Talk:Warhammer 40,000/Tactics/Chaos Space Marines(8E)

A note on page organization: I feel like the best way to go about Legion-unique units (like Scarab Occult) is to put them under the Legion subheading, while units that can be taken with other Legion tags (like Rubrics) should be in the general section. Lukash (talk) 22:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Move Titans?

I looked at the index, and it seems the Chaos Titans aren't actually in the CSM list; they're listed as "Traitor Titanicus" instead. Same goes for the Renegade Knights, which are labeled as Questor Traitoris. If I don't start the move, somebody else should. --Newerfag (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• The Knight entries are moved, will move the titan entries soon. --Newerfag (talk) 16:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
• I'd leave the entry for "generic" Chaos Knight under the Lord of War choices, at least until the codex hits. It's a lone Lord of War choice that cannot be taken on its own and intended as support for both CSM and Daemons (even if it is strictly speaking neither a CSM nor a Daemon). 85.28.126.251 18:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Technically it is valid to take a single LoW as its own detachment, though. --Newerfag (talk) 02:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

The daemon keyword

So I checked and in addition to possessed, it looks like there are a number of additional units that have the daemon and the mark of chaos keywords. By my count, obliterators, mutilators, heldrakes, forgefiends, maulerfiends, warp talons, Defilers, lords of skulls, and Magnus the red (and possibly more from forge world) all share the ability with the possessed to benefit from certain daemon auras. ( the changeling, belakor, and epidemus stick out to me). Does this deserve a separate section in the tactics page for either army?

Cult Legions codexes

When the Death Guard codex is released later this summer, do we want to put it on its own page?--Lukash (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The Harlequins do. They have 8 units and used to be part of another codex as well. The Death Guard right now have 7 units unique to them excluding forgeworld, while having the Plagueburst Crawler, Mortarion and Terminators coming. It'd make sense for them to get their own page but leave things such as plague marines on this page as well as the death guard one if they're still in the chaos codex.--Elan (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I found a little typo. A very minor one, but it can confuse people. Armies (or Detatchments, more accuretly) of WE, TS, DG and ECh take their respective cult marines as troops, not elite(Index: Chaos). But it's true that they don't gain the Despoilers of the galaxy as it's a vanilla CSM-only.--Korvalus (talk) 1:36, 21 August 2017 (GMT)

EC and WE had their rules updated in Codex, you must use the new ones. --Flutist (talk) 08:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Correction, the new FAQ changed that, okay. --Flutist (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Plague Marines

I have to be honest, I'm not understanding the hatred being directed at Plague Marines. A lot of the arguments seem to focus on them not being tanky enough, but those arguments don't hold any water. Last edition, Feel No Pain could be ignored by S10 and Instant Death(a single Demolisher Cannon could wipe a squad easily). Now, Disgusting Resilience can't be ignored by anything. Last edition, power armour was shat upon by anything with ap3 or better. This edition, most weapons that would completely ignore their armour before will still leave them with part of their armour save. I see people complaining that they only have 1 wound. When has that ever been different? I see people complaining about their points cost, even though they are 3 points cheaper this edition. Last edition, you only needed S7 to wound them on a 2+, now S10+ is needed. Someone says they are only decent within 6" to take advantage of Blight Grenades, but the same holds true for ANY unit with Frags. Last edition's Icon of Despair gave the Unit Fear, which we all agree was useless. Now it lowers enemy leadership in an edition where leadership actually matters. I'm not saying it's all roses. Blight Grenades no longer cause Blind or effect getting charged. That's a fair argument. They only have 1 attack base now. While a clear nerf, Plague Marines were never meant to be the best assault unit so this just balances them in my opinion. There is no reason a bunch of slow, power armoured half-zombies should be better than Khorne Berzerkers in close combat. Plague Knives getting changed was kind of necessary to keep Plague Marines from ruining vehicles this edition. Just putting it out there, but if I don't see any better arguments as to how Plague Marines are "by far the the weakest they've been in any edition of 40k" I'm going to purge the butthurt out of their unit entry in the next few days.--PinkTentacle (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not a CSM player, but face them regularly because my BFF fields Night Lords warband. So here are my expressions on them as a Guard player: 1) Now they are wounded on 5+ rather than 6+ by lasguns, this is huge 2) They are not the best Cult Marines as they were in editions past, and their survivability is seriously compromised both by lack of Fearless and by the new AP system as they go down to Heavy Bolters (have those in spades) without proper point reduction 3) They can't be troops now 4) Reduced mobility compared to other infantry. All in all, Plague Marines are inferior both to Berzerkers, who are broken as hell now, and Noise Marines, their Sonic Blasters are awesome now. Can't say a thing about Rubrics, haven't meet them yet. --Flutist (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Mathematically, when facing each other out in the open, Rubrics win against both Noise Marines and Plague Marines. I personally would advice against fielding Plagues in a non-DG list, because the other two shooty cults are cheaper and actually better. In a DG list they are very much worth it though, because of the acces to DG legion tactics and DG stratagems. "Styxwalker (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)"

