[northoceanbeach]

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?

 

[Huitzilopochtl]

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.

 

[Loestal]

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.

 

[MouseC112]

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.

 

[Gorbass]

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.

 

[Lordofchange]

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

 

[grimmtu]

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.

 

[shoottokill]

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.

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.

 

[Arizzar]

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.

Arizzar

 

[The_Giant_Mantis]

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.

 

[shoottokill]

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.

Right on, I think as a man gets to know his army this happens naturally. For example, when I first got the new codex I didn't even bother reading the wargear section - all those juicy demon powers and whatnot right up front. Then I sat down one day and gave it a good read and found juggs and termi armour for Lords. Not too shabby - and both are a few points cheaper (for lords) than buying the conferred gifts associated with them.

Then there's my LatD army. Nurgle theme with a huge HQ - just so i can fit in a huge squad (30) of plague marines and still take 4 units of traitor (for access to sentinels and a basilisk) guard and 2 squads of mutants. MY HQ winds up being nearly half of my points in this army, but I find it's more than worth it for theme and efficiency. Does it follow the common wisdom on HQ units? No. Does it work well for me and my playing technique? Absolutely.

I think that's the beauty of the game - it's flexible enough for a player to be able to experiment and try new tactics frequently and still have a lot of fun playing game - even after 10 years of gaming I still find different ways to field my units; terrain placement, new tables, and new opponents do a fantastic job of keeping the game fresh as well. I believe that the scoial aspect of this game is a HUGE component to its success - my local games store seems to support this notion as well and has painting, modeling, and gaming "club nights."

I digress, if a player spends points in a way that fits thier style then they should eventually find thier way to efficiency.

Thanks.

 

[MindRaked]

My main argument against tooled up AC / Lords is that newbies and even advanced players tend to rely too much on a single unit to do the job and when they loose it, their game is over.

On a recent thread, I read about a Dreadnought with warp amp, 2 ccw and ... I would cost a lot and only get 4 attacks. Is it powerfull ? Yes ! Will it ever reach close combat ? Probably never. Does it worth it ? Obviously not ! That i my point.

Same for a daemon prince (Daemonic Stature). Unless you got some other units to draw the fire away, this monster is bound to die quickly, no matter how much points you spent on it. A lieutenant in a unit has more chance to survive and do much more damage.

AC can be tooled up at lesser risk of loosing much as they are hidden in units. And I believe in tooled up AC more than tooled up HQ.

 

[Xardian]

I find the reliance on numbers sometimes goes too far as well. Particularly in regards to cannon fodder. Chaos doesn't really have many models that are cheap enough to be considered fodder. Armies like 'nids and IG have it in spades. Chaos doesn't. I don't go in much for spending a ton of points an individual model like a Prince or vehicle because they tend to be fragile for thier points. But I do like tooling up entire units to do thier assigned battlefield roles. Vet Skills, Chaos marks, weapon upgrades, etc. Like a squad of Noise Marines built to lay down lots of fire all being upgraded with sonic weaponry. Each model lost may cost more points, but the unit also starts with more firepower in the first place. The loss of a couple models leaves it at similar firepower to a unit with cannon fodder, but it dealt more damage prior to that loss.

Whichever way you go though, you should probably do the entire army that way. Otherwise you get things like a Prince in an infantry-heavy army and he becomes an instant target. Of course, a clever player could use that to his advantage by prioritzing his opponent's target for him. Not that I'd ever try such a thing :shifty: