The Traitor Legions Will Win Tournaments – FTN

  • Posted by
  • at

This episode is a super crunchy analysis of a couple of Traitor Legion builds.  What sort of secret sauce have you unlocked?

Yo.. This may be the final episode of 2016 and we are going out with a competitive bang.  Horton joins me again for us to get real analytical on a couple of Traitor Legion list concepts.  We talk specifically about World s and Alpha Legion.


Hey Everyone,

Horton Doughton shares his take on a new World Eaters list based on the new detachments in the Traitor Legion book.   I’ll post it below.

To really understand his choices Paul grills him a bit on ‘why’ he has built things out the way he does.  It’s a nice exercise to go through with a top tournament player.  Getting that perspective can help either solidify your list or help you re-think some of your choices.  Our community is full of great folks to bounce these sorts of ideas off of.

I mention a couple of upcoming tournaments in the first few mintutes of the show.  Horton and I will be at the SCARAB event in South Carolina.  On the same weekend in Ohio, we also mention the Glass City Tournament.  Please check out those links.

In the middle of the show I do a spot with Zach Becker from the London Grand Tournament.  They have taken that event from a small club level endeavor to one of the largest events in the world for gaming.  Horton and I come back in after this segment to talk about Alpha Legion chaos cultists.

Horton’s World Eater Face Beater:

World Eaters Butcherhorde:

Chaos Warband

Khorne Lord, Juggernaut, Power Fist, Lighting Claw, Sigil of corruption, Talisman of Burning Blood

3 Terminators, 3 Combi-Melta

5 CSM, melta bomb

5 Csm, Melta bomb

5 havoks, melta bomb

10 Bikers

5 Bikers, Power Fist

5 Bikers, Power Fist

Aux choice:

1 Chaos Spawn

Fist of Khorne:

Khrybdis Assault Claw

20 Khorne Berzerkers, Icon of Wrath, 1 chain axe


Please follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook!


FTN mostly focuses on Warhammer 40k, but again you will see in the first few episodes we take a severe deep dive into nerdom. These have been a blast to record and I hope they help pass the time for you.

Alternatively you can subscribe via your own iTunes, and it should update our podcast when we post a new one.

Don’t have iTunes? Use the player below to access the podcast directly, or add our feed to your favorite player.
Podcast Link


Paul Murphy – Host

Justin Troop – troopsmash
Christopher Morgan – captain morgan
Adam Abramowicz – Beyond the Brush Studios
Andrew Whittaker

  • SilentPony

    Me whenever anyone mentions going to tournaments:
    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.”

    • Aezeal


    • rtheom

      Or at least you’ll never see more bikes in one place. :p

    • Shawn

      Wish I could up vote this post two or three times more!

    • Painjunky

      Filthy casual!

    • Randy Randalman

      Me whenever someone mentions hating tournament players; “You will never find a bigger group of lonely whiners who refuse to learn how to be better at the game.”

      • Nyyppä

        So, he got under your skin by pointing out the obvious, that people in those events are there to win at all cost.

        • Charon

          So is everyone at a darts event.

          • Nyyppä

            True, but those people are perfectly ok with back yard darts people doing their thing while 40k tournament people demand that the rest of the community starts adopting their style.

          • Charon

            All I see here are people whining about events they do not participate in and want everyone to adopt their playstyle, else it is obviously “badwrongfun”.
            Like in this thread where (once again) the adorable and chilled casual crowd started with insults on a topic they were not able to skip when it did not cater to their playstyle (which was even mentioned in the title)

          • Nyyppä

            These people whining about events want to be left to enjoy the hobby like they want to enjoy it. I don’t personally care what people in tournaments do. I follow the scene only to see what is the currently most broken thing. Obviously I’ve been vocal at times against the more unfluffy solutions in list building but that does not mean that I’d be against other people using those against someone who is not me. To each their own.

            I do however care about people pushing their play styles on me without my permission…which is the SMO of the competitive crowd.

          • Charon

            Can you point out where that happened in this thread?

            I see a guy insulting a bunch of other guys he doesnt even know and you are in agreement. Thats exactly the opposite of what you are trying to sell here.

          • Nyyppä

            I did not claim that it happened in this thread.

