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've reading the forums and playing WoC for a while, and I've finally decided to post.
I haven't played a lot of games with WoC (although I'm a Warhammer veteran), but I think I haven't found the equilibrium between Marauders and Warriors. Being a former Skaven player, Warriors seem to me SO expensive, while my Marauders have the disgusting habit of being obliterated very fast. I usually field hordes of 30-50 MoK, Gw, Marauders and a big unit of Tzeentch Chosen with hw/sh (which usually excels in obliterating half of my enemy's army), a Hellcannon and a unit or two of Horseman with javelins for warmachine hunting (not very sucessful there, though). I usually play against WE, HE, Brets and mostly O&G. My Marauders tend to be surrounded, raped, and annihilated. Then the game becomes "Chase the Chosen while they spread love!".
One more question. I'm considering to buy a Shaggoth or a Giant. I don't see a clear winner between a Slanneshii Giant and a Shaggoth on the paper, although I haven't experience with them.
I'm tired of losing and I appeal to your wisdom, Chaos Lords. Thoughts?
Last edited by Moskau Ritter; July 26th, 2011 at 13:56.
Perhaps mix em both, Chosen are a big point sink for me as you are paying 3pts extra a model over warriors, for a free eye of the gods roll, yeah you can get lucky or you can create your own luck with it and get the Stubborn 4+ ward save. That may be one problem you have there, where you can drop the chosen all together and pick up warriors and support the warriors with your marauders.
Marauders will not be the break the line unit that every one wants them to be, they have a good chance though with upgrades, the point of the marauders is for the warriors to have a unit that can slog it out with the enemy's horde - at least that's what i think, since they can get up to strength 5 with a metric crud ton of attacks, as well MoK is fickle, specially on a unit that is designed to loose combat but pass its stubborn leadership because of steadfast, so perhaps use your marauders more as a support anvil for your hammer warriors, and give your horsemen throwing axe's vs jav's, both quick to fire but axe's are at +1 Strength
As far as the giant vs shaggoth goes, i prefer the Always strike first giant over it because as the giant's rules are a laugh being able to do it before the opponent is even funnier.
Last edited by ambientinspiration; July 26th, 2011 at 14:33.
“If you’re in the penalty area and don’t know what to do with the ball, put it in the net and we’ll discuss the options later.” – Bob Paisley
Yeah, I'd definitely consider running a second hellcannon as opposed to the giant or Shaggoth (though they are nice models still xD). What are you running for lords as well? I mean, your core seem really decent, So i am surprised that you seem to not be doing well. Maybe your Chars aren't performing as well as they should be. also, drop the chosen down to a manageable level ( i don't know how big you are running them but you never really need a bigger block then 6x3 as with chaos; you need kills, not combat res) and run a second squad of warriors or even knights, which are amazing
I assume Morgan Freeman is the voice of the Emperor.
My Painting Log! http://www.librarium-online.com/foru...nes-horde.html
I prefer mauraders MOS or Mark of TZ with shields run them deep supported by warriors. Warriors can win battles in small units because they put out so many attacks but against all hordes your going to hit steadfast. I recently have been getting round this with either double charging one unit warriors one narrow fronted Mauarders to win combats. Chariots are also useful as are warhsrines (has a unit stregth of 5).
What points level do you generally play? I usually have at least 80 mauraders in my lists in two units of 40 or 2 units of 35.
Unit Strength no longer exists in 8th Edition, so I don't know what you're talking about there.
As for the Warrior/Marauder balance... I usually run a decently sized squad of Warriors (18-24 is my range these days, which is a bit on the high side for most of the folks here, but I tend to just throw them into tough fights so they need numbers), and then I bring a big horde of Marauders. That said, I prefer Flails to Great Weapons, mostly because it nets me the same Strength bump while letting me take advantage of one of the big Marauder features (above-average Initiative). I don't worry much about getting caught in combat, because of how devastating 40 WS4 S5 attacks are.
CW vs chosen vs marauders: The important thing to ask yourself here is what is the ROLE of each unit? What job do you want them to perform? You can't possibly expect to know how to equip or mark your units until you answer those questions, and the answers to those questions is dependent on what other things are in your list and what models you have available. List building should be an iterative process in which you tweak and refine your choices; we can all make our recommendations (some more 'optimal' than others) but at the end of the day it depends on what you want to get out of your gaming experience and how you intend to go about it.
