PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Warriors: Hot or Not?



Zak19b7
04-01-2009, 02:41
I'm starting a WoC army, and I really like the ideas, but I've been taking my time with it, trying to figure out exactly how I want to make the army, and after looking at the forums for a while, it seems people don't like Chaos Warriors. I kind of have a problem with this, as they seem like one of the backbones of the army, but I can see how M4 hampers them.

Anyway, what I was wondering was if there actually was any reason to take Chaos Warriors, because as much as I like them, I cannot find a use for them.

Djekar
04-01-2009, 04:39
I have two reasons for personally fielding them.

1) I have ~60 miniatures already painted up and ready - might as well use them, right?

2) I am too stubborn to go with the alternative, which I define as all cavalry. By the time I add Knights, D.Ogres, Marauder Horsemen, Warhounds and a Hellcannon to my force, anything with low movement (like the incredibly efficient marauders) just seems a waste to be left behind.

That being said, those aren't really "great" or "convincing" reasons to field them, just the reasons that I do. Yay me:eyebrows:

~Dart

Neckutter
04-01-2009, 06:06
cant beat chaos warriors for their points. NO ONE likes to see 2 units of 18 staring at them from across the table.

the problem is that march-blocking is a pain so you need tons of magic to "shoot" those lil rascals out. or you can take 4 spawn to charge the skirmishers, because you cant marchblock a spawn. :)

that being said, you still need some backup with chariots or knights.... or a slaanesh giant.



only 60 chaos warriors paint djekar? Pfft. i have 60 of the NEW type painted, and about 50 of the old hunchbacks. :)

==Me==
04-01-2009, 06:13
Chaos Warriors are among the most resilient and hardest hitting infantry in the game. Their biggest downside is M4 and a high cost, meaning they can get march blocked and ignored all game if you can't get rid of the march blockers.

If I'm running Warriors, it would probably be 12 with shields, a standard and musician with the Rapturous Standard and Mark of Slaanesh. They are a great anvil unit, capable of holding anything down with T4 and 2+ armor in addition to ItP and insane courage on any double.

SCR from ranks is largely not worth it on such an expensive unit, so focus on getting kills. Halberds are a popular choice for this, while the normal hand weapon seems to work just fine for people.

Djekar
04-01-2009, 07:00
I haven't purchased many of the new ones, because I'm a little underwhelmed with their tabletop rules in this newest book. As someone mentioned in a different thread, they are more expensive SCR/ Character Bunkers than Marauders and less of a threat than Knights ("specialization FTW" I believe is the conclusion that they come to). They are kinda in between, and while I run them, most of the time they see favorable combats by virtue of my opponent's ineptitude, not by my own stunning generalship or the innate awesome that they are (supposedly) forged from.

That being said, I really love the new models, and have recently assembled and painted up a box because they are smoking, and I hate the old hunchbacks (even though I got them for nearly free!) and thus I am often fielding just the unit that ==Me== is describing. They make a great bunker for things like my scroll caddy or my Steed of Slaanesh torpedo.

~Vine

Neckutter
04-01-2009, 07:04
im currently running a block of 20 with two mages in it, 6 wide with HW+Sh. they only reason i have one unit, is because im running wulfrik with 20 boys, and a unit of 8 nurgle chaos knights who scare the hell outta everyone.

Jericho
04-01-2009, 10:47
I might take some Warriors eventually, but right now I have probably 2500-3000 pts worth of Tzeentch/Slaanesh and no desire to take any Warriors.

If you have your core slots taken up by Marauders, and have a few extra points then Chosen can be very tasty. They are a bit more pricey than Warriors, but the auto roll on the gifts chart is amazing. Last game I rolled +1 to armor, which meant my Tzeentch Chosen could walk through Savage Orc Big'uns, Boar Boys, etc. without taking a scratch. They did very well that game.

If you are doing an army with a lot of ranged threat (ie. magic overload and/or Hellcannon(s)) then Warriors can be a very solid way to go. Taking a very slow Chaos army with no magic/shooting is kinda crazy though. Flyers/scouts will run circles around you and you'll take forever to get across the board. With a bit of luck an opponent could avoid most if not all your big combat blocks for virtually the entire game.

changer of fate
04-01-2009, 20:46
well the core of my army is 2 units of hounds, 2 units of nurgle knights with musician, standard and MoN, 2 units of marauder horseman with flails, musician and MoS. And plus 1 or 2 marauder blocks, there is no need for a warrior squad at all even if i had points spare, chosen seems to be a better choice to me than warriors or a hellcannon or a giant..........

Defender of Ulthuan
04-01-2009, 22:10
Warriors are some of my favorite GW models.

However, they have an 'elite infantry' complex; I have 60 of 'em, but unless it's 'defend x' scenario, you'll never see them on the table.

skank
04-01-2009, 22:27
I love the warriors models, first models i got. I never get to use them though, due to major suckage in game.

Real shame.

W0lf
05-01-2009, 01:22
Useless in a truley competitive enviroment.

They are usable, probably best use is a unit of 18 with rap standard and kept within bsb range.

Dark_Mage99
05-01-2009, 03:07
Useless in a truley competitive enviroment.



Why do you say that? What makes them any different to any other unit of elite infantry in the game?

Djekar
05-01-2009, 06:33
Off the top of my head, it's the M4 coupled with a dearth of options to keep them from becoming marchblocked. I'm sure there are other reasons, but so far Great Eagle have really ground my gears.

~Milk

Hrogoff the Destructor
05-01-2009, 06:39
A great eagle causes march blocking? Doesn't it have to be unit strength 5 to cause it?

Neckutter
05-01-2009, 08:28
nope, fanatics marchblock too.
in the movement section it says ANY ENEMY MODEL causes march blocking.

and ive used large blocks of ranked chaos warrs since 5th edition and theyve always been worth it. sure, send your great eagle to march block me... ill just magically shoot it to pieces. afterall, i DONT haveta come to you when i kill 10-20 of your models a turn with magic.

Arbiter7
05-01-2009, 08:30
Isn't it a little funny that M4 is classified as a weakness? I mean it's the norm.


Edit: forgot you have no shooting. But still, I wouldn't call it a weakness.

Avian
05-01-2009, 09:56
For something that wants to cross the table, M4 isn't the norm, it's about as low as you can get (nothing with less movement tries to get anywhere if it has any sense ;)).

I think Warrriors get a bit of an undeserved bad reputation. Sure, if you invest heaps of points in them and/or don't support them, they'll do badly, but they are quite resistant to war machine fire, unlike a lot of other units in the army.

sulla
05-01-2009, 10:04
I think you need a little synergy in your chaos footslogger list. If you want slow moving infantry, you need a fair bit of magic and probably a hellcannon to kill marchblockers and thin enemy ranks, whereas, with a mounted force, you can go magic-lite and just smash everyone with speed and armour.

Mullitron
05-01-2009, 10:08
I would say they are good, every army has elite infantry so most army lists has some method of march blocking/tarpitting these units to counter them. There would have to be some common counter to a unit thats a core choice and soo strong. Warriors of chaos have magic, marauder horsemen, spawn and terror causers to remove most cheap march blockers easily. If anything they scare your opponent enough for them to send their shooting and marchblockers at your warriors in which case there not slowing down/shooting other elements of your army.

blackjack
05-01-2009, 17:39
Here is the core problem WOC and New Lizards suffer from. In order to make up for poor mobility you have to win the ranged fire game either through shooting or magic. If you win the ranged phases of the game then your opponent must close into CC or lose.

If your opponent is winning the ranged phases then it is up to you to close and hopfully win in CC. If you need to cover the 24" no mans land quickly M4 will not cut it. Against an M4 army you can reliably get 3-4 turns of ranged fire on them before they charge you, leaving them only 2 turns of CC to make up thier losses. Against a M7+ army they will be on you in 2 turns giving you only 1 turn of fire if they win first move, leaving 4 turns of CC.

Warriors need ragned support to force the enemy to close as WOC have no really good shooting they need to rely on magic for this.

Knights and horse mauraders on the other hand don't need to win the ranged game as they can close the distance quickly.

Buddha777
05-01-2009, 18:47
My personal opinion is that WoC excel in hammer and anvil tactics. With very good Calvary forces and rock hard infantry, you can press an enemy into a corner with relative ease. Add in Wulfric to sneak up on those gunlines and there are very few lists that can escape you. We also have a large selections of powerful monster in the form of dragon ogres, trolls, and chaos ogres to open up enemy knights and other heavy armor.