            I agree that people in tournaments play the game in a way it was not designed to be played…which is fine up to the point in which they start to force their play style upon others. An example of such a behavior would be saying something like “chaos was top tier before the Traitor Legions book”, which is not only false claim but also an attempt to force the idea of chaos as one faction upon others so that when someone plays for example only CSM he/she can be shamed for not using to more powerful allies.
            Sugar coating the description of that particular style/attitude does not change it in any way. WAACs are WAACs even if you decide to use some other description for them.

          • Charon

            There is no sugarcoating. There is just a bunch of people insulting other people while claiming to be “nice and relaxed”. Thats about it.
            Nobody tried to force anything on anyone here. It is literally just some “relaxed friendly casual” starting to insult people. AGAIN.

            Also the relaxed crowd seems to be in possession for the stick of truth as they can totally tell what the designers intended. Without a source, without any citation. Just because they say so. Poor poor casual crowd. You cant even insult people without getting called out for it.

          • disqus_CktyL7rKWJ

            There is no such thing as a “casual crowd”: it’s literally just a bunch of guys in their basements plus few friends from the local game store reading in the internet about what the people who do get in touch with another and actually try out their theories on a international, highly competitive level (a.k.a. tournaments) find out about how the game works (rather than just blabbering about how they WANT it to work without a basis other than their own little fantasy worl and then complain about the messengers “forcing” actual information on them).

          • Karru

            I’d say it’s a bit more complicated than that. Tournament scene usually just finds the most optimal way to win. Not in a bad way, but through math and actual testing of the lists. They make a theory, calculate it and then try it out multiple times. Highly competitive tournament players are like scientists in that way. There is nothing bad about that, but there is one difference from real science and what these guys do.

            It might be a fact that something is more optimal than something else. It could be ever so slightly better than that something. But here’s the thing, it doesn’t hurt anyone that someone uses the other thing. They also don’t exactly dictate “how the game works”. They just dictate how the game works in their setting, that is the fantastic thing about table top gaming.

            Saying that Tournament players only care for the win is like saying that a hungry man only cares for the food. Sure that man wants to eat anything because he is hungry but it would be much better if the food was something he personally enjoyed. Many Tournament players frequent tournaments to test out their skills or even just show off their magnificent armies. Tournament players are not automatically A-holes that people mark as WAACs. They want to enjoy the game just as much as casual player would. I have talked to many tournament players and have a few friends that frequent tournaments and all of them have said that while winning is what they strive for, it should never be the only thing to focus on. If you win, but you crushed your opponent on the first or second turn, it wasn’t the best thing in the world. A great game comes from an even game, a nail-biter that lasts to the last turn with no clear winner until the last dice is rolled.

            The problem isn’t these people. It’s the extremes from both sides. There are those tournament players that can’t see the difference between a friendly game of beer and pretzels and the top table game at a high level tournament. Then you have the extremes from the casual side that hate on tournament players for just existing. They believe that everything that is wrong about the game is their fault.

            Both of these are totally wrong. I consider myself more of a collector than an actual gamer. When I play a game, I always approach it from the casual side. I like to see as much of my collection on the table at one time, so I tend to go with more diverse list. I always ask what type of game my opponent would like to play, it’s a habit that stayed from the days when my club was at its peak and we had dozens of different players looking for games at any given day. He wants a chill game so he can field his new unit he just finished painting? Sure thing, I’ll bring my usual list. He wants to try out his tournament list his taking to the next event and would like to practice. Okay, I usually do a slight follow up question if he wants me to bring an all comers list or more “specialised” army that is meant to hard counter him. That way he gets just the opposition he wants.

            I personally don’t like to attend tournaments for two reasons. First of all, I don’t have the energy to play a lot of games in succession and I don’t like to play with the same list two times in a row.

          • disqus_CktyL7rKWJ

            There are objective facts as to how the game works, but there are no objective facts as to what people consider to be fun. Thus nothing is to be learned from people talking about what they consider to be fun and what not.

          • Karru

            There comes the issue. How things like movement and shooting works for example are facts. Those can’t be disputed. What is how lists should be made is not an absolute fact. People can play with whatever models they want, they can play any kind of scenario they want.

            This is where the problems come. When a person says “I’d like to play a pure [insert theme here] army and do good, that is not currently possible in a way that I’d like to so here is a list of things that are both fluffy and reasonable.” Then comes the A-holes and say “Git Gud or play something else”.

