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!
My first post on here
I was mainly just curious what you all thought on the subject of core choices. Do you all prefer marauder heavy lists or Warrior heavy? Or do you like a nice mix of the two? A lot of people seem to talk about taking a bunch of marauders as a good idea but it is my experience that all they do is die. Anywho, opinions and reasons for your choice would be appreciated. Trying to figure out how to configure my army.
EDIT: oh I just found a post discussing this exact topic. Sorry.
Well i haven't played chaos before but i'm pretty sure maurders are mainly there as a large cheap block to hold up units until your knights/warriors can flank charge and break them. Unless you run your maruders with great weapons and MoK?
They have their place, but marauders always seem to just die for me too. Its a tricky subject and you really need to find a way to make them work. Obviously you can get a ton of marauders for every warrior, but I think warriors last long and kill more. And if everything else is equal, killing is more fun then winning by combat res. Go play dwarfs if you want combat res.
US Master's Midwest Advisor.
Come join me at my GT this September www.brewfestgt.com
I havnt ran marauder because I dont think they can stand up to much of anything, but also dont take them because I dont know why a WoC player really would. There are plenty of armies out there with that type of quallity troups. I picked WoC because I want to field an army of monsterous, metal juggernauts. If you want to go with a horde army, there are a lot of other armies that can give you models for cheaper and be more effective imo.
While everyone has their own playstyle and opinions on what makes a good-looking and great-playing WoC army, I find that fluff reasons just won't allow me NOT to take a large amount of marauders. Just how common is Chaos armour anyways, do they just hand it out when you reach fighting age?
In my tourney list I run 72 marauders in various configurations, two units of "cruise missile" horsemen, and only one unit of warriors and knights. True, my army is very heavily fluff-based but it is also a tournament army and, though relatively new and untested, has gone 4-1-1 in the last two tourneys I've entered (and the draw was against Daemons!)
It's all, of course, down to using whatever you feel like you could make work for you on the table, and I just don't feel that fielding lots of warriors would work for me. Others feel differently, and they've obviously found a way to make it work for them or they wouldn't do it. And if you can't decide between the two, remember that you don't have to. When in doubt, balance it out.
I prefer warrirors. I am a quality over quantity kind of guy. Marauders are a good roadblock unit, but even a block of 20 will be hacked to pieces and a couple turns by some of the more insane units out there.
If a Million Guardsmen die, that's a statistic. If one marine dies, that's a tragedy.
I dont know if running a lot of marauder with a few warriors fully fits flufff. I mean it can but I dont think its the only way WoC should be to be fluff correct. I can easily see a full warrior army being just as correct. The elite warriors dont always want to deal with their weaker bretheren, and want to get the job done right.
I am not trying to bash, I just dont think WoC really has a cut and dry way to make a list fluffy. The book tells us that using an army with all marks is fluffy, yet people dont consider slannesh warriors, khorne knights, and nurgle mages being led by a Tzeentch Lord to be fluffy. Mono god armies are considered fluffy, yet thats not what our book tells us. People still believe slannesh and khorne in the same army is very unfluffy, but thats not what our new book promotes.
The bottom line for me is GW has pulled a 180 on us and I think anything can viably be considered fluffy depending on who looks at it. The books contradict so choose how you want them to be percieved. I see WoC as a small elite army and others percieve them as hordes of marauders and some see a mix. Some like mixing marks and others think its bad fluff wise. Pick what you like and forget what everyone else thinks.
And chaos armor does seem like it would be rare, but would warriors be a core choice if it was that rare? Maybe this is for fluff and maybe its for gameplay. Who knows.
Personally i field both in my Chaos lists. An army compromised of pure warriors is generally really really tiny so you'll give yourself a headache trying to not be out manauvered. Marauders are decent enough for their points and give a chaos list something they lack. A big cheap expendable unit with decent static combat Resolution.
I use marauders to protect the flanks of my warriors and to take any nasty charges from things like blood knights. The'll get butchered but with things like The banner of the gods around they'll hold and you can start doing flank charges.
I do have a pure Warrior army though and it does hold on it's own. It wins but for me who's always had marauders in my usual lists it's more of a challenge having such a small force.
Moral of the story though. Lists work with both of them or with just one of them.
Fluffwise. It's chaos. Anything goes.