The only problem I've encountered (and encountered often in the current metagame) are large monsters like greater demons and dragons. With mark of slaanesh its not their terror that causes concern but their large number of high toughness wounds. Other than something like GW armed dragon ogres there isn't much that can reliable take those beasts down other than a similarly armed chaos lord running you 6-700pts.

W0lf
06-01-2009, 02:02
Why do you say that? What makes them any different to any other unit of elite infantry in the game?

They have no ranged support worth mentioning, they are easily march blocked and they will ether be ignored/re-directed or charged and killed.

Due to extremely high cost they require on kills to win combat and often reach combat with very low static. Therefore they can't hold a charge from hard hitting units as they lose their ability to generate kills. Ld 8 also insures that they wont hang around if they lose by, say 2?

Im a long time VERY experienced chaos player and when other people field warriors vs me i smile. they are so easy to avoid its just funny.

a decent sized unit will run about 350 pts, with chaos infantry needed magic support your looking at a hell of a small army.

Knights are hammers
Marauders are anvils
Warriors are neither.


My personal opinion is that WoC excel in hammer and anvil tactics. With very good Calvary forces and rock hard infantry, you can press an enemy into a corner with relative ease. Add in Wulfric to sneak up on those gunlines and there are very few lists that can escape you. We also have a large selections of powerful monster in the form of dragon ogres, trolls, and chaos ogres to open up enemy knights and other heavy armor.

And thats very good for a 4K army, till you see what your opponent gets at the same pts.

sroblin
06-01-2009, 02:51
They have no ranged support worth mentioning, they are easily march blocked and they will ether be ignored/re-directed or charged and killed.


Most Chaos armies (both cavalry and balanced) are loaded these days with sorcerers for ranged support, and while magic and hell cannons may not be enough to make a gunline, they are 'worth mentioning'. Charging and killing Chaos Warriors isn't so easy either when they have T4 and a 2+ armor save (and Mark of Nurgle often enough); there are units that can do it, and many more that can't.



Due to extremely high cost they require on kills to win combat and often reach combat with very low static. Therefore they can't hold a charge from hard hitting units as they lose their ability to generate kills. Ld 8 also insures that they wont hang around if they lose by, say 2?

Certainly this is vulnerability, but the really hard hitting units are exactly those that tend to have low static CR. When you buy a shield and weapon for a Chaos Warrior, you're basically buying the option for them to be a hammer (12 S5 or S6 attacks) OR an anvil (2+ armor save). Versatility is expensive in Warhammer, and when thinking from a minimax perspective, sure its more points efficient to have specialized units than versatile ones; but I think its useful to have a unit that can do both. Not tending to have the static CR is definitely problem, and there are some hitty units with decent CR that will come ahead; but there are also strong units with low static CR that will struggle against the 2+ armor saves and may even be vulnerable to S4 attacks, and large static CR units that won't be able to cause them much damage and get massacred by their attacks.


a decent sized unit will run about 350 pts, with chaos infantry needed magic support your looking at a hell of a small army.


It seems ironic to criticize a Chaos army for being small- and then recommend more knights! IMO Chaos armies tend to be small unless they are marauder-heavy. 350 pts will buy a large units of Chaos Warriors; its possible to run them in units of 12 or 15 + mark and standard for 250-300, and I personally favor the smaller units, though there is something to be said for the extra bodies in a unit of 18.

Shooting is a problem for Chaos army, but a lot of people assume that most armies have enough shooting to scythe through infantry units with T4 3+ armor saves, while in fact there are plenty of armies that are not gunlines or do not have access to handguns. And some opponents armies will be -gasp- melee oriented as well!



Marauders are anvils


Marauders are fine for what they are, but what they are isn't particularly more capable than core infantry in any other army, and vulnerable to the same counter-units (including elite infantry units like Chaos Warriors that kill 5.5 marauder equipped with sword + shields, using halberds in a round of combat.) T4 and 2+ armor sometimes works where heaps of T3 4+ armor saves do not, and sometimes its also useful to have a unit that can kill stuff.

As a frequent elf player, Marauders are unit that inividually pose no particular problem to most of my units, while the Warriors will laugh off my arrows (even my repeater bolt throwers will kill on average only 1 a turn) and eat my core after the paint on their armor is dented by a thousand spear pricks.

Sure, there are situations where Marauders work better than Chaos Warriors, but that's a choice between the two, not simply a no brainer. Personally, I like to take both.

I won't deny that that going all speed + offense with fast attack army of knights is an easier strategy, but its a strategy that comes with its own vulnerabilities and sacrifices in versatility. Having both the hammer in the form of fast units and the anvil (yes, the 'anvil' element can be marauders, but as discussed above, it can also be warriors), is a more rewarding and flexible approach. With magic to back them up, (and Chaos sorcery is formidable in the new book), a balanced army of knights/beasts and warriors can take advantage of both unit types strengths.

John Vaughan
06-01-2009, 04:28
People keep forgetting that there are murauder horsemen. Anything march blocking your warriors cant be whole lot tougher than the horsemen. If you ask me, they are a bargain for fast cav. Just for say, you are in a situation where pesky skinks are hampering your warriors and marchblocking your army. Mark horsemen with Nurgle and skinks all of the sudden have great difficulty hitting, especially if they have blowpipes. Charge them, and they have two options: Flee, or die. Not to mention, S4 horses arent all that pansy either (stronger than the riders in fact!)

Dragon ogres and knights can perform the same roll, they are just a lot bigger. If you keep yourself protected, there isnt any issue with march blocking. When I am at my ropes end with skinks per se, I just turn my unit towards them and launch a couple magic missiles. Thats always enough to make them go away. Sure, my opponent can dispel it, but then I can cast more important magic at more important units, like infernal gateway on the temple guard with the slann. :)

Djekar
06-01-2009, 06:51
Not to nitpick, but the Marauder Horsemen horses are only S3. Okay. You caught me, that was a nitpick.

You're right about the Marauder Horsemen being good for taking care of march blockers, but why use them to take care of things marchblocking your infantry which will then still have a few turns to cross the board when you can have them take care of things marchblocking your knights that can get into a juicy charge position? Also, shades being used as an assassin torpedo make my M.Horsemen cry.

As far as warriors being viable against melee oriented armies, a lot of melee armies (dwarves and Orcs&Goblins excluded) are faster than WoC. What do you do when that big ol' Black Guard unit comes rolling your way towards your horrible point sink M4 expensive wizard bunker?

All this is not to say that they are not useful, there are certainly uses for Warriors, just that when you are crafting an all comers list because you don't know what you are going to fight, Marauders/Knights are a far more prudent use of points.

~Stare

Neckutter
06-01-2009, 07:54
my "hammer and anvil" tactics invlove a hugely magical army. i plan on sitting there and shooting you hardcore until you have no CHOICE but to march and try to beat him in HtH. by that time wulfrik comes behind you and youre stuck between the two. granted wulfrik's boys arent too terribly good, but a unit of 24 with flails and khorne do ok in HtH.

sroblin
06-01-2009, 12:26
What do you do when that big ol' Black Guard unit comes rolling your way towards your horrible point sink M4 expensive wizard bunker?


Black Guard are exactly the kind of unit which Chaos Warriors are able to absorbe a lot of damage from, while dealing more damage back. If charged (and in the case of black guard, with their near ubiquitous use of the ASF banner, it doesn't particularly matter), Chaos Warriors using shields will lose 1 on average, and then kill about 3 back. Black Guard are cheaper than Chaos Warriors, though not by much when the banner is accounted for, and they're a lot easier to kill with ranged attacks.

The elite infantry that Warriors really have to fear are things like Executioners or Swordmasters.

MarcoPollo
06-01-2009, 18:28
Don't forget to factor in the cost of chaos warriors. For what they do, and they do it very well, you pay through the nose. If your priorities for you are army lie in the abilities of chaos warriors, then you will pay the price for them. Just like if your priorities lie in spell casters, then you too will pay the price for them.

For me, I prioritize movement, efficiency, killing power, and reliability. So I don't use Chaos warriors at all. But they are much better than they used to be in the old book.

John Vaughan
08-01-2009, 02:26
Ive said it before. Most important to me is that a unit of 18 of them essentially adds 18 wounds onto the wizards in that unit. No matter who I am against, my magic lays waste to armies, so I capitalize on that. I dont dispute that warriors are easily beaten through marchblocking, but they still serve their purpose of giving longetivity to my necessary sorcerors.

W0lf
08-01-2009, 03:09
Charging and killing Chaos Warriors isn't so easy either when they have T4 and a 2+ armor save (and Mark of Nurgle often enough); there are units that can do it, and many more that can't.

Oh please. Many units make a mess of them these days. Most armies have one such unit. And if a unit cant beat them you dont charge them, bloody tactics eh?