            This is a slight problem I tend to find with some tournament players more than I do with casual players. Since they usually only care about the army as a whole and its power level in a tournament, they really don’t care if a themed army would be powerful. Then, if someone comes up with a proposal for the changes that would be needed to accomplish this, they are usually shot down from both sides. Tournament players complain that it would break the game even more and there is no need for those changes because the army has one very powerful build and that’s all it needs. Meanwhile the casual players complain that the proposed changes would make that specific theme too broken and more powerful than their chosen theme.

            It’s literally a lose-lose situation more often than not.

          • Charon

            A themed army will nearly always lack in power. Thats the price you are willing to pay.
            Now if you come to the board and demand rule changes for your specific army because you are NOT willing to accept the trade off, you deserve to catch flak from bot sides. As the other themed army players accept the tradeoff in effectiveness and the competitive players accept the lack of theme in their armies as a tradeoff for in-game stats (dont you think a lot of competitive players would be grateful if every model was a valid choice?)
            I think it is amazing that the same peolpe who try to tell others to “forge the narrative” and “just houserule it” tend to complain the most about how the rules do not cater to their theme and claim it is impossible to houserule as nobody will accept it if it is not official.

          • Karru

            The problem is that many highly competitive gamers actually don’t want the armies to have multitude of viable options. That would mean they can’t prepare for a very specific lists, so they’d rather keep the books the way they are, maximum of one or two viable builds means they have to prepare less for the upcoming tournaments.

            Also, many casual gamers that give out their opinions and change proposition have most likely used said changes in their own games. They have tried them out multiple times and have noticed that it has made certain armies more fun and useful. For example, the Eternal Warrior/No Instant Death for Double the Toughness for Tyranids that we’ve tried ever since Tyranids lost it has worked wonders for Tyranids. No one has yet to complain that they are too powerful. Those Warriors and Zoanthropes still die like relatively easily, you just can’t shoot couple Krak Missiles at them and see them disappear.

            This was a proposal I made and lo and behold I was shut down. So many commented how bad it would be and why it shouldn’t be included. Our results clearly showed that the only effect it had was that Warriors and other multi wound, low toughness creatures became extremely useful. This led to Swarm lists being more useful as the Synapse Web was a lot easier to manage and harder to take down. It was no longer Flyrants and Tervigon spam.

            It didn’t effect D-weapons, so shooting with weapons that deal multiple wounds is still viable. No effects on Poisoned Attacks or sustained fire. Only difference was that you can’t just use one unit of Krak Missiles to take down an entire Warrior or Zoanthrope unit.

            There are those highly competitive gamers that are against many changes when they are aimed at armies they don’t play themselves. Let’s say we have a Space Marine Player. I say “Eldar Jetbikes should be limited to 1 Special Weapon per 3 bikes and Wraithknights shouldn’t be Gargantuan Creatures.” I am pretty sure that the SM player would agree. Then I say something similar about Tau and he would agree. Then I mention that Demi-company shouldn’t give free transports and suddenly I have a 10-page essay in front of my telling me how I am wrong and how it doesn’t cause “problems” within the game.

            Meanwhile many casual gamers want all armies to be on the level. They want to be able to play any army and do good, even if they decide to go with a themed army. They shouldn’t be punished for it, because in some cases that just means that GW didn’t do good enough job. So they test things out with their own group, they try different solutions and fixes and then propose these changes somewhere. More often than not, competitive gamers become absolutely outraged by this.

            That is actually something I tend to find is the major difference between casual players and competitive gamers. Competitive gamers are usually “okay” how things are. They study new things, find the most optimal solutions and enjoy it. Then comes something new and for a good while many of them are doomsaying that it will break the game even more. Then they repeat the process of finding optimal things and all that and now are okay.

            Casual players usually study the entire thing thoroughly and try to find problems. Then when they find those problems, they start proposing fixes to them. Some are good, supported by facts and test results while others are just ludicrous. When this happens you can try to guess who is the first in line to come and yell at them why they are so utterly wrong. Competitive gamers. They are so set in the “way the game is and how it works” that they have very hard time to actually want to do changes. Because whenever there is a change, they have to do more work in order to find out what is optimal and whatnot.

