you basically you lost a model for 0 reward.

 

The wound one is a bit more complex because technically you could shoot at tanks and thus with the auto wound do 100% more wounds but noone is going to care because you only do 1 dmg.

 

Also you wrote that it's a 25% increase at worst but this not true. Someone could easily roll 0 sixes getting 0 extra hits. Techincally at worst you can fail the LD and lose 2 models (1 already wounded) and thus 4 shots and get a 28.5% damage loss.

 

If you put this next to oath or the necron ability, who don't have downsides, I think it's pretty bad. And I don't even play CSM.

[Karhedron]

1 hour ago, Grendaxe said:

In your example: 18 shots, 12 hits initially and then 2 extra hits. (18×(4/6)×(1/6)= 2).

So 14 hits instead of 12 = 16% increase.

 

Not quite. 18 shots will average 12 hits and 3 6s on average so those 12 hits will become 15 hits which is indeed a 25% increase.

 

The reason is that you are assuming 1/6 hits will trigger the ability but in fact it is 1/6 shots that will trigger. That is where the discrepancy arises.

[tzeentch9]

2 hours ago, Grendaxe said:

Sorry but I think your math is wrong?

If we look at the extra hit option on bolter CSM:

You have a 1/6 chance to gain an additional hit. This is a 16% damage increase not 25% on average.

 

In your example: 18 shots, 12 hits initially and then 2 extra hits. (18×(4/6)×(1/6)= 2).

So 14 hits instead of 12 = 16% increase.

 

On the other hand if you fail the LD check (on average) you lose 2 wounds which means you lose a model. And so you only get 16 shots.

 

(16×(4/6)×(7/6) = 12.4 hits. So you basically you lost a model for 0 reward.

 

The wound one is a bit more complex because technically you could shoot at tanks and thus with the auto wound do 100% more wounds but noone is going to care because you only do 1 dmg.

 

Also you wrote that it's a 25% increase at worst but this not true. Someone could easily roll 0 sixes getting 0 extra hits. Techincally at worst you can fail the LD and lose 2 models (1 already wounded) and thus 4 shots and get a 28.5% damage loss.

 

If you put this next to oath or the necron ability, who don't have downsides, I think it's pretty bad. And I don't even play CSM.

You could also technically never fail the ld tests and get loads of 6s to hit. The potential is great, optimists will always use the rule, pessimists never will

[ZeroWolf]

We will see what happens when the new rules fully hit and the chaos legions go to war. That's when we get a better view of how this faction rules play out. I quite like what we're seeing here.

[RolandTHTG]

3 hours ago, Grendaxe said:

Sorry but I think your math is wrong?

If we look at the extra hit option on bolter CSM:

You have a 1/6 chance to gain an additional hit. This is a 16% damage increase not 25% on average.

 

In your example: 18 shots, 12 hits initially and then 2 extra hits. (18×(4/6)×(1/6)= 2).

So 14 hits instead of 12 = 16% increase.

 

On the other hand if you fail the LD check (on average) you lose 2 wounds which means you lose a model. And so you only get 16 shots.

 

(16×(4/6)×(7/6) = 12.4 hits. So you basically you lost a model for 0 reward.

 

The wound one is a bit more complex because technically you could shoot at tanks and thus with the auto wound do 100% more wounds but noone is going to care because you only do 1 dmg.

 

Also you wrote that it's a 25% increase at worst but this not true. Someone could easily roll 0 sixes getting 0 extra hits. Techincally at worst you can fail the LD and lose 2 models (1 already wounded) and thus 4 shots and get a 28.5% damage loss.

 

If you put this next to oath or the necron ability, who don't have downsides, I think it's pretty bad. And I don't even play CSM.

 

Not going to double check the math, other than to point out that the test and potential mortal wounds are taken after the attack sequence, so even if you lose models and have less for future attacks, it only ever boosts the current attacks. 

[Prot]

4 hours ago, tzeentch9 said:

You could also technically never fail the ld tests and get loads of 6s to hit. The potential is great, optimists will always use the rule, pessimists never will

 

This is also true.

 

As I see it, there is almost no real value to the rule. Taking math out of it, a large part of my point is "why is there a downside?".  If a necron warrior reanimates, is there a chance he blows up instead? If a Marine uses the oath, is there a chance on a roll of a 1 he shoots Guilliman in the head? Nope.

 

The reality is this CSM rule isn't good enough to have a punishment for it. Like I said I just went through the last several months playing the army with "sustained" hits through different phases and it's not that great. The idea that I may lose a havoc or a dreadnought takes damage just doesn't make any sense to me. I'd still MUCH rather have the loyalist rule. 

