PDA

View Full Version : Warriors of Chaos - why all the negativity



English 2000
27-01-2009, 03:08
I picked up the new WoC book a couple of months ago and immediately decided I wanted to start an army of them. Why does everyone seem to think they are so weak? To me they look awesome and I can't wait to get an army started once my high elves are done.

aforce808
27-01-2009, 03:18
I really like the new book as well, and think they can be very effective. In fact, I believe a GT was just recently won by a WoC army using a Daemon Prince of Tzeench! I think people are just down on them because they aren't as overtly powerful as VC or Daemons.

-Doug

Neckutter
27-01-2009, 03:39
i dont like their tactical flaws. no skirmishers, no flying units like furies or harpies. daemon princes getting a big nerf from last edition. the army just isnt fun and doesnt feel "chaosy" to me.

SuperArchMegalon
27-01-2009, 03:46
Why all the negativity? Because Warseer is a negative community. Almost every book is viewed negatively when it's released for some reason. If it isn't too strong, it's too weak. If the artwork isn't good enough there is not enough. If the models aren't crappy, they're too expensive. Welcome to the biggest Warhammer forum online =\

Angelust
27-01-2009, 03:51
Why all the negativity on ... negativity? :-p

SuperArchMegalon
27-01-2009, 04:02
Actually, hating every release is the one thing people seem to enjoy around here :D

The Red Scourge
27-01-2009, 05:10
Troopswise it all got better, braver, tougher and cheaper, but sadly it lacks somewhat tactically (the lack of skirmishers, scouts and fliers), instead there is 1+ save knights, chariot busting, knight slaying dragon ogres, cheap cannon fodder etc. etc. This makes the army somewhat onesided from a tactical perspective – but no more than VC, and they seem to be getting a lot of love.

Then there are the characters. They are all about dueling, but their lack of a decent ward save makes them very vulnerable – 0+ armor saves/regeneration doesn't work in most peoples book. And everyone seems to want a T5, AS -1+, reverse ward, regenerating chaos general. This basically serves to make WoC characters into wizards – as it is the only ranged attack and decent tool against march blockers there is, while also providing magical defense.

10 special characters... Thats a bit much, and goes to show how much effort they put into the real army.

I still like my mortal chaos army. Its fun, its fast, it has a fantastic potential for death and destruction and is in general lots and lots of fun. I would have hoped for better (ie. more resilient) fighty characters and a hydra/treeman class shaggoth, but I'll have my fun despite of this :)

Condottiere
27-01-2009, 06:39
I don't believe that WoC are the most powerful army in Warhammer, but some aspects are hard to overcome if you plan to duke it out.

Tyranno1
27-01-2009, 07:16
WHy all WoC negativity? Well it could be that we lost 60% of all our old troops and were given in return a unit of extremely expensive guys wearing the poorest armour possible in the list who have a random number of small attacks, and a corpse cart that gives bonuses we have no control over except thier single target.


Or mabye its that our characters are forced to challenge and either get fed a champion which dosent activate a special ability which is included in thier points cost, or get thier **** handed to them due to a severe lack in any sort of half decent ward save.


Or it could be the fact that the list is completly absent of skirmishers, and has a severe lack of fliers. Makeing defeating a gunline army impossible.


Mabye its the fact that the magic weapon section has nothing in there for unit killing. Only containing weapons that hurt a single opponent when the chaos lord fails at doing what you paid him for.


I have been trying to play with this army since its release and personally I see it as very bad. Nearly everything powerful in the list is frenzied and I have no control over. My characters are constantly fed a champion keeping them at bay. Anything which dissalows an armour save has ripped apart alot of my expensive troops thanks to only one option of a tiny ward save, or nothing at all.

I get outmanuvered, outgunned, outplayed and outraged. Granted the list has strong points, the knights are scary as hell, maruders taking marks has made them a good choice. But overall the positives have been vastly outweighed by the negatives.

SuperArchMegalon
27-01-2009, 07:38
... extremely expensive guys wearing the poorest armour possible in the list who have a... number of small attacks...


Or mabye its that our characters are forced to challenge and either get fed a champion ... or get thier **** handed to them due to a severe lack in any sort of half decent ward save.


Or it could be the fact that the list is completly absent of skirmishers, and has a severe lack of fliers. Makeing defeating a gunline army impossible.


Mabye its the fact that the magic weapon section has nothing in there for unit killing. Only containing weapons that hurt a single opponent when the chaos lord fails at doing what you paid him for.


I get outmanuvered, outgunned, outplayed and outranged. But overall the positives have been vastly outweighed by the negatives.

Wow, sounds like my Ogres. But better still :P

Llothlian
27-01-2009, 07:49
My fast cav isn't fast anymore, I lost my mounted Daemonettes, I lost my fliers (which wouldn't be so bad if I could still take fast cav with a 20" charge range), I lost the ability to take Beastman skirmishers.

I lost my first game under the new book to a Dogs of War army. Granted I was outplayed, but there was nothing I could do against his march blockers. I feel that I am forced to take offensive Sorcerers, and since Slaaneshi magic isn't that offensive (more disruptive) it is almost like the book is trying to force me to take a multi-god army.

The Red Scourge
27-01-2009, 07:53
I get outmanuvered, outgunned, outplayed and outraged. Granted the list has strong points, the knights are scary as hell, maruders taking marks has made them a good choice. But overall the positives have been vastly outweighed by the negatives.

They aren't that bad, but they are definitely more of challenge to play with their simple setup – quite the paradox, a simple army is hard to play ;)

W0lf
27-01-2009, 09:18
Try playing with and agaisnt them.

WoC are pretty weak. i wouldnt take them to a tourny.

mrtn
27-01-2009, 09:56
My fast cav isn't fast anymoreWhat fast cav? Did you put light armour and shields on marauder horsemen, or what?

On topic, the guys complaining that the army is too strong are being outnumbered by the ones who say that it's too weak, for other armies it's been the other way around. They're still whinging, though.

Llothlian
27-01-2009, 10:02
My fast cav used to have a 20" charge, a daemon save, a poisoned attack and be Initiative 5 with 2 attacks a piece (or was it 3?). Now all I get is ITP Horsemen. At least Slaaneshi units can now flee as a charge reaction!

Shamfrit
27-01-2009, 10:13
Obviously none of you have tried movement, tactics, military alogirthms or these wonderful things called 'tricks,'

If I can rip apart Dwarves, Wood Elves, Daemons and Vampire with a low magic low Knight count army then I'm sure some of you lot could.

Or you could whine and whine and not get any enjoyment out of playing them for the rest of the game edition.

Take up arms, and stop being Southlanders!

Kaelarr
27-01-2009, 10:24
Having been a WoC player for 16 years, i thought id hate this book. But i really like it, and i think that my first point is, you dont need a chaos lord to rip units apart! we have by far the best units in game in terms of sheer killing power.

You have chaos hounds and Horsemen to deal with fliers and skirmishers. You have great magic lores, filthy magic items, and some of the best monstous units out there.

Stop complaining!!

Mireadur
27-01-2009, 10:45
I really like the new book as well, and think they can be very effective. In fact, I believe a GT was just recently won by a WoC army using a Daemon Prince of Tzeench! I think people are just down on them because they aren't as overtly powerful as VC or Daemons.

-Doug

This is wrong, people are happy they arent overly powerful in fact. As you can read in the post following yours, WoC owners are not happy because of the lack of tactical choices and because of every unit in the book fills exactly the same 2 functions.

Shamfrit
27-01-2009, 10:50
Warriors have never had skirmishers or fliers, you only got them if you took a Daemonic Ally.

If you took advantage of the mark/daemon/beastmen ally system before, losing those things and thus, your reliance on them will hurt more than if you played a relatively normal Mortals list prior to the split.

If you want Skirmishers, Fliers and 20" daemons...

Heaven forbid, perhaps play Daemons?

Mireadur
27-01-2009, 10:55
I don't believe that WoC are the most powerful army in Warhammer, but some aspects are hard to overcome if you plan to duke it out.

I totally agree with your statement condo. They are harder to beat than what appears to: Since they have high resistance and Str values by default, you just need a big Tz magician to do it well agaisnt anyone. They are the only army ive found so far able to wear down vampire armies in CC.

bork da basher
27-01-2009, 11:14
i agree too, WoC are now a contender, not up in the top 3 but 4th or 5th easily and in the right hands are lethal. they dont forgive players who dont play aggressively. hesitate and loose is what i find with WoC.

we are a pure CC army (proberly the strongest in the game) and capable of a devestating magic phase too. yeah we dont have a shooting phase bar the hellcannon but who cares. play them right and they're as strong as anyone. im yet to loose with mine after 7 games so they cant be that bad an army.

i'll be taking my kaldours knights of tzeentch list to as many tourneys as possible this year and aim to prove people as wrong as possible. WoC are a great army and just because they dont have as many options as some armies doesnt mean they cannot compete.

Condottiere
27-01-2009, 11:15
I totally agree with your statement condo. They are harder to beat than what appears to: Since they have high resistance and Str values by default, you just need a big Tz magician to do it well agaisnt anyone. They are the only army ive found so far able to wear down vampire armies in CC.Not to mention more ordinary mortals. :D

W0lf
27-01-2009, 11:18
i agree too, WoC are now a contender, not up in the top 3 but 4th or 5th easily

ha, haha, hahahahahaha

Daemons
Vampires, dark elves
wood elves, high elves
bretts, lizards
woc.

Hardly top? ;)

Oh and that guy that won the GT... go read his BR, i found his opposition to be rather lacking.

Shamfrit
27-01-2009, 11:24
High Elves are beneath Warriors, Wood Elves, depends on the player and terrain, the only way they can take down Chaos Knights is with Wardancer or a Treeman to the Flank with Killing Blow dance, or some other pointy eared trickery.

Bretts?

Don't make me laugh at their puny Cavalry. If a lance charges chaos knights or Chaos Warriors, it will faulter.

Lizard? Maybe, but given as the book isn't out yet, we can't fathom guesswork into the equation.

I'd say 4th/5th in the hands of the right player is a perfectly good estimate.

W0lf
27-01-2009, 11:29
Try bretts charging chaos knights and get back to me on that one ;)

static + 4+/5+ plus the fact they will kills some. And dual lance owns warriors, your forced to go shields or die... then i will out static you and be far more killy.

Lizards will run rings around warriors.

Wood elves will never lose to warriors played properly, and HEs are certianly a better list. Beat a star dragon army with warriors, have fun.

Dooks Dizzo
27-01-2009, 11:33
WoC are pretty weak. i wouldnt take them to a tourny.And that is your lack of confidence/ability. I have personally seen WoC win a tourny, 1st overall 2nd place general. And not fighting soft targets.

I've recently seen a WoC army utterly destroy all comers at my local club.

They are not a weak army, they just lack for strong generals.

Shamfrit
27-01-2009, 11:34
Throwing out WAAC arch-types does not equate to a displacement of the Warriors in terms of army standing.

Firstly, a single Brettonian lance will not take down Chaos Knights. They're STR5, need 4's, 3's, and with a 3+ save for the Knights, wounds won't amount to a great deal; and then you've got static CR, which should be severaly dented by the 25 attacks back, the knights hit on 3's and wound on 2+, leaving them a 4+ save, and their blessing.