            The biggest reason why people who want to “forge the narrative” are complaining so much is because they have tried them out, found out that there is nothing seriously wrong with it and it actually does help the game in some way. The reception they get? Pure hate. It’s no wonder that so many are insanely defensive when their proposals are shut down.

          • Charon

            Oh please.
            Neither is anyone posting here a “highly competitive player” nor is sitting in the basement with 2 friends “proper testing”.
            Also more variety is one of the most common demand by the tournament crowd.
            This post shows 2 things pretty clear. You never actually talked to top tournament players and you do not have an idea what “throughly testing and understanding the rules” actually means.

          • Karru

            Let’s try one more time. I personally couldn’t give a damn about the state of the game. For all I care, 8th edition might as well AoS the whole thing. I’ll be sad, but as long as GW doesn’t discontinue entire model lines and some of the basic units for armies I couldn’t care less.

            Also, let’s get something very straight here. As I mentioned in my earlier post, these are the extremes of both, the extremely vocal minority which both pretty much hate each other. I am not saying all Casual gamers are the way I said nor do I say that all highly competitive gamers are the same. It’s the extremely vocal A-holes.

            All I do is observe. I observe what people say is the problem. I read all the complaints people have about certain things and start looking at the things that appear most. For example, what is the most problematic things in 40k right now. What causes issues to many players, from casuals to competitive gamers.

            Formations, Alternative Detachments and LoW/CAD Spam. These are the biggest complaints that surface the most. We have seen what happens when these are limited, No Retreat is a perfect example of this. DE player has won it 3 times in a row now. DE, the army that many players agree is the one of the absolute worst books in the game. How did they do it? Because the bs was heavily limited.

            When I propose these changes in a way that would remove them from the regular game and tournament scene, I usually get yelled at. I don’t know why, because the only people that suffer from it are those we call “that guy”. People who bring the Demi-company or 3 Wraithknights in every game no matter who the opponent is. Those would disappear fast. TOs could still say that they are allowed in their events, but it would keep the general game more pleasant for new players. When they game doesn’t encourage free stuff or LoW spam, it becomes quite a bit easier to convince new players to start collecting.

          • Charon

            Nothing of this was my point.
            My point is still: You do not know any highly competitive players (they do not post here and they do not mix with casual gamers) and “testing” is more than trying a few times with friends.

            Also most people who start pick the most powerful options first. Or better… they pick what they think is most powerful.
            They pick lascannons “because S9!” they pick powerfists on every squad “because S8!” and they fiel a bunch of terminators and landraiders “because powerfists and 2+ or AV14 and Lascannons!”
            A lot of players started like this before they learned to refine their game.
            When I think back to our first fantasy games in 4th edition we basically always had 50% tooled up characters, min 25% units and max 25% warmachines.
            When I see people starting 40, they do exactly the same. Pick every upgrade in the book to make their models “stronger”.

          • Nyyppä

            One person is not something you normally call “a bunch”.

            My quote of an attempt to force competitive style on a casual was exact and from this thread. So, yes, there is at least one person who tried that.

            The Designers intent is pretty damn clear. Not even GW is so void of skill that they would design a game as inconsistent and with multiple rules with several viable interpretations as 40k for blood, sweat and tears level serious competitive gaming.

            I think you would do well by taking some distance to this topic now that it is apparent that you condemn everything people with different opinions do and simply refuse to acknowledge the misbehaving your side is guilty of. Sure, both parties could do better but your claim of innocence on behalf of the whole of your side is just ridiculous.

          • disqus_CktyL7rKWJ

            I think you would do well by taking some distance to this topic now that
            it is apparent that you condemn everything people with different
            opinions do and simply refuse to acknowledge the misbehaving your side
            is guilty of. Sure, both parties could do better but your claim of
            innocence on behalf of the whole of your side is just ridiculous.

          • Nyyppä

            There’s no flaming. You being offended by what I said does not mean that what I said was offensive or aggressive in any way, just that you do not agree with me.
            “My side” would be the ones that do not want the community to be forced to play the game in one particular way nor does “my side” want to divide the community. The other 2 sides are the WAACs and the “fithy casuals”. If you see the “let’s just all try to get along”-crowd as the problem then maybe, just maybe the actual problems are closer to you than you realize.