Someone adding points values

Here lads wondering about yerman who's planning on adding all the points values for the entries on this page, Would this not draw the ire of GW?

We've always pretty much avoided it, at least on a large scale. No point in poking the bear. That said, I've noticed in more recent times entire profiles replicated. I would personally advise against it but that's just me. (Sign your posts!) CrazyThang (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Versus IG

With their new codex seemimgly coming from the loving feather of the Crud, IG seems almost intolerable strong now, for most of my lists. The anti-chaos relic beeing (obviously) the worst offender here, Girlymanauras for 0Pts, for a full turn, yay... For now my only winning move was to retool all my army(s) into Alpha Legion and bringing in the Changeling (making all Alpha Legion Deamon Infantry basically untouchable for IG at -2 to hit). Maybe something for the actual tactics section.

That being said im definitly not an Alpha player nor do i really want to, so if there is some general advice it would be much appreciated. The IG around me like their Basilisks + Conscripts + whatever they feel like... "Styxwalker (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)"

 this is lascannon and plasma editon, in 7th best way to deal with out of los vehicles was 3x termy with melta and bye bye watever enemy had (even in los). With now not been able anymore to land into melta range on deep strike (or anyform is called in 8th) you need to rally on lascannon and plasma but large blast nerf gone in both direction so IG was hitten pretty hard on every large blast they had. If i not mistake basilisk where the coevalent of a stronger battlke cannons. Since all areas were nerfed a IG Player which is bring a basilisk is gimping himself; what a basilisk do? 2d6 hit str9 vp4 now? That is imo trash; due how rules work now those hits do not auto hit anymore as in 7th; they need to roll to hit so it's became random and then hit at 4+, on averange between roll to generate the number of hits and roll to hit plus  considering how cover work now, enemy is luky do score more than 2-3 unsaved wound. Simple put there is no need to deal with it in first place. Even if there was the need, basilisk always had a lower armor value and so now they  must have for sure a lower toughness value (t6 in fact). Simply put for the termy talk above-> raptors are the new termicide in this edition. Take 5 raptor give them 2 plasmagun+ 1 plasma pistol or 2 plasma gun and 1 combiplasma and use them where you want, they are durable as much as termy in 7th , cheap enough, but move way better/and faster (not the same thing) and in cover they have the same armor save than termy (termy cannot benefith  from cover vs no ap saturation all other meq units can). Raptor are basically same durability of termy due how multiple wounds on 1 hit works aka plasma do 2 wounds on1  htis which mean termy get oneshoot as in 7th and a raptor in cover still have a  5+ save as a termy; totally unworth take in 90% of case any termy. Basically if you want deep strike special weapon use raptor; if you want deeps strike saturation brint termy with combi bolters trust me "terto (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)"

Aspiring Sorceror

Can't find this guy anywhere in the codex point list. If so does this mean he's finally for "free" like the other champions ? Would be a nice little buff for their point efficiancy (~10 pts cheaper per squad). "Styxwalker (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)"

  in index is listened under rubric marine as a sub voice, if in codex is not, per raw any unit (so i assume also any model) model which is not listened in codex but it is in index follow the index point cost (aka 30pt)."terto (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)"

Chapter Approved 1k Sons

This might be unnecessary to ask, but should I add in the chapter approved stuff for the Sons or wait until their codex eventually drops and make a page for them? “Zap Boi (talk) 3:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)”

Death Guard has their own page, so go ahead. Lukash (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Fuck it. I'll go make the page instead of adding in the changes I got the time. “Zap Boi (talk) 7:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)”

Decided to just put in the new relics and stuff in here instead. “Zap Boi (talk) 6:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)"

The stuff about the Warlord trait and CA for Magnus is convoluted and not required. Should remove it.

