Librarium Online Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Still toying around with Warriors of Chaos...but I am wondering if our melee heroes are worth it? I mean, yes they are godly on the field of battle but most generals and characters are wisely protected in the games I have encountered. I still only play at a 1000 pt level, so I cannot say how it works on larger field but I get the feeling that such heroes might be a point sink. A herculean demi-god of a hero is oh so tempting...but do they actually perform well enough in battles to justify the cost in points? Would it be wiser to devote energies into good sorcerer lord (and perhaps supporting sorcerer lord) and a host more of our steamroller troops? Curious about your thoughts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Right, but since I do plan on expanding my army I would like to know about larger point games. So why are melee heroes worth it in larger point matches?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
Well, properly kitted, they can be a one man SWAT team. Like disc of tzeentch, talpres or talend, and a magic weapon. 20" march move gets them around the board in a hurry, and they're nasty enough to be able to win combat with unranked monstrous cav or inf, and hard enough to kill that they pose a real speedbump problem to proper monsters. And they can charge a wizard bunker and be sure to kill the wizard, then either break and flee successfully because they fly, or sit there and grind down the bunker (generally shooters, so they're not shooting now!) to boot. Their role is similar to that of a standard warmachine hunter, but their target selection options are greater, so they're almost never useless.
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Generally speaking - nope. I used to run a bunch of heroes in my 2500pt army: Wulfrik, Festus, a BSB, and a L4. Over time they started to disappear - first Wulfrik, then Festus got swapped for a normal L2, and now finally my tournament army is just my BSB and a L4. Granted, my BSB casts like a L2 Sorcerer, so it wasn't a total shift for me.
Why did I cut them all out? Well, I decided that although they each have their place, you're relying on a single model to dish out the hurt. He's an obvious addition to the list, ~200+pts that can be singled out, picked on, and destroyed. When I unveiled the 2 character army, my regular opponent thought that I'd forgotten to include the other 2 models, and only commented after the game that the army had exceeded his expectations even without my characters being present. Why? Because instead of spending those points on loners, I reinvested them into boosting my regiments from 18 to 24, and adding a few other tidbits here and there. The ranks were a huge help, suddenly I was beating his Steadfast and sending him running. All the killing-power in the world doesn't make a bit of difference if you're facing down a Steadfast horde. Rather than hoping that my one character will cause enough damage to route the enemy before he grinds down my 17 Warrirors, I'd rather pound the foe with a full 24 guys and grind him down instead. Besides, Warriors are fortunate to be 2A each anyways, so an extra 3 or 4 from a Character makes less of an impact than it would in say, a regiment of Empire Swordsmen with 1A each.

In my friendly games, I do have a regiment with an extra Exalted, and he joins my BSB, both on Juggers and carrying ASF items, plus a block of 8 Knights (for a 6x2 formation). They wreck people. There are lots of ways out there to stop them, but for the most part, you just die when this block of crazies hits you head on. I've also run an Exalted on a Steed of Slaanesh and armed for a ton of attacks, inside a block of 14 Marauder Horsemen with MoK and Flails. That's a regiment that's guaranteed to hit you on T2 and rip the guts out of a medium-sized target. Again, there were plenty of ways to counter them.

I'll never use a Chaos Lord though, not until I hit 3k+ for my games. The simple fact is that he's too good. You're paying for stats that are so high that they border on overkill. How much better is WS9 than WS7 in 99% of the cases? Hardly - you still hit on 3's, get hit on 5's. The only time it matters is against WS4, and only WS4. How many other armies can even field WS8 in their midst? That's what I mean - you're paying for that ungodly WS, and it makes our characters too expensive to really be worth it. An Exalted hits harder than most people's CC lord choice, and in the current game, killing characters is hardly the path to victory unless there's a specific guy's head that you need on a spike (Empire Captains come to mind, Slann, Teclis, etc) in which case you can probably deal with them through magic or just targeting a bunch of mook attacks at his base.