Oh and ive said it before and ill say it again, wizards are a liability in warrior blocks, there roles clash and wizards are forced to challenge.

Djekar
09-01-2009, 08:01
You're right, I should have specified that I meant Blackguard Deathstar. Not that I've seen them run any other way, but still...

~Cho

John Vaughan
19-01-2009, 22:06
Wanna keep wizards safe? Just cast Call to Glory. Besides, very little is able to survive long enough to get into a challenge with a wizard.

W0lf
19-01-2009, 22:53
Are you joking?

Your key to keeping wizards safe is relying on casting 1 spell from 1 lore... anyway this thread is ten days old... just let it die already :P

Harbinger09
03-02-2009, 22:17
Currently I have had great success with Chaos Warrior units. Though I have only played small games of 1000pts, I run a unit of Khorne Warriors and a unit of Nurgle Warrios; along with 5 hounds, 5 Khorne Knights, and a mounted Tzeentch scroll caddy. While the majority of my opponents are gunning for my hounds and knights my warriors can advance untouched to charge in for the finish once the knights have either ran or made a sizeable dent in my foes.

Arguleon-veq
03-02-2009, 22:37
As has been said, Warriors are better suited to a more range oriented army. With 14 Power Dice and a Hellcannon, plus a couple of bound, there isnt much short of a pure gunline who can afford to simply let you hang back and so the movement value of Warriors is a bit of a none issue there.

March blocking also isnt as impossible to prevent as some people would have you believe.

My Warriors have done just fine even when I have had to advance, my magic works just the same as I close on the enemy, some spells even capable of bringing the enemy to me. It means I get to weaken the enemy more before the charge than a mounted army would and lets my Hellcannon get a few turns shooting before it moves up to support me late in the game, it also stops march blockers getting behind my lines.

We have cheap, fast screens. We even have Wulfrik who can come on behind enemy lines, to either mess up enemy gunlines and make any army have to come at you or to allow your army to get into combat with less of a dent in their numbers.

They are capable of taking alot of charges, Empire Knights are pretty standard, you lose 2, you kill 1 in return, you have a rank and outnumber. You win. Sure they also lose to things, but everything has another unit that will beat them.

So overall I think they are a decent and useable choice, so long as you have adequate magical support and march block stoppers.

vinny t
03-02-2009, 22:50
I just use 3 units of 15 warriors with wizards in them. Noone knows what to shoot. Target priority. Plus, you have only a few turns to shoot them before 2 units of 5 Marauder horsemen with flails and MoK get ya, plus a khorne chariot. It has enjoyed great success against a wide range of armies.

Guy Fawkes
04-02-2009, 02:23
Chaos Warriors are very cool, but unfortunately just not worth it.


Why do you say that? What makes them any different to any other unit of elite infantry in the game?

When someone puts Swordsmasters, Black Guard, Temple Guard, etc... on the table, they are able to stop march blocking with skirmishers, cheap fliers, etc... Otherwise, they can just shoot the march blockers. Warriors of Chaos have no shooting, apart from the Hellcannon, and no skirmishers or fliers. How are they supposed to defend against a unit of scouts hiding in the woods, or an opposing flying model. Marauder Cavalry, the fastest models in the list, can't catch a simple Fell Bat or Great Eagle. Nobody can shoot it either, without LoS, and since you can march block out of LoS, how often will a mage be able to turn and shoot? (Not to mention dispels, and the fact that turning a big block will ruin your battle plans)

Even Grave Guard have magical movement backing them up.

Warhammer is won or lost based on the movement phase. If you are playing with mostly Warriors, you are going to be outnumbered and flanked. Even the weaker cavalry can win against Warriors if they get the flank charge (and chariots, rival elite infantry, heavy cavalry, and most characters can decimate Warriors if used well).

Relying on armor to save you isn't the best idea ever. Yeah, T4 + AS 2+ sounds great on paper, but if you are shot by a handgun (the most common ranged weapon in the game) you have a 5+ armor save and the enemy will still wound you on a 4+. You only have to be hit 6 times by handgun fire to lose a Warrior, and at M4, with inevitable march blocking in the form of Gyrocopters, Huntsmen, etc... you will have to weather several turns of shooting just to reach combat. Considering a good unit of 18-ish Warriors that are well equipped really are about 350 points, how much shooting do you expect to face, if the enemy matches you in points? Plenty of magic spells, like Soul Stealer, or ranged attacks, like Bolt Throwers, don't allow armor saves anyways.

If you are relying on magic to out-gun other armies, you are relying on a fickle thing. Magic is heavy in the metagame nowadays, so people come prepared, with the Standard of Sundering, Ring of Hotek, Slann powers, Infernal Puppet, Null Talismans, etc... and a host of scrolls and dispel dice. If you miscast and accidentally end the magic phase just once during the game or your Hellcannon gets loose, you might lose the shooting contest against the enemy. Not to mention that the challenge rule really hurts Warriors of Chaos when it comes to using units as bunkers. If you are playing entirely with Warriors you lose a lot of potential against Steam Tanks, Hydras, Dragons, etc... unless you take Knights or monsters too, and then your army is very small.

And really, Warriors aren't the ultimate anvil. They have a good armor save going for them and that's it. Point for point, Marauders can take more shooting, Knight/Hydra attacks, etc... than Warriors can and generally you want your cheap, expendable units to take the brunt of the enemy more than the expensive units you pay out the ass for to have a load of high-WS, high-S attacks. Who would be stupid enough to charge something, that with M4, can't really catch anything that doesn't want to fight, unless they are sure they can win. At M4, you can just flee and escape or simply march away (and everything is M4 these days) if you don't think you'll win. And of course, when fighting a foe like Vampire Counts, who have great tarpits and don't care if you kill 10 Zombies a round, your Warriors aren't making their points back.

Bottom Line: They make your army smaller, and can't do anything something else in the army can't.

John Vaughan
04-02-2009, 02:34
Magic. It's a gamble, true enough, but what's the fun of a game if you know what will happen? Miscasting gets my best laughs (yes, I can laugh at my own miscasts (after a brief moment of rage)). Not to mention, magic isn't all THAT unreliable, especially when you come to learn tricks and statistics of it.

Arguleon-veq
04-02-2009, 12:23
We also have the puppet to make our own magic much more reliable. Wulfrik to stomp on gunlines and again the Hellcannon rampaging gets put down as something terrible. It would take care of those March Blockers. We also have none LOS spells, ranged attacks on our Horsmen if they cant reach those flyers and Sorcerers can always just pop out of a unit to blast those annoying march blockers if you want LoS.

Dead Man Walking
04-02-2009, 12:44
I love using ranked infantry in Chaos. Why? Chaos already has quality in spades, now what you need is quantity. You cant have quantity in a calvary army. I usually field about 140 models in my Chaos army, which is 80% infantry.

Chaos Warriors are hands down the best infantry in the game, the stats are just amazing. I ran a unit of Savage Orc Boar Boyz into a slaanesh chaos warrior list and bounced off it horribly, I cause 1 wound. I took 4 wounds out of 10 models.

You are going to need a fair amount of magic though, either 3 level 2's or a level 4 and a level 2, but it will work.

Getting there fast wont help you against brittonians or Ogres, Combat resolution will.

Shamfrit
04-02-2009, 13:21
So...

T3 LD7 models costing about 6-7 points a pop are somehow considered an anvil over..

T4, 2+ save models with a minimum of 2 STR4 attacks each...with the potential for 3STR6?


How I love this logic :D

Not...

Havock
04-02-2009, 13:27
Well, considering that to make them 'anvil-ish', you need a big unit... Yes, marauders are slightly beter at that. Still, warriors are decent if you use them in combination with the marauders.
I use 12 warriors with shields, full command + Banner of wrath and 20 marauders with full command + LA/shields.

Shamfrit
04-02-2009, 14:29
I've never ever seen the attachment to Marauders; they rarely, if ever, do anything in games, whereas my Warriors/Chosen blocks do...

Speaking from experience, static 5 res blocks of virtually useless in combat STR3 T3 troops are not worth it, even if they're 5 points with shields and full command.

Mind, Skaven mentality and Chaos Warriors never mix.

Whitehorn
04-02-2009, 14:37
I haven't used them yet but tonight I'm going to test Festus with 11 warriors, ADH, Nurgle to push up the front.

grhino
04-02-2009, 14:40
Have you really never had any good effects with marauder units? They are very versatile and can easily get enough numbers to take some damage before getting to the enemy. There are merits to static combat resolution: in fact, with my chaos warriors it is the thing I fear the most! If I roll bad for attacks, expensive units can easily be brought to flee... adding some combat resolution on your side helps. Also, large units on flanks are always a pain in the ass, since they act as tactical reserves that can enter the battle when and where most needed in numbers that are difficult to ignore after the 4th turn...