Marks of Chaos

I might be retarded, but I can't find what the marks do in the 8E Codex.

Anyone know where they are?

They give your dudes keywords. That's all.--Flutist (talk) 12:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Double Scourge Brute

Is the double scourge brute good enough to be added to the helbrute analysis?

no point, the scourge is basically the best option of the helbrute because a PF is just str 10 vs scoruge str 8 and str 8 wounds anything at 4  even an IK but 4 atks more ? idk man helbrute are a source of lascannon, if you want get something doing good lascannon and scourge are the best option. Otherwise any smart opppnent will stay away from the brute + nuke it from afar, bringing a lascannon mean you also force him in cc to make haste of the brute plus yes lascannon cost more than the scourge but it can do the same number of woudns x turn plus it can attack before turn 2-3 but immidiatly from afar which mean it go lascannon + scourge give more points return than scourge + scourge.--Terto (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Servants of The Abyss

So y'all think it would be appropriate to make a page just for the Servants of the Abyss introduced in Blackstone Fortress? It has the same faction synergy the the Elucidian Starstriders do, but with a lot more units. It seems to still maintain faction keywords, so that shouldn't be a huge issue. This article can be used later for whatever future boxed games or miniature releases that apply to Chaos (much like the catch-all Imperium article). -- Kracked Mynd (User talk:Kracked Mynd|talk]]) 14:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

At the moment, no. There's too few units there to warrant a page, since you cannot build an army around them (at least not a larger one) and if you want to do that you need to take them with other units. The Imperium article is the way it is because it covers those who were in the Index book and haven't yet gotten their own book (or are unlikely to be given their own book). -- Triacom (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

How should we list the Servants of the Abyss detachment? -- Kracked Mynd (User talk:Kracked Mynd|talk]]) 19:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Just put them in the slots where they go, HQ for Mallex, Elites for the Psykers, etc. -- Triacom (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Got it. All I have left is Traitor Guardsmen, Beastmen, and Negavolt Cultists. Outside of that, I still have to punch in Ur-Ghul, Janus Draik, and the Spindle Drones. I'm going to put Spindle Drones under Renegades and Heretics, because, although they aren't Chaos related, they're probably going to be used mostly by Chaos players. -- Kracked Mynd (User talk:Kracked Mynd|talk]]) 19:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems like Servants of the Abyss is a warband of the Black Legion, so you can just make them into a subsection of that faction's exclusive units. Spindle Drones are unaligned, and that should be mentioned accordingly (see Gellarpox Infected, where we said they were with Renegades and Heretics only as a "close enough" option. --Newerfag (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Perfect, that was exactly what I was thinking. -- Kracked Mynd (User talk:Kracked Mynd|talk]]) 19:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really think Spindle Drones should be included in any Chaos tactica unless it's in the allies section, since they're unaligned and have no real ties to Chaos. -- Triacom (talk) 06:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I put them in their own unaligned tab in Renegades and heretics (where the rest of the hostiles, excluding Ur-Ghuls, are), but I mentioned that they can be be included in any army RAI. -- Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Proxies and army building

To stop an edit war over something petty: The general consensus on /tg/ (at least on 4chan) is that proxies that resemble the model in question and use the same base size are reasonable. This has been on three pages (Proxy, Counts As, and Mandrake) for at least since the beginning of the year (I got tired of looking at older edits). GW themselves for tournaments, Golden Demon, and Armies on Parade merely ask for the exact same thing (reasonably represent it and use the same base size (except for display Golden Demons)), as does Adepticon. As far as the community is concerned, using a model that is the same size, wields weapons that look almost identical, use the same base size, and are even from the exact same maker and game is a pretty reasonable thing to do. Not allowing your opponent to just chill out and use them is pretty far into That Guy territory imo. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

No. Havocs do not in any way shape or form look like Nightmare Hulks and are at 5 models minimum, whereas there are only 3 Nightmare Hulks in the box. --2001:8003:3823:EB00:2024:F947:D005:F21D 07:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're this passionate about it, I'll give it to you vro. I did, in fact use my Nightmare Hulks as Havocs, and (with the addition of a jump-pack looking thing made of greenstuff and the air lifts from the Bloatdrone) Vulgrar as a DP. I have had no complaints yet. --Kracked Mynd (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the anon, Nightmare Hulks look nothing like Havocs and they don't have the same base size either, are you thinking of Mutilators/Obliterators? -- Triacom (talk) 18:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been using them has Havocs, but Mutilators are a great idea, especially since they come in sets of three :) --Kracked Mynd (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