Are our CC Characters good? Heck yes. Are they worth their points? Every one of them. Should you field them? No - you can spend those points on better options, like magic defense and more bodies to soak up the shooting and break the Steadfast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
CaptainSarathai said:
Generally speaking - nope. I used to run a bunch of heroes in my 2500pt army: Wulfrik, Festus, a BSB, and a L4. Over time they started to disappear - first Wulfrik, then Festus got swapped for a normal L2, and now finally my tournament army is just my BSB and a L4. Granted, my BSB casts like a L2 Sorcerer, so it wasn't a total shift for me.
Why did I cut them all out? Well, I decided that although they each have their place, you're relying on a single model to dish out the hurt. He's an obvious addition to the list, ~200+pts that can be singled out, picked on, and destroyed. When I unveiled the 2 character army, my regular opponent thought that I'd forgotten to include the other 2 models, and only commented after the game that the army had exceeded his expectations even without my characters being present. Why? Because instead of spending those points on loners, I reinvested them into boosting my regiments from 18 to 24, and adding a few other tidbits here and there. The ranks were a huge help, suddenly I was beating his Steadfast and sending him running. All the killing-power in the world doesn't make a bit of difference if you're facing down a Steadfast horde. Rather than hoping that my one character will cause enough damage to route the enemy before he grinds down my 17 Warrirors, I'd rather pound the foe with a full 24 guys and grind him down instead. Besides, Warriors are fortunate to be 2A each anyways, so an extra 3 or 4 from a Character makes less of an impact than it would in say, a regiment of Empire Swordsmen with 1A each.

In my friendly games, I do have a regiment with an extra Exalted, and he joins my BSB, both on Juggers and carrying ASF items, plus a block of 8 Knights (for a 6x2 formation). They wreck people. There are lots of ways out there to stop them, but for the most part, you just die when this block of crazies hits you head on. I've also run an Exalted on a Steed of Slaanesh and armed for a ton of attacks, inside a block of 14 Marauder Horsemen with MoK and Flails. That's a regiment that's guaranteed to hit you on T2 and rip the guts out of a medium-sized target. Again, there were plenty of ways to counter them.

I'll never use a Chaos Lord though, not until I hit 3k+ for my games. The simple fact is that he's too good. You're paying for stats that are so high that they border on overkill. How much better is WS9 than WS7 in 99% of the cases? Hardly - you still hit on 3's, get hit on 5's. The only time it matters is against WS4, and only WS4. How many other armies can even field WS8 in their midst? That's what I mean - you're paying for that ungodly WS, and it makes our characters too expensive to really be worth it. An Exalted hits harder than most people's CC lord choice, and in the current game, killing characters is hardly the path to victory unless there's a specific guy's head that you need on a spike (Empire Captains come to mind, Slann, Teclis, etc) in which case you can probably deal with them through magic or just targeting a bunch of mook attacks at his base.

Are our CC Characters good? Heck yes. Are they worth their points? Every one of them. Should you field them? No - you can spend those points on better options, like magic defense and more bodies to soak up the shooting and break the Steadfast.
Great post cap'n :) going to give that a go in my next battle!
 

·
Drill Sergeant
Joined
·
10,215 Posts
Have to agree with the Captain here. I pretty much found the same as him. At 2k I had a BSB, a LVL4 and a LVL1 for some 3rd eye shenanigans. Eventually I dropped the BSB, then the LVL 1. I managed to fit in god knows how much extra stuff into my list. The LVL4 (now a LVL3) is tooled up for combat so I didn't miss the power of the BSB. I haven't really noticed the lack of the BSB either as the added units means I'm usually beating face in combat as well.

Although, the LVL3 does cost 365pts.......hmm...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Man, it's 2012 and you're discovering that Chaos warriors do not need any melee heroes to beat the hell out of any unit in the game. Congratz ;)

By the way, tip of the year : marauders with flails costs 5 points. CC4 I4 5ST in every first rounds, mark of khorne, and hey, merry christmas ya'll!
Who needs an exalted champion? Time to wake up folks.
 

·
Drill Sergeant
Joined
·
10,215 Posts
Well, not exactly. It was a fair while ago that my lists changed to have less characters. :p

Flails? really? Why on earth would you take Flails over Great weapons? After the first round of combat you're down to str3 and that kills no one, not even goblins. You're far better off with Great weapons unless you unit is only 20 or so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
Well, not exactly. It was a fair while ago that my lists changed to have less characters. :p

Flails? really? Why on earth would you take Flails over Great weapons? After the first round of combat you're down to str3 and that kills no one, not even goblins. You're far better off with Great weapons unless you unit is only 20 or so.
Flails are brilliant in small 18-man units of marauders, the unit comes in at a tiny 132 points with 2 ranks and banner/mus - very effective as a flanking unit, since it has solid maneuvering ability. Last but not least, it's pure awesomeness watching that little unit defending a key tower, since there is never a round two of combat when storming a building.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Well, not exactly. It was a fair while ago that my lists changed to have less characters. :p

Flails? really? Why on earth would you take Flails over Great weapons? After the first round of combat you're down to str3 and that kills no one, not even goblins. You're far better off with Great weapons unless you unit is only 20 or so.
Sure great weapons are good, but consider, like Antithesis said, small flanking unit or hordes of 40+men. They're an insanely cost-effective unit, no way that standard cavalry like empire/breto or even chaos/bloodknights can afford to charge such a unit, and their cost is ridiculous.