Arguleon-veq
04-02-2009, 15:04
Marauder Blocks are decent units, last two times I faced them -

Charged a block of 25 with LA + Shields in the flank with a Great Unclean one, only broke them in the end thanks to Horrors also charging in.

Had a unit of 25 with LA + Shields fight a unit of 25 of my Spears + 8 Halberdiers in the flank. Took me 3 turns to break them. 4+ Against my Spears coupled with hitting them back on 3's. Still get a 6+ against the Halberds and again hit back on 3's. Looking at 3 Kills to the Empires 2, despite getting flanked. Of course they still lose by a bit but a simple Warhound charge into those Halberds could have sorted that out.

Personally though I like my Marauders 6x4 with Flails and MOS. 150 Points for 7 WS4 S5 Attacks on a unit that usually still has static res of 3-5 anyway. Saving you 30 points on the 5x5 LA + Shield unit. Enough points for a unit of Hounds to kill those Detatchments or to do some flanking of your own so you can still win once those flails are no longer in effect.

Shamfrit
04-02-2009, 15:17
Given that my regular opponents are Vampires, where Static Res can frankly jump off a cliff...

Dwarves, with Great Weapons, and strong shooting, which will obliterate my Marauders thanks to their wonderful ...oh, wait, their wonderful non-existant save and of course, against Wood Elves, Dark Elves and High Elves, where Static Res of 2 (against their ranks, banner etc) will do very little indeed.

I won't go on about them anymore, I'd just rather spend money on...you know, killy stuff, in, ermm, a killy combat army..


That, and the models are the most disgusting things ever commited to plastic...

Oh, and I already have ONE horde army...I've got enough brown to paint as it is!

Andrew Luke
04-02-2009, 15:29
Um, hello. Banner of the Gods?! Without this item I wouldn't even consider warriors, but with it nearby they are one of the best units in warhammer.

Take four units of a dozen or so warriors, a champ or muso if you want, but no standard, obviously. With a stubborn 8 reroll they aren't going ANYWHERE. Talk about a solid core to your battle line. Chaos warriors are frickin' awesome when your opponent has to actually kill them. A Lvl. 4 Tzeentch DP and some Nurgle mages, maybe bring along a hell-cannon, and bring him to you, at which point your stubborn warriors will likely need to be hacked down to a man, which with there amazing fighting ability and armour is nigh impossible.

Draconian77
04-02-2009, 15:32
I agree with Shamfrit here.

Each time I go against Marauders I cut right through them, what is so attractive about an Empire Swordsmen unit?

Flails+MoK, great if you get to charge. But you can't say that Chaos Warriors will never charge/make combat and then claim that this Marauder unit is somehow superior at moving.

Warriors can be used in a nice hammer and anvil role as someone mentioned earlier and despite what Wolf says, no, not only at 4k...

W0lf
04-02-2009, 15:32
Um, hello. Banner of the Gods?! Without this item I wouldn't even consider warriors, but with it nearby they are one of the best units in warhammer.

oh dear god...

So how do you find opponents stupid enough to charge these with units that wont beat them??? Being stubborn means your better at losing combat... grrrreat i feel far better now :rolleyes:

And if your taking that banner marauders are even more superiour.
3 unit of marauders + 3 units of knights. Ultimate anvil, ultimate hammer. That WoC provide ofc.

Buddha777
04-02-2009, 15:35
3 units of 12 warriors with shields, MoS, and Musician. Great anvil to smash ur enemy against.

Yes I know, Proverbial arguments against marchblocking but that holds true for marauders as well. Warriors >>>>>> marauders in every aspect. Plus, that's what Marauder horsemen are for.

Draconian77
04-02-2009, 15:39
The only question that I would really ask in relation to Warriors is whether or not to take them over Chosen.

At the moment(when we swap armies...) I run 2x12(Both 6x2...) Chosen, thats working out really well and sometimes what you roll can seriously impact the game.

Shamfrit
04-02-2009, 15:41
And furthermore to Draconian's excellent comments, we're forgetting that:

MoK, Flail Marauders have at best, a 6+ save, which is virtually useless. Your opponent can easily hamper this unit with STR3 shooting at worst, and STR4/5 at best; heaven forbid if that unit is hit by a template weapon of any description. At least with Warriors you're providing a smaller target and a better toughness.

I regularily run 12 Warriors of Khorne, Great Weapons, Standard Bearer and the Banner of Wrath, alongside 12 Chosen of Slaanesh, Halberds, Shields, Standard Bearer and the Rapturous Standard. These units form the mop up base, whilst my Knights and Horsemen bullhorn, forcing the opponent to either turn to face them, or get the 3STR6/5 attacks to the flank. Or take the warriors on, and then get their line smashes and cavalry overruns through it. (Or at least, that's the plan.)

Not once have I ever gotten Marauders to work, under any tactic, or list, or configuration. I am very much inclined to try 10 Marauders with the MOK and Great Weapons, as little harasser units, but considering Marauder Horsemen are cheaper and better, I'll go for them - or invest the points in expanding into a third unit of Warriors, or making both of them Chosen.

W0lf
04-02-2009, 15:51
3 units of 12 warriors with shields, MoS, and Musician. Great anvil to smash ur enemy against.

go mathhammer them against a ton of simlarly costed units. They really arnt that good.



I regularily run 12 Warriors of Khorne, Great Weapons, Standard Bearer and the Banner of Wrath, alongside 12 Chosen of Slaanesh, Halberds, Shields, Standard Bearer and the Rapturous Standard.

I HIGHLY doubt ether unit does anything 2 more units of knights dont do and better. +1 Cr for rank vs +3 movement and +3 AS (assuming you go halberds) is not a hrad comparison.


Not once have I ever gotten Marauders to work, under any tactic, or list, or configuration. I am very much inclined to try 10 Marauders with the MOK and Great Weapons, as little harasser units, but considering Marauder Horsemen are cheaper and better, I'll go for them - or invest the points in expanding into a third unit of Warriors, or making both of them Chosen.

25 w/LA, Shield, FC, Mos.

For their points they are a very useful unit to have. combine them with other units for CR. They provide cheap static in an army that has none... how can you not find them useful?

That or ive found 23 With GW, FC, MoK + Festus is a brilliant hammer.

Or cover flanks with units of 12, MOK and flails.

Your Mum Rang
04-02-2009, 15:53
True, more Knights would be a better "mopping up" unit anyway :P

Shamfrit
04-02-2009, 16:07
I've already got three units, I need the last slot for the Chosen.


None of you have obviously lost 2 units of Knights a turn vs/ the Lore of Metal then I take it?

:p

Draconian77
04-02-2009, 16:15
For their points they are a very useful unit to have. combine them with other units for CR. They provide cheap static in an army that has none... how can you not find them useful?



In my experience its because SCR is becoming less and less useful.

~You can use it to bunker a mage, which I think is a bad idea.

~You can use it to bunker a fighting character, which I think is a great idea but horrible with WoC.

~You can use it in an all horde army where you can pretty much ensure flank charges(You have LoS everywhere...) WoC rarely play the horde game.

W0lf
04-02-2009, 22:12
Points taken.

however id point out that;

to answer 1; why are they terrible for mages? Take 10 with nothing and you have 40 pts for 10 wounds vs shooting. He can always leave the unit if must be.

and at 3; True but WoC can do one hell of a horde army. Just because people 'dont' do it :D

Havock
04-02-2009, 22:16
I've already got three units, I need the last slot for the Chosen.


None of you have obviously lost 2 units of Knights a turn vs/ the Lore of Metal then I take it?

:p

No, it either gets scrolled, or tongued :p

fubukii
04-02-2009, 22:19
6 wide warrior unit with mok, champ/musician and great weapons make a full powerhouse unit.

As wold said nights are a better investment for the points in a competitive army, but if you want to go with a theme, use the models, or play in a friendly game they arent bad just not the best choice point for point.

Shamfrit
04-02-2009, 22:47
You can't scroll a Slann or 10 dice worth of the Lore of Metal Havock, and you know that very well!

W0lf
04-02-2009, 23:01
why do you need to? Only spirit will kill a unit of knights.

Angelust
04-02-2009, 23:33
+3 warrior saves are also a liability for metal spells.