So, what do you use for the other two models in the unit? --2001:8003:3823:EB00:144D:3666:B98B:747A 02:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

CSM with IG heavy weapon Autocannons. I feel like a fucking retard saying this out loud lol --Kracked Mynd (talk) 04:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

On Helbrutes

Hey VyroVR, if you want to know where wargear is from for something, then you should ask on the talk page rather than just assume it doesn't exist, not in the summary of the main page and definitely not while adding a massive strikethrough (that edit would've been undone for that reason alone, strikethroughs to correct anything on a tactics page are a terrible idea). Also don't try to say stupid shit like: "not asking questions here, I'm stating the option doesn't fucking exist anymore; go ahead and prove me wrong, or else" Right after you ask " and where did THAT come from?" And also right before you ask: "which one of the 43 available there, you vague piece of snob?"

I'll help you out anyway though, when I say it's a Forge World option it would be a good idea to check the Forge World related materials, such as both the IA and its FAQ. When I directly tell you it's in the FAQ, after telling you it's a Forge World option then that means you can narrow down the search to the only FAQ that is available to download for the Forces of Chaos. In case you're still not able to find it, it's this one. I would've been more than happy to help had you just come here in the first place instead of assuming that you're right. -- Triacom (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't believe I have to clarify this for some people, but units don't suddenly become entirely new units because you put new wargear on them. The Sonic Dreadnought for example no longer exists, instead it's just a Helbrute, a Helbrute who has the option of unique weapon choices if he has both the Slaanesh and Emperor's Children keywords. Nothing about that is a new unit and a Helbrute with both those keywords has the option of not taking either Blastmasters or the Doom Siren, remaining a basic bitch Helbrute. Claiming it's a new unit would be like making a new entry for Chaos Lords for every single item combo they could possibly take and claiming those are also different units. -- Triacom (talk) 08:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sigh. First, I can't believe something as basic as this warrants a discussion section, but apparently it does. Second, tone down the word count, I don't have time to read through all your drivel, get to the point. Now third. Sonic Dread has last been an upgrade when, in 3.5? Warp Amp? Then it got a FW model, and ever since it's been a separate FW unit. It was in 7th. In transit to 8th it was promptly forgotten by lazy fucks who compile FW indices. That was dumb. So it was FAQ'd back into existence.

Let me quote: "There is no datasheet for an Emperor’s Children Sonic Dreadnought <...> Use the Helbrute datasheet on page 33 of Index:Chaos." That's fairly ambiguous, but okay. Except right after that we have "There is no datasheet for a Chaos Vindicator Laser Destroyer <...> Use the Deimos Pattern Vindicator Laser Destroyer datasheet on page 8 of Imperial Armour Index: Forces of the Adeptus Astartes." Now that is a separate unit, if I ever saw one. The assumption that using the same datasheet equals being the same unit is clearly wrong. Ergo, your shit doesn't actually fly, unless you assume something ridiculous. Both cases are worded pretty much the same, so why are you treating them differently, you self-righteous passive-aggressive snob? Get off your high horse already. VyroVR (talk) 21:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to argue about it, then it warrants a discussion section. If you don't have time to read all of it then don't reply, and definitely don't edit, intentional ignorance never helped anyone. Next, it doesn't matter when the Sonic Dread was last in the game or what edition it was, all that matters is how it is now, which is a wargear upgrade, let me quote that too since you did it wrong: "There is no datasheet for an Emperor’s Children Sonic Dreadnought - is there a datasheet I should use for this model?" "Use the Helbrute datasheet on page 33 of Index: Chaos It must replace its Mark of Chaos with Slaanesh and its Legion keyword with Emperor's Children." That is the core of it and it's not ambiguous at all, it's a Helbrute plain and simple. It's the same as when people were asking about the Minotaur's character and they were told to just use him as a Minotaurs Devastater with a Heavy Bolter, the only difference is Helbrutes with this specific combination have the option to take extra wargear. Next, you want to know why the Chaos Vindicator Laser Destroyer has its own entry on this page? It's because it's now a part of a different faction. Part of the tactics page is about listing which units an army can take, so listing on the Space Marine page that the Vindicator Laser Destroyer can now be taken by Chaos Space Marines would be pointless since it wouldn't help anyone looking to play Space Marines (and it would be fucking awful design as well to make a player flip between webpages like that). Likewise, if the Space Marines suddenly got access to the Helbrute there'd be a new entry on the Space Marine page, even though it's one model it's now shared between two factions so it gets two entries on the wiki as a whole, whereas the Sonic Dreadnought is not a model shared between two factions, it doesn't even have its own datasheet. -- Triacom (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Whatever. If you think that red is green, I'm not wasting any more of my time on proving the opposite. VyroVR (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