Khornate bare bone knights might not do well, but that's what the Marks and items are for.

Marauder Flailers can help flank and certainly knock back a few knights before the lances cross the board. As will magic.

Lizards only run rings round you if they've got loads of skinks, and with the changes to the book, I'd be surprised if more than 3 units became the norm - which can be panicked, magicked, or charged off the board before the knights even get chance to declare a charge.

Saurus on the other hand, might be a problem.

But let's not trip ourselves up before have a chance to playtest shall we?

I do oddly enough playtest...alot.

32 or so games with a Tzeentchian Magic Daemon Prince...

12 games with mono-khorne no magic defence/Valkia...

Currently 4 games with mixed low magic warriors and two lvl.2 Nurgle Sorcerors...

Losing once to one WAAC army is not the be all and end all of warhammer statistics.

Llothlian
27-01-2009, 11:44
So to win you take a lvl 4 Tz Sorcerer? Great advice! Slaanesh, Khorne and Nurgle lists should get right on it!

W0lf
27-01-2009, 11:46
Saurus on the other hand, might be a problem.

They are the smallest problem to warriors.

Chaos warriors outfight them and they cant hold chaos knights. So actually they are probably the worst LM unit vs chaos ;)

Ive played a hell of alot of games with the new warriors and win the majority. That dosnt mean i dont consider them weak. I know just by playing that WoC feel less competant then any of my other armies.

I also find playing VS WoC to always be a walk over for me.

Commenting on WoC generals is a little underhand because i personally find that to be truly effective with WoC you need your opponent to be a little incompetant more then anything else.

Oh and test 9 KoTR w/ Fc vs 5 Knights, MoK (~same pts). The bretts will win.


And that is your lack of confidence/ability. I have personally seen WoC win a tourny, 1st overall 2nd place general. And not fighting soft targets.

The tourny where the Tz prince won? Yer i read his reports, his opponents were fairly shabby.

SuperArchMegalon
27-01-2009, 12:09
Regardless of all this Theory-Hammer... everyone agrees that the WoC book falls firmly in the CENTER of power. They aren't the best, but they aren't bad either. Isn't this what we want? Didn't everyone want power creep to stop? If they aren't going to create another Daemons list, or another O&G list, how powerful should they make the book? I think they got the power level perfect if it falls in the center. Oh well, complainers will complain.

FredNo1
27-01-2009, 12:14
Regardless of all this Theory-Hammer... everyone agrees that the WoC book falls firmly in the CENTER of power. They aren't the best, but they aren't bad either. Isn't this what we want? Didn't everyone want power creep to stop? If they aren't going to create another Daemons list, or another O&G list, how powerful should they make the book? I think they got the power level perfect if it falls in the center. Oh well, complainers will complain.


I agree fully, the new books should be middle of the pack, then soon all armies will be in the middle and balance would be awesome.

That said, WoC book had things i didnt like.
Bad selection of magic items (i want more killy chaos heroes 1v1!)
No good gifts for duels!!!

Other than that the book was good.

untimention
27-01-2009, 12:36
I picked up the WOC army book and i know collect WOC!

i previously and still collect O&G and Empire.

WOC just are fantastic, big bruits walking, or on horse back around the field just on pure strength can take down the enemy in moments.... i just like the idea.

Yes they will loose, yes they will win and its the same with any army.

I know have a large chaos force that i will be working on... and people should just enjoy!

Dooks Dizzo
27-01-2009, 15:13
The tourny where the Tz prince won? Yer i read his reports, his opponents were fairly shabby. If your talking about the Seattle GT you're wrong. In his 5th game he pulled the Chaos Daemon player who was on a 4 massacre winning streak and beat him.

Mostly I am talking about how narrow minded you are Wolf. Warriors of Chaos are not totally broken, hence they must be weak is lame.

I get the whole thing about not wanting to use special characters but if you get over that, make your own model with your own story and 'counts as' the Special Character you might start taking them to tournies.

Suneater + Throgg + dragon ogres and trolls + lots of ranked up mauraders + hounds is BRUTAL.

Llothlian
27-01-2009, 15:18
Why must you be forced to take Special Characters or random marks to win games? This is what is annoying. All Slaanesh was weak enough under the old book, and now without most of the advantages Daemons gave it is even worse.

Gurunty
27-01-2009, 15:50
I have adapted my WoC quite well since the new rules and it is great fun to play. True they are not guaranteed winners but that's not what we want anyway surely. A middle tier book, which is where most should be.

The lack of tactical options mentioned before (skirmishers, etc) just means you have to use other tactics. I'm still trying to learn these myself :)

Having the best CC in the game is what WoC is all about and they have that. My only tiny quibble would be that there is the push towards magic for a powerful force but, meh, who cares, I sometimes take low magic and do well. I sometimes take heavy magic and do badly for that matter (though less often).

The fact the the WoC list struggles against certain lists like gunlines and WE (personally) is what makes the game diversive and surely this is a good thing. There is no cheesey WoC list that I am aware of, yey!

All in all I feel that I have to put a lot of thought into the army to get the best out it and that makes me smile, even if I don't do so well.

EvC
27-01-2009, 16:10
High Elves are beneath Warriors, Wood Elves, depends on the player and terrain, the only way they can take down Chaos Knights is with Wardancer or a Treeman to the Flank with Killing Blow dance, or some other pointy eared trickery.

Really? In one of my games against Wood Elves, my Knights took a mere unit of Dryads to the flank, I lost one guy to their attacks, failed break check, unit dead. Sometimes the simplest of things can work, no trickiness, no massively powerful units needed- in that case, it was a 108 point unit that did it. Why, I even saw a block of Chosen with Festus and another character in them run down by a lone Terradon once, but I suppose we can ignore all our defeats when commenting on the army, can't we? ;)

9 Bret Knights charging unmarked Chaos Knights: 8 attacks, 4 hits, 2-3 wounds, 1 unsaved most likely. Horses most likely do nowt. Chaos player prob can't afford champion, so 8 attacks back, 6 hits, 5 wounds, 1-2 Brets killed. Horses most likely do nowt. Brets score 1 kill, banner, outnumber, 2 ranks, Chaos scores 2 kills, banner. Brets win 5-3. Add in Mark of Khorne and okay, it's still probably a win by one point for the Brets (or by muso). The greatest hope of the Chaos player is merely that the Bretonnians will fail their fear test to charge :D

I like my Warriors, really do. Will keep playing them. With my current Slaanesh list (Which really is now all-Slaanesh: no poxy Third Eye of Tzeentch on my Sorcerer Lord any more!), I am at no wins, one draw and two losses. I suspect if I raised my game, i.e. brought a Tzeentch Daemon Prince and prayed for Gateway in every game, I might do better. But I'm happy playing with a difficult to use army for now, and losing a fair amount. No harm in it, is there?

Panzer MkIV
27-01-2009, 16:20
Why must you be forced to take Special Characters or random marks to win games? This is what is annoying. All Slaanesh was weak enough under the old book, and now without most of the advantages Daemons gave it is even worse.

Indeed and I've yet to see a list that doesn't relly on heavy magic, (unfluffy) mixtures of marks, cavalry galore or Special characters to do well.

But that's not the reason why I think that WoC is a "weak" book. It's because the army list is boring as hell.
In the 6th edition Mortals, Deamons and Beasts were one huge army that guaranteerd lots of variety and tactical options to create very different and unique armies. You were also able to make a warrior infantry list without massed magic because you had access to skirmishers and fliers to offset your relative lack of speed: this type of army is unplayable in the current book
In this edition the WoC are back to the same, uninspired list of the 5th edition.

IMO an army book is considered a good book not by it's ability to win tournaments, every book can do that, but in it's ability to build a large variety of armies that are fun to play with.

Dooks Dizzo
27-01-2009, 16:23
Can I ask why people don't use Dragon Ogres? They seem to be a total powerhouse to me. By comparasin with my Cold One Knights (who are AWESOME):

135 for 5 CoK's bare bones
195 for 3 Dragon Ogres bare bones

We both cause fear
Same movement
Knight have a better armor save (2+ vs. 4+)
D. Ogres have 1 less attack, but at base strength 5
D. Ogres have 12 wounds compared to 5
D. Ogres are at +1 toughness
Knights have Hatred
D. Ogres reroll panic

Looking at the two units overall, they get to be about the same price after command models are added and such. Both of them hit with the force of a train, but every wound the Knights take cuts down their offensive capability by 20% while you have to score 4 wounds on the D. Ogres to cut them back by 30%.

If you have it in you to add Throgg to the army these beasts count as CORE. Take 3 units of them and two units of knights for some serious beatings. That comes in at about 1000 points or so leaving you plenty of room to add in some rank and file, magic and plenty of fast cav/hounds.

EvC
27-01-2009, 16:25
IMO an army book is considered a good book not by it's ability to win tournaments, every book can do that, but in it's ability to build a large variety of armies that are fun to play with.

Warriors can do this, you know...

W0lf
27-01-2009, 16:28
But that's not the reason why I think that WoC is a "weak" book. It's because the army list is boring as hell.

QFT.

Nothing in that book excites me.

To play competitivly you have to take boring no/skill lists. The list of REAL viable units once you take out all the crap is pretty linear.

Wow what a fun army :rolleyes:

But then tbh i loved chaos for the background and Tzeentch. Tzeentch warrior wizards got me into the hobby and they took that away. They also took all my beast units and my screamers. Perosonally i think the new WoC book is stronger then the Hordes one. But boring as hell.

lord mekri
27-01-2009, 16:28
Obviously none of you have tried movement, tactics, military alogirthms or these wonderful things called 'tricks,'

If I can rip apart Dwarves, Wood Elves, Daemons and Vampire with a low magic low Knight count army then I'm sure some of you lot could.

Or you could whine and whine and not get any enjoyment out of playing them for the rest of the game edition.

Take up arms, and stop being Southlanders!

QFT.
its funny - if the army is easy to win with, then its cheesy, or broken, or a "point and click" army.
if an army needstactics to win, then is too weak.

i have played chaos both in 6th and 7th. they are by far stronger in 7th then they were in 6th. granted, you can no longer mix armies so certain tactics are limited, but WOC is quite strong. its one of the few armies out there that doesn actually NEED characters to do well. o normally take only two heroes in a 2000pt army. an exalted champ on chaso steed equipt for killing, and either a level 2 fmage for minor defense and some tricks, or a decked out level 4 Tzeentch mage on disk for fun magical firepower.

the troops are fantastic. just get them into combat. a couiple of blocks of marauders, a block of warriors, some knights or dragon ogres, some marauders horsemen, maybe some hounds and you have a solid list.

and if you really done want to think about tactics to much, just take that tzeenthc level 4 mage on disk, 4 units of chaos knights, fill all your core with horsemen, and charge you enemy on the begining of round 2.
i did this once for fun against a dwarf gunline and massacred them.

i am actually glad we dont have something like the twin stanks and walter, or the double tree man/ double hydra. i hate those type of armies.

W0lf
27-01-2009, 16:30
QFT.
its funny - if the army is easy to win with, then its cheesy, or broken, or a "point and click" army.
if an army needstactics to win, then is too weak.