I view Chaos Warriors and Chosen as basically equivalent, with the Chosen obviously being a nice upgade if you can afford it. Obviously we'd all prefer Chosen if points and army composition percentages weren't a factor, but the reality is that they are. My decision of whether to use Chosen massively depends on game size and my other army choices. If I have to fill my core up with chaos warriors because I'm not using marauder cavalry then obviously taking Chosen as well is probably overkill for small games < 2000 pts; but if the cavalry are in the picture then I'll probably go with the Chosen if points allow.
How to equip my Chosen or CWs depends on the role I want them to play. If I want something that hits hard I'll go MoK with halberd (+ shield for ranged protection), if I want an "anvil" then I'll go hand weapon and shield with MoT. If (and only if) I'm playing against a lightly armoured horde army with a poor toughness I'll consider additional hand weapon and MoK (this also works well with Festus), but generally I make all-comers lists so I don't tailor to my enemy.
With marauders I exclusively take ~40 with GWs and MoK. The reason for this is that, in my opinion, no other build utilises the marauders' main asset - i.e. that they are damn good for cheap units. You can have sufficiently many that they are expendable, but they are still a threat and can pack a hell of a punch if used correctly. They have enough bodies to soak shooting / magic and plenty of attacks when they get into close combat, but most importantly they strike at strength 5 which means you can wound high toughness enemies and cut through annoyingly armoured knights etc. Anything striking at less than strength 4 frankly doesn't cut it and the benefits of the flail aren't good enough in my opinion. I don't care that I strike last with great weapons because I know that when it's my turn I'm going to hit hard, and I'm still going to have enough bodies to get the maximum number of attacks and rank bonus from the unit, and most likely remain steadfast.
Don't get me wrong, marauders WILL eventually lose combat (and therefore frenzy with MoK) but they'll do some damage in the process, unlike their MoT or MoS counterparts. I don't see the point in protecting a unit with MoT and armour/shield if they are intended to die. What's the point of making a unit more durable if it doesn't pack much punch when it fights back? OK tarpitting is one reason, but to be honest for the same points as a unit of marauders I can have a hellcannon and that is an AMAZING tar pit (which also packs a punch!).
The biggest risk to units in warhammer is fleeing and being run down, which happens about as often to MoT with HW + shield as it does to MoK with great weapons. MoT marauders might take less wounds (about 45% less in fact), but they don't hit back anywhere near as effectively and as a result deal only about 40% as many wounds as an equivalent MoK GW unit. So overall the combat resolutions of both units are about equivalent, but the MoK unit has done far more damage to the enemy. Ok so frenzied units can be baited, but a) it's not that great a strategy and b) who the hell is baiting marauders out of the way when there are Chaos Warriors and two hellcannons to worry about?
In terms of balance between marauders and CW/chosen. I would typically take 3 "normal" infantry units in most armies up to about 2400 points. Usually this is 40 x MoK Marauders + 18 x MoK halberd CWs and one "other", which might be more CWs/chosen (usually overkill) but more recently I've been feeling a lot of love for the new forgeworld Chaos Dwarf Infernal Guard and trolls.
The secret to the balance is that you want to put enough bodies (wounds) on the table to soak the punishment, but don't go too heavy on chaff because you want an army that's actually going be effective.
With regard to shaggoth vs giant vs hellcannon, this one isn't even close. The hellcannon is one of (if not the) best monsters in WHFB. I don't think I've ever dealt a single wound with a Shaggoth, it's usually dead to archery or dies in the first round of combat before it gets to strike. Giants are decent in Storm of Magic and against Daemons that use Skulltaker in a bloodletter bunker, but besides that they're more of a fun unit. They're not very competitive. Hellcannons can do it all; they hit like a ten tonne hammer, are awesome tarpits, have excellent durability and also give you an extra dimension by being able to fire if you need them too (as a last resort only in my opinion) - and they're significantly cheaper than the shaggoth and MoS giant.
Finally, MoT is a bit overkill on a warshrine. They already have T6 and a 4+ ward, improving that isn't really necessary.