You're the one trying to claim a dog is a cat, after a while of pretending that dogs don't exist and refusing to look at them when they're brought out for you. If you don't know how tactics pages work then why bother editing them? -- Triacom (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Renegades are not Veterans of the Long War

Just to be clear Renegades cannot use VOTLW strategem. Even with their new traits. Might be corrected in a future FAQ.

Then you should correct the main page so that it doesn't suggest using VotLW on them instead of trying to argue on the main page. -- Triacom (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

For the record, you don't 'correct' information by striking out somebody else's post and then editing in your own, you correct it by removing inaccurate information and if needed, replacing it with accurate information. Strikethroughs do not help a page be accurate, they only make it bloated and harder to follow (and invite further arguing on the main page, at one point the Tau page was a mess because of it), that's one of the reasons I undo those kinds of attempts when I see them (the other reason is so that the people making those edits stop doing them). -- Triacom (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

okay. Iwill remember for future reference. Thanks. (Trognador40k)

The new Havocs seem a little much.

So I know it's going to be a bit before we can really see them in action and get a good opinion on how they fare, but right now what do other people think of the Havoc changes? Personally I think they might be a bit much, especially when combined with some other rules/items that you can drop down. To give an example, Havocs marching up with Abaddon was already surprisingly effective, now if you hang them around a Noctolith Crown you give your T5 dudes a 5+ invuln and its radius expands as time goes on (allowing them to take advantage of moving and shooting without penalty without sacrificing their save). The paltry +1 point increase in cost seems absurd for a unit that can either shoot twice with what's effectively 30+ Heavy Bolter shots, or even fire them into combat. I know Marines and CSM needed some changes, but I'm also a little worried this might be a bit overboard. I'm also not a fan of the Toughness increase being really arbitrary, since that's its own can of worms and combined with the Noctolith Crown makes them seem like they're Custodes lite but without any reason as to why. -- Triacom (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the toughness at least was because havocs no longer have spare bodies. Dead models are dead with heavy weapons. So they're tougher to mitigate the loss of ablative wounds. Giving them a 5++ is pretty standard for most armies. I've done the same with Kat destroyers who fire better guns. Honestly the chain-cannon is the only thing that seems too powerful. Trognador40k

That is true, but I don't recall the Destroyers being able to shoot into combat and I'm pretty sure they cost a lot more, on top of being harder to give cover to. In both cases having them shoot in the enemy's turn and fire twice (before the enemy can return fire) is really strong. -- Triacom (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Daemon Shells and Endless Cacophony?

Over in the Space Marine 8th tactics it mentions combo-ing a devastator squad’s Armorium Cherubim and Hellfire Shells stratagem to deal 2D3 mortal wounds if it hits. Am I right in thinking that a Slaanesh infantry unit targeted by Endless cacophony can use Daemon Shells for both rounds of shooting (pop EC Declare shooting and use DS then second round of shooting use DS again which is 4CP in total)? If so is this also more viable than the loyalists version; since it’s not relegated to a single unit with a specific weapon? And a good way to dent Custodes?

No in all cases, Daemon Shells say you can only make a single hit roll in this phase, and even if you could do that it would take far too much CP to be effective. -- Triacom (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

CSM Bomb Seems Bad

I'm not sure the CSM bomb is a good idea, it looks like it'll leave you very vulnerable to things like Plasma Cannons or any weapons that have a high fire rate, not to mention dedicated CC units who'll easily go through them (yeah you can bring them back, but that's a lot of CP for something that'll get munched again). Also I'm pretty sure that you can't use Veterans of the Long War on them (they're renegades, not a Legion) and even if you could, I wouldn't call high amount of wounds for that much CP worth it seeing as how the majority's going to be only 1 damage and have no AP. -- Triacom (talk) 15:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Long Entry is Long

The table of contents table is so long it takes up a whole mobile page. Not sure the solution, but given all the new material CSM got it's likely to get worse before it gets better.

