Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
I hear alot of talk on here about keeping troops, characters cheap so you can have more, but I'm not sure I agree.
The best(albeit cheapest) players I have battled power gamed their guys to the max. Everything was min-maxed and all their characters and AC's were just kitted out.
And it worked well. A small squad with five-six guys and an AC with mutation, lightning claws, stength, spike and master crafted just went through like tons of troops each turn, and their lords were nigh unstoppable.
And when they played Tzeentch it was all termies. BUt from the Tzeentch players here, they say not to use termies and intead tons of the regular troops.
However the advice I hear here is not to do that, but keep you AC's cheap, lots of troops, and keep you HQ simpler. Now, if you wanted lots of cheap troops, play a horde army or IG, but if you play chaos shouldn't you make fewer, but meaner guys?
Well, Chaos is the one exception to the "more is better" mindset, but that is because we can get some of the hardest, most powerful combinations with all the armory and daemonic choices. With chaos you can have a super-man in every squad, so tooling them up isn't a bad choice. Unfortunately, the game is one of numbers, so most armies can do very well if they "horde" their numbers, especially Marines or Necrons. I guess to a lesser extent that Chaos also uses numbers, in the fact you can have 3 powerful models in an army with minimum choices.
"Through most of the war we fought as nobles might. Never betraying, never decietful. But there came a point where tripping the soldier next to you might mean another day of life..."
Fact is, quantity beats quality almost everytime in 40k. The game is based on statistics...the more models=the more hits=the more kills. Trust us when we say more is better.
I am a huge proponent of balance in the world of characters. I always want 3 good quality troop choices, with good elites, fast attack only when i need them, and heavy's usually 1 unit of havocs and 2/3 heavy hitters. Playing IW i find i can get away with 1 good character. however, i always make sure my aspiring champions are heavy hitters in CC. That way i only need 1 HQ level character. I have found, however, that some chaos player prefer the 2 houses, a good CC lord, followed by a nice CC LT. I personally have always been drawn to the daemon prince who is house, backed by a nice inflitrating troops.
40K-Beakies(9-14-4),Guard(4-7-2),Orks(34-12-11). FANTASY-Dwarves(15-6-7),Beasts (14-14-1), Skaven (17-17-10) DoC (6-1-2). CYGNAR (28-15-1)
Some chaos armies, like Khorne, work well with a bit nasty Daemon prince at the head of the army, others, like Iron Warriors and Nurgle are better off with cheapish HQ's.
I occasionally play Death Guard and I never ever take a Lord, a Lieutenant with manreaper, nurgles rot, daemonic strenght and maybe a suit of terminator armour is all I need.
As for Aspiring Champions, they usually get nurgles rot and daemonic strength, maybe a power weapon or plague sword if I'm feeling flashy.
For me, its easier to play an army with lots of troops. It tends to be more forgiving, as the loss of one units doesnt mean you've got one foot in the grave, but then again, I'm not a good tactician.
I find my Tzeentch terminators do the job, indeed. But when newer players are asking for advice, it's better to stick with the little guys - after all, maneouvring a 350 point sledgehammer of a terminator unit around the board is incredibly hard when you don't know how to use the basic troops. Also, i find that everything seems to go belly-up when you go against a decent tau, iron warriors, or armoured company player - they'll blat your expensive stuff with the overwhelming force of ultra-heavy weapons. As such, tooled up units can work well (my 5-man tzeentch terminator unit once defeated seventy ork slugga boys in combat, plus a squad of nobz, whilst taking only two casualties!) but often you'll find they're, ironically, very fragile - one snag and the plan goes out the window (the same terminator squad in a different game against tau - they jump out and attack some fire warriors - they wipe them out on the first turn of combat and take three broadside battlesuit hits in the next phase) and they have to work to a specific planned niche on the battlefield, and as we all know, plans go out the window when the bullets start flying. But they can work, i do agree.LoC
The only difference between tattooed people and non-tattooed people is that tattooed people are awesome and can kick your ass.
"War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
I think you can do well with spending lots of points on individual models. You just need two things, firstly, is a really good attack plan and secondly, you need a little bit of luck. Lots of models is forgiving - if one dies, it's no big loss. If you're using a few expensive models, one dying is a big loss.
My opinion however, is that the quality versus quantity or balance debate misses a key point in military strategy - Focus. A lot of people's armies I play against lack focus... they may have hordes of models, or a couple super-powerful ones, but the individual units lack unity within each other. They may be cost efficient and effective on the field by themselves, but if they don't work in conjunction with the rest of the army, they're severely lacking in an important way. I try to design armies with one very specific attack plan in mind and design every unit towards making that particular strategy most effective. Greater than the sum of the individual parts kinda of idea.
I've found that armies like this tend to do better against a variety of opponents, but particularly against armies that are supposively "balanced" armies that are simply designed to have a little something to deal with everything but with little regard to how they'll actually go about fighting. One problem though, is if you play the same people over and over, they'll become wise to what you're doing and learn how to counter it or even design an army specifically to beat it. Which happens, you can't expect to win all the time and it's particularly interesting and exciting (for me, at least) to fight hopeless, uphill battles and maybe come out on top. Nothing's more boring than an assured victory.
Yah, strategy and intelligent use of terrain or knowing your foes' weaknesses and play style have absolutely no bearing on the game whatsoever. It's pure stats... just like Vegas.Originally Posted by Loestal
I must admit that one of the things that drew me to chaos was the idea of playing an army of genetically engineer and daemonically mutated supermen. I love the idea of fielding an army with a few, but powerful troops. When I look at the math I can clearly see that I can never spend 14 points better than on a standard marine and I can never spend points better than getting a p-fist for my Aspiring champs.
But still... with a little nod to the marine fluff, I love to be outnumbered and having to rely on the individual strength and toughnes of my models.
If the radiance of a thousand suns
Were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One...
I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds.
Spending a lot of points = Generally bad.
Spending a lot of points efficiently to achieve a great unit = Generally good
Ultimately, it's about spending points in an efficient manner. The guy who tries to give his chaos lord everything in the armoury is going to suck in game.. The guy who picks the best things from the army for the job he wants his chaos lord to do can be a nightmare to beat.
Generally, as has been said, the most efficient way to spend points is on lots of models. It's not always the case, but it's often true.