I think it's just hard to beat 150 pts for a solid ranked unit with command. Not only that, but WS4 is a good WS compared to a lot of the "horde" armies out there.

silentarrow12
04-02-2009, 23:38
hot or not? not, I am afraid to say

TrojanWolf
04-02-2009, 23:46
I like my Warriors. They seem to take an obscene amount of punishment, and they usually come out best. On the other hand, my Marauders have done nothing for me, except fail to beat Night Goblins in combat and fail Terror tests. My hounds always, always, ALWAYS get shot up, and I haven't tried Horsemen yet. Therefore, I like my Warriors.

Guy Fawkes
05-02-2009, 00:04
...Dwarves, with Great Weapons, and strong shooting, which will obliterate my Marauders thanks to their wonderful ...oh, wait, their wonderful non-existant save and of course, against Wood Elves, Dark Elves and High Elves, where Static Res of 2 (against their ranks, banner etc) will do very little indeed.

You keep mentioning that Chaos Warriors are more resilient. I have a problem with this - you argued that because Chaos Warriors are T4 and 2+ AS in close combat they are tougher than Marauders but failed to account for points costs.

I'll agree, Chaos Warriors are impressive and certainly better statwise than Marauders, but this doesn't make them more useful as anvils.

A Chaos Warrior with a shield is 16 points, enough to buy 4 unarmored Marauders. Against a handgun, the Warrior is only T4 AS 5+, because the weapon is S4 and armor piercing. Sure, the Marauder is T3 with no armor, but the four additional wounds (and corresponding four additional to-hit rolls, etc...) make him more valuable against shooting. Also, you have to kill more Marauders to force a panic check, besides the obvious fact that Marauders get cheaper static combat resolution.

This brings me to my next point. Static combat resolution is important, partially because many other armies rely on it. Obviously Warriors are better in combat, but generally they can't be fielded in more than two full ranks (and as I mentioned above, these are easily brought down with shooting). The cheapest you can get the +2 rank bonus is with 240 points of Chaos Warriors. The same 240 points will buy you 60 Marauders - enough for 3 fully ranked units. The extra units can do things a single unit of Warriors can't. First off, Marauders are cheaper and more expendable. This makes them better for seizing table quarters, being shot at as a meat shield, choosing to pursue an enemy that may run into woods/off the table, turning around to confront marchblockers, etc... Also, having additional units in general helps prevent you from being flanked, while minimizing the amount of your battle plan you reveal during deployment, since Marauders are far from essential.

In combat, it is easy to field a large unit of Marauders, especially with the Mark of Khorne or Slaanesh to increase defense against psychology (with all the fear-causing and terror-causing enemies around these days, its far better to lose a unit of Marauders to running through a bad combat than Warriors...). These large units have a +5 combat resolution right off the bat, something very rare with Chaos Warriors, who will usually have a +2 (banner and a rank). This means that Chaos Warriors have to inflict 3 casualties just to tie the combat (and Chaos Warriors are great at killing), but the problem here is that relying on kills is difficult. Sure, Chaos Warriors are the true elite infantry of Warhammer, but plenty of units are hard to kill and the dice gods are capricious. When you whiff your attacks, Chaos Warriors start running. Marauders maybe get one kill in combat if they are lucky, but with WS 4 (and the enemy still has to roll to wound, even if it is an easy roll against T4), Marauders won't lose too badly against average opponents (and this is what they will generally face). Characters, chariots, etc... will all dispose of Warriors and Marauders equally easily, so why risk expensive units?

Of course this brings up another point. With M4, what kinds of enemies do you expect to face in combat. Nobody would willingly charge an elite unit unless they hoped to win (or had a more strategic goal, eg. tarpitting), since charging just to lose is a waste of a turn and a unit. Every unit in the game, besides Dwarfs, will march just as fast as you, and so every unit can avoid you, especially if your army is small. Magic gunlines can't outshoot some real gunlines, and if you load up on Sorcerers and a Hellcannon, you have a tiny army that an enemy could possibly swamp anyways. If the enemy throws you a weak unit that is stubborn or unbreakable, what do you do? It's not such a bad loss if you only end up fighting with your Marauders, but losing a 300+ point chunk of your army to rip up Zombies is far from ideal. If Warriors just slaughter weak units the whole game they may have trouble making up their points cost, and of course, Warriors still die to combat resolution if the enemy gets a flank or has a magic banner.

All in all, why pay for a unit that can do everything, albeit slowly and expensively? The Warriors of Chaos book has plenty of units to fill all the roles that Warriors fill: Hammers, Anvils, Bunkers, etc... are all niches capable of being filled inexpensively by more specialized units.

Voodoo Boyz
05-02-2009, 00:05
I played a game against an army with 3 Blocks of Warriors, 2 of which were stubborn or had the banner of the gods.

I was running an all monster DE army, no infantry at all. I killed every single other unit and the warriors never saw a single combat. They did get breathed on quite a bit though and I got half points for one unit I think.

John Vaughan
05-02-2009, 00:08
Convenient. I usually run a lvl 4 and 2 lvl 2s. And as far as Combat res, I take a bsb with banner of the gods. Not much more needed in my opinion!

Angelust
05-02-2009, 00:16
Yeah, I'm not sure how everybody is failing to get good use out of the marauders. Unless I'm running a joke list, my list always has a couple blocks, and they always do something useful for their points. Even if they get demolished in combat, it forces certain kinds of deployment, maneuvering, and charge selections that I can almost always use to my benefit.

Occassionally, they'll also kill some stuff and run some stuff down. I've had quite a few games where 15-20 marauders survive to assist a combat, and break a unit. Even without armor, you're not doing 15 wounds to the flank in one round. Breaking CR for LOTS of armies out there is going to win you combats.

Shamfrit
05-02-2009, 00:37
I'll agree, Chaos Warriors are impressive and certainly better statwise than Marauders, but this doesn't make them more useful as anvils.

A Chaos Warrior with a shield is 16 points, enough to buy 4 unarmored Marauders. Against a handgun, the Warrior is only T4 AS 5+, because the weapon is S4 and armor piercing. Sure, the Marauder is T3 with no armor, but the four additional wounds (and corresponding four additional to-hit rolls, etc...) make him more valuable against shooting. Also, you have to kill more Marauders to force a panic check, besides the obvious fact that Marauders get cheaper static combat resolution.

Firstly, although you make strong points, you're working on 'what if's without including suitable countermeasures to deal with the issues you're raising. By that I mean, why bring in issues of panic when you know rather firmly most, if not virtually all Warrior or Marauder units will be bearing the Mark of Khorne, or Slaanesh, and as such won't care about casualties. Second, to truly evaluate shooting resilience you must look at the base Core/Special missile troop averages, and that is SR3 or STR3 AP at present. Even with STR4 AP, you need 4 to hit, 4 to wound, and a 5+ save to take down a warrior. You need a 4 to hit, and a 3 to outright kill a Marauder, based on your situation.

Now, here is where your logic slips. If you kill a Warrior, the only thing you're losing is points. If you kill a Marauder, you're likely taking away a point of Combat Resolution, whereas the Warrior unit will rarely have any static resolution to lose. Your Marauder front line is virtually never going to do anymore than a single wound against similar opponents, this much we've agreed on, but, a Warrior frontline, and that is after all the only thing that needs to remain intact, can expect, against a similar opponent or 'average' prey, to take alot more - how much depends on configuration, but you can expect 6 wide, Khornate Great Weapon wielding Chaos Warriors to cleave a somewhat large dent in whatever they hit, and even to what they're hit by.


This brings me to my next point. Static combat resolution is important, partially because many other armies rely on it. Obviously Warriors are better in combat, but generally they can't be fielded in more than two full ranks (and as I mentioned above, these are easily brought down with shooting).

Equating Warriors with Static Resolution is a fallacy. They don't need it to win, and they don't need it to be points effective. As I'm sure many others will agree, Static Resolution is vastly becoming a thing of the past, look at Skaven, an army of LD10 SR +5 models at cheap prices...doing, very little? Remove yourself from the need to get rank bonus and concentrate on what Warriors of Chaos (the clue is in the name) are supposed to be doing...that's raiding, pillaging, and defiling the Mortal World's face with big sticks.


The cheapest you can get the +2 rank bonus is with 240 points of Chaos Warriors. The same 240 points will buy you 60 Marauders - enough for 3 fully ranked units. The extra units can do things a single unit of Warriors can't. First off, Marauders are cheaper and more expendable. This makes them better for seizing table quarters, being shot at as a meat shield, choosing to pursue an enemy that may run into woods/off the table, turning around to confront marchblockers, etc... Also, having additional units in general helps prevent you from being flanked, while minimizing the amount of your battle plan you reveal during deployment, since Marauders are far from essential.