Why Power Ratings?

Why are we mentioning the changes in power ratings when the entire article is based around matched play, aka points? -- Triacom (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe in the "This Just In" section, if we had it. Should we have it? It is kinda convenient come to think of it. VyroVR (talk)

It was a change that I did not see getting much mention. Also, if you don't have codex 2.0, you might miss the change, since it was not in vigilus. Finally, GW occasionally throws power rating related effects on units and stratagems. Is there a better way to present the info? I would be open to adding a "This Just In" section to any tactics page to track recent FAQ changes. Ordogrammarus (talk)

It wasn't getting a mention because it doesn't have anything to do with the matched play system the tactics pages are about. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single stratagem the CSM can use that is based off of their power level but maybe I'm missing one, can you enlighten me? -- Triacom (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I intended to say that most discussions on a variety of forums I had checked (including /Tg, Dakkadakka, and Bolter and Chainsword) had not mentioned the power changes. Furthermore, I had not seen anything on the Warhammer Community website regarding changes to power ratings. I have a friend who plays Space Wolves against my Chaos Marines, and they have a couple abilities that are based on the Power Rating of the enemy unit. (the Overwhelming Impetuosity and Seeking a Saga stratagems). I understand that this is a niche case concerning just two armies, and if you feel its unimportant, I will gladly pull it. My thinking was, this is the first time we are seeing a 2.0 codex. The previous Chapter Approved changed points cost, but avoided touching power rating. Now they have. In addition, Games Workshop has demonstrated they are willing to give stratagems that depend on an opponents power rating to one army. They may repeat this trick again with another. Ordogrammarus (talk)

If that's the case, then any mentions to power level belong on the Space Wolves page, or in a section about playing against the Space Wolves (preferably in an adversaries section underneath the Notable Tactics section), not in the unit entries because they don't help a player who uses matched play. -- Triacom (talk) 19:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Pulling the sections.Ordogrammarus

Armouries on the various army pages.

This is mostly a repost of a question I had on the main tactics page, but I'll be posting it on all the most frequently updated tacticas because it applies to all of them and I'd like to hear any arguments against it.

I've been wondering this for a while now, but what do the armoury sections add that cannot be covered by unit entries? Everything in them is either stating info that is obvious and redundant to anyone holding the relevant book (which are the people using the tactica in the first place), or it's insight that is restated in the unit entry itself, where it's actually relevant. I get why we list relics since those are usually unique to the army and can be applies to a ton of different characters for different builds, same with Warlord Traits, and both of those are usually not covered in the various unit entries, instead that advice is usually covered in the relic and traits sections which makes sense. But for the regular armouries I'm not really seeing why we keep them around at all to be honest, since they take up so much space and it's annoying to scroll past that kind of bloat. How should we improve them, if possible (so that they're not just restating profiles) or should we just remove them? Personally I'm leaning more towards getting rid of them entirely. -- Triacom (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• Tri can i suggest keeping a slimmed down section for the melee, special and heavy weapons?

What do we get by doing that? Even if you want stats for a specific unit, you can just mention those stats in that unit. -- Triacom (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Just thinkin the specials and heavies are available to so many units its more effecient to do as a small section. Like not every fucking gun, like the daemongore cannon. Just some covered in the weapon list before the datasheets.

Not every unit will be equally effective with them though, so either you'd need to make several sections in that weapon's entry mentioning the units that can take the gun and then mentioning in each of their unit entries to scroll to their section for that gun in the armoury to see how well they can use it, or you can just mention how good that gun is/isn't for that unit in the unit's entry. That's just assuming there's only one gun too, not having to scroll up and down whenever you want relevant info to compare different weapon options. Personally I'm not a fan of spreading out relevant info like that without a good reason, and that's why I am against the armoury sections in general. -- Triacom (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on Word Bearers

I've really been considering ways on trying to make the Word Bearers useful. So far it's been pretty tricky, they always seem to have minor bonuses that come up just shy of good. So far I've only found two ways to make them playable:

