Well it sounds nice and fluffy but further increasing MoT vs HI to help MoN niche is not gonna go down well I think. Also, with Plague Marines around I'd rather see Mark of Slaanesh CSM get a run out.
Not sure if you have read my edit...
The MoT damage increase vs HI/damage decrease vs infantry is for avoid having two too similar squads. And as i remember, it's not a bad build have one MoT CSM and one MoK CSM. With some melee (aka Bloodletters/Commander) to protect they from assault squads/powerful melee units, why not a MoN CSM and a MoT CSM?
I would like a Mark of Slaneesh CSM but... i can't thinking about his role/stadistics/weapons. :/
Indrid wrote:As for Nurgle-love I'd rather Plague Marines get buffed (and price increased to 500/50 or even 550/50) to do more DoT to inf and do DoT in melee and DoT to vehicles OR be able to purchase blight grenades to use. Or a mixture of all that. Beef them up into the kind of infantry unit you'd usually only have one of, like Purifiers are for GK and Ogryns for IG.
With Bloodletters not having heavy melee any more though I don't think we'll see a PM price increase any time soon or them changed in any way.
And yes, I am Nurgle-biased...
In fact, i suggested buff Plague Marines with a MoN which increases their DOT damage and melee damage as well to return a nerfed version of the ol' explode heal to the own Plague Marines, and not only the rest of the nearly squad.
The problem to buff too much the Plague Marines they could become an no brainer anti-all squad: rocket launcher vs vehicles, the bolter/dot damage vs infantry and also de DOT damage if is too high could damage too much HI, with the addition that the rocket launcher could hit SHI, which usually have medium or huge size owners.
Caeltos wrote:Direct-anti infantry units are Plague Marines purely due based on outlasting // sustainability. They're going to do great against most units, assuming you've got the proper supportive tool assets at your disposal, and by that definition, I mean genuine supportive units in the viccinity, or by keeping them in heavy cover, to really let the health regeneration trait of theirs to really shine.
Maybe i'm underestimating the PM damage, but i don't find they as a good anti-infantry damage, and more when his primary role is counter vehicles, trusting in their hp regen and high health to tank the enemy's vehicle damage.
Caeltos wrote:Standard-issue EW + AC CSMS does good againts regular-issued infantry as well. They're also more potent melee fighters then your MoT CSMs, they're more ... well, flexibile in their utility, but lacks specilization. If you want to keep with a good anti-infantry ranged-oriented unit squad, the EW + AC CSMs fare quite well in this regard. It continously seems to slip peoples mind that the AC CSMs bolter pistol was buffed to quite a respectable amount of damage. Coupled with the fact that EW grants the AC the added +20% damage enhancements, he makes the squad far more potent against anti-dedicated infantry, compared to your regulary normal MoT AC CSM squad. (Again, basing on general-flexibility of the squad, rather than specilization)
His general-flexibility is at the same time, their best and the worst feature. In a game where the squads are usually or good in melee or good in ranged a squad with not bad melee and not bad ranged damage is in no man's land.
Don't misunderstand me: i would like to see more EW AC CSM play. But the problem is they come in T2, where plasma/ power melee damage and vehicles comes to play.
EW AC CSM have (13.42 x 3 + 11.47) x 1.2 = 62.076 piercing_damage and (22 x 3 + 34.62) x 1.2 = 120.744 dps melee_damage.In range stance
they do a bit more damage than a Sargent Tac squad... with the exception that EW AC CSM don't have ATSKNF or Kraken Bolts... and have less health... and are more expensive than a Sargent Tac squad. (525/25 Tac against 540/40 CSM)
Without comparing EW AC CSM with Tac Sarg, they are going to lose any ranged fire, even in cover. With half T2 squads obtaining plasma damage, they are going to receive more damage than they could do. As i see, they are only going to win against single cheaper and/or no plasma damage squads: Termagaunts with Toxin Sacs, GU with/without Warlock, Scouts, Shootas... In melee stance
they could do great damage, but there are little problems: no charge, 60 melee skill, only the AC do special attacks, 5 speed without sprint ability, no ability to change a battle...
Against dedicated melee troops they could present a fair battle, but they are going to lose, as it should be. Not mention if the dedicated melee squad have power_melee damage. The EW AC CSM could lose even against vanilla jump troops, if the jump troops do enough special attacks.
The other possible option is engage in melee with enemy ranged squads and destroy they with their good melee damage. But again, their no charge/no sprint/no ability/almost no special attacks make they not very good melee fighters. Not mention that without melee carge they could easily eat a well placed spike grenade.
Caeltos wrote:With that in mind, you're also saving 125/30 resources by skipping the MoT-specilization, this is a quite a big and substantial bonus, that I'd rather encourage-fast teching as Chaos, as you're more then very likely to get left-behind in a tech-race if you dedicated yourself far to much into Mark Specilizations with several CSMs squads.
If people saving the MoT resources is usually for field a AV squad if in T1 they don't buy a Havoc or to pimp up the commander/other squads. Fast Tech to T3 usually have a drawback: you could lose field presence and map control if the enemy goes for a medium/heavy T2. And as we know, Chaos doesn't shine for his map control.
"Pater, peccavi in caelum et coram te; iam non sum dignus vocari filius tuus". Dixit autem pater: "manducemus et epulemur, quia hic filius meus mortuus erat et revixit, perierat et inventus est"
There will be no forgiveness for us.