I mean, why debate around an armybook that is crooked and will certainly get nerfed a lot (like the empire) very soon?
WOC are unbalanced as hell and you know it. Trolls are overpowered, apocalypse cannon is a joke, chosens and regular warriors have a ridiculous point cost, etc...But it's part of the plan of GW to renew their armybooks so let's not rage too much. I was just amused to see your posts this morning, figuring 2 chaos players speaking about which or what is best to get for heroes made me laught a lot i must say.

Just do as other chaos players and enjoy your cheated warband while it last mate! maraudersx40, 3 packs of warriors/chosens, 6trolls, 1cannon, a few sorcerers that have better stats than Empire generals, add one or two other things and you have a 2500 list ready to faceroll anything.
 

·
Benevolent Dictator
Joined
·
9,222 Posts
Afligemm - what's your regular army that you have such a problem with Warriors being broken? And empire? Empire was broken and got nerfed? Empire didn't get nerfed - take it from someone who's been fielding an Empire army for the past decade, this is the best they've been in a very long time. Warriors are balanced, and I guess that's a problem. When we were all playing in 7th, they were just an average, run-of-the-mill army. I picked them up in 7th because I figured that they'd be the next step up the power creep after Vampire Counts, and I was very wrong. In 8th they rose to the top because they don't rely on gimmicky tricks to win their games. The only genuinely broken thing in our book are the Khorne Marauders with Greatweapons. That said, go take a look at the major tournament results - Warriors finish consistently high, but they're not out there closing up the top spots of every event they show up in. Broken? No. Balanced better than the other books? Yes. So yes, we're all living it up, because we know that whenever GW comes around and redoes our book based on the number of people who now play this army, rather than giving the update to Brets or WoodElves, they will screw that balance up, and knock us right back down. I assume you have a problem with the Lizardmen as well?

back on topic:
They're good at defending a building, but seriously - when are we ever going to need them flanking? Your opponent is going to hack down Marauders in a hurry, and those kills are going to narrow the gap between your Warriors kills and the opponent's. Plus, Rank Bonus doesn't mean much at all anymore - Warriors usually have 2-3 ranks of their own, the maximum bonus is 4. Steadfast is what's going to do you in, and you can't disrupt that.

Finally, there's a discussion going on over in the Empire section dealing with the cold facts of VP-denial. The idea of throwing large regiments onto the table and forcing your enemy to grind through them, rather than tossing a bunch of small regiments out and letting your opponent hit them piecemeal is catching on. The Empire doesn't have any kind of chaff regiment like Hounds, and they do well enough without them. Just like your characters, it's sometimes better to just absorb those points into your regiments. No flankers, no screens, no machine-hunters, just beefy regiments of Warriors, 'Rauders, or Knights to smash down the opponent.

My army breaks down to 2 or 3 blocks of 24 Warriors, and 10-12 Knights, plus a Hellcannon (can't take those things out) and my 2 characters. It works for me, tears people up most of the time. I could switch it up and add Marauders if I had enough of them and probably make the list better, but my plate-army works perfectly alright for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
...besides the fact that the flailrauders don't outperform the GW variety in any situation except defending a tower against an enemy of equal or lesser initiative, they are an easy small chunk of points for an enemy to 'harvest.' Throw in their vulnerability to shooting, even S3 shooting, and they're not a good choice.