• The first is to take Masters of Possession and go heavier on the monsters/Daemons; if you use Dark Pact when using Incursion you can make their summoning extremely reliable, conjuring up max-sized Daemon units (seekers come to mind to make it much more likely you'll make the charge, or Bloodcrushers since they're just devastating on the charge and it's not too much harder to make) or the new Keeper of Secrets, thanks to having a low enough charge you'll get it the vast majority of the time. If you really want to boost your daemons then you can bring Greater Possessed and summon a Herald (preferably of Slaanesh) to boost all the Keeper's attacks to S8 (and sword to S10) to wound Marines on 2's while being able to crush vehicles. To boost the Greater Daemons even further (and give them a little extra protection when they're summoned in), make sure to take a Dark Apostle and use a Prayer, either to make them harder to hit or boost their damage in case you really feel like killing Knights. Don't forget to put The Cursed Crozius on The Dark Apostle either because it's just a genuinely great weapon. Even just from a support role the Keeper can help out if you already have Possessed or other Slaanesh in combat since they can almost immediately cast Hysterical Frenzy and give you an out-of-sequence close combat round (although you're better off doing this from a Herald if you just want to troll the enemy with that move). Don't worry about skipping out on Sorcerers, if you really want something like Warptime you can always use the Chaos Familiar Stratagem to give it to one of the Masters of Possession.
• The second way to go about it is to use the Dark Apostle to hold the main line. With The Cursed Crozius he makes a very effective charge deterrent, since you can make him have 6 Strength 6 Ap-4 attacks that do 3 damage each, meaning he's effectively punching in at near the same weight class as a Greater Daemon (greater if you want to burn a lot of CP, 1 for beseeching and 3 for getting him to fight again, just in case you wanted to make Bloodthirsters look like pansies). Given the Voice of Lorgar and by using Illusory Supplication you can pretend you've got an army of Daemons by spreading that 5+ save around, which goes well with lots of Cultists and/or Havocs, especially since he fixes the former's morale issues. Naturally this works a lot better in smaller to mid point games than the really large ones, though he still provides a decent bubble there too.

These are the only two ways I can think up that prevent the Word Bearers from being trash, and even then they don't stack up to other Legions/Renegades unless you really want to summon Greater Daemons to the table. There are other methods, like going with a Daemonkin Ritualists detachment so that summoned units and a stratagem can boost your own Possessed/Greater Possessed to S8 with extra attacks but it's very CP heavy, a little too heavy to really make it worth it. Does anyone have any other ideas on how to improve their performance? Because I'm drawing a blank. -- Triacom (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• I mean there's always the fact that the Warlord Trait is being given more flack than it deserves? 3 inches doesn't seem like much in theory but given most auras and prayers are in a radius thats essentially 6 more inches of rerolls or prayer distance. That means a bigger gunline, a bigger assult force, a bigger range of options. And at the very least its more widely usable than the Emperor's Children Warlord Trait which is only useful on Daemon Princes and maybe the Lord Discordant. Really a lot of the flack tossed at the Word Bearers seems to lose a bit of steam if you take a step back. The Legion trait isn't great, but a reroll will be more useful in more dire moments than the Black Legion trait will and its still better than having to copy the Imperial Fists exactly like the poor Iron Warriors

There's only a few prayers that can take full advantage of it and there are so many better Warlord Traits, not to mention you still want somebody who has a re-roll aura and their Warlord Trait sucks on those guys. If you want to spread their aura out better you should just get a second one of those characters, whereas Dark Apostles provide a once-only benefit for each of them since you cannot have two pray for the same prayer. Their Legion trait also always has the possibility of causing more harm than good unless you roll a 6, meaning it'll rarely come into play, unlike Black Legion or nearly any other trait (even Iron Warriors are more likely to use theirs) and a Legion that doesn't use its trait is a gimped Legion. You can also mitigate those dire moments completely with a Stratagem, which the Black Legion are more likely to be able to pull off than the Word Bearers since Abaddon gives them extra CP. -- Triacom (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Huron's Two Traits

So I'll admit I'm a little confused on this, but Huron does have two Warlord Traits depending on which book you use. I'll admit I've phrased it badly on the front there, but in the CSM book (the updated one) he has Eternal Vendetta, while in Vigilus Ablaze he has Reaver Lord. Both of these came out at the same time so I'm not going to claim one supersedes the other, and GW did put out a flowchart and statement that you don't need Vigilus Ablaze because its updates were supposed to be in the updated codex. There's also no mention of which he should have in the FAQ so until there is we should still mention how he can have one or the other. -- Triacom (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