Khorne cavalry is the biggest point and click army there is. Infact nothing is worse.

Its still mind-numbingly boring. Im sorry but i want a competitive list with a plethora of options that is fun as hell to play... maybe dark elves spoilt it for me.

Sclep
27-01-2009, 16:32
@ EVC:

What if Chaos charge?

Seems rather arbitary.

I don't know much about the lance formation, or brett knights. Actually, I don't even play this game, but I know lances give +2S on the charge. Chaos knights are S5 all the time.

What about when fighting low leadership opponents? Fear causing opponents? How about a banner? A mark? Fighting ethereals?

And your first paragraph is fairly pathetic. "I rolled badly, so WoC suxxorz." What factor did being chaos have on the events you described? Being chaos didn't anger the dice gods. I've seen a unit of 10 spearmen steamroller down a line of tooled up dwarf combat units. pfft.


I'm not necessarily championing chaos' tactical viabilty, I'm just shooting down your rubbish arguments.


Sclep

Dooks Dizzo
27-01-2009, 16:34
Hmmm, my fun and exciting DE army that everyone thinks is broken has a list of viable units too.

Lord (Pendant)
Sorc
BSB
Spears
Xbows
Black Guard
Cold One Knights
Harpies
Hydra
Shades...when used as a Death Star
Manbane + Stars Assassin

List of things that are crap:
Lord (w/o pendant)
Executioners
Witches
Corsairs
Death Hag without Cauldron
Not Manbane + Stars assassin
Normal units of Shades
Bolt Throwers default to crap because the Hydra is so much better (much like your Chosen for example)

And yet...I still have fun.

Panzer MkIV
27-01-2009, 16:35
If you have it in you to add Throgg to the army these beasts count as CORE.

Unfortunately only trolls become core if you take Throgg.
I do agree that Dragon Ogres are a good unit

Dooks Dizzo
27-01-2009, 16:37
Unfortunately only trolls become core if you take Throgg.
I do agree that Dragon Ogres are a good unitOops, I super imposed 'his leadership' sentence with the one above it. My bad.

Glabro
27-01-2009, 16:40
Why all the negativity? Because Warseer is a negative community. Almost every book is viewed negatively when it's released for some reason. If it isn't too strong, it's too weak. If the artwork isn't good enough there is not enough. If the models aren't crappy, they're too expensive. Welcome to the biggest Warhammer forum online =\

And you think this isn't natural? People only have something to say when they've got a beef with something.
When there's a lot of people like in a forum like this, a portion is bound to end up disliking a part of a new release.

But here's the thing: it isn't the same people every time (well, admittedly, there are those who are always negative on everything). It's just the ones who have a gripe this time that become the vocal minority of the moment, while all those who are happy don't bother posting - and it's true that they probably don't have much to say if they do (yeah, I really liked the new book. They should keep it up. Errr....that's it.)

Emperor's_Spork
27-01-2009, 16:41
Regardless of all this Theory-Hammer... everyone agrees that the WoC book falls firmly in the CENTER of power. They aren't the best, but they aren't bad either. Isn't this what we want? Didn't everyone want power creep to stop? If they aren't going to create another Daemons list, or another O&G list, how powerful should they make the book? I think they got the power level perfect if it falls in the center. Oh well, complainers will complain.

Absolutely agree, but the growing pains can be painful.

Personally, I think books are written with a power level and force organization far more oriented toward selling model lines than we like to accept; the Daemon and Dark Elf books being excellent examples. Previous under-performers on the shelf are now hot*. With WoC, the quality of the new models and long-standing love of the Chaos mortal persona was enough, except for actual warriors, which needed and received less competition in the core choice bracket. ;)

*Unfortunately the Daemons, at least around here in our more casual environment, actually suffer from being considered too easy and sell only slightly better than they used to due to their huge stigma.

EvC
27-01-2009, 17:02
@ EVC:

What if Chaos charge?

Seems rather arbitary.

Because the original statement was "If a lance charges chaos knights or Chaos Warriors, it will faulter."
Apologies that I was discussing the case presented rather than the contrary case which was not prevented!!


I don't know much about the lance formation, or brett knights. Actually, I don't even play this game, but I know lances give +2S on the charge. Chaos knights are S5 all the time.

So you butt into threads posting about things you don't know about, without even taking the time to read what the posters are discussing, and attacking anyone who dares to, err, take the time to explain their case fairly and rationally. How dare they...

So, yeah, great, another troll, just what Warseer needs :rolleyes:


What about when fighting low leadership opponents? Fear causing opponents? How about a banner? A mark? Fighting ethereals?

Then they're pretty good :) Chaos Knights are probably the best troop choice in the Chaos army, nuff said. What's funny, is that because I named one situation where the Chaos player will be defeated, you automatically assume that I am saying the unit is crap, and has no use at all.

If you'll kindly stop jerking your knee all over the thread, then the rest of us would like to continue our conversation.


And your first paragraph is fairly pathetic. "I rolled badly, so WoC suxxorz."

Wow, you really have sealed your place as a troll, and a *****. if you'll take the time and effort to read THE THING I WAS REPLYING TO IN THE FIRST PLACE, Shamfrit was saying how nothing short of a Treeman to the flank will defeat a unit of Chaos Knights. I was, once again, demonstrating how this was false. Was this a bad roll? Well, it was about 50-50 as to whether I would lose a Knight or not, and then about 50-50 as to whether the unit would break. The point is not that WoC sucks; the point was that you don't need a Treeman in the flank to beat a unit of Knights, and Wood Elves can do a fair bit of damage to the army.

If, to you, this reads as me saying "the army sucks", and to further emphasise how foolish you are, you feel the need to rephrase that in faux-"leet speek", then good luck on making a point of any kind, because you have yet to add anything of value to the thread, other than to attack me for no reason.


I'm not necessarily championing chaos' tactical viabilty, I'm just shooting down your rubbish arguments.

Are, there's your problem: I was not making an argument for Knights being rubbish because I once lost a unit to some Dryads. You really need to do something about that kneejerk reaction of yours, such unpleasant personal attacks really have no place here.

I mean, seriously, I took the time to write in that very post, "I like my Warriors, really do." and talk about the army I'm happy to keep using. Yet the reality is that I despise the army and hate playing it? Right. Well done.

Sclep
27-01-2009, 17:17
Re EvC:

I apologise. I think I posted inappropriately, though my intentions were to contribute, I failed in that regard.

Sclep

W0lf
27-01-2009, 17:31
List of things that are crap:
Lord (w/o pendant)
Executioners
Witches
Corsairs
Death Hag without Cauldron
Not Manbane + Stars assassin
Normal units of Shades
Bolt Throwers default to crap because the Hydra is so much better (much like your Chosen for example)

Lord w/o pendant is more then fine. Just because pendant is ridic dosnt mean he HAS to have it. Hell you can play entire games where people wont attack him for fear of the thing.

Executioners are fine, try MUS and tactically manouvering. They only suffer so much because black guard are so much better

Witches, corsairs and hags all suck. Granted.

Assasin with rune, killing blow is pretty viable.
Shades are the best scouts in the game. Cant see an argument here.
Bolt throwers are likewise fine. Again like exs they struggle vs the blatantly under-costed hydra. Take 4 and watch people cry cheese :)

The problem there is that some DE elements are so silly they over-shadow the book. All the WoC 'useless' units merely duplicate a role another unit performs better.

Phazael
27-01-2009, 18:02
W0lf:
I don't know about the guy who won Conflict, but I played at the Conquest. The guy who won massacred Dark General, who was using his primary tournament list, along with a multibuss Brett army. Thats hardly what I would call soft opposition. Honestly, the only reason I massacred him was that he had back to back miscasts on his L4 that ended the magic phase for him. Granted his army was very well painted and he was a great guy (so had really good soft scores as a result) but his battle points were up there, too. This is kind of the deffinition of being an all around Warhammer player, in my mind. Of course, if your deffinition of a good army book is being able to be a massive douche and still being powerful enough to win overall on battle points, then you are right; WoC is not at that level. For people with good hobby skills and good sportsmanship, its a very competitive choice.

I do think it is probably about 5th in the power scheme of things, behind VC, DoC, DE, and HE respectively. The biggest issues I see with it is being unable to deal with a passive agressive elven list, like the kind that are took top honors at the last year's GW GTs, and a ridiculous dependance on mage characters. I think once people back off of the massed marauder obsession and settle in to using more horseman, the list will be far more competitive.

smokemeakipper
27-01-2009, 18:11
i reckon warriors of chaos is the easiest army to win with that i own. my collection includes orcs, goblins, empire, ogres and dwarves. I see nothing wrong with WoC at all....apart from stupid challenges and a couple of poor tzeentch spells. pretty good book all things considered

Nerhesi
27-01-2009, 18:19
I really like the new book as well, and think they can be very effective. In fact, I believe a GT was just recently won by a WoC army using a Daemon Prince of Tzeench! I think people are just down on them because they aren't as overtly powerful as VC or Daemons.

-Doug

That was the GT where he faced... zero power armies? Or maybe one - but he gatewayed that one!

Sam W.

Nightsword
27-01-2009, 18:21
I have to say, I fell out of love with chaos a little when the new book arrived. I don't know if it was the new fancy styled book over my hardcore old skool hordes book, but it lost something, and I'm not talking about beasts or daemons. Somethings missing as an army, almost like its "soul" has gone.

Look at the new lizzies, they are exciting as hell, going from a relatively obscure army to one that i'm sure will sell really well as a result whilst chaos, a mainstream army, and my first and only army, bores me. Hell, I'm pretty much converted to lizzies and though I still love and will continue to paint my chaos army up, my next game will be lizzies versus my chaos army, and I won't be the one playing with the black armoured guys if you get my drift.

Hrogoff the Destructor
27-01-2009, 18:26
@ EVC:

What if Chaos charge?

Seems rather arbitary.

If I let Chaos knights/warriors get the charge against my bretonnian knights, I deserve the beating that's coming to me.

Count de Monet
27-01-2009, 19:00
The models are mostly great. On its own, I like the new book, and if I were coming at it from scratch I would probably start up a Chaos army. Even if I might be destined to be crushed by a number of foes I could look good doing it. ;)

But I'm not coming at it from scratch. I'm coming at it from the perspective of having a mixed mortals/beasts/daemons list from the previous book that I enjoyed and 'felt' like Chaos to me. I have no interest in a pure Beasts or Daemons army, and don't want to expand my mortals by that much and even if I did they still wouldn't feel 'right' to me. That's my beef with it, the whole underlying split. C'est la vie.

Shamfrit
27-01-2009, 19:03
The hypocrisy and bitterness in this thread is allowing itself to wallow in it's own misery.

So on that note, stop playing the army, or start your own forum.

Negativity breeds incompetant, and certainly, these sorts of complaints, blindside any sort of chance at adapting to change and dealing with the situation with the tools at hand - if we all took this sort of stance in the 'real world,' heaven forbid what would happen.

I've nothing else to say.