Mosaku Ritter- welcome to the forum! I'm glad you finally decided to post up and let us help you out, it's what we do best (well, we're Chaos Warriors on the side, so we're also good at drinking, fighting, pillaging, and uh "borrowing" people's ladies- it's a good resume really, excellent applicable skills).
I think that the problem with your list doesn't lie so much in the fact that you haven't got the right ratio of units, it's that you haven't got enough of them. Your list is running extremely heavy on points values, and that's usually a problem in a WoC army. For example, I would go through this list and toss out your Chaos Lord, the L2 Sorc might stay, and then either swap those Chosen to Warriors, or drop them down to a regiment of 18. The Marauder Cav didn't seem to be helping much and rarely do, hounds are better simply because they fill the same role more cheaply, so nobody cares if they die, I'd drop the MCav or combine it into a single regiment of 10 Khorne Flails and use them as a shock-flanker.
That should free up some lovin' all OVER the table. You need to have a LOT more regiments on the board. At 2.5k I'm usually running 30 Marauders, three units of 18 Warriors, a Shrine, Hellcannon, 5 Chaos Knights (or another Cannon), a Sorc Lord, a BSB who casts as a L2 with the Book, Festus, and Wulfrik. That's a LOT of units, and I've seen Warrior lists with more.
Whether you go for Marauders or a comparably priced block of Warriors isn't the issue. The issue is how much control you have over the battlefield, and more units, or faster units, means more control (speed is less of an issue now, simply because while threat-range is larger, the actual threat of Cavalry has been dropped significantly).
A WoC army is pretty stalwart- we can go without a lot of the things that other Fantasy generals feel are genuinely necessary to victory. Paper-hammering doesn't work out well either, so to be honest, even the stuff that other generals feel they must take, probably doesn't need to be there, but we'll let them keep on wasting those points; it makes it easier for us to fighting, pillage, and then borrow their ladies- even if we've been drinking beforehand.
Against anything but a dedicated black-powder gunline we can get across the field without giving 2cents about how many warmachines they have, so we don't need the ubiquitous "fast cavalry warmachine hunters", and we can mash anything they put into contact against us, so we don't really need flankers. We're going to be dealing with Steadfast enemies and we're hard as nails in our armor or have HUGE numbers, so we don't need dedicated throwaway "tarpits", which is good because we can't afford them anyways and our Hellcannons and Shrines do the job well enough for our needs. Our combat characters are monsters, and we pay for that ridiculously high WS (when do you ever really need WS8? So you can hit WS7 on 3's? Congratulations on being awesome at killing Exalteds) and our Warriors do the same amount of damage when you consider how many more we get for the points spent on CC Characters.
Basically, we stick to what we do best- killing and pillaging. And you need a lot of guys on the ground if you want to pillage properly (1 guy pillaging is just a nutter on a crime spree). So try to keep your numbers up and the lads will work out the rest of the killing for you. Magic is the only thing to really invest in, because it does help us when we get hung up on things- but that's why we take "buffing" magic, like Shadows or Heavens. It covers our major weaknesses and lets our fighters do their job more easily.
So there's the basic formula for winning with Warriors: keep the number of troop units that you field, nice and high, and the rest will work itself out naturally.
I posted my experiences of the last battle, but it is pending of moderator's approval (too large, I suppose). Thank you all for the advice! You have given me a lot of points to think.
I think I'm biased by the performance of certain units in the last battles. The Hellcannon was a total sink of points (I have two of them, though, 'cause I love the model), but maybe it is worth another try. Do you think it is necesary to bear a Doom Totem to obtain the best of one or two of them?
The Chosenstar, on the other hand, was simply amazing. It was extremely expensive, but he killed at least twice his value, and I still think that with a bit more of luck the last turn I could won. I don't know if a similar unit of warriors could chew as effectively against 40 Big Unz Savage Orcs and 40 Black Orcs with characters, to say only some of them. Maybe with the Blasted Standard to minimize the casualties.
I did try a list with a lot of 30 hording MoK GW Marauders for tarpiting with extreme force and several flanking 12 warriors units in my first game, but it was a disaster. We played WoC and DE against Brets and WE. Those pesky lances of knights with the support of the best archers have been my bane, and I've been unable to win them but once.