What exactly are you expecting to do with these 20 man unarmed, unarmoured, low toughness and leadership units? You suggest turning them around to stop Marchblockers, yet also slate Warriors for being M4...you suggest using them to prevent flanking, whilst you're really only providing a speed bump for enemy cavalry or monsters to overrun into your meatier flanks, and 'minimising battle plans' in an elite army, when you have cheaper Light Cavalry and the infinitely better at all the roles you've mentioned Wolfhounds.


In combat, it is easy to field a large unit of Marauders, especially with the Mark of Khorne or Slaanesh to increase defense against psychology (with all the fear-causing and terror-causing enemies around these days, its far better to lose a unit of Marauders to running through a bad combat than Warriors...).

Like I said prior, Warriors won't not be immune to Psychology. If you do lose them to Terror, then you've lost the battle already. If you lost Frenzy etc, then all else is irrelevant.


These large units have a +5 combat resolution right off the bat, something very rare with Chaos Warriors, who will usually have a +2 (banner and a rank). This means that Chaos Warriors have to inflict 3 casualties just to tie the combat (and Chaos Warriors are great at killing), but the problem here is that relying on kills is difficult. Sure, Chaos Warriors are the true elite infantry of Warhammer, but plenty of units are hard to kill and the dice gods are capricious. When you whiff your attacks, Chaos Warriors start running. Marauders maybe get one kill in combat if they are lucky, but with WS 4 (and the enemy still has to roll to wound, even if it is an easy roll against T4), Marauders won't lose too badly against average opponents (and this is what they will generally face). Characters, chariots, etc... will all dispose of Warriors and Marauders equally easily, so why risk expensive units?

Supposition and idealised logic is all fine, but, 'characters and chariots' will make messes of most units. And Marauders will break much more due to Lower Leadership, and no access to Stubborn etc, except with Banner of the Gods, but that implies you spend 200+ points on making your weak, easy to cleave through LD7 troops, slightly less cleavable through, and still LD7...this is Warriors, you don't need static res, no more than High Elves need it, or Wood Elves, or Dark Elves, or Undead, or Daemons, or Tomb Kings...you're geared for killing, and can outwit and kill most things. The best offence is after all, the best defence.


Of course this brings up another point. With M4, what kinds of enemies do you expect to face in combat. Nobody would willingly charge an elite unit unless they hoped to win (or had a more strategic goal, eg. tarpitting), since charging just to lose is a waste of a turn and a unit. Every unit in the game, besides Dwarfs, will march just as fast as you, and so every unit can avoid you, especially if your army is small.

The Empire, Dwarves, Tomb Kings, Vampire Counts, Skaven to some extent all seem to manage. And has been discussed countless times, you use your cavalary and flanking units and magic to break the opponent's line, to force them to turn to the flank to take the cavalry charges, exposing their flanks to your advancing infantry, or force them to hold, and take cavalry to the flanks, neither outcome is pretty, and when you do get baited, you've more units more than likely to follow up.


Magic gunlines can't outshoot some real gunlines, and if you load up on Sorcerers and a Hellcannon, you have a tiny army that an enemy could possibly swamp anyways. If the enemy throws you a weak unit that is stubborn or unbreakable, what do you do? It's not such a bad loss if you only end up fighting with your Marauders, but losing a 300+ point chunk of your army to rip up Zombies is far from ideal. If Warriors just slaughter weak units the whole game they may have trouble making up their points cost, and of course, Warriors still die to combat resolution if the enemy gets a flank or has a magic banner.

No, but Flickering Fire, Buboes, and Lash of Slaanesh are all Lvl.1 spells, and all help deal with missile fire. Cause panic tests in missile units, and we have accesses to 20" Heroes who can easily take down missile units and warmachines at the flick of a switch. Considering we also have access to Lvl.4 Mages who can cause panic tests army wide or selective tests at -1LD, it shouldn't be too hard to break apart crucial parts of the enemy line before we close in. If you get zombies sent at you, I believe 5 Khornate Knights will happily wade through them, or a few spells or two - and 'gets a flank' equates to ANY unit in the game virtually being in deep water.


All in all, why pay for a unit that can do everything, albeit slowly and expensively? The Warriors of Chaos book has plenty of units to fill all the roles that Warriors fill: Hammers, Anvils, Bunkers, etc... are all niches capable of being filled inexpensively by more specialized units.

All in all, why pay for a unit that can do everything, cheaper, more resilient, more reliable and more customisable than any of the other more specialised units?

Given you've based your entire argument on Static Resolution, an otherwise defunct mechanic in a kill based herohammer environment, and assumed that the Chaos Player using the Warriors is A) Devoid of a brain and B) can't deal with marchblocking and C) knows no movement tricks or hasn't grasped any concept of hammer & anvil swings, bullhorn movements or the confusion line breaking tactics employed by generals since at least Alexander the Great, you'll forgive me if I continue to use Warriors to excellent effect, a move which doesn't jeapordise my game in any way shape or form.

A little patience and know how is all it takes. If you're building Warriors to be static res and horde...

Then I'm rather afraid you've missed the point.

W0lf
05-02-2009, 00:43
ok shamfrit.

what do warriors do that knights dont do better? core aside.

Im feeling nothing.

Shamfrit
05-02-2009, 00:48
Nothing on their own W0lf, you seem to be jumping to the conclusion that I'm using just Warriors. I've said several times that I use Knights and Warriors, as it's very difficult for any competant player to bring balance to his own force and to deal with all possibilities by relying on just infantry, or just cavalry etc.

I take 'detachments' if you will. One unit of infantry per one unit of Knights and one unit of Fast Cavalry to support/missile hunt with the Knights and then one unit of Wolfhounds per one unit of Knights, whose use I've no need to explain to you. As I assume you know that much already.

Then like I said, I send Knights up to flank and march forth with my infantry, causing a line breaking affect in most games, although tactics and movements may vary depending on opponent. I tend to keep both infantry close together, so if one is charged the other can counter charge. Going mono-cavalry also makes you very weak against specific Rulebook lores.

Having both infantry and cavalry is more tactically sound than having one or the other I feel.

Dead Man Walking
05-02-2009, 04:51
The only way I can make Mauraders work is by placing a hero in the unit with a strikes first great weapon (mind you I stopped playing in this edition becuase I have 1.2k points warriors, 5oo points deamons and 500 points beasts armies now). This hero would have to hold thier hand to get them there but once they got there they could stand up to the punches. Otherwise I would just use them as throw away units.

In this edition however I would field them with the special character to come on any tableedge.

Lafkak
05-02-2009, 06:30
Hey Dead Man Walking, I was in the same situation as you. Now I'm just using my Beast Herd as a unit of marked Marauders (while the other, regular Marauders are unmarked) and my leftover Horrors as Forsaken (with a little converting). As long as you have a unified color scheme you can still have one cohesive army with "counts as" units from your previous force :)

fubukii
05-02-2009, 06:47
Hey Dead Man Walking, I was in the same situation as you. Now I'm just using my Beast Herd as a unit of marked Marauders (while the other, regular Marauders are unmarked) and my leftover Horrors as Forsaken (with a little converting). As long as you have a unified color scheme you can still have one cohesive army with "counts as" units from your previous force :)

thats a good suggestion.

as for Marauders they are a solid unit, but they key to using them is +5 cr and the with the extra points you can afford a hero. If you want them to be a hammer unit try 6 wide with mok and flails 13 str 5 attacks aint bad for thier cost. But for the most part the best setup is

24 man full cmd MOS or MON - with exalted champion

Djekar
05-02-2009, 06:47
Why hadn't I ever thought of that Lafkak!? Man, all my Gors/Ungors are finally going to get some use!! Thank you for ripping the soiled satin from my beer addled eyes you god among accountants!

~Carpet

Cobrak
05-02-2009, 07:24
OK so after reading thing whole thread I've learned 3 things

1. That for every plus warriors have the have a negative and for every plus marauders have the have a negative. (doesn't this make them equivalent?)

2. That just because there are units out there that counter one unit or another apparently means that the unit sucks (to in which case that must mean that every unit sucks- so the army's all suck-the game must then suck but yet we all love it so get over it things get counters that is what makes a fun and balanced game)

3. W0LF really likes Tzeench and Knights
jk.
this is really nothing more than a popularity contest that has turned several grown men and women into little children, really.

Q: Warriors Hot or Not?