          • disqus_CktyL7rKWJ

            Sorry, but: nope. You offending other people with what you say is not just differing opinion on their part. And you claiming to speak for a “side” does not magically make people agreeing with you exist.

          • Nyyppä

            I can not offend anyone. Everyone is responsible for their own feelings alone. I was not being even offensive.

            I did not claim to speak for any side.

          • Pyrrhus of Epirus

            your not forced into doing anything, Stop coming to sites like this and guess what, nobody will be able to tell you anything about 40k. Or alternatively, when a title on one of these sites say the words “how to win tournaments”, feel free to skip the article because unless you are a complete idiot, you know exactly what will be in the comments thread, ie) things about how to win tournaments, which you dont even play.

          • Nyyppä

            True. There is nothing wrong with tournaments. It’s just another way to enjoy the hobby. Still the fact remains that no one should have to face shaming just because they do not WAAC.

            Morally it is just a bad move to force the people who do nothing wrong to move away from the oppressive folks. It only rewards the oppressors and reinforces their feeling of entitlement While penalizing bad behavior either teaches better ways to function as a group or forces the actual wrong doers to leave.

          • Pyrrhus of Epirus

            This is warhammer forum, not an ethics class. If somebody was oppressing me(which is a joke in the context of a warhammer forum vs actual oppression that occurs daily worldwide), id prolly just not go to that website anymore. Nobody is forcing you to go to these websites and be “oppressed”.

            You sound like all my millennial cousins.

          • Nyyppä

            True, but one should not whine about peoples demands about wanting to be left alone with their style of fun when one wants the exact same thing and on top of that to force the first group to play like the whiner wants.
            All the casuals and fluffbunnies want is that the WAACs leave them alone. That is it.

            Oh, and just to make one thing clear, it’s ok to say that a weak list is weak just like it’s ok to say that a broken list is broken. There is nothing wrong in stating a fact. Shaming people for playing a certain faction/list or not playing that is not ok.

            The difference between me and your millenial friends is that I think that people should be able to do what ever they want as long as the participants are all willing and know what they are doing. Millenials tend to want to dictate what others can and can not do even if restricting other people would be morally wrong and against the law.

          • Charon

            1) It is not only this thread, it happens EVERYTIME an article about tournaments is posted.
            2) The guy you quoted expressed his opinion. This is by no means “forcing” somebody into anything.
            3) Their intent is most of the time not even clear to themselves. So please do cite a source or stop claiming your opinion is somehow more worth then others. Even GW stores do offer organized tournament play.
            4) It is plain t read here for everybody who started the flames AGAIN.
            Skip the damn topic if you don’t like it. It is really not hard..

          • Nyyppä

            1) Obviously not. You still narrowed it to this one previously. You re-framing of the subject will not change the fact that it’s still both sides and usually the WAACs start it. Not now, but usually.

            2) Opinions are fine. Claiming that if something can ally with something else then that something else is from the same faction as the first something is simply not true, which I’m sure he knew. This phrased in such a way that the average power level of said non-faction is equal to it’s strongest part is also just another false claim. These in combination with the intent of shaming the target audience for not using the best units available even when they are not available for the actual faction the target audience is playing is one way to try to force the competitive attitude that is WAAC upon the target audience.
            3) Well, you can also skip the needless whining and just use some pretty straight forward logic of deduction. If a company blatantly boycotts tournaments and edition after edition designs a game that is in no way able to handle any level competitiveness at all, is it reasonable to assume that the product is not designed to do something it can not do? If you answered yes then you agree that 40k is not designed for competitive gaming.

            4) “Again” as in not the first time ever, yes, it is plain to see.

            Skip the damn comment section if you don’t like it. It is really not that hard. See how your own advice works both ways and how that means that your emotional distress is your own doing, nobody else’s?

          • Charon

            Well… just keep beeing a dick. Your choice.

          • Nyyppä

            Never was being one. I just don’t sugarcoat things. These are not one and the same.

      • Jared McWilliams

        Considering most tournaments have artificial constraints to limit parts of the rules the above post is not a true statement. You cannot become better at something by ignoring what it is and saying “We are the best” when you aren’t playing the actual game.

        If someone showed up to an etc or ITC event with 3 of the same formation, valid in the rules the tournament scene would deny them games despite them playing g the actual rules of the GE.