As for the statement that you're better off not taking an exalted, I do agree in general terms that "more models" is usually better than a character if you already have a mage and a BSB. A hero in this edition generally earns his keep by buffing his unit (warrior priests, tomb princes). However, if your units are big enough already (24 warriors, not 18, for example), then your choice is either an extra unit that's often not going to be big enough, or the character... And when the chacter in question is a flying exalted with a sweet ward save... Well, then picking on enemy characters (like his level 4, taking him out is worth trading an exalted!) or solo models (like my screaming skull skullapult or casket) is possible and worthwhile.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Afligemm - what's your regular army that you have such a problem with Warriors being broken? And empire? Empire was broken and got nerfed? Empire didn't get nerfed - take it from someone who's been fielding an Empire army for the past decade, this is the best they've been in a very long time. Warriors are balanced, and I guess that's a problem. When we were all playing in 7th, they were just an average, run-of-the-mill army. I picked them up in 7th because I figured that they'd be the next step up the power creep after Vampire Counts, and I was very wrong. In 8th they rose to the top because they don't rely on gimmicky tricks to win their games. The only genuinely broken thing in our book are the Khorne Marauders with Greatweapons. That said, go take a look at the major tournament results - Warriors finish consistently high, but they're not out there closing up the top spots of every event they show up in. Broken? No. Balanced better than the other books? Yes. So yes, we're all living it up, because we know that whenever GW comes around and redoes our book based on the number of people who now play this army, rather than giving the update to Brets or WoodElves, they will screw that balance up, and knock us right back down. I assume you have a problem with the Lizardmen as well?

back on topic:
They're good at defending a building, but seriously - when are we ever going to need them flanking? Your opponent is going to hack down Marauders in a hurry, and those kills are going to narrow the gap between your Warriors kills and the opponent's. Plus, Rank Bonus doesn't mean much at all anymore - Warriors usually have 2-3 ranks of their own, the maximum bonus is 4. Steadfast is what's going to do you in, and you can't disrupt that.

Finally, there's a discussion going on over in the Empire section dealing with the cold facts of VP-denial. The idea of throwing large regiments onto the table and forcing your enemy to grind through them, rather than tossing a bunch of small regiments out and letting your opponent hit them piecemeal is catching on. The Empire doesn't have any kind of chaff regiment like Hounds, and they do well enough without them. Just like your characters, it's sometimes better to just absorb those points into your regiments. No flankers, no screens, no machine-hunters, just beefy regiments of Warriors, 'Rauders, or Knights to smash down the opponent.

My army breaks down to 2 or 3 blocks of 24 Warriors, and 10-12 Knights, plus a Hellcannon (can't take those things out) and my 2 characters. It works for me, tears people up most of the time. I could switch it up and add Marauders if I had enough of them and probably make the list better, but my plate-army works perfectly alright for me.
Don't get me wrong man, Empire is still a great army, and it is indeed my main army since nearly 15 years now. I'm not complaining about it, the new additions are great, the army itself has probably never been as balanced as it is now, etc.

When i say "nerfed", i should have said "adjusted" if you prefer. I my humble opinion CW are not "adjusted" to the new set of rules, and that's quite normal considering they do not have a new armybook...So, this is, for me, and endless debate, as i consider it is quite simple to make and very imbalanced and nearly unbeatable list, but still, it's part of the process of rewriting rules and AB i know.

And about your list, yeah sure you can find opponents that beats you mate, as i will consider your list quite "fair" since you seem to play chaos knights that are the only unit not worse the cost in your book. Come on mate, you've got trolls a 45(or is it 35?!) points that can roll on the eye of the gods every time their regenerate, marauders that costs 5points and are very cost effective units, warriors that just doesn't fit with their point value (16points each all geared up right?), chosens, and many more units like the cannon with St5 template that will be fixed in some near future i'm sure.

I was taking the Empire as an example for war machines and core units : 100pt mortar, 120 pt cannon or hellblaster or fireworks launcher is a cost that you shall now really consider as heavy in your list. Still they have their place but may i remember you all the rules about warrior priests and dispels or steam tank/war machines before the new army book?

Empire got nerfed, adjusted and they deserved it, like chaos will deserve its nerf, for the good of all. They're just above all others right now that's all i meant. I like the new army books and the new direction that Warhammer rules takes so i'm not complaining about that.

And by the way Marnepup what you say is quite true of course, i just wanted to taunt a bit on this discussion cause discussion about chaos tactics is quite funny these days. Cheers ya'll
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
If we get a 'nerf' that looks anything like the Empire book, I will be pretty happy about it.

Flail marauders are great in packs of 18, lots of armies have I3 or less, and that's when they really shine. They may be small, but for what they cost they are worth it - I've even been considering changing the Mark to Slaanesh, simply for more bait/control options.