A: Depends on who your playing and at what points. you may find that they work for you others find marauders to work better for there games it happens it is ok the point of ALL GAMES is to have fun sure losing all the time makes it unfun but thats when you change things up to find what fits you and still works
(because at the end of the day the experienced players build there list to face Deamons, VC, Skaven, because the rest of the armies usually wittle themselves down and those three crush whats left. you on the other hand play your friends and as such build your list to have a good time)

if anyone has an objection to that well you can just cry to your mommies because i don't care thats how it is and you know it now can we please move on as most of us are not 4 and can just agree to disagree. (if we were ment to have the same ROBOTIC Cookie cutter army they would have only printed rules and an army)

Your Mum Rang
05-02-2009, 14:08
2. That just because there are units out there that counter one unit or another apparently means that the unit sucks (to in which case that must mean that every unit sucks- so the army's all suck-the game must then suck but yet we all love it so get over it things get counters that is what makes a fun and balanced game)


Most sensible thing I've heard on Warseer in ages.

Kraal_Lord_Of_Blood
05-02-2009, 14:26
I'm actually thinking of running an entire army based on mostly warriors. With shields. Of khorne :D If you skip down on a few heroes you actually get quite a few (around 100 in 2000pts) and still some marauder horse and warhounds to catch skirmishers and be generally annoying.

Makaber
05-02-2009, 15:06
I bet W0lf is a decent player and he often has good points, but a weakness of his rethoric is how he's always examining things from his own point of view, then bombasitcally declares whatever conclution he reaches as the Undisputed Truth of Good Warhammer. I think he would be well adviced to consider that other people have other approaches to the game, where they might make what he thinks is "rubbish" work quite well, because they play in a different manner and see potential he might have missed out on. This tendency isn't limited to this thread alone, but to pretty much all his posts. I find it a little sad, because when he presents his opinion in this fashion, it's easy to get annoyed by his approach and dismiss it, which would be a shame.

Havock
05-02-2009, 22:34
You can't scroll a Slann or 10 dice worth of the Lore of Metal Havock, and you know that very well!

Neither of which is very prevalent here. And it's more or less a 'toss a coin' matchup in that case: Either you burn my knights away, or I massacre you in CC.

Shamfrit
05-02-2009, 22:42
What, so I don't get a cookie when all I here about Warriors is:

March Blocked = Fail

Shot At = Fail?

Tit for tat approach here would be nice.

John Vaughan
06-02-2009, 01:48
Bombastic...I'm going to use that word today.
My real contention for using warrior is that in my experience, my murauders have difficulty killing anything. Warriors have a much higher success rate. Simple enough, right?

Havock
06-02-2009, 08:32
What, so I don't get a cookie when all I here about Warriors is:

March Blocked = Fail

Shot At = Fail?

Tit for tat approach here would be nice.

Of course, because, you know, every army is a gunline that can run circles around us, marchblocking us and pelting us with missile and magical fire before we get anywhere, alternatively, every army that does come to us is made up out of nothing but chaos knight equivalent or betters. Silly Shamfrit, learn the game you are playing!

Djekar
06-02-2009, 08:44
of course, because, you know, every army is a gunline that can run circles around us, marchblocking us and pelting us with missile and magical fire before we get anywhere, alternatively, every army that does come to us is made up out of nothing but chaos knight equivalent or betters.

qft...
...
...
;)

Shamfrit
06-02-2009, 13:03
I DO hope you're being sarcastic.

Being retarded I sometimes find it hard to tell...

If you're not, then perhaps you should stop playing at GT's?

loveless
06-02-2009, 14:12
What, so I don't get a cookie when all I here about Warriors is:

March Blocked = Fail

Shot At = Fail?

Tit for tat approach here would be nice.

*Gives Shamfrit a cookie before he climbs the clocktower*


Honestly, there are tales of Warriors (the unit, not the army) doing an excellent job in games. However, they get brushed aside as Warseer has a massive bias against them for some reason.

How many people have actually tried using Warriors instead of just dismissing them as "useless" and making the *yawn* cavalry list?

Deacon Bane
06-02-2009, 14:43
Using Warrior units actually takes some skill, and planning. Maybe that is why people don't like them. Why hurt your head and have to actually think, when you can line up 4 units of knights and charge. Sorry Wolf, I know you loves your knights. I always use knights aswell and have just added a second unit with MOK, but I also have at least one units of Warriors and a couple of Marauder units, I like a little bit of everything. I have yet to have a problem with march blockers, or with them being shot up. My Horselords take care of marchblockers, and who wants to shoot at footsloggers, when you have Knights and DrOgres bearing down on you. My Warriors make it to combat, so far, in every battle usually because they have the Banner of Wrath or a Hero with Rod of Torment. You could ignore them but it will cost you.

Shamfrit
06-02-2009, 14:44
My Warriors make it to combat, so far, in every battle usually because they have the Banner of Wrath or a Hero with Rod of Torment

Mwhahaha, my influence is spreading :D

sroblin
06-02-2009, 15:37
It seems part of the problem with this debate is that the knights > warriors argument is being made under the assumption that these units are binary choices; either all knights or all warriors. I think a good list will have both, and as Deacon Bane pointed out, the fast knights will both draw more fire and help take out the march blockers. The Warriors work well as the second wave in a combined-arms team.

However, although I tend to be on the pro-warrior side of the debate, I do believe a pertinent question that I can't find an easy answer to. Granted that Warriors can preform certain roles pretty well (killing things, absorbing damage), what can they do that knight's can't do better?

Undeniably, they absorbe casualties better from things that allowe no save then knights do, sure. But otherwise, the difference between a 1+ save versus sooting and melee, and the warrior's 3+ save versus shooting and either a 2+ or 4+ makes the knight still quite efficient at absorbing ranged and melee attacks. (For instance it takes 6 glade guard at short range to kill on average one chaos warrior,while it takes 18 to kill a knight; 3 times as much absorption, for 2.4 times the price.) Also, the knights keep a great save without having to give up hitting at S5 or 6, while warriors have to choose between hitting power and defense. And while Warriors might be able to get a rank bonus or two, most of our arguments are admitting that it's not very points efficient and the rank bonus is more of a side bonus you might get if they don't get shot at all. So if they don't really have a rank bonus and advantage, and all that matters is gettng a tough and deadly front rank into contact, what are the advantages of warriors? For their cost, you pay similar amounts for an effective unit of warriors (204 for 12 with shield + halberd, 255pts for 15) as for Knights (200 for 5, 240 for 6); and the only clear advantage I'm seeing is that the warriors can absorbe more damage from attacks that ignore armor saves. Realistically, Warriors might be able to get a +1 rank bonus also, though it's usually not to hard to shave that off. Only other thing I can think of is that while there may be no definite damage absorption advantage, every casualty from a Knight unit will come off the front and subtract from attacks, while Warriors will usually be taking them off the rear rank unless they are very badly shot up.

But all meanwhile, the Knights are of course faster and can hit harder without having to give up their armor saves, (and get the horse attacks.)

Now I'm saying this as someone who has a very old-school faith that combined arms is the best way (despite mounting evidence to the contrary), but when I think about the relative costs and capabilities, I'm not able to reason my way out. I would of course welcome anyone who can set me strait, and I'm unlikely to change my warriors-and-knights fielding ways, but still...

Havock
06-02-2009, 22:02
I DO hope you're being sarcastic.

Being retarded I sometimes find it hard to tell...

If you're not, then perhaps you should stop playing at GT's?

Yes. Warriors are not half as bad as some people make them out to be and actually make a good standoff platform. I doubt their abilities as linebreakers because of their speed (or lack thereof) but are highly useable in holding the backfield.

vinny t
06-02-2009, 22:47
I always use 3 units of 15, 2 units of horseman with flails and Khorne, a chariot of Khorne, and a spawn (Mr. Kibbles). The trick here is to have so many threats that you can't kill them all before they get into combat. Mr. Kibbles makes marchblocking hard as he can charge 2d6 in any direction. This has worked very, very well.

Arguleon-veq
06-02-2009, 23:17
As has been put very well by SRoblin, Knights are better. I like my Warriors but I cant argue that.

What hasnt really been brought up though is that they are in totally different selection slots.

We should really be asking if Warriors are better than Marauders or Horsemen. As we need to take one of those 3 units.

You save yourself about 50 points from 6 Knights with FC and Slaanesh, compared to 12 Warriors with FC, Shields, Halberds and Slaanesh. As has been said the Warriors do have some minor advantages such as casualties not reducing attacks, having +1 rank bonus.

Now with Knights AND Warriors in your army the enemy the enemy has a lot of priority targets, he has to shoot your Knights, as they will hit him sooner, which should see your Warriors reach combat. With Marauders who are nowhere near as Dangerous your opponents often wontbe that bothered if they reach combat, even in large units. Marauder Horse are easily shot down. Warriors give a reliable second wave to your Knights.

Plus despite what some people claim, you CAN make the enemy come to you. If you go magic heavy and or take a Hellcannon many armies will have to.