        Or heaven forbid an unbound list…

        • Pyrrhus of Epirus

          the only restraints are on the brutal game design GW has been putting out for years. If you played any other games, you would realize how far behind the curve 40k is now, and people like the ITC putting out rules helps to make the game better.

          You think running a 5 wraithknight list is fun? not allowed in ITC. you think 2+ re-rollable invul saves are fun to play against, not allowed in ITC.

          GW has been mailing in the 40k rules for a decade, and guys like you still defend them, just wow bro, wow.

          • Jared McWilliams

            I play other games and am well aware of the issues 40k has, your rant is just a rant and does not really address that the tournament scene is not really playing the game. The issue on detachment limitations hurts mostly xenos factions and other lists where model cost is low, which in effect benefits space Marine armies 80% of what you will see in a tournament, probably mostly white scars or some made up sub chapter of them.

            The tournament scene plays a heavily modified and skewed version of 40k which creates some favoritism of certain builds within a limited amount of factions. Comments like “learn to play” which the post I was replying to are essentially drivel as the tournament scene doesn’t actually play 40k, they play 40k version ITC.

            That you read anywhere that I think 40k is well written tight rules set or good is your personal projection and not factual in any form.

          • Pyrrhus of Epirus

            you complain about the artificial constraints tournaments put on army lists. By saying that, you are inferring that the base ruleset is good enough without restraints and should be played that way, i disagree.

            and you should learn what a rant is and what a discussion is.

          • Jared McWilliams

            You realize your reply had nothing to do with my statement that the tournament rules set isn’t really the rules of 40k so saying get good at it is hypocritical when the tournament scene isn’t actually playing 40k.

            You instead wanted to discuss the merits of altering the rules versus the base rules, which is a different topic entirely than if the altered rules are the actual rules.

            That is why your post is a rant, it is responding to something totally different than what was brought up, albeit in your defence it’s at least a perpendicular topic, based on your personal feelings.

          • Pyrrhus of Epirus

            nice rant

          • Jared McWilliams

            Sigh, grow up man child.

          • Pyrrhus of Epirus

            you crap all over the modified rules for 40k and tournament players who think they are “better” than anybody else when there not even playing the same game, yet refuse to acknowledge that the base game is a unmitigated unbalanced disaster.

            You cant have it both ways, contempt for balance rules of the ITC while not seeing the many flaws in the base game which you apparently think is fine.

    • Spacefrisian

      I simply dont care how anyone plays, maybe you should try that as well, it makes life so easy when you stop carring about what others do.

    • Lion El’ Jonson

      It’s ok to be competitive when it’s appropriate. ….Not ok bringing a Wraithknight against a 10 year old with a SM army of 2 Dark Vengeance boxes 🙁

      To be fair….the guy did warn the 10 year old he’d wreck him.

    • Walter Vining

      i wish I could down vote this for the rest of infinity

  • Nyyppä

    Lol, nope.

  • I’ll believe that when I see it. Though friendly challenge… the player that can pull off a high profile win with a traitor legion list is definitely a good player and not just one crutching a win with a busted list.

    • Randy Randalman

      You won’t give it credit even when it happens (and it already has), because you’ll just claim it wasn’t a high tier event; or that you didn’t see it so it doesn’t count; or you’ll blame the other top players for not having “optimal” lists; or you’ll say the TO’s had scenarios which favored the Traitor Legions; or [insert infinite excuses].

      • Nyyppä

        Which GT was won by mono CSM during this edition?

      • Spacefrisian

        The same is happening to Dark Eldar, 1 wins a tourney 3 times in row with video proof, random person says it was made with an advantage to Dark Eldar….Even when such a claim makes no sense.

        • Charon

          Different Tournaments appy different house rules. They all interact and form the meta.
          Lets take Corpsethief Claw for example. This formation is awesome in a meta where MSU is played and D-Weapons are nerfed or even banned.
          As soon as D weapons are allowed with full power you will see CTC to disappear as Eldar (and there are lots of them) will just block the door to the top tables for them.
          Also if I am not mistaken it was no DE list but a Corsair list.

          • Spacefrisian

            Nope it was a full Dark Eldar list, that formation with 6 fast attack options, it had 36 Reaverjetbikes in it and that Clawfiend formation.