He got an FAQ now (Vigilus Ablaze Errata 1.0): If he uses the Vigilus ablaze Legion Trait (Raiders from the Maelstorm), then he uses the Vigilus Ablaze Warlord trait (Reaver Lord). Otherwise he uses the CSM Warlord trait. 88.88.135.168 17:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Well that's dumb, but thanks for telling me. Would be easier if GW just made it consistent and released everything in one book. -- Triacom (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Plasma Havocs

Plasma Havocs should still be an option through the index right? They'd be T5 and can be equipped with up to 4 plasma guns and 1 combi-plasma. Angry Pirate (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

They're no longer an option. To get Plasma Guns your Havocs need to swap their Bolters for them. Since they no longer have Bolters they cannot get special weapons. -- Triacom (talk) 13:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Autocannons and Sicaran

Is there a new errata that prevents regular Chaos Marines from taking Autocannons, and also prevents you from using Hellforged Sicarans? -- Triacom (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

On Blue Horrors

"****They are indeed a valid alternative to cultist post nerf, a unit of 10 blue horror will cost the same as 10 cultists but they can throw and block 1 pshychic power per turn making them valuable, both as screen for a char in backline against deep strike, whatever may your oppponent pop in youy back; while also casting phichic power (plus they have a 5++ which is better than cultists 6+)"

If you think this then correct the entry on the main page instead of arguing against it. -- Triacom (talk) 21:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Twice the Sicaran?

The vanilla version has two entries here somehow, both in FW Elites and FW Heavy Support, and they are different entries even. Pretty sure only Venator is heavy. That right?

You are correct, it is only supposed to be in Elites so I've removed the duplicate. -- Triacom (talk) 03:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Night Lords Vox Daemonicus

Updated the text to reflect that it drops range all the way down to 1, at least according to the preview, as opposed to reducing by 1. I invite somebody else to update the consequences.

Daemon Engines

Having run most of them, I've come to an unpleasant conclusion (which should probably be added to the article) - All non-superheavy Daemon Engines are CP sinks, who just don't function without constant prodding with Daemonforge (and Blasphemous Machines to boot). Those terrifying weapon profiles? Don't hit for shit without a lot of support, and non-CP support is not enough unless stacked (e.g. a Lord AND a Sorc with Prescience both babysitting one Defiler, who costs less than them). Oh, and Gods forbid the enemy has any to-hit modifiers, sheesh! Even compared to similar Stratagems, Daemonforge is just... mediocre: for example, Extermination Protocols turns a unit of Destroyers from *Dangerous* to *Nope, that Infantry unit is just dead, mate*, and Heavy Destroyers from *That tank just blew up it did* to *Nope, that squadron of tanks is just gone, mate*.

Worse still, Engines specialised to do ONE thing don't even do it all that well. Dakkafiend? BS4+, all guns are Heavy but short-ranged, and Ectoplasma just SUCKS HORRIBLY, being more expensive than a normal plasma cannon but with worse stats (whereas even normal plasma is either handily outdamaged or merely tied against a pair of fucking Heavy bolters, which is just embarrassing). Choppafiend? Enjoy your sissy WS4+ and 4 attacks that wound tanks on 3s, fuck you. Degrading M10 and no more Fleet. Tendrils are about the only thing that keeps it relevant. Defilers are okay-ish, pulling double duty at frankly bargain price, just don't expect one to do any meaningful damage (I once had a Scourge Defiler slug it out with a squad of Immortals for the entire game). Venom-thing just sucks. It tries double duty like Defiler but even cheaper, making it too thin and even more anaemic. Helldragon is probably the most effective of the bunch, being fast for a change and having a nasty gun that hits reliably. Its melee is passable, but unless you are charging down jetbikes or Tau battlesuits, expect to be bogged down, which was probably your objective anyway. Hades autocannon is a tasteless joke. Decimators are okay if overcosted, but they are just Dreadnoughts in daemon hats and thus have their own problems.

See what I mean? In the fluff daemon engines are those hyper-aggressive murder bots that charge forward to gun the enemy down point-blank just to watch the splatters fly and/or tear them apart like a literal blender from hell. On the tabletop, however, we have mostly sluggish tank-sized blocks of regenerating wounds with big guns that don't ever reach or hit anything and melee claws that are mildly disappointing if they ever come up - big, gorgeous-looking metal punching bags that only start doing something when Daemonforge'd. Am I mistaken in this conclusion? VyroVR (talk) 14:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)