Ogres,
Beasts,
Orcs,
Brets,
Warriors,
Vamps.

This makes the Knights speed much less of an issue.

Wood Elves will have a hard time just outshooting you too, Lizards will find it hard to last in a magic/shooting battle with you and Dark/High Elves are often combat oriented.

Knights are the better unit, but they are a special choice and Warriors still have a place as the core choice they are, in many armies.

W0lf
06-02-2009, 23:46
I bet W0lf is a decent player and he often has good points, but a weakness of his rethoric is how he's always examining things from his own point of view, then bombasitcally declares whatever conclution he reaches as the Undisputed Truth of Good Warhammer. I think he would be well adviced to consider that other people have other approaches to the game, where they might make what he thinks is "rubbish" work quite well, because they play in a different manner and see potential he might have missed out on. This tendency isn't limited to this thread alone, but to pretty much all his posts. I find it a little sad, because when he presents his opinion in this fashion, it's easy to get annoyed by his approach and dismiss it, which would be a shame.

I felt i should reply to this;

yes i can often be narrow-minded in my approach and i admit im a little stubborn. Ill try to reconsider my apporach. I play in a WAAC enviroment and local tournys i tend to win (my region). I have a curious relationship with warhammer, that being i won my first few ever games, ive never had a 'noob' stage where the games concerned.

Several posters on here that i 'know' (by name) will greatly generate my interest/respect. Posters such as Neknoh (great general), Shamfrit (outside box thinking) and EVC (logic) all make me consider my oppinions often. However when he answered my question the feeling i got was 'yes knights are flat out better but...'

Chaos warriors are a fine unit and its over-exagerated how useless they 'can' be (mostly by me). However in the enviroment i play in they are pretty useless imo. Ive tried them and whilst they worked they wernt as good as knights. Other players ive seen use them have not won. Its hard to get them to where you want them and ALOT of things will have no issues charging and breaking them. Chaos knights included.

Shamfrit
07-02-2009, 00:00
Posters such as Neknoh (great general), Shamfrit (outside box thinking) and EVC (logic) all make me consider my oppinions often.

You make us sound like the Witches of Eastwick :D



However when he answered my question the feeling i got was 'yes knights are flat out better but...'

That's pretty much because there's no right or wrong answer to the question W0lf, you either like Warriors, and can use them correctly to a beneficial effect, or you can't, and use other resources to the same ends. As Arquelon specified, they're in a different army composition slot, so shouldn't be cross compared when we're looking at 'best units.'

I think it's safe to say Chaos Knights belong in every Warriors Army, they are one of the best units in the game, considering all factors, such as cost, effect, defence, offence...however, given the fact that one Knight of Khorne in a unit of five Knights costs a whopping 46 points, it's difficult to evaluate them in terms of army contect, because you can get 3 Chaos Warriors for every Knight...and the 46 points is for a single Khornate Knight without any command on the unit....once you factor that, and a banner in, you're looking at a 45-55 spread...you might do more damage if you hit things, but it's easier to kill your Knight unit...and get considerably more rewards for doing so.

There are too many ups and downs to this debate for their to be a resolution, so all we can do is share tactics with each approach, and gives others a chance at getting the most out of the Army Book. Warseer seriously needs to start working together, I stated coming here as a Hobby Support, and although I'd like to say it's fully complimented that aim, it's vastly becoming a circular logic nightmare. Everyone's out to beat one another, without realising they're just opinions, completely and utterly subjective opinions, based on experience that's not ultimately the same player to player.

So, let's try and get Warriors to work...and get them to work with Knights. I'm sure I've been here before and said exactly the same things in spite of a huge wave of petulant negativity both pre-and post release of the Army Book, and I'm rapidly running out of patience to keep repeating myself once a new thread on the same topic appears three weeks later. It's old ground covered, so let's start looking to the new?

And as it happens, although your meta-gaming attitude grates with me sometimes, it's valuable to get an insider approach to the tournament scene, as I've yet to dabble in truly competative gaming in Warhammer, outside of Lorenzo net-testing that is. Only after playing Type I and Type II and Casual in Magic for example, can you truly leave the fray as an experienced and honest gamer, the same I think applies here - you need to learn all the Aspects of a single game before you can truly start 'playing' it.

Kalec
07-02-2009, 00:38
You save yourself about 50 points from 6 Knights with FC and Slaanesh, compared to 12 Warriors with FC, Shields, Halberds and Slaanesh. As has been said the Warriors do have some minor advantages such as casualties not reducing attacks, having +1 rank bonus.


I feel the need to step in and say that knights don't need MoS at all, so that can go. They don't need a champion keeping the unit from slaughtering enemy heroes, so drop him too. The standard is questionable with knights, and the musician is a must-have.

Dropping the champ and MoS cuts the gap to 20 points.

W0lf
07-02-2009, 00:57
@Shamfrit

yes we all have diffrent fields of experience and i guess i can be pretty bad at seeing that at times. Im especially negative about WoC because of all the armies i play i feel less confident with WoC infront of me. I win majority of my games with w/e rmy but as far as torunys go i wudnt consider taking WoC over my DE or WE for instance.

As for trying... i plan to play 4 games this weekend with a heavy warriors list. Im currently struggling to work out how im going to win 1 out of 4 games tbh. Star dragon, 4 bolt thrower HEs, Combat character vampires, dual hydra + large cold one unit DE and Daemons are all going to be uphill battles. (my likely 4 opponents).

Kahadras
07-02-2009, 00:59
One of the nastiest WoC builds I've seen at our club at the present moment contains two large units of Warriors. Basicaly they get buffed by the two Warshrine while the Chaos Knights steam forward into the enemy lines and break up the enemy defences. Mounted marauders usualy protect the flanks of the Warriors until they make it into combat.

Kahadras

W0lf
07-02-2009, 01:39
nastiest build ive seen was 4x 7 khorne knights, Valkia, Caddy and M.Horse/hounds.

Nothing holds that kind of charge.

John Vaughan
14-02-2009, 03:59
All it takes is a bit of luck with the Lore of Metal, and the whole army is toast. Sure, a caddy will help, but it won't bottle-neck all of the metal spells, all of which are completely devastating those with 1+ armor.

Sword of the Morning
14-02-2009, 05:04
I just returned from my local store, where I played three 1000 point games (respectively the third, fourth, and fifth games of my WoC career). My list includes a unit of Warriors: 12 with full command, additional hand weapons, shields, and the Mark of Nurgle, to be precise. They were the overall MVPs beyond a shadow of a doubt; and yes, to preempt the inevitable rebuttal, I am well aware of the limited value inherent in anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless:

The first game was a massacre in my favor against Dwarves. My Warhounds, Knights and Ogres got shot up badly on the way in while my Disc-riding Exalted spiked the Dwarven warmachines. My Warriors reached the castling Dwarves intact, and absolutely brutalized 20 HW+Shield Warriors before turning around and doing the same to 15 Longbeards with a Thane, helped out by my Exalted.

Next, I faced off against a Throgg-led WoC army including Warhounds, two big units of trolls, Ogres, and Dragon Ogres. I feel that this was a bad matchup for me, and I came out with a minor loss. I charged his Throgg unit with my two surviving Knights (Throgg's ranged attack is brutal), my Exalted, and my Ogres, all of which bounced. Meanwhile, my stalwart Warriors threw back the combined frontal charge of 3 XHW Ogres and 6 Trolls, chasing down the Trolls and slaying the surviving Ogre once it rallied.

Finally, I faced down a mobile Dark Elf force; the game was tight for a while, but around Turn 5 he conceded the Massacre to me. My Warriors butchered a big block of Druchii spearmen, then lost three men to the Hydra's breath attack. They shrugged off their losses and turned to receive the charge, losing only one man in the process. After two rounds of combat they had slain both of the Beastmasters, broken the Hydra, and pursued into the rear of the Dark Rider unit which contained his Master, at which point my opponent called the game.

Now, all this is by way of saying that the Warriors were stellar, but 5 Knights with Standard, Musician and MoN of roughly equal cost would likely have done as well. I also made sure to include a Spawn in my list to prevent marchblocking, which really only became a threat against Dark Elves (in the other two games he died horribly for the glory of the Dark Gods). Still, one Spawn can more than cover one Warrior unit in terms of ripping up annoying marchblockers.

Addendum: My Knights were molested by an Organ Gun against the Dwarves, single-handedly destroyed by Throgg against WoC, and relegated to riding down Repeater Crossbowmen against the Dark Elves thanks to some intelligent redeployment by my opponent. I know they are the best unit in the book, I'm just saying. ;)