Zoolander
27-01-2009, 19:07
The reason I dislike the WoC book was first because of the lack of tactics, but i got over that. But I am having a serious issue swallowing the combined marks hodgepodge army. My khorne lord, wearing an amulet of tzeentch, a flail of nurgle while leading a unit of slaaneshi warriors just leaves such a bad taste in my mouth... it's not that you have to take that option, just that you could. And the book doesn't do much to encourage you to do a mono-god (in fact it does everything to dissuade you from it!).

Other than that, I like most of the book, despite lacking a lot of disposable troops and flyers. I am happy they are not another DoC/VC powerbase.

ahk3927
27-01-2009, 19:39
WoC seems to do fine against most balanced armies.
I am having a lot of fun with 4 Discs of Tzeentch as of late.
Surely, flickering fire does bring down chaos on the battlefield.

Voss
27-01-2009, 19:39
Hrmm.

I can understand the negativity. The change in the chaos lists means Chaos armies lost a lot, and there are things that are missing from the list, some for no apparent reason, like the ward saves.

Part of it, I think, is the slip from the top tier lists. Drifting down toward the middle would be fine... if the other recent lists had also been drifting toward the middle, but instead a few have shot up to ridiculous levels. The VC in particular annoy me, since my other army is Tomb Kings, and the VC are pretty much strictly better in every way- better combat characters, better magic- repeatable single dice spells beat a handful of autocasts).

The other reason though, is of course the limits in the army list. Limited shooting is to be expected from a chaos list, but the options have been pared down to a fairly limited selection. Infantry, Cav and a few large monsters are fairly limited in a game as diverse as this one.

That isn't to say that it is impossible to be successful with a chaos list. It is, and sometimes even the challenge of it can be entertaining. But going from the most diverse army to a fairly limited army is a kick in the pants. The fluff getting gutshot doesn't help matters either.

Draconian77
27-01-2009, 19:57
Lord w/o pendant is more then fine. Just because pendant is ridic dosnt mean he HAS to have it. Hell you can play entire games where people wont attack him for fear of the thing.

Ok, but imagine the Pendant wasn't in the book? You would see Lv4's galore because the Druchii enchanted items and magic weapon sections are terrible.

Executioners are fine, try MUS and tactically manouvering. They only suffer so much because black guard are so much better

No, I'm sorry. If someone tells you to try tactics with your Chaos Warriors you shoot them down immediately, Executioners are a terrible unit. The die easily, they break easily, they don't have access to a 50pt banner and they perform poorly in their given role(Can-opening, most cans have more movement and at least S5-6 on the charge...damn cans!)

Witches, corsairs and hags all suck. Granted.

Witches don't suck(Need a 50pt banner), in fact if you compare them to other units their not bad at all, its just RxBmen, Warriors and Black Guard all kill light infantry quite effectively for less points or less risks. Corsairs and Hags are pretty bad.

Assasin with rune, killing blow is pretty viable.

Indeed, add on re-rolls to wound(well, re-roll 1's) and you have a true can opener. My opponent now refuses to charge his Chaos Knights into anything for fear of losing half the unit to this build of assassin.

Shades are the best scouts in the game. Cant see an argument here.

Agreed.

Bolt throwers are likewise fine. Again like exs they struggle vs the blatantly under-costed hydra. Take 4 and watch people cry cheese :)

Nope, the Bolt Throwers are actually just too expensive(By 15-20pts). We have had this discussion before. :D

The problem there is that some DE elements are so silly they over-shadow the book.

Or they are so poor that taking them would be a waste of money and time?
Honestly its both of these elements combined, but you shouldn't just ignore the other part of the problem.

All the WoC 'useless' units merely duplicate a role another unit performs better.

This is true of many books but much more so for WoC because of their combat-centric background and play style.

I've had some good games when my opponent and I switched armies, the list has a few problems but a few advantages that go hand in hand with these problems.

Nerhesi
27-01-2009, 20:07
The VC in particular annoy me, since my other army is Tomb Kings, and the VC are pretty much strictly better in every way- better combat characters, better magic- repeatable single dice spells beat a handful of autocasts).

You're my hero. Playing TK is like being Danny DeVito from the movie Twins.

I'm really looking forward to a huge change in the TK rules. Maybe all their spell will be undispellable ;)

"I'll urgency and- no, sorry, you can't dispell it. Then I'll smite putting 2 killing blows, and 2 from the destroyer into your lord."

Ah well. Who knows. We'll see.

isidril93
27-01-2009, 20:24
i really like woc and i think they will be my 5th army (my others are HE, DOC, BT and im gonna get eldar)

i love the characters as those are the most important things fluffwise. as some of you may know i tend to take a prince (where a arcmage would be better) and a daemon prince (where any other character would be better). also my characters should be left handed.

thus when i saw that left handed khorne lord on jugger i new who my 5th general would be. the fact that he is really killy and gets bonuses for killing other right handed (mwahaha) characters

The Red Scourge
27-01-2009, 21:01
thus when i saw that left handed khorne lord on jugger i new who my 5th general would be. the fact that he is really killy and gets bonuses for killing other right handed (mwahaha) characters

No, no, no... Make him your BSB and give the Crown of Eternal Conquest, shield and a flail: 5 S7, 3 S5 on a 1+ AS and 4+ Regen. This guy can take on regiments on his own – especially, when riding with some horsemen to get in position (fast cavalry is great for cancelling frenzy) :evilgrin:

Dooks Dizzo
27-01-2009, 21:24
I can't play with Proxied models due to club rules (which I am happy about) but one day I will play my 90 Chaos Warriors army list and crush people's hopes and dreams under iron shod boots!

90 Warriors = 1440 points before Marks. Plenty left to goof around with I says.

Only problem is the $280 dollars for the models :)

Harwammer
27-01-2009, 21:25
Clearly GW is pursuing a 3 tier army system and they decided they want one chaos army per tier.

DOMINATOR tier: Daemons (walks with the gods)
Standard tier: Warriors (works for the gods)
Underdog tier: Beastmen (mutant rejects of the gods)

Its up to you if you want to really work for your wins, cheese it up or just sit in with the rest.

*rumours of an army tier system entering warhammer may indeed be false

SuperArchMegalon
27-01-2009, 21:30
I'm really looking forward to a huge change in the TK rules. Maybe all their spell will be undispellable ;)

"I'll urgency and- no, sorry, you can't dispell it. Then I'll smite putting 2 killing blows, and 2 from the destroyer into your lord."

Ah well. Who knows. We'll see.

How about this to make it fair, since I doubt its balance:

1. This ability come on something called the "Casket of Doom" or something. Only 1 spell per turn (either movement, a magic missile, or some sort of psychology effect)

2. Only the Lord caster can take the Casket of Doom. While he's manning it he has two guards, and can not move for the whole battle.

3. When using the Casket of Doom it only works on a 2+. A roll of a 1 is a misfire. If he likes he can elect to use the Ancient Soul power, which goes off on a 4+ and is more powerful.

4. The whole thing should cost 315 points+. The free move only moves your units 6".

I think that's a good way to balance your idea - otherwise it may be a wee bit too good.

O&G'sRule
27-01-2009, 21:39
People like to moan here, thats why

English 2000
27-01-2009, 22:36
The VC in particular annoy me, since my other army is Tomb Kings, and the VC are pretty much strictly better in every way- better combat characters, better magic- repeatable single dice spells beat a handful of autocasts).

I seem to remember a number of years ago reading in White Dwarf that the VC lost every single play testing game against the TK. The developers response was along the lines of "oh well, that's the vampire counts new weakness". I'm going to have to search through my dusty tomes to find that issue since I'm certain no one will believe me. Either I read it in there or was so frustrated by TK that I dreamed it and now think it's reality.....

Either way now I just laugh when TK players complain because they think they are getting a raw deal. I suppose my response will have to be "oh well, that's the TK's new weakness"

I'm not slamming you Voss. I understand your frustration, but you shouldn't get mad at the VC players. Just wait for your new book and you will be the one with the "uber-over powered new army of cheese filled beardiness for a few months until people learn to beat it"

I had a really hard time against TK at first until I learned how to stomp all over 'em :)

Coragus
27-01-2009, 22:47
It isn't that people are negative about WoC. It's just that the army requires a certain amount of precision and coordinated attacks now. It's one of those "greater than the sum of its parts" armies.

blackjack
27-01-2009, 22:48
I'm not slamming you Voss. I understand your frustration, but you shouldn't get mad at the VC players. Just wait for your new book and you will be the one with the "uber-over powered new army of cheese filled beardiness for a few months until people learn to beat it"

It all depends on who is writting the army book. Lizards got throughly screwed in comparison to the other 7th ed codexs, only O&G got a worse 7th ed book.

SuperArchMegalon
27-01-2009, 23:03
It all depends on who is writting the army book. Lizards got throughly screwed in comparison to the other 7th ed codexs, only O&G got a worse 7th ed book.

My my, since we got TK in here why not pull every army that ever got "screwed" into the discussion :P

If you think about it, every army will have releases that empower the list, and every army will have releases that weaken it. If you want power creep to stop, you'll have to take a hit every once in a while. Everyone wants to see their opponent's books nerfed until their own release comes about at which point ABSOLUTELY NOTHING can be weakened or else GW is doing a bad job. Sheez, I thought people liked it if their game got a little more challenging (you have been playing the same list for years, afterall.)

Mireadur
27-01-2009, 23:26
To play competitivly you have to take boring no/skill lists.


Is there really any single competitive army which doesnt involve boriness and no skill lists? :rolleyes:

Said that. I agree they are terribly boring. I hope people dont get mad at me for what im going to say, but WoC is an army for the simple. The perfect army for the initiates.


Just wait for your new book and you will be the one with the "uber-over powered new army of cheese filled beardiness for a few months until people learn to beat it"

I remember once upon a time where you needed to learn to play your own army before you could get wins...

GodlessM
27-01-2009, 23:36
Or it could be the fact that the list is completly absent of skirmishers, and has a severe lack of fliers. Makeing defeating a gunline army impossible.

Having beaten three gunlines armies with them myself, I guess I must be greater than God.

GodlessM
27-01-2009, 23:39
Lizards got throughly screwed in comparison to the other 7th ed codexs

Bollox! If anything, they got leveled out and the book is now the most balanced book out there. Reading through the whole thing the other night, they really did a great job of it.

Deacon Bane
27-01-2009, 23:40
I keep seeing the same complaints, no variety, no fliers, no skirmishers, no allies, waaaaah! First most of the so called "power lists" all seem to have the same build. DOC probably can't have 5 or 6 totally different builds and be super armies( I don't have the book, but most of the tourny winners seem pretty common, DE all seem to have the duel Hydras( real tactical unit :rolleyes:) VC rely on heavy magic, yet everyone complains that only highly magical WOC are competetive? I play very good WE player who used to massacre my WOC, but a few changes and I have 1 victory and 2 draws in the last three meetings, it's called tactics learn some.

I briefly picked up the DOC book, but after an hour of going through it, I had a big yawn and returned it for a box of Chaos Knights. Vampires were never my thing so I have not even bothered to look at it. DE, love the models and seems like an army i could get into but I played HE for 15 years and needed a change from the weedy army types.