          • Charon

            Yes, the no retreat. Lets look at the rules.
            Strictly CAD + 1 Formation
            FW and LoW limited to 400 points combined
            No allies
            No fortifications
            No first blood
            No kill points

            You consider that a standard setting?

        • Karru

          There is actually a slight difference. I take it you are talking about the “No Retreat” Tournament and the DE player that has won it 3 times in a row.

          I’d say that no one can argue that the player isn’t good, he is most likely one of the best 40k players out there. Many try to bring up that tournament result to support an argument that DE is not garbage and “can still win if you are good enough”. Only problem is that it’s not true. DE is still garbage and the only reason why the guy has been able to keep up winning the Tournament time and time again is thanks to the restrictions the tournament has put up. I’m not seeing him winning other major tournaments that don’t have those restrictions, nor do I see mono DE Lists finishing at the top 10-30 in other events.

          The success of an army within tournaments is purely based on two things, skill and tournament restrictions, if the book is normally considered bad. It requires both in order to succeed. In this case, the player is amazing and the tournament restriction help DE massively.

      • Well you don’t know me so to say that I won’t give it credit when it happens is ridiculous.

        Second, local small tournaments don’t really count because
        * they are anecdotal
        * they are hard to prove
        * they typically involve 6-8 people of dubious skill
        * they don’t impact the overall meta at all.

        If your standards for measurement are that a list can win a local tournament then every 40k codex is a tournament winner.

  • Painjunky

    I honestly do hope for CSM to do well at tournaments.
    REAL CSMs! Not deamons with a Cabal but i don’t see it happening.

    That khorne list is quite meh.

    • Randy Randalman

      KDK on their own routinely finish in the top 8; and whether or not it has a Cabal is irrelevant. Chaos was top tier before the Traitor Legions book.

      • Nyyppä

        1: KDK is not CSM.
        2: Chaos is daemons, CSM, renegades and KDK.
        3: KDK was once new, never top tier.
        4: Claiming that if one of the previous 4 is top tier then all of them are is just fallacy.

      • Charon

        Well then I have good news for you.
        Sisters of battle regularly finish in top 3 as Imperium is dominating events.

      • Karru

        That’s nice but how does this has anything to do with CSM? It wasn’t CSM that placed on top, it was Daemons or KDK lists that used only Daemons that did the top placing.

      • Painjunky

        KDK is not CSM.
        KDK lists are 95% daemons.
        Thats like saying blood angels are top tier cos SM are top tier.
        Your comment makes no sense.

    • Spacefrisian

      Take Chaos Spacemarines 3.5, Daemons were part of that so they are CSM in my book…well books. GW just wants to make us think they arent.

      • Charon

        Same as Blood Angels and Dark Angels who did share a book?
        Editions change, fluff gets rewritten. 3.5 is in the past, let it go.

  • Agent OfBolas

    Please don’t make laugh of youself.

    I can undestand new Traitor Legions book is nice, but it’s not a game breaker and top armies can eat this list without any issue.

    Mentioned list is … a nice for kitchen table, on tournament with maxed up army lists … well, I can’t see it doing well.

  • mysterex

    Oh look, havocs with no special or heavy weapons. And then forge world in a list designed to highlight the Traitor Legions book.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      At least he has no way to summon, outside of that 1 KDK unit.

    • Charon

      The havocs are no issue here as you want them to go to melee to apply their MoK. And as you have to pick them for the Warband (the alternative would be a Helbrute who does not benefit from the detachment bonus)
      Still not convinced that this is competitive as there are still superheavies included in a lot of lists and there is not much that can deal with them in this list.

      • mysterex

        The havocs still could of had meltguns or flamers.

        • Knight_of_Infinite_Resignation

          agreed, some sort of assault weapon wouldnt slow them down.

        • Charon

          Which would make them a better target than the other CSM.
          If you do that you want redundancy. You opponent is not some bad prorammed AI that will ignore them, even if they are better equipped. At the end of the day you will just lose the points as there is only ONE squad and they are a clear priority.
          You might as well paint “shoot me” on them.

  • The Suave Lion

    Like everyone here, I also wish to see chaos do well but I saw a similar list to this in a batrep to see if it would be competitive and it got virtually tabled turn 2 by tau.

  • eehaze

    Why wouldn’t you use the Axe of Blind Fury instead of the Claw/Fist on your Juggerlord?