 

Fellow CSM players.... let me hear how many times you felt the power and strength of the last half year of exploding 6's felt like it needed to be offset by the potential for taking mortal wounds.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2023 by Prot

[Metzombie]

27 minutes ago, Prot said:

If a necron warrior reanimates, is there a chance he blows up instead?

No, but if the enemey kills the unit it can not reanimate at all.

 

28 minutes ago, Prot said:

If a Marine uses the oath, is there a chance on a roll of a 1 he shoots Guilliman in the head?

No, but OoM is very inflexible. Say you choose some heavy tank as the target. Do you want to shoot your Intercessors at it? Most likely not so they gain no benefit from it. Or you choose an Chaos Terminator deathstar and they us the nurgle stratagem and you can not target them at all.

 

32 minutes ago, Prot said:

Fellow CSM players.... let me hear how many times you felt the power and strength of the last half year of exploding 6's felt like it needed to be offset by the potential for taking mortal wounds.

No, but at the moment the exploding 6´s are only for a small part of your weapons. With the new rule you can give all of your weapon a boost and you can choose what kind of bust you need for every unit. Maybe it will be to punishing for the chaos players and they need to change it. But I think for the moment it seems fine. Also we do not know how it will interact with other units we have. Maybe the Dark Apostle give a big boost to the Dark Pacts. Or the detachment will give us something. Maybe some units get bigger boost. I could see Chosen geting both boosts at the same time, for example.

[Prot]

32 minutes ago, Metzombie said:

No, but if the enemey kills the unit it can not reanimate at all.

 

A dead CSM can't take advantage of their new rule either. 

 

32 minutes ago, Metzombie said:

No, but OoM is very inflexible. Say you choose some heavy tank as the target. Do you want to shoot your Intercessors at it? Most likely not so they gain no benefit from it. Or you choose an Chaos Terminator deathstar and they us the nurgle stratagem and you can not target them at all.

 

It's actually far more flexible than it's previous version, which again, I used every game. It was that strong.

 

32 minutes ago, Metzombie said:

No, but at the moment the exploding 6´s are only for a small part of your weapons. With the new rule you can give all of your weapon a boost and you can choose what kind of bust you need for every unit. Maybe it will be to punishing for the chaos players and they need to change it. But I think for the moment it seems fine. Also we do not know how it will interact with other units we have. Maybe the Dark Apostle give a big boost to the Dark Pacts. Or the detachment will give us something. Maybe some units get bigger boost. I could see Chosen geting both boosts at the same time, for example.

 

Perhaps. 

 

I'll leave it at that. Again, really was hoping longer term CSM players would chime in. I think the base CSM had was probably substantially diminished by GW's last round of nerfs. 

 

At least Abe looks okay. Not as good as before, but as with the last 7-8 editions, I'll still be playing CSM so I suppose this is all really a moot point.

[Indy Techwisp]

The thing with Dark Pacts is that you get all the benefits and only after that do you potentially take d3 MW.

 

Unless I'm severely mistaken, don't most CSM have good Leadership? And ways to improve it on top of that?

 

Unless the Chaos God of Dice Rolls decides otherwise, it looks like you're gonna be passing the leadership more often than you fail it by a large margin.

[Kaiju Soze]

Not exactly a long term CSM player (having taken 5E-8E  off and only started 9E around October), but I definitely share some of Prot's concerns about the Dark Pacts rule. There's still a lot of missing information, but my gut reaction is that I don't like CSM being the only faction with a drawback to their faction rule.

[Indy Techwisp]

Just now, Kaiju Soze said:

Not exactly a long term CSM player (having taken 5E-8E  off and only started 9E around October), but I definitely share some of Prot's concerns about the Dark Pacts rule. There's still a lot of missing information, but my gut reaction is that I don't like CSM being the only faction with a drawback to their faction rule.

 

Somehow I doubt they'll be the only ones with a faction-wide Drawback.

[Kaiju Soze]

3 minutes ago, Indy Techwisp said:

 

Somehow I doubt they'll be the only ones with a faction-wide Drawback.

You might be right, but so far its trending this way. Guess we'll see in the next few weeks.

[Indy Techwisp]

1 minute ago, Kaiju Soze said:

You might be right, but so far its trending this way. Guess we'll see in the next few weeks.

 

On the one hand, CSM having the only Drawback would be odd, so it would make sense for there to be other Factions with drawbacks.

On the other hand, it's gonna be all the Chaos Factions (bar the daemons themselves) with a Drawback, because "chaos hurts the user" or something.