I never used Beasts with my Mortals, and only ever 1 unit of Nurglings for fluff, in 6th. So this was not a big problem.
The Marks and their Gods are now different, so get out of the past, the new fluff encourages mixing and even says that different tribes worship many gods, praying to the one they need for a certain reason. I like this, has a kind of Norse feeling.

I like the new book, could it be better, hell yes! But I like having to work for victory, makes it taste sweeter! I'm sure DOC and VC power players must have some emptiness when they win, seeing as most tournaments have similiar results, "what another DOC general won? I thought I was the bestest general in the world."

Mireadur
27-01-2009, 23:57
Having beaten three gunlines armies with them myself, I guess I must be greater than God.

heh i remember when they released the army (or were about to) godless was the most worried about its performance. Look at how proudly he shows off his record now :p

SuperArchMegalon
28-01-2009, 00:28
heh i remember when they released the army (or were about to) godless was the most worried about its performance. Look at how proudly he shows off his record now :p

People are allowed to change their opinions after a few games. Of course, we'd rather they didn't hastily announce how they felt before playing. Oh well.

I have a question: since when does every army NEED access to skirmishers/fliers to "deal with war machines" and march blockers? A legitimate complaint about VC/Daemons is that they have a unit to perform every task. Cheap fliers, strong skirmishers, fast/flying high powered characters... it's not mandatory for every book!

It's not like the BRB states: "Every army has at least one unit of fliers. If your army book doesn't have fliers, you may cry and whine at your opponent and receive a 100 point handicap."

ChaosVC
28-01-2009, 01:55
I disagree with people who says Chaos Mortal is a boring army to play with...not sure playing against, but I love playing with them.

I at mostly and average player and my win lose ratio with Chaos mortal is 50 50. I love playing against gunlines and I like fighting against other combat armies with chaos too. But its more exciting against gunlines and you really need alot of planning with chaos mortal to fight effectively.

I can understand why certain players find it boring because for Chaos to compete with top tier armies, there are only so few combi you can come out with Chaos Mortal (mostly msu).

Other than the lack of skirmishers and flyers and it seemingly one dimesional approach towards competitive playing. Chaos Mortals is a good army, quite balance. The only stupid thing is the eye of the gods forced challenge thingys which can be solve by buying lots of champions.

Johnnyfrej
28-01-2009, 04:18
Khorne cavalry is the biggest point and click army there is. Infact nothing is worse.

And Brets/Daemons/HEs arn't?

Condottiere
28-01-2009, 05:47
Not true - you point but HE click first.


I have a question: since when does every army NEED access to skirmishers/fliers to "deal with war machines" and march blockers? A legitimate complaint about VC/Daemons is that they have a unit to perform every task. Cheap fliers, strong skirmishers, fast/flying high powered characters... it's not mandatory for every book!

It's not like the BRB states: "Every army has at least one unit of fliers. If your army book doesn't have fliers, you may cry and whine at your opponent and receive a 100 point handicap."

Fliers are nice to have, but all armies need cheap skirmishers to cover gaps.

SuperArchMegalon
28-01-2009, 05:57
People just hate for their army to have a unique disadvantage, and love unique advantages. Think of it this way: Dwarfs have no cavalry, O&G have no LD, Chaos have no skirmishers! That's all, very easy. The other strengths of the army more or less make up for the weak spot in the army.

Besides, if Chaos had a good skirmish unit covering their gaps what would stop his other units which are *the best* CC units in the game from running up to any opponent and slaughtering him? The best way to defeat Chaos is out of CC so it's the Chaos player's responsibility to get up in the enemy's face. We can't make the game too easy!

Shamfrit
28-01-2009, 06:09
All armies need cheap skirmishers?

What....like Dwarves?

What....like Vampires?

What....like Tomb Kings?


The armies that can manage this...Empire, Ogres, Skaven, Dark Elves, Beasts of Chaos (although that's a completely moot point, being an army of virtually all skirmishers, yet no fliers) and Skaven, and Orcs and Goblings, although Squig Hoppers arn't really that reliable. Dogs of War too. Lizardmen of course; but of these, I rarely see Gnoblar Trappers, Empire virtually never use Skirmishing Archers, not all Dark Elves use Harpier or Shades (shock horror.) Same applies for Wood Elves, mainly because, 99% of the army are skirmishers...

Warriors of Chaos are kind of like Dwarves now that I think about, except swap shooting or magic, and treble the combat potetial with the same armour, better initiative, and cavalry...monsters, large creatures, and an abundance of fear causers...

Now that I think about it, they're not like any other army at all!

But I digress, obviously people want to wallow in it, so continue -

SuperArchMegalon is in dangerous territory, close to making sense and close to getting a pat on the back :D

Tyranno1
28-01-2009, 07:38
What....like Dwarves?

What....like Vampires?

What....like Tomb Kings?

Note: None of these armies playstyle need skirmishers. As vampires and tomb kings can just call back the dead. And dwarves dont want to cross the board (and sometimes nither do the vamps or tomb kings). So theres no reason for them to have skirmishers.

So for an army that wnats to get across the board as safely as possible like warriors of chaos, skirmishers are a massive help.



But I digress, obviously people want to wallow in it, so continue -

We are not wallowing in it, we are grumbling :p.

Djekar
28-01-2009, 07:47
I just had an apostrophe (;)) about skirmishers. I use them to screen expensive troops (we have hounds for that, right?) and to maneuver around people and get into advantageous positions/take out warmachines and other missile units. Champs on discs/Daemon Princes (I do hate the new DP though)/heavy magic and even the mighty Hellcannon (got to rethink your artillery priorities here) can do all of this for you, allowing your troops to make it to the other side intact and ready to kill.

I am on the bandwagon headed towards "WantSkirmisherVille", but since I doubt we get there ever, I thought I'd share what was to me a "big revelation".

P.S. I'm hoping for the "add the special rule skirmishers to Forsaken" still, in the impending WoC FAQ & Errata.

~Flock

Nicha11
28-01-2009, 08:15
Re EvC:

I apologise. I think I posted inappropriately, though my intentions were to contribute, I failed in that regard.

Sclep

Don't worry, losts of people try to argue with EVC, it's like argueing with a landslide, even if you win you still get crushed.


Back on topic I don't mind WOC the book didn't seize me (why are Forsaken so bad?).

But apart from that its ok, it does have lots of different builds which is a plus in my mind.

Kerill
28-01-2009, 08:38
I think there are a few issues getting mixed up here:
1) WOC power level
2) WOC internal balance issues
3) WOC level of fun for WOC players
4) Fluff considerations

1) WOC is not weaker than before, psychologically it is stronger and the best unit (knights) got even better. It does however lack the flexibility of the old army meaning its much more difficult to get a decent all-comers list together and, to me, has less finesse than the old version. It's a mid tier army at best, and would sit comfortably there had it not been for the three overpowered books released. The lack of skirmishers or fliers cripples the list against certain builds unless you go magic and/or knight heavy. The idiotic EOTG rule have also made combat characters less viable, even more so with the lack of decent ward saves (especially for an all comers list). An awful lot of problems would have been avoided had the forsaken been skirmishers.
2) Most of the units are either duplicates in terms of what they do (ogres, forsaken, dragon ogres, trolls/chosen,warriors), or are generally useless (warshrine, forsaken). Chaos warriors suffer partly from a mixture of M4 and no way to prevent march blocking, but also because of Ld8, quite simply they can be broken too easily by cavalry since the only Ld9 character sucks badly. Chosen are overcosted even compared to warriors. Neither necessarily blow and can be quite decent but are very dependant on your opponents list for their level of success.
3) I mentioned this earlier but the army IS more point and click than before. As a Tzeentch player that bothers me a fair bit.
4) The splitting of chaos bothered me a great deal from a fluff point of view, it just isn't "chaos" any more. Second the EOTG rule really annoys me a great deal, could have been great but forcing sorcerers to challenge a bloodthirster? Again as a Tzeentch player it annoys me in particular.

But then maybe I'm full of nonsense, after all didn't two armies with warriors/warrior heavy just win tournaments? Yes but that doesn't negate my arguments, see these two lists have made use of the same thing:
re-rollable stubborn units (DP and disk bsb in one case, banner of the gods bsb in the other). The banner of the gods not only makes warriors much better (more or less re-rollable stubborn) but also make the warshrines very effective tarpits. Stubborn DP (whilst getting a decent comp score) also allows you to tarpit super units that can crush warriots. Rapturous banner+bsb is also a decent combo for allowing chaos warriors to hold.

So there are ways around some of the problems I mentioned but it's sad that they are so specific and require magic item X to work rather than being a function of the army. HE elite infantry is cool because they can all hold their own so you could take multiple units of any of them and do well, warriors and chosen are dependent on magic banners which doesn't "feel" right. It also greatly reduces the army builds you can play with- yes you can play a "banner of the gods" list, but then it's one magic item that's winning you the game. The WOC list lacks true synergy and as a whole was badly thought out meaning it really lacks options unless you go magic heavy. Dark elves, high elves, new lizardmen etc. all the units have an important function to fulfill and you can create a wide variety of builds around different base set-ups. Chaos not only lost 2/3 of it's line up, the remainder generally don't fulfill a special or unusual function making it very dull for long term play.

So, all in all, the WOC list is not underpowered (rather dark elves, vamps and daemons are overpowered) and the complaint often isn't of losing, but of the lack of fun options and different units to build into your army and game plan leave it very one dimensional (2 if you go heavy magic). To some extent you need to have played chaos as it was before to really feel the difference.

Another complaint is fluff, the fluff really has gone downhill and it seems clear that someone who does not understand WFB chaos wrote the book, and also someone who has little idea about how warhammer works or what makes an army fun over a long time.

I'll still play WOC for a while but I think my 15,000 points of combined chaos troops will see little more play this edition unless the BOC book reverses the poor job of chaos books so far. At the minute I'm working on a lizardmen army because they play a lot more like what WOC should, IMO, do (skinks aside).

As with all other chaos players my main plea to make the army more interesting is "MAKE FORSAKEN SKIRMISHERS IN THE FAQ GW!!!"

Shamfrit
28-01-2009, 09:37
How do Skirmishers aid the movement process? They don't have any direct contribution to getting your troops across the board, least not so because of any forward motion.

I can certainly see hiw their 360 charge range and freedom of movement would help deal with things that march block; but, not even armies with Skirmishers can avoid this to any greater extent; we have Spawn, and Fast Cavalry, and magic with very few line of sight restrictions (or at least we can utilise relatively lax restrictions to pick of things should they drop behind our lines.)

It's no more a weakness in Warriors than it is for Dwarves, or Skaven (try running Night Runners at a Fear Causing/Terror Causing Skirmishing Unit...arn't you glad you brought them now huh? No, didn't think so :p

Fundamentally, not every Dwarf army likes to play the gunline, I know a fair few players who regularily engage full throttle forwards, to get their Great Weapon swinging tough as nails beardy faces into the enemy's; the gunline counterpoint is old - it's a weakness more or less every army has - being hit from afar with little chance for retaliation, funnily enough, isn't something anybody thinks is 'fair.'

On turn 2 you can more or less get charges off vs Thunderers, Xbows, Archers, heck, if you play your cards right and still take an all round list you can take out a warmachine or two turn 2 as well - there's a valid reasonf or this, 20" moving 5STR7 attack Exalted Heroes.