As far as CC characters go...Throgg is one hero who I would argue is certainly worth his points cost in CC, against either a unit or a character
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
Playing with Combat Characters is a a different type of game. Many people point out that we don't nessisarily need them, but from personal experience they can be alot of fun and they do open up a few combinations that can nasty. True their stats are overkill for most situations, but then again it is nice to have them around for the rare occations that you need those extra points of WS/T/A.

The trick with them, i find, is to kit them out for a single role or purpose. Well rounded just doesn't cut it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
As named heroes go, yes, but the OP was asking about generic exalteds, and one of the reasons that throgg is so good is that he lets a unit of trolls venture outside the general's leadership bubble. In thaf sense, he's an eight edition hero like a warrior priest or a tomb prince, he's a sergeant, not a showboat.

I guess if the enemy is spamming small units at I3, and doesn't have any shooting, then the flailrauders are okay. Get shot at, face I4 or better, or face an enemy with more than 20 models, and 18 flailrauders become failrauders.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
As named heroes go, yes, but the OP was asking about generic exalteds, and one of the reasons that throgg is so good is that he lets a unit of trolls venture outside the general's leadership bubble. In thaf sense, he's an eight edition hero like a warrior priest or a tomb prince, he's a sergeant, not a showboat.

Maybe that's how you chose to interprete the question, but the OP simply asked about CC characters. While we are all aware of Throgg's other abilities, the OP was about melee combat - Throgg is solid at this due to his exceptional toughness, wounds, vomit, special breath attack, and last but not least stomp - all at S6! It's a nightmare for regular foot or even heavy cavalry, plus he can even beat a named Wulfric in a challenge, and that's pretty impressive.

I guess if the enemy is spamming small units at I3, and doesn't have any shooting, then the flailrauders are okay. Get shot at, face I4 or better, or face an enemy with more than 20 models, and 18 flailrauders become failrauders.

The nice things about small units is that they serve in other ways - less risk of all your eggs in one basket, better deployment, the ability to flank, and if they get shot at or magicked - it's no big deal just to retreat them back - since panic is seldom an issue.

Given that the I3 armies include: Dwarfs, Empire, Bretonia, Lizardmen, Ogre Kingdoms, O+G, Vampire Counts and equals armies like Skaven, Beastmen, Demons....yeah, I think it's safe to say it's useful.

Shooting is less of an issue, when you have the deployment edge, and then there is always cover.

You have a nice block of 24 Hammerers, which gets hit by my two blocks of 18 marauders - you're going to lose 1/2 your unit before you even get to hit back - so much for steadfast ^^.
Don't knock em until you've tried em my cynical young friend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,532 Posts
You're right about the OP's question, I remembered that one incorrectly. But you couldn't be more desperately wrong about the rest, most especially the "young" and "friend" bits. I am neither. Small units are suicide in 8th edition. Your response that it's just a matter of running and hiding when faced with an enemy unit that will beat you (they are many!) or shooting is weak, at best. Deploy them out of range of shooters? That's reacting to the enemy's deployment by sacrificing a larger unit to protect a smaller one. Avoid combat if the enemy looks strong? Even if you succeed, you are voluntarily playing with a 10% or more points disadvantage. That's hard to sell as a benefit. Put them in cover? Their purpose is melee. In cover, they're pinned in place, a waste of points, except that high BS shooters, undead archers, and war machines are unaffected by the cover.

Don't knock them till I've tried them? I'm knocking them because I've faced them. And when I do, all I see is easy VP. My general's first order is "someone go squish those marauders." And the lucky unit that gets the job is thrilled not to be facing trolls or warriors instead...and even more thrilled to see 18 flails instead of 42 great weapons.

Units of 18 warriors work fine because they are hard to kill. Marauders only do the job if they have enough spare bodies to leave a trail of shooting victims in their wake and still arrive with enough mass to gut the target. And they have to win combat, they don't have the LD to be reliable if they lose. 'Step up' means that the number of casualties inflicted rarely reduces the number of hitbacks, so most of the time, there is no benefit (outside of challenges) to having high initiative. S5 will kill a lot more of the enemy after the first round than I4 will, and breaking an enemy on the charge is a thing of the past. I4 is only helpful if you kill enough of the enemy before he gets to attack that he doesn't get his full attacks, and the wounds that you would have suffered from the attacks denied exceed the number of additional wounds that you would have inflicted with great weapons. That's a rare set of circumstances.