Regarding the warmachines hunting duties, I still think that it is a must. We have a high Toughness and a thick armour, true, but that is almost useless against bolt throwers and doom diver catapults (extremely precise, and does d6 S5 impacts with no armour save, for less than 100 points!). Problem is, O&G have so many units that it is very difficult to move to their rearguard without flying. I'm stuck here. Maybe the Exalted on disk is the solution.
I started collecting Warriors of chaos back when all chaos was a single army and marauders didn't even exist. Naturally I was biased towards warriors for the longest time. Only recently have i unterstood why the marauders are so good.
As you noted earlier, the points of warriors is pretty pricey. When they die, it hurts. they are tough and don't die easy, but they are still mortal and do die at a steady pace. Unfortunatly because of their high cost you just can't bring enough to see you through the entire game, and whiles things go good for the first 3 turns, they start to fall apart by turn 5 because by then your units are just too small to cut it.
Marauders, on the other hand, cost next to nothing (when compared to all other options in our list), and have good enough WS, I and gear that they can take on things that cost much more than they do and make them hurt.
In my games, I've found that if i just haphazardly point my marauder horde at the scariest thing and carefully calculate the juiciest target for may warriors, things ushually work out OK. The worst thing that can happen to them is to get led away by fast cav because they can't restrain frenzy (and that is so much easier than it was in 7th edition). Maraders are your general utility units (pain or tarpiting) while warriors are the specialists (better stats and wider combos of gear, marks, and access to some fat banners) tooled up to spesific tasks.
If you are running a horde of korne maraders with GW @ 50 and they arn't working for you, it is likely because you are having trouble in the deployment/movement phase. That is something that just comes with practice and review, over time you will get the hang of it.
Also, I happen to use both Shaggy and Giant, but never in an all-comers list. both have very spesific uses and vulnerabilities and don't mix with all armies or playstyles. I'd say the shaggoth is a better choice as it actually has armor and he is predictable in combat. He's good for Dive bombing sword/board units with characters you want dead (mages are easier), as he isn't a character he doesn't have to challenge (no hiding in the back either) and can attack anyone. With a GW @ str 8 he will kill anything he can hit that doesn't ward/regen, and his thunderstomp can help make up for the lack of static combat res. His moment of glory with me was hitting aunit of iron breakers and caping a couple characters while managing to win combat over 3 turns before he finally died just as the clean-up crew arrived to finish the job.
His weakness is high str attacks, artilery fire and high-volume BS shooting (poison skinks are the worst).his T 5 is nothing to cannons, and boltthrowers, and his large size means no sover penaltise to hit from shooting. When 30 bows shoot on you, it's all about how many 6's and 1's are rolled, enough and it's the end. High str attacks in CC hurt him as bad/worse than he is dishing out himself. I've lost many shaggoth without it doing anything, so it is a normal part of the learning process.
Giants and more of the extreamist's gamble. they can do alot of hurt, or they can fail harder than anything. To play it safest point the giant at the biggest, toughest thing they have. The tougher the better. The 3 options on the larger targets chart are all impressive, and the damage on each is just # of wounds and no saves (cannot remember to what degree). 2d6 wounds on a sphinx is a bad birthday present. yell and bawl at ASF is going to piss him off so bad that he will likely make bad choices (in the game and life). The coices for the infantry troops is a little less predictable, but sometimes can work in your favor. Once I picked up a heirophant and SPLAT! GG
On the flip side he has the same vulnerabilities the shaggoth does, but worse as he has no armor. His stats are crappier making him more vulnerable to certain spells.
The Hellcannon is a fickle beast and is an extreamist. Does it run or stay? Does it fire or missfire (shudder)? Does it hit or Scatter? Does it land and hit something? . . . you get the idea, lots of room for bad things to happen but if it all goes good you can 1shot a nice fat unit. Or you can kill all your wizards with a miscast.
But using it as a monster, well you still have to restrain it, but other than that it is 100% reliable. you know it is T6 and hard to wound. and you know that no matter what it isn't going to run. He makes a great flank gard and can tarpit low str units like no one's bidnezz.
I like to take the first turn to fire him, then move him up next to the infantry on turn 2. It tends to throw people off, as it is like slapping them with *Monster* where they see *Cannon*.
I love all these units but only the HC makes it to my list on a regular basis. His use is consistant vs any army, where as the other 2 are for that special someone. . . .