Flying Mages with bomb spells.

And lest us not forget, Hellshriek :skull:

I'm not trying to argue that Warriors are more powerful than they are, they're not game breaking, that's a community wide assertion, what I am saying, is that they can compete, and arn't this drastic wash out alot of people in here are trying to ascert.

Kerill
28-01-2009, 10:03
How do Skirmishers aid the movement process? They don't have any direct contribution to getting your troops across the board, least not so because of any forward motion.

I can certainly see hiw their 360 charge range and freedom of movement would help deal with things that march block; but, not even armies with Skirmishers can avoid this to any greater extent; we have Spawn, and Fast Cavalry, and magic with very few line of sight restrictions (or at least we can utilise relatively lax restrictions to pick of things should they drop behind our lines.)



That's exactly how they help the movement process. A single great eagle (or whatever) can march block the whole army safely. Spawn? Your opponents must be deficient in the head to let a single spawn take out their eagle. A single eagle can comfortably march block 3 units of infantry and you will need 3 spawn to prevent that- one on each flank and one behind (because compulsory moves go before remaining moves thus the spawn will be blocked by the infantry). Skirmishers have none of those difficulties.

Also a unit of scouts in trees can be chased easily by skirmishers, a spawn moving D6" through the terrain isn't exactly swift.

Your other answer- heavy magic. I'm fine with that but I doubt Khorne players are. Not only that your requirement isn't just heavy magic, it's heavy Tzeentch magic (since only the 6th nurgle spell is of any use here and 3.5 S3.5 hits aren't exactly scary, slaanesh does sod all against furies and very little against most things in this situation with the exception of Ld6 harpies). Level 4 shadow mage- no good, level 4 death mage, no good level 4 heavens mage, no good, level 4 fire mage, no good, all need LOS). So basically we need to take the SAME CHARACTER SELECTION as you do. THIS is the problem with WOC the lack of options, the limited truly viable choices. The army is not weak but the current design narrows the already limited options even further.

Hence WOC is a poorly written book with an army of average power with some very badly thought out and written rules.

Harwammer
28-01-2009, 10:20
It's no more a weakness in Warriors than it is for Dwarves, or Skaven (try running Night Runners at a Fear Causing/Terror Causing Skirmishing Unit...arn't you glad you brought them now huh? No, didn't think so :p


Yea, but dwarfs can't be marchblocked. And, as you say skaven do have night runners, while not ideal because of their LD they can handle terrain and have a reliable range, unlike spawn.


Edit: I wanna point out deploying the hell cannon behind your army could work to deter march blocking; althought the monster&handler rules give it LoS issues for charging, it does add a threat. Additionallty, since it is a large target and skirmisher it can fire over your own troops at the enemy.

Kerill
28-01-2009, 12:13
It also causes terror which is handy against harpies. Still putting it behind your units of warriors is a wet dream for opponents cannons.

EvC
28-01-2009, 13:57
On the Skirmisher issue. To quote my Polish mate once again: "In my country, every Warriors player fields 15 Menghil Manhide's Manflayer's. EVERY Warriors player."

That's either the sign of a bad deficiency, or a bad set of players. I like to think it's a little of both ;)


Re EvC:

I apologise. I think I posted inappropriately, though my intentions were to contribute, I failed in that regard.

Sclep

Good to see someone with some class! You're a decent fellow Sclep, keep posting, I'm sure you'll make some excellent points. Just don't jump to conclusions or put words in peoples' mouths (Especially stupid words like "sux0r" ;) ), and I'm sure we'll both come out better off for it :)

zak
28-01-2009, 14:47
Has anyone play tested the Forsaken as skirmishers. It may be that by filling the armies weakness all that happens is that WoC book joins the top tier armies. I would have liked them to be skirmishers as at the present they have little or no role in the book.

bork da basher
28-01-2009, 15:20
ive played chaos armies for fantasy for 14 years and i've never enjoyed any of their previous editions more than the current one in both playstyle and imagery. they have issues but what army does'nt. im having loads of fun with my kaldours knights of tzeentch list and find the book to be competative and fairly challenging to use correctly

ive got my gripes with the new "lets all be friends" attitude of the chaos gods but that can still be ignored if you prefer mono godding.

i prefer not to get to much into the politics of warhammer because its what more or less ruined the game for me 4 years ago when i quit playing for a while but i really cant see why people get so heated over this. if you dont like WoC, dont play em, move on, delete slaanesh's number off your mobile and burn all your love letters. or if you love chaos then all the better, spread the love there really isnt much point in all the negativity, it gets people no where and just brings down the tone of the whole community.

kramplarv
28-01-2009, 15:47
Mixed chaos marks are more "pure fluff" than unmixed as far as history and tradition and novels etc go.

GodlessM
28-01-2009, 16:28
I think the logic behind the "WoC are point and click" is silly. The fact that they lack the common tactical units like skirmishers makes them less point and click, as only against a bad opponent can you really just walk across the board and kill him, since any half decent opponent will know better than too allow it.

I played a tournament this past weekend with my magic and knights, and it was no matter of walking across and fighting. I found the games challenging and fun as I had to maneuver correctly to maximize the effective outcomes of my charges, and also to get the rights fights in the right places. I got 6th place for my efforts and I was happy with that.

My point is, if you try play point and click you will lose, and since no one wants to lose, I think that really makes Chaos more than a P&C army.

W0lf
28-01-2009, 16:36
How do you play chaos khorne knights other then point and click?

Manovering chaos knights is point and click. The skill required is pretty minimal.

GodlessM
28-01-2009, 16:37
They are not a weak army, they just lack for strong generals.

This is a good argument Dooks, and one I think I can agree with. The current state of Warhammer is that players tend to go for the powerful armies, as evident by GT results from the UK and US. This in turn leaves armies such as Chaos for the lesser generals who are more into the game for fun. But I personally know a few great generals who kick ass with their WoC. Mid tier is about the right place, but in the end, player skill has a huge effect on the outcome.

I would say winning Warhammer is 10% draw, 40% list, 50% skill/playing.

GodlessM
28-01-2009, 16:38
How do you play chaos khorne knights other then point and click?

Manovering chaos knights is point and click. The skill required is pretty minimal.

Since they move the same as most other units in any army in the game, I guess every army is point and click then.

W0lf
28-01-2009, 16:47
Not really.

MSU takes a lot of skill and patience. As does 'Guerrila style tactics'.

Moving M14 Frenzied units with ridculous hitting power is not a skill. Manovering cold one knights for example takes alot more tactical ability, you have to deal with stupidity and the fact that they have a high RISK involved in front charges. Khorne knights can bundle into almost anythign and stand a good chance of winning. Helped By high attacks @ high strength

EvC
28-01-2009, 16:55
Moving them and keeping them from being baited is a small challenge, though. Frenzy isn't the huge obstacle that some describe it as being, but it's still there...

Shamfrit
28-01-2009, 16:59
Making Forsaken frenzied will make them easier to bait...

Kerill
28-01-2009, 17:08
They already are frenzied.

GodlessM
28-01-2009, 17:14
I think he meant skirmishing

zak
28-01-2009, 17:23
With Khorne knights you have to be extremely careful about movement. Due to fenzy they can easily be led off where you don't want then to be so they are hardly point and click.

Shamfrit
28-01-2009, 17:26
I did indeed mean skirmishing :p

Tyranno1
28-01-2009, 17:32
I did indeed mean skirmishing :p

I would rather have a far cheaper skirmisher being baited than my very expensive frenzied knights. If the opponents waste time with your skirmisher then its already doing it job, distracting attention away from your more precious units.

Shamfrit
28-01-2009, 17:35
Cheap sir, is not 18 points per model.

Chaos Knights are what are known as (unit cost +30), for the unit of Wolfhounds you screen them with - although I'm blindsided to this apparent issue because 90% of my army is Khornate, and I've 3X5 Units fo Khornate Knights.

Neckutter
28-01-2009, 17:47
Warriors have never had skirmishers or fliers, you only got them if you took a Daemonic Ally.

If you took advantage of the mark/daemon/beastmen ally system before, losing those things and thus, your reliance on them will hurt more than if you played a relatively normal Mortals list prior to the split.

If you want Skirmishers, Fliers and 20" daemons...

Heaven forbid, perhaps play Daemons?

daemonic allies? no such thing. in the old hordes of chaos book, it contained both daemons AND mortals. so if you played a HoC army, you always had skimishing fliers(furies). with the advent of BoC you had access to beast herd "smirmishers". you could call them beast allies, maybe. :)

and to further muddy up the waters, if you played a storm of chaos HoC army, you had those wallcrawler guys who were skirmishers as well. i would love 18 point skirmishers. the forsaken SHOULD be skirmishers, since they are mindless animals. how are mindless animals forming nice neat ranks? :P

and i play daemons, and they are boring. the question isnt "which army do you play Neckutter" the question is "which army DONT you play Neckutter"

Einholt
28-01-2009, 17:56
Agreed, having the Skirmish would be a helluva lot better then the redundancy of the current specials.

Also is no one else bothered by boring as hell lists with Tzeentch DP, spamming Gateway and dual nurgle wizards spamming Bubous to assassinate chars? Like yea its powerful but honestly wheres the tactics in "pick a hero, roll a 5, score half the VPs" Spell should a been at least 8+. I know there's magic defenses to get through but its still way too good for a default spell.

SuperArchMegalon
28-01-2009, 18:53
Agreed, having the Skirmish would be a helluva lot better then the redundancy of the current specials.

Yeah, it would be better. But GW didn't want the book to be better than it is, and I applaud them for stopping the trend in recent books of having "a tool for every job". WoC don't *get* skirmishers any more, just like Dwarfs. It was intentional. If they had a good skirmish (or god forbid flying/scout) unit, what would stop them?

Kerill
28-01-2009, 19:11
They used to have them and were still only a mid tier army.

pringles978
28-01-2009, 20:07
im a bit disgruntled that i cant take my mono khorne marauders anymore as that leaves me with no magic defence, but i dont think the list is that bad. never been a fan of multi godding, but i dont hve to, and i can still make an effective list from the book.

i know there are no skirmishers or fliers, and some armies are more powerfull, but you cant be good at everything. learning to live with your armies weaknesses is part of the fun.

without generalising, i think a lot of players arnt happy is because whilst its easy to make a good list, its difficult to make a broken list, but as i play chaos for modeling and painting opportunities first and uberlists second.

Tyranno1
28-01-2009, 20:21
Yeah, it would be better. But GW didn't want the book to be better than it is, and I applaud them for stopping the trend in recent books of having "a tool for every job". WoC don't *get* skirmishers any more, just like Dwarfs. It was intentional. If they had a good skirmish (or god forbid flying/scout) unit, what would stop them?

Thing is, a skirmisher unit would not be adding a unit for the sake of adding one. Units in a book shouldhelp it furfill its purpose on the battlefield, which is why dwarves dont get them, beucase its not what they need.

Warriors of chaos need to rush to the other end of the battlefield in the most complete state possible. A skirmisher unit would help them achive that, dosent gurantee it but it would help. It would not make them sour to the top of the tournies as they are still an army with problems, EotG, lack of ward saves etc.