This, of course, assumes that you yourself have enough men to get full attacks if/when the enemy has higher initiative...which means a lot more than 18. I'm not arguing that great weapons are better than flails for MSU marauders. I'm arguing that small units of marauders of any kind are a bad idea. You want deployment shenanigans from boosting the number of units? Get three sets of dogs for the price of 18 failrauders. At least they do something useful, and are intended to give up VP. Hundred point units that have to hide from shooters and run away from most enemy units don't work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
You're right about the OP's question, I remembered that one incorrectly.

Apology accepted.

But you couldn't be more desperately wrong about the rest, most especially the "young" and "friend" bits. I am neither.

Fair enough, would you prefer old and embittered? Or was sophisticated the impression you were going for? The 'Flailrauders' quip made me assume you were younger.

Small units are suicide in 8th edition. Your response that it's just a matter of running and hiding when faced with an enemy unit that will beat you (they are many!) or shooting is weak, at best.

I don't believe I said that - please read my post carefully if you would like to make critical comments, it's more constructive, and less embarrassing to yourself when the facts are checked. My point was IF they get bombarded by magic, your army is by no means defeated, and the cheap unit can easily retreat to save on points. I'm curious to know what unit can beat them for 132 points - and example might help your argument.

Deploy them out of range of shooters?

Oh dear, did I say that? No - I said it gives us a deployment edge - like putting them in a forest, behind a wall, in a building, etc etc, etc...

That's reacting to the enemy's deployment by sacrificing a larger unit to protect a smaller one. Avoid combat if the enemy looks strong? Even if you succeed, you are voluntarily playing with a 10% or more points disadvantage. That's hard to sell as a benefit. Put them in cover? Their purpose is melee. In cover, they're pinned in place, a waste of points, except that high BS shooters, undead archers, and war machines are unaffected by the cover.

Another fault in logic - you assume that infantry cannot move between cover, charge out of trees, or over walls. Buildings are fixed, I'll grant you that - so 1/3 of your argument is correct I suppose. I'll take the 10% disadvantage for flexibility any day.

Don't knock them till I've tried them? I'm knocking them because I've faced them. And when I do, all I see is easy VP. My general's first order is "someone go squish those marauders." And the lucky unit that gets the job is thrilled not to be facing trolls or warriors instead...and even more thrilled to see 18 flails instead of 42 great weapons.

Then I guess you are the kind of opponent that I love to face - they always seem do best when my opponent underestimates them.

Units of 18 warriors work fine because they are hard to kill. Marauders only do the job if they have enough spare bodies to leave a trail of shooting victims in their wake and still arrive with enough mass to gut the target. And they have to win combat, they don't have the LD to be reliable if they lose. 'Step up' means that the number of casualties inflicted rarely reduces the number of hitbacks, so most of the time, there is no benefit (outside of challenges) to having high initiative. S5 will kill a lot more of the enemy after the first round than I4 will, and breaking an enemy on the charge is a thing of the past. I4 is only helpful if you kill enough of the enemy before he gets to attack that he doesn't get his full attacks, and the wounds that you would have suffered from the attacks denied exceed the number of additional wounds that you would have inflicted with great weapons. That's a rare set of circumstances.

No, the point was - as it is clearly written - that most steadfast units won't have much the way of ranks after a flank charge from that little unit.

This, of course, assumes that you yourself have enough men to get full attacks if/when the enemy has higher initiative.

Yes, eventually they will face higher I. armies, but there aren't many - as I have already shown, and I try not to tailor my lists.


..which means a lot more than 18. I'm not arguing that great weapons are better than flails for MSU marauders. I'm arguing that small units of marauders of any kind are a bad idea.

Unfortunately I am not convinced, and having played the small 18 units with a high measure of success [Aboms, Knights, even killing a HE prince on a Dragon], I can comfortable assert that your argument simply isn't true.


You want deployment shenanigans from boosting the number of units? Get three sets of dogs for the price of 18 failrauders. At least they do something useful, and are intended to give up VP. Hundred point units that have to hide from shooters and run away from most enemy units don't work.

That is a false comparison. Dogs are for screening, and misdirecting, while 18-man flail units are for frustrating would be flankers, flank charging into steadfast blocks, and defending structures for certain scenarios - the deployment is a nice bonus, and unlike doggies, they needn't uselessly give up VPs if you are smart about it.
Another point I forgot to mention about using smaller blocks is terrain. If you are sneaky, then deploying the full amount of terrain pieces can seriously frustrate hordes which have to follow the 1" rule.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top