MarcoPollo
28-01-2009, 21:02
What makes a WoC army good is that it is easy to out deploy your opponent. What I mean by that is that you should be able to see how you enemy is doing in his deployment way before you give away your positions. That is one of the aspects of having warhounds so cheap. Regularly at 2K I am able to deploy 11 units. That means that while my opponent has placed his units I still have the best units left in my army to place. And given that WoC will do fine if they get good match-ups on the field, you can do well.

In my opinion, warhounds are the "The" most important unit in the WoC line-up. And at 2K I always have room for 3 sets of 5.

I was, and am still, chocked about how they split chaos. Before the army was well tailored and I enjoyed it alot. Now, the games are still interesting, but I miss the beastherd, and the flying demons. It is true that I find the game more one dimensional. But there are some new tricks to try out for sure.

Einholt
28-01-2009, 21:08
Yeah, it would be better. But GW didn't want the book to be better than it is, and I applaud them for stopping the trend in recent books of having "a tool for every job". WoC don't *get* skirmishers any more, just like Dwarfs. It was intentional. If they had a good skirmish (or god forbid flying/scout) unit, what would stop them?

I don't know how familiar you are with the book, but it's pretty safe to say, just about everything in this book was unintentional or very poorly thought through. Even people who support the book should know that.

Also, its a lot easier to make a Dirty effective list with WoC then a Good list so I don't know where that's coming from.

It's not about how weak they are its how unfun the competitive lists are, and if you want to compete you have to sacrifice style and inventive design for Point and click tactics. Which is the dumb part.

SuperArchMegalon
28-01-2009, 22:47
They used to have them and were still only a mid tier army.

You're right. But since the last book, pretty much every unit got better. Something had to be taken out to keep them mid-tier (the tier every list designer should strive for).

Marauders, Horsemen, Knights, Warriors, Ogres, Dragon Ogres, pretty much everything is better now. Characters are debatable, but very few things got decidedly worse. So they lost skirmishers. Just like they lost a 4+ Ward save (since when is this mandatory in every list either?).

I agree, a skirmishing unit would add a new element to game play. Perhaps the list is a bit "monochromatic". But I'd rather have an army that plays like WoC than another army like Vamps - a unit for every occasion. Warhammer armies never used to include such variety that you could cover all your bases, except maybe Empire, the Jack-of-all-trades army.

Basically, this:
My Ogres don't have any static CR or fliers, and my Dwarfs don't have skirmishers or fast cav. My friend's Skaven have no decent cavalry, the Wood Elves have no anvils (treeman non-withstanding).

The Dark Elves, Daemons and VC in my gaming group have everything. It's no surprise they're the most powerful books. I'd rather my buddy's WoC fall in with the former group.

It is a WoC player's objective to get to the enemy and chop things up. It is his opponent's strategy to slow him down, and try to out-maneuver the many units of Marauder horsemen and Dragon Ogres barreling down the flanks. It should be a challenge for the player to achieve this, not a problem solved by skirmishing Forsaken or what have you.

As it is, everyone agrees that WoC are by no means low on the power scale - in fact they are close to the top. If they were handed skirmishers, they'd be able to counter their biggest weakness and suddenly it would be a whole different kind of complain fest going on in this thread.

Kahadras
28-01-2009, 23:42
WoC are fine IMHO. Both people who play them at my club both have really solid lists and rarely lose. Unfortunatly at the end of the day comments on armies are much more likely to be negative. If people don't have a problem with things then they don't bring them up. Even when people do post optimistic things they usualy seem to get drowned out by those who aren't.

I remember a while ago someone commenting that he had done very well in a recent tournament with an army that is concidered to be subpar. This was followed by a torrent of negative comments effectivly explaining away the reasons for his success before moving back into a general gripe about how unfair DoC is.

Kahadras

Einholt
28-01-2009, 23:59
As it is, everyone agrees that WoC are by no means low on the power scale - in fact they are close to the top. If they were handed skirmishers, they'd be able to counter their biggest weakness and suddenly it would be a whole different kind of complain fest going on in this thread.

Yea but they are there for all the wrong reasons, IE: ridiculous spell lists that depend more on dice rolls then strategy to utilize.

Effective screens use to be what kept our units alive and capable of fighting, if utilized poorly we lost, now it depends on enemy artillery and shooting to roll poorly. It allowed us to deploy better and be rewarded for it now it depends on if we get first turn, and can rush fast enough. Hence the edition of the book that was supposed to bring infantry to the forefront, has failed miserably and Cavalry lists are more dominant then ever.

Granted good generals still find a way to work it, but In my experience (being good or not) I have found the plan I put together a lot less satisfying when it comes together. Good players can find ways to win, power gamers can find that their usually unreliable methods are a lot more reliable since the rewards of luck are much greater.

The army does not reward good generals as much as it used to, it rewards luck over skill. That is something no designer should strive for.

ChaosVC
29-01-2009, 01:12
Not really.

MSU takes a lot of skill and patience. As does 'Guerrila style tactics'.

Moving M14 Frenzied units with ridculous hitting power is not a skill. Manovering cold one knights for example takes alot more tactical ability, you have to deal with stupidity and the fact that they have a high RISK involved in front charges. Khorne knights can bundle into almost anythign and stand a good chance of winning. Helped By high attacks @ high strength

WOC can MSU too, you don't really have to take khornate knight just to win, I believe alot of people don't take khonate knights too. So the whole point and click thing is more dependent on your list design isn't it?

SuperArchMegalon
29-01-2009, 03:25
Unfortunatly at the end of the day comments on armies are much more likely to be negative. If people don't have a problem with things then they don't bring them up. Even when people do post optimistic things they usualy seem to get drowned out by those who aren't...


Yea but they are there for all the wrong reasons, IE: ridiculous spell lists that depend more on dice rolls then strategy to utilize...

Alright, Kahadras, you proved your point. I'm out of this topic now :P

Dalrik
29-01-2009, 16:35
I got my Warriors of Chaos book about 2 weeks ago and have started a chaos horde army designed after Dan Abbnett's book "Riders of the Dead". I love Nurgle and the new lore of Nurgle is devastating. Played a 1000pt game (cos that's all I have at the moment) against a friend playing brettonia. I had the following:

1 sorcerer on palanquin (Epidemus model, which I will convert soon)
1 sorcerer on foot

16 Chaos Marauders (hand weapon, light armour, shield)

16 Chaos Marauders (light armour, shield)

10 Marauder Horsemen (shield, spear)

1 Gruesome Chaos Giant of Nurgle

I managed to take out an entire unit of 10 knights in one casting with the spell, "Cloying Quagmire".

My friend had an unlucky game, true... but all he managed to kill was the giant and 2 horsemen. Giant's are awesome and make for a funny ending of and unit.

krashreed
29-01-2009, 17:53
1 sorcerer on palanquin (Epidemus model, which I will convert soon).

I had been toying with doing this myself. The thing that I haven't been able to find out is if Epidemus is seperate from the throne or if parts of him are modeled on the chair?

Soul of Iron
29-01-2009, 17:56
He's separate. At least that's what my friend says.

Kerill
29-01-2009, 18:34
He's separate.

pkain762
30-01-2009, 01:02
this topic is hilarious.... at the store people talk about how the lores of WoC are way overpowered and how the items and GoTG's are overpowered (such as letting re-roll one dice per magic phase) and you guys can't quit whinning about how underpowered and blah blah blah....

it's this simple like it or don't...... it has it's strengths and weakness' like any other army.... i enjoy them personally.... but that's just because i really love the models... and their rules, units, and items are solid enough for me to like them.....

just remember

when in rome?

kain

Nerhesi
30-01-2009, 04:07
this topic is hilarious.... at the store people talk about how the lores of WoC are way overpowered and how the items and GoTG's are overpowered (such as letting re-roll one dice per magic phase) and you guys can't quit whinning about how underpowered and blah blah blah....


"At the store..." - does not in any way validate your point. In fact, "At the store..." comments/armies are almost always much less competitive then what you see in any sort of tournament.

So yes - "at the store" - people will say at a lot of things that will come straight from their buttocks, and coloured heavily by what army they like or the book that just came out.

Just like how O&G were "crrrrrrraazy... " when they first came out.

MURPH
30-01-2009, 04:54
@ the OP:

The perceived negativity stems from an definitive lack of mobility in regards to skirmishers and a non-character flyer (which the old book had) as well a loss of the feared warrior-mages. Forum posters have also noticed the lack of placings made by WoC armies and have decided since they are not winning they are weak. An army rule granted by this latest incarnation forces everything that can challange to challange

My take on this is as follows. The loss of flyers means that we can no longer invest minimal amount of points in removing warmachines instead we must spend a character slot on a disc jockey and send on his merry way with flail in hand to remove the warmachine(s) grieving the chaos army. The reason for the loss of the warrior-mages as I see it stems from the choice that sorceror lords were rarely selected. The sorc lord has a respectable WS as well as 3 attacks. Armed with a magic weapon (a selection that is not found wanting) he can be a formidable opponent indeed in grips. GW eliminated the Lvl 4 chaos lord of tzeentch in an effort to make the Daemon Prince more viable. An army rule granted by this latest incarnation forces everything that can challange to challange. EotG as its called rewards challenge kills with some abilities. Characterful and beneficial in certain circumstances. The rule is also hindering in certain circumstances I would say its beneficial in a majority of situations.

Results, IMO, have not trickled in just yet apart from one GT win. Now with the top tier armies (VC, Daemons and certain DE builds) have had a year of destructive rein worldwide there have been few other armies that have gained purchase in a competitive environment. Compared to those 3, yes the WoC are weaker to a degree. With the respect to the other armies I say we are ahead of the rest overall, our magic is outstanding, our combat is the equal if not the superior of daemons, and movement is just behind that of woodelves and Dark elves.

As an army book I believe it is a step in the right direction for GW in terms of balance between rules and background.

Cheers,

Murph

Kerill
30-01-2009, 05:22
The issue for most chaos players if you read this thread is not that they are weak.

Djekar
30-01-2009, 05:57
Armed with a magic weapon (a selection that is not found wanting)...

Well stated point MURPH, but I disagree with you. To me the Magic Weapons in particular are unspectacular. There are only a few choices I like, and I really wish that we could get away from "duh" magic items, but it's a trend that doesn't seem to be leaving anytime soon.

Not to say that I don't like some of the magic weapons, because I do, but there are only a few that call to me saying "Djekar, pick me and I'll make you glad!", but that those few do so are pretty tasty.

~Bowl

javgoro
30-01-2009, 07:58
The reasons are twofold:
For starters, the army is below the "top three" in terms of raw power and cheesyness. That alone is enough to make people say "this isnīt good enough".

The second reason why thereīs so much negativity regarding the WoC is that they are an army that is a bit of a one trick pony. It needs to get into hand to hand combat, but a good amount of it is based on foot models, and the mounted troops are either hideously expensive, or not very strong. That, added to the fact that WoC have no ranged firepower (except for the hellcannon, which costs too much for what it does), and no fliers except on the (very expensive) characters, means that to be effective, you have to rush forward with your cavalry as fast as possible, and hope that the warmachines of the enemy wonīt destroy you. This means that the army is a bit of a one-trick poney, and thus lacks the tactical variety that tournament players want.

Deacon Bane
30-01-2009, 11:48
Waaaaait a minute. Javgoro says to be competitive WOC have to be Cav Heavy, but others are saying you have to be Magic Heavy. So by my count that is TWO competitive builds, hmmm seems the more people look, the more lists become viable.

I have not faced DOC or the new VC, yet, one of club players says he is bringing them next tourney, but these 2 seem more point and click. Or should I say need less tactical play, to be successful. "oh I lost seven skellies, dang! Oh wait I will just raise more." Not much consequence for a tactical error.
And don't get me started on the "flying infernos" with high toughness and wardsaves, from the DOC, that seem to be in most competitve lists.

Skirmishers, don't need them, never used them in the last edition, 5 units of hounds for 150 points will screen enough to get my Cav across the board. Giant Eagles, gyros and other flying marchblockers? Please, my 10 Th.Axe Horsemen will and have always make short work of them.

WOC as a beginners army? You will see these new players quickly switch after a tourney or less, when they have there butts handed to them. I've seen it happen often, come in with WOC and leave with their starter set of DOC or VC they are much easier to win with.
All the Negativity is 1) You can't build the uber-destructo list. 2) It takes some work to win with, some people don't like having to learn or have the patience.( I blame TV):D

Kerill
30-01-2009, 12:54
Waaaaait a minute. Javgoro says to be competitive WOC have to be Cav Heavy, but others are saying you have to be Magic Heavy. So by my count that is TWO competitive builds, hmmm seems the more people look, the more lists become viable.


-SNIP- Deacon fails to appreciate the issue is not one of power as such but leaps at the chance to show he is the true chaos master- SNIP

That actually makes three builds (Magic Heavy cavalry army being a third)
I'll add another one for you:
1) Banner of the gods infantry list.
I'll also suggest a further that I think is also a definite possibility but not yet been tried out:
2) The marauder cavalry list
And another alternative setup of the cavalry list:
3) Cavalry list led by Tzeentch Chaos lord on disk

Although the magic heavy list is actually "the list lead by a level 4 sorceror of Tzeentch/DP (in the metagame, against some opponents slaanesh will do) backed up by at least one nurgle sorcerer list"

These are all remarkably specific builds which combined with massive unit redundancy makes for a very dull army book. That is the issue. In HOC there were an almost infinite number of decent builds based on the chaos troops not on characters and gimmicky banners.

If forsaken were skirmishers it would make infantry lists or mixed lists without the banner of the gods a lot more feasible (and therefore making one less unit redundant and meaning warriors and chosen would be a lot more usable).

There are other things GW could do with an FAQ/Errata to increase the number of viable builds without really actually increasing the overall power level of the book.

W0lf
30-01-2009, 13:33
very few chaos players dont like the book because its 'weak'. Go read the 'how much are you warriors winning' thread.

I hate the book because i lost warrior-mages which i loved, rewards for being multi-god, diversity and stupid EoTGs that has made exalteds unsuable for me.. a TZEENTCH player (so no, no juggernaughts).

My biggest gripe is that marks now feel more like 'unit upgrades' and are treated as such, this is just wrong and means the army loses almost all its flavour (that being the Gods.).

I actually think my warriors list is better then before, hordes was never a very strong army. Bit it had flavour and character. WoC is dull.

MURPH
30-01-2009, 15:27
@ W0lf:

Warrior Mages are still viable, give your tzeentch sorc lord the runeword and he is now an exalted champion as well.

Sorc Lord
MoT
Chaos Steed
Lvl 4
Runesword
Collar of Khorne
Power Familiar

WS 6 at 4 st. 5 hits? Yes not comparable to the lord, but why would you ever take a sorc lord when you could do the same to a chaos lord.

Its makes everything viable. If you want a real warrior-mage, take the DP.

@ Djekar:

I see the only bad magic weapon to be the Father of Blades. Everything else is entirely viable to a generic playic style. Fighting nurgle daemons, take the hellfire sword. Fighting Elves, why not the sword of change? Whip of subversion, you wound him; he has to allocate his attacks if he hasnt done so already onto friendly models( for the price of a Dispel Scroll). Filth mace, poisoned terror.

I like this magic weapon list. It has a great variety.

Cheers,

MURPH

javgoro
30-01-2009, 15:51
Waaaaait a minute. Javgoro says to be competitive WOC have to be Cav Heavy, but others are saying you have to be Magic Heavy. So by my count that is TWO competitive builds, hmmm seems the more people look, the more lists become viable.

I have not faced DOC or the new VC, yet, one of club players says he is bringing them next tourney, but these 2 seem more point and click. Or should I say need less tactical play, to be successful. "oh I lost seven skellies, dang! Oh wait I will just raise more." Not much consequence for a tactical error.
And don't get me started on the "flying infernos" with high toughness and wardsaves, from the DOC, that seem to be in most competitve lists.

Skirmishers, don't need them, never used them in the last edition, 5 units of hounds for 150 points will screen enough to get my Cav across the board. Giant Eagles, gyros and other flying marchblockers? Please, my 10 Th.Axe Horsemen will and have always make short work of them.

WOC as a beginners army? You will see these new players quickly switch after a tourney or less, when they have there butts handed to them. I've seen it happen often, come in with WOC and leave with their starter set of DOC or VC they are much easier to win with.
All the Negativity is 1) You can't build the uber-destructo list. 2) It takes some work to win with, some people don't like having to learn or have the patience.( I blame TV):D

Just to clarify my words... Cavalry on its own probably wonīt cut it, and having your list being magic heavy too is the most reliable thing to do (it was just something that I thought implied, but I should have specified. Cavalry is more a requisite than a guarantee of being competitive). Also, WoC is definitely not a beginners army. Itīs an army that doesnīt offer variety, but that doesnīt mean that itīs an easy army to play with.
Your other points are pretty much spot-on.

Llothlian
30-01-2009, 15:52
My main gripe with the new book can be explained as follows. I went into the Tactica Chaos thread to ask what I am missing to make my Slaanesh army work, and was told I needed to take a Tz sorcerer and 3 Khorne units. I was told not to worry though, it would still be a Slaanesh list. :rolleyes:

PARTYCHICORITA
30-01-2009, 16:00
To play competitivly you have to take boring no/skill lists. The list of REAL viable units once you take out all the crap is pretty linear.


Actually most hardcore competitive list (WAAC list even) are alike. All HE go full dragon or maybe full magic, all DE go dragon+2 hydras, all deamons go full magic (maybe mono khorne but that ain't that competitive), dwarves go gun line and empire goes either gunline or more likely double tank+walter. So at least there WoC are not that different from other armies.

Kerill
30-01-2009, 16:25
Actually most hardcore competitive list (WAAC list even) are alike. All HE go full dragon or maybe full magic, all DE go dragon+2 hydras, all deamons go full magic (maybe mono khorne but that ain't that competitive), dwarves go gun line and empire goes either gunline or more likely double tank+walter. So at least there WoC are not that different from other armies.

You make some generally excellent points (except about all Khorne, it can be remarkably powerful and has won several tournaments). One of the problems with the book (apart from fluff and coolness changes which tend to be more individual issues) is that there is a class of players between WAAC and fluff bunnies- and in which I fall- who would like a strong list where different combinations of units and characters can be used competitively.

There is a further group (again which I belong to) who like playing with different list ideas as much as actually playing the game, WOC is severely limited in that aspect too.

Also I think most players don't want a carbon copy list that everyone else is using, and yet WOC tends to lead to that. It also makes things feel more point and click.

Finally, there are an awful lot of fluff changes, idiotic (and unfluffy) and unclear rules in the book which really does make it seem a shoddy job.

Hence negativity over the book.

Deacon Bane
30-01-2009, 19:10
As to the SNIP.. hardly the Master. My record will show that, I would say i win maybe 30% of my games. But I am also not much into Theoryhammer, anything I post has worked for me on the table not in my head.
Is WOC a powerful army? I agree it is mid tier, but the OP's title was why all the negativity? Phil Kelly should never be allowed near another army book, it has some problems for sure. But I enjoy the army and don't think it is boring or dull, like PARTYCHICORITA says, most WAAC lists are very similiar, how's that not boring. So yes if you play the same list for years, it will get boring. If I showed up at a tourney and had to play vs the same DOC or VC or DE list I would be disappointed( might as well play chess.)

Neckutter
30-01-2009, 19:42
I hate the book because i lost warrior-mages which i loved, rewards for being multi-god, diversity and stupid EoTGs that has made exalteds unsuable for me.. a TZEENTCH player (so no, no juggernaughts).

My biggest gripe is that marks now feel more like 'unit upgrades' and are treated as such, this is just wrong and means the army loses almost all its flavour (that being the Gods.).
WoC is dull.

i feel your pain, brother. i miss my tzeentch lord on his chariot kicking but and taking names with the "reroll to hit, wound and all saves" spell. staff of tzeentch, 4+ ward and a GW. good times.

on a side note, what is a "WAAC" player?

Kerill
30-01-2009, 19:56
WAAC- win at all costs

BattleofLund
31-01-2009, 02:04
Just to clarify my words... Cavalry on its own probably wonīt cut it, and having your list being magic heavy too is the most reliable thing to do (it was just something that I thought implied, but I should have specified. Cavalry is more a requisite than a guarantee of being competitive). Also, WoC is definitely not a beginners army. Itīs an army that doesnīt offer variety, but that doesnīt mean that itīs an easy army to play with.

I'm on a schedule for my Dark Elves*, but after they're done I will return to Chaos. What I've read in Warriors of Chaos, we get more ranged options than ever.

For characters: the Roar, the Bomb, the Puke.
For core: cheap throwing spears, affordable throwing axes.
For rare: Hellcannon.

Also better-than-ever magic-weapon Knights and buffer-upper Shrine.

I feel happier the more I familiarize myself with the book...
even if I miss the other two branches of the service.

(*holy crap! only 20 days to go!!)

Einholt
31-01-2009, 03:06
Other then the Hellcannons the efficiency of the other options borders on unplayable, they are options you should only take if you have points to burn and hardly worthy of a dedicated strategy.

pkain762
31-01-2009, 05:31
"At the store..." - does not in any way validate your point. In fact, "At the store..." comments/armies are almost always much less competitive then what you see in any sort of tournament.

So yes - "at the store" - people will say at a lot of things that will come straight from their buttocks, and coloured heavily by what army they like or the book that just came out.

Just like how O&G were "crrrrrrraazy... " when they first came out.

hahaha this may be true but from the sounds of you and half the people in this forum, we are having a lot more fun :) i just think it's funny that people are complaining when there is plenty of fun and descent units in the army....

just because it's not as unbalanced or perfectly sound does not make it a poor army.... just have fun people haha

i'm off like a prom dress

kain

MURPH
31-01-2009, 05:39
I find giants and spawn to be super effective. Shrines are really hit or miss but still have a good statline backed up by an incredible defense. Scyla works wonders against vampire count and daemon armies. Shaggoths I'm on the fence about